Re: Islam.

For such a supposedly great and powerful ideology, it appears to have curiously thin skin.

Posted by: awake at January 22, 2008 4:17 PM

American blood and American treasure for what?

Sharia law, that's what.

Why do I feel like it's 1968 all over again? All that's missing is the music: "Paint It Black" "Fortunate Son"

Posted by: Pelayo at January 22, 2008 4:34 PM

If we want any semblance of liberty or justice in Afghanistan, it appears that a second invasion will be necessary. But what good will it do if we leave the place peopled with Islamic fanatics and folks too cowardly to oppose them?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

This is why we forbid Japan from having any mention of a state sanctioned religion (Shintoism)in their new constitution after WWII.

Has the Bush Administration completely forgotten the history lessons of WWII? It certainly seems that way.

Posted by: walterc at January 22, 2008 4:48 PM

This is what happens when you live in a society that

forbids free speech.This is what the WoT is all

about, and a few other things,,,

Posted by: Gramfan at January 22, 2008 4:51 PM

...you definitely do not want these 7th century retards in your neighborhood.,..Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 22, 2008 4:52 PM

Robert,

You really need to emphasize this point.
I know it is made reasonably clear in the article but this should be made clear.
This is taking place in areas controlled by Afghanistan’s “democratic” government which we helped to establish.
Not in areas controlled by the Taliban.

Posted by: Odyessus at January 22, 2008 5:13 PM

Let this be a warning as to what to expect if the Islamists and their leftist useful idiot hangers-on get their way and Sharia becomes the law of the land in the West. Millions of our ancestors didn't fight and in all too many cases die 65 and 90 years ago in land, sea and air battles like the Somme, Paschendaele, Vimy Ridge, El Alamein, D-Day landings, Kohima, the Battles of Britain and the Atlantic, Midway, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Iwo Jima and many others, or endure the Blitz on the home front, only for the present feckless generation, which has never had to fight for its freedom, or work 16 hours a day in munitions factories that could be bombed at any time, to one day squander the future that was so hard won by our ancestors, through multiculturalism and political correctness.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Let this be a warning as to what to expect here if the Islamists and their leftist useful idiot hangers-on get their way and Sharia becomes the law of the land in the West. Millions of our ancestors didn't fight and in all too many cases die 65 and 90 years ago in land, sea and air battles like the Somme, Paschendaele, Vimy Ridge, El Alamein, D-Day landings, Kohima, the Battles of Britain and the Atlantic, Midway, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Iwo Jima and many others, or endure the Blitz on the home front, only for the present feckless generation, which has never had to fight for its freedom, or work 16 hours a day in munitions factories that could be bombed at any time, to one day squander the future that was so hard won by our ancestors, through multiculturalism and political correctness.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at January 22, 2008 5:17 PM

walterc -

The Bush Administration hasn't forgotten the lessons of history; it never learned them in the first place. 1st-tier schools, don't you know?

Posted by: Havoc at January 22, 2008 5:18 PM

Havoc said: walterc -

The Bush Administration hasn't forgotten the lessons of history; it never learned them in the first place. 1st-tier schools, don't you know?

George Bush isn't much older than I am, so I know he learned U.S. history from the same books that I did.

To my mind, learning and ignoring is much worse than not learning in the first place.

Particularly when it involves protecting our society as POTUS.

It's the whole "hearts and minds give them democracy and everything will be great" mentality that the Bush Administration has adopted that is killing us from within. Along with liberalism.

Posted by: walterc at January 22, 2008 5:37 PM

This is why we forbid Japan from having any mention of a state sanctioned religion (Shintoism)in their new constitution after WWII.

Gads, what were those American shintophobics thinking back then?

Posted by: yadayada at January 22, 2008 5:44 PM

The American government must prevent this sentence from being carried out. It can insist that Karzai have the journalist brought to Kabul for safe-keeping, and then spirit him out of the country. If Karzai refuses to do it, it can send in a squad to rescue him. But it had better not let him be executed. And if the Afghan government doesn't collaborate to rescue this Afghani 23-year-old journalist, Karzai and all his works and days can go to hell.

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2008 5:46 PM

Japan was different; her emperor got on the radio and admitted that he was no god. Earnestly he asked the people to forgive him. Mohammed is long dead; he cannot possibly be back to do the same.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not to liberate but for a regime change. No western county could ever rule Islamic people. England used Egypt to rule Sudan, and she also used Indians soldiers to keep Egypt in check. England could not fight the Turk in the Middle-East, but used Arabs Muslims to get rid of them. England used local tribal leaders to rule Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Why huff and puff over Afghans liberty. America has only 300 million people; she cannot liberate 6.5 billion people. Karzai is not as bad as Mahmud next door, and Afghans are better partner than Pakistanis.

Our military in Afghanistan has a gun pointing west towards Iran, and has another gun in Iraq pointing east towards it, and yet another gun in UAE point north towards it.

Afghans, Iraqis, and UAE work for us; that’s all it matters.

Please don't over react. Insanity can set him free.

Posted by: ssa at January 22, 2008 5:57 PM

Pat Tillman risked his life and died tragically in a firefight mistake so free speech could be squashed by Islam-o-fascists.

This phony "war on terror" seems to be only creating a vacuum for Islam to refocus and secure it's stranglehold on cultures.

Pure Islam is the tree and terrorism is it's fruit. Time cut down the tree...dig up the roots...and burn it.

Posted by: SoteriA at January 22, 2008 5:58 PM

The comparison to Japan goes only so far. If we want to replicate Japan and Germany we have to do to the entire Muslim world what was done to Japan and Germany.

Japan was destroyed in war and its constitution was written by an American general running an occupation government. He didn't have to pretend that American forces weren't occupying the country. 1945 was a very different time. We had the leverage to make that change.

Japan was one country. Islam is on every continent. How DO we go about insisting on these changes when there are industrialized countries that need the resources of the Islamic world and are perfectly willing to undercut any attempt to isolate a regime? Business is business.

Posted by: PMK at January 22, 2008 6:02 PM

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

We've got to get this guy out of the country. Their loss, our gain.

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 22, 2008 6:13 PM

walterc -

There is no evidence that President Bush learned squat in his 1st-tier schools. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. (Remember, he is the man who traded Sammy Sosa.)

Posted by: Havoc at January 22, 2008 6:27 PM

PMK -

Well, we could start by seizing some prime, easily-defended, Middle Eastern oil fields and turning them to our own use. (We destroy an enemy by destroying his economy - cf: Germany and Japan in WWII.) Any Bedouins objecting can pound sand.

Further, we should announce that we hold islam and its adherents in contempt. Any trouble initiated by Bedouins should cost additional prime, Bedouin real estate - say, for example, one of their innumerable "holiest sites in all of islam". And, I don't mean seize such a site, I mean destroy it.

I give a fig for islam, muslims, and their culture.

Posted by: Havoc at January 22, 2008 6:42 PM

Re: "Dinesh D'Souza, the Stephen A. Douglas of Dhimmitude, has said that if Muslim countries want Sharia, let them have it. This is the face of that grand populist notion".-Robert

As Hugh has pointed out, Dinesh sees "democracy" as merely head-counting. But as it has developed, particularly in Britain and the US, "democracy" also means the militant protection of minority opinion-ideas by the majority. Islam is incompatible with "democracy". That's reality. They persecute and kill people with minority opinions-ideas.

I have developed a theory that there are two kinds of imperialism-empire in history. One is primarily commercial in nature (Brits, e.g.) and usually (but not always)are more respectful of "indigenous cultures, indigenous peoples". That is because trade-commerce-profit is the primary engine of empire with Brit style commercial imperialism. (I know the the Brits were scumbags too (particularly in Ireland) but an objective look at their imperialism-empire shows they were better behaved than most in history. They were.)

The empires that are based on "religion" or ideology (Spain in the New World, Arab Empire, Nazis, etc.) tend to be predatory-exploitative in their domination. Commercial "domination" looks mild compared to Muslim, Spanish or Nazi style imperialism.

What worries me about America is that "democracy" has become our ideology. We have to let go of our "democracy" for all ideology or we are going to be no better than Arabs or the Turks in Hindu India. Time to face reality: "democracy" is not for everyone. The US should stick to commerce. It's a sea nation and commerce is our destiny. We are not an "ideological" people.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 6:43 PM

I know that in some quarters it's blaspheme to say so, but not all people yearn for freedom, justice, liberty and democracy. Even if you hand these things to them on a silver platter, they'll reject them. They prefer, and will even fight and die to preserve the darkness they live in.

To understand this, one need only understand that in their twisted, upside/down Islamic world, oppression is freedom, injustice is justice, theocracy is democracy, just as immorality is morality, evil is good, ignorance is knowledge and darkness is light.

To them, we are the ones that need enlightment. We are the ones that need to be pursued, conquered, and converted to the enlightened world they live in.

The Taliban were monsters, but they were suited to the mentality of the people they governed. There was never much divide between the Afghan people and their Taliban rulers.

We simply traded one monster for another one.

Posted by: rational at January 22, 2008 6:45 PM

As usual throughout history it is the clerics & theologians of a religion that are the primary instigators of atrocities and oppression wherever they have much influence. It’s mostly the Muslim clerics of the Middle East and some in the West that are the determined enemies of freedom today. Their status, wealth and power require terrorizing their people into continued submission thereby creating essentially a nation partly of Muslim zombies and the rest terrified slaves.

Thus, a general in charge of a war against an Islamic nation, IMO, should make the ultimate targets of attack the mosques and the clerics; yet these are the very objects the foolish West would call off limits. Of course, these are thought to be necessarily off limits if the war is supposed to be one of democratic Muslim nation building (which the clerics will never tolerate and will always try to subvert). Better instead is a war whose aim is the total destruction of the mosques and Muslim clerics, which would allow the non-zombies to free themselves.

Posted by: FM at January 22, 2008 6:53 PM

Rational-

In some ways Dinesh is right, if they want to be f##ked-up with Sharia, get out of the way. We are not an ideological people. We are new nation in history with ancestral roots from every part of the earth. "Democracy" works here, but we must not make it an ideology. We are in danger of becoming Muslim style invaders of Hindu India in doing that. We are a commercial nation and should value our "democracy"-Republic at home and leave it at that.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 6:58 PM

Why exactly have we not utterly crushed every structure standing in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why have we not set the level brutality so high as to force these simple minded people loose all hope in their silly jihad? Why have we not threatened them with the wholesale extinction of their culture in those lands? Islamic hardliners readily admit their love of death in order to get their wicks eternally wet, why are we not lining them up publicly and arranging their "marriages"? Why oh why have we not annihilated Sharia law and ripped out each and every Islamic leader who espouses hatred for our nation in those lands? Why have we not burned, pissed on and defiled our enemies Qurans, Mosques and Madrassas to display to them the complete impotence of their absent landlord/imaginary god?

It worked in Japan and Germany. Poor, poor Hirohito went from a golden god to a humiliated fool. Hitler, methed up mad man to ashes.

We're supposed to be at WAR, not reaching out to win hearts and minds in this politically correct and bankrupt "police action"! To hell with what the "Ummah" thinks - they need to know only one thing. Tangling with our nation brings all negotiable peace deals to an end with lethal consequences following. That-is-all.

Americans were mass murdered!!! We have made a mistake and should have immediately cut off all jizya: food, aid and money to all said opposing nations. Surely their all powerful (and mythological)"lord of all worlds Allah" can pick up the slack.

As for us and our nation? Of the billions spent to run these useless wars, we should have fostered billion dollar technologies to wean THE WORLD off of "Allahs soft loan" and suffocate the wealth of the oil sheiks. War over and the mid-east is back to selling dates and rugs.

Not one single Muslim in those nations has the right to the sanctity of choice, especially when it comes to their constitution. Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan have little concept of choice anyway as their "leash" happens to be the Quran. Our generals should have authored such docs and enforced OUR rules under the willing promise of immediate destruction.

Instead we have (I'm sorry to say because I supported him) a president who is more an enabling dhimmi now and a coward who has half-heartedly stood up for us since the murder of our own.

An image of Bush at ground zero goes through my mind "I can hear you!" He shouts. Fast forward to the present and I imagine him now saying "Uh, what?"

As far as I'm concerned the US hasn't fought a war since 1941. This could have been a week long war that ended with compete surrender and non-negotiable cooperation. Instead we have liberated these Islamic barbarians to do what they do best-continue to murder.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at January 22, 2008 7:04 PM

"I know that in some quarters it's blaspheme to say so, but not all people yearn for freedom, justice, liberty and democracy. Even if you hand these things to them on a silver platter, they'll reject them. They prefer, and will even fight and die to preserve the darkness they live in."

I don't think this belief is the solution to the problem we've opened up with Iraq.

I do think it is right to stick by the message of the founders, all men have an inherent natural right to freedom, among a host of other basic, individual, human rights.

This isn't the problem, and I hope that our misadventures in Iraq don't make this appear to be the problem.

The actual problem is that these rights can't be spread in the way the Bush administration attempted to spread them. Not only that, but attempts to spread them in that fashion risk the few strongholds where those rights are, for the most part, respected (in this case, for economic reasons). You have to take care of yourself, before you take care of others.

The realistic approach to spreading human rights and freedom (which are the things of of real importance; democracy is just a tool for these ends--and an imperfect and context-limited tool at that; some monarchies protect rights and liberties better than some democracies) is to maintain our own country and economy first and foremost, to act strongly and intelligently to defend ourselves when attacked, and then to spread our ideals through commerce and (well-funded, well-organized) education and exchange of ideas.

We shouldn't give up on a strong belief in the truth and value of individual rights and liberties. We should be more realistic in what we can and should do to protect those liberties. The latter doesn't negate the former.

Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 22, 2008 7:16 PM

In a letter to President Karzai of Afghanistan, Hans-Gert Pöttering, [EU Parliament President], called for the life of Sayed Perwiz Kambaksh, a young journalism student at Mazar Sharif University, to be spared.

The president's plea follows a ruling by the Afghan Council of Mullahs that the teenager should receive the death penalty for the 'crime' of campaigning for the rights of Afghan women.

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200801/def9afd4-1ad8-4763-acd4-75b5b316c6e4.htm

The American government must prevent this sentence from being carried out. It can insist that Karzai have the journalist brought to Kabul for safe-keeping, and then spirit him out of the country. - posted by Hugh

Yes, the American government should apply intense pressure on Karzai to prevent this sentence from being carried out.

No. We should not spirit Sayed Perwiz Kambaksh out of the Afghanistan. Sharia should be spirited away - and Afghanistan secularized, or we pack our bags and get out. I can no longer support a war with the blood of our military's finest - not for sharia - not here - not anywhere.

And I certainly do not want any more immigrants that bring any part of this doctrine with them. They want to believe, fine. They can stay where they are and live with the consequences.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at January 22, 2008 7:17 PM

hope_and_justice -

Bravo!

Posted by: Havoc at January 22, 2008 7:20 PM

Robert said

Dinesh D'Souza, the Stephen A. Douglas of Dhimmitude, has said that if Muslim countries want Sharia, let them have it. This is the face of that grand populist notion.

But what is the alternative? To squander even more of our money and more importantly our soldiers' lives trying to save the Afghans from themselves? By giving them democracy and tolerance and freedom at the barrel of our gun? Wouldn't that be the biggest Wilsonian adventure of all?

Hugh said

It can insist that Karzai have the journalist brought to Kabul for safe-keeping, and then spirit him out of the country.

I hope the solution isn't to spirit him into our country. We don't need another Muslim victim of intra-Islamic violence moving into our neighborhood.

PMK said

The comparison to Japan goes only so far. If we want to replicate Japan and Germany we have to do to the entire Muslim world what was done to Japan and Germany.

Yes. After several years of all-out war, we dropped two nuclear bombs on a comparatively tiny island. What would it take to get Dar al-Islam to be in the analogous situation? We are nowhere near getting Dar al-Islam to capitulate. We haven't even captured or killed the top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

The true analogy between today and WWII would be if, after Doolittle's raid over Tokyo, the first minor response to Pearl Harbor, we insisted that Japan was our good friend and ally, and that our only goal was to help improve the lives of the Japanese, and asked them to voluntarily give up their goal of dominating the Pacific.

It's a childish fantasy of our putative leaders to think that everyone in the world shares our values and goals, and that a minor slap on the wrist is all that is required to bring them back in line with our values and goals.

Posted by: special_guest at January 22, 2008 7:25 PM

Re: "I do think it is right to stick by the message of the founders, all men have an inherent natural right to freedom, among a host of other basic, individual, human rights.....The actual problem is that these rights can't be spread in the way the Bush administration attempted to spread them..."-hope_and_justice

Absolutely. Ideology or "religion" are oppressive rationalizations for imperialism-domination. We are in danger of becoming Muslim-style assholes in attempting to impose our system on others. We are a commercial-sea-nation and our destiny is to be a Republic-"democracy" at home. Our system is more likely to spread as a result of commerce than by military intervention. We must avoid making "democracy" an ideology or we will lose it at home. We cannot export what we have here.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:32 PM

We cannot export what we have here......NOT BY FORCE.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:33 PM

We cannot export what we have here......NOT BY FORCE.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:33 PM
---------------------

no, but we can utterly destroy those that wish to destroy us............... just as was done with germany and japan...........

Posted by: ??? at January 22, 2008 7:47 PM

We have a vision of the world that is a Dar-al-Democracy vs. Dar-al-no democracy. But we must not become like them. Please, God Almighty: no. no, no. Let us never be like them. "Democracy" (government where public opinion matters, and minority-opinion-ideas are protected by the majority) is not compatible with Islam and we must never make "democracy" our ideology or we will become like them.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:50 PM

???-

We would be utterly ruthless with them if they attempt to impose this Sharia-law-"religion" on us. But if they want it for themselves, so be it. I'll wear a clothes-pin on my nose and wave at them from a distance.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:57 PM

We SHOULD be utterly ruthless with them if they attempt to impose this Sharia-law-"religion" on us. But if they want it for themselves, so be it. I'll wear a clothes-pin on my nose and wave at them from a distance.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:58 PM

???-

We would be utterly ruthless with them if they attempt to impose this Sharia-law-"religion" on us. But if they want it for themselves, so be it. I'll wear a clothes-pin on my nose and wave at them from a distance.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 7:57 PM
____________________---

and when they lob nukes at america and europe, then what will you do???

Posted by: ??? at January 22, 2008 7:58 PM

special_guest said

We haven't even captured or killed the top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

And according to this story today, Pakistan is not hunting for Osama Bin Laden. And in a sign of respect for the sovereignty of our good friend and ally Pakistan, neither are we. He was responsible for the murder of 3000 people in one day, and no-one is looking for him.

We can't even bother to look for Osama Bin Laden, and we're not allowed to mention "Islamic jihad", but we're going to bomb Dar al-Islam the same way we did Japan and Germany? There's a major disconnect from reality there. We can't bother to look for Osama Bin Laden, but we're supposed to help Muslims being mistreated by Muslims in a Muslim country?

I don't get it.

Posted by: special_guest at January 22, 2008 7:59 PM

and when they lob nukes at america and europe, then what will you do???
Posted by: ??? at January 22, 2008 7:58 PM

Trust me, if I were in charge, they would be truly f@@ked if they did that. I love America, I love "democracy". But we must not become like them. We have a Dar-al-democracy vs. a Dar-al-undemocratic ideology that may get as ugly as Islam if we are not careful.

But make no mistake of it, I love America. They stink.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 8:06 PM

Karzai must fix this or he must be dumped.

But then, am also for the execution of the three islamic judges, unless they free the man.

Simple choice.

Posted by: dgene at January 22, 2008 8:11 PM

Sorry dgene, President Bush has to fix this. If he has the balls to truley stand for freedom he will go immediately to Afganistan and put a stop to this sh*#. America has paid a heavy price for these peoples freedom, and if this is what we get in return. Disgust will continue to grow with islam, not that it ain't there allready.

Posted by: AMartinez at January 22, 2008 8:20 PM

ISLAM: garbage in/garbage out.

Bush's fatal intellectual mistake.

You cannot win hearts and mind until you replace the deathcult ideology, first.

Otherwise you are merely feeding the same old madness a better grade of nutrient.

Building stronger lunacies and tougher psychos.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 22, 2008 8:21 PM

in the early 1980's i made the mistake of dating and getting married to an arab guy who was a chef. he came to the usa and applied for a green card, when he met me all he wanted was to get married so that he could qualify for his greencard easier, me not knowing what he was up to as i was young in love and very naive, married him. he was a very typical arab, now i look back on it as typical you can get. overly emotional and unreasonable person, didnt understand why he didnt get things his way, and how the usa worked. on top of that he didnt want to know how the usa worked either. needless to say this didnt last long the marriage. he ended up stealing food from where he was employed and doing other lawlessness. he finally got a one way ticket back to where he came from coutesy of the usa.

my point is this. these guys, you can not bargin with them and they dont understand how things work here and do not want to understand it. they are here for one reason and one reason only, to change things from the inside out.
there is no such thing as a moderate. this is a fairy tale.
they see our lives as permissive and too free with too many liberties.
the only way you are going to stop this is to ban immigration to the usa, never mind about giving them democracy they dont want it. saudi arabia with the way they treat women and the above stories should let people know by now they are self destructive and ignorant.
they think they are missing something by being in the modern world.
the men want to be in control no matter what and they do so becasue they can. they can have 4 wives what man will not want that?
women in the usa didnt have voting rights until 1922 after trying to win it for years. the black man got the vote 30 yrs before women did.
men like to dominate/control.

men will fight others for land booty and resoucres over religious beliefs as an excuse.
WW2 was 60 odd yrs ago, that was then this is now.
more people in the world now.
this war if fought will be done to reduce the surplus population of the world and to stimulate the economy.
and the one who will come out the losers in the end will be israel becasue everyone blames israeli people for everything always. it is my thinking that israel may be very doomed and this will be the last for her. now usa tells israel, go fight the iranian threat by yourself. look at the jpost.com i read it everyday. the arabs are all going to gang up on israel and do her in. it is just a matter of time. usa too weak now to do woofing on anyone. we have become the laughing stock of the world since SA has all the money, oil and popularity amoung their own. 1 billion arabs how do you defeat this? you can not. bombs will level out the surplus popluation thats all.

Posted by: zionist122 at January 22, 2008 8:39 PM

Re: "Bush's fatal intellectual mistake.

You cannot win hearts and mind until you replace the deathcult ideology, first".
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 22, 2008 8:21 PM

Agree, profitsbeard. But they must do that themselves. (I think you think that, too.)

Meanwhile, we must keep our commerce-profits-beard-democratic-sea-nation-destiny and let them have their Sharia-"religion" or ideology-so long as they do not interfere with our democracy (government where public opinion matters, where minority-opinion-ideas are militantly protected by the majority). They persecute people with minority opinions-ideas. Islam is incompatible with "democracy". "Islamic democracy" is a farce.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 8:45 PM

If people had followed the Spencer/Fitzgerald line on this we would not be in this mess.

This is not a surprise. This is to be expected. In fact, expect more of it as time goes on.

This is not what our brave troops signed up for. This not what the American people should be supporting. Democracy is great, but without a strong bill of rights to set the ground rules just as many bad things can happen in a democracy as in a dictatorship.

Remember, we had to fight a civil war to end slavery in the U.S.A. and the confederacy was a democracy...was it not?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 22, 2008 8:51 PM

"...and the one who will come out the losers in the end will be israel becasue everyone blames israeli people for everything always". zionist122

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of folks might be fooled at first (like you) by Arab-Muslims and other Muslims but folks eventually wise-up and are not fooled anymore. You represent the non-Muslim world in every way.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 8:55 PM

As far as I'm concerned the US hasn't fought a war since 1941.

Yea, and amen.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 22, 2008 8:57 PM

Frank-

Agreed.

Containment and competition worked to defeat Communism.

It'll work the same against Islam.

If we stop propping it up.

And pandering to its core psychosis.

The West's ways are superior.

Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, press, assembly, and alliances.

If only it could competently educate its people into understanding that bright truth.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 22, 2008 8:58 PM

Your tax dollars at work.

Posted by: Charles Bogle at January 22, 2008 9:07 PM

He probably thought that he was living in a democracy.

By the way, Afghanistan provides 93 percent of the heroin that is used by drug addicts in the west.

Posted by: Voltaire at January 22, 2008 9:09 PM

usa will play dead and israel will have to go it alone when it comes to iran see for yourself

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572520107&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: zionist122 at January 22, 2008 9:19 PM

special_guest says..

"Pakistan is not hunting for Osama Bin Laden. And in a sign of respect for the sovereignty of our good friend and ally Pakistan, neither are we. He was responsible for the murder of 3000 people in one day, and no-one is looking for him."

Yep...this fact alone proves we are not fighting a war. Folks, we are not at war, but we are finding new ways to waste money!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 22, 2008 9:25 PM

Now that this case has received a lot of publicity, Karzai will most probably have the guy wisked out of the country, as he did in a previous case involving a convert to Christianity.

But we should be asking ourselves, how many of these religiously sanctioned murders take place every day in Afghanistan, but we never hear about them?

Karzai is going to act only if he's pressured to act by foreign governments, and that's only going to happen if the world knows about it.

This is their Islamic way of life, and no one's going to change it.

Posted by: rational at January 22, 2008 9:25 PM

This makes it painfully clear that the path of Democracy as applied to Islamic countries produces Sharia, the exact opposite of the Freedom it produces in Western Civilization. This dynamic will amplify in so called "friendly" Islamic countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia as the ugly head of Islamic Fundamentalism (True Islam)gains ground through Democracy. These leaders are not the Jeffersonians or Roger Williams or Martin Luther Kings seeking Liberty but are brainwashed tyrants who seek to suppress Freedom of Speech, religious preferences and equality of men and woman.

How can you be friends with countries who under the banner of Islam incubate the will to destroy the fibers of Western Civilization?

The American leader approaches them with the pride of a junkie offering them arms in exchange for cheap oil.

The French leader vows to give them nuclear capabilities that he thinks they so richly deserve.

The British leader seeks to criminalize the attempt of the enlightened to properly identify the enemy.

Wasn't it just a few decades ago that their ancestors combined in will and spirit to defeat the bearers of tyranny? Yet everywhere the tyranny of Islam is displayed in high definition but our leaders cannot see it.

Posted by: Briars at January 22, 2008 10:22 PM

Havoc,

I'm with you on the second part. It should have been done on 9/12/01. Our policy should be MAD - Mecca's Assured Destruction. A Muslim attack on the US should be answered with a counterattack on the heart of Islam - Mecca, Saudi Arabia. See how Muslims will react to the possibility of making their hajj to visit a hole in the ground. Give them their own ground zero.

As for seizing oil fields:
- What country do we declare war on, and on what basis?
- How can it be defended? Our ships can be sunk by someone in a rubber raft. Our planes can be brought down by ground-based missiles or anti-aircraft fire from neighboring countries.
- There are twenty-two Muslim countries, most of them in the same geographic area. Do you think we could invade any one of them and not come under attack, not only from the natives but from their neighbors? Japan was in a hostile neighborhood. None of its neighbors were going to come to its aid no matter how much they might have hated the US.
- We won't destroy their economies by seizing an oil field. We'd have to take over the entire country, every square inch of it, and turn it into a police state. There aren't enough soldiers in the entire US military.
- The oil has to be transported out of the area for it to do us any good. We'd only bankrupt ourselves in the process.

We're too far from the Muslim world to maintain supply lines. It's not 1945. We don't have the run of the world. We don't have people worried that they would be overtaken by Communism. We'd be hampered by Europeans and Russians and Chinese who opposed our actions. THEY have the means to destroy OUR economy. We've exported our own economy over the last three decades. What do we do when foreign suppliers refuse to sell us spare parts for our military, the parts we once made ourselves but foolishly gave away?

Posted by: PMK at January 22, 2008 10:40 PM

Yep...this fact alone proves we are not fighting a war. Folks, we are not at war, but we are finding new ways to waste money!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 22, 2008 9:25 PM

Comet,

Sad, but true.

Posted by: awake at January 22, 2008 10:53 PM

August 22, 2006
Bin Laden has approval from an Islamic cleric for 10 million American deaths
What if there are ten million and one? Religion of Peace Update from CNN, with thanks to Doug:

Michael Scheuer, who once headed the CIA's bin Laden unit, says bin Laden has been given permission by a young cleric in Saudi Arabia authorizing al Qaeda to "use nuclear weapons against the United States ... capping the casualties at 10 million."
"He's had an approval, a religious approval for 10 million deaths?" I asked him.

"Yes," Scheuer responded.

these are supposed to be our friends? give permission to do in 10 million of our people? these SA are all in on it against us. and you are right frank, etc we should have hit them 9-12 in medina mecca where it hurts the most.
they are going to do it to us if we dont do it to them, iti s just a matter of time

Posted by: zionist122 at January 22, 2008 11:25 PM

As a reflection on the state of play in the defence against the Jihad, and perhaps to offer a few glimmers of hope, for ourselves though not for Afghanistan, I offer the following.

First, an anecdote posted at this site last year, on a thread discussing Karen Armstrong's whitewashing of Islam. It came from a jihadwatcher reporting on the perception of Islam, and of the ummah, among non-Muslim bluecollar workers on a factory floor in Scotland; an anecdote that hints at a massive seismic shift.

"During a tea break last night at work I was rather surprised to hear that there had been a heated debate, which I missed, on another shift. The subject of which just happened to be Muslims and their presence in our country. This of course began yet another debate on my tea break.
"Now this may shock and stun many of you here but the truth is, believe it or not, the views that were expressed during this debate were not formulated on any of the in-depth information or writings found on this site nor on any highbrow literature on the subject of Islam.
"So take note Ms Armstrong you are pissing against the wind as far as the common punter is concerned, they’ve never heard of you. Common we may be but there are many of us out here, growling. (Bordering on seething too I might add).
"Now I have to say that I have heard some really nasty things said about ‘management’ and certain members of staff in the past but what I’m hearing on the subject of Muslims pales by comparison.
"There was genuine hatred being spewed and nobody could find opposing arguments to what was being said; truth is there were no opposing arguments, it was total agreement. Muslims have been put in social pariah status either by design or intention and that’s all there is to it.?
"I’ve seen it stated here on some posts that the Mainstream Media don’t cover or highlight particularly significant incidents, the premise being that it would perhaps be a catalyst for trouble amongst the citizens of our respected ‘Multi-cultural Societies’, well that may be true and you could be correct but this alleged tactic of keeping secrets and dumbing down the population doesn’t seem to be working very well, nor does the leftist apologist approach seem to have much effect either.

"The troops are getting restless and vicious irrespective of the efforts to keep a lid on things (if that be the case.)

"I should explain that those taking part in the discussions at work are ordinary folk who just batter on trying to get from day to day, feed the kids and are more interested in TV soap operas and sport, politics is NEVER a topic of discussion. [I.E. THE PROPAGANDA HAS GONE RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS – THEY HAVEN’T BEEN TO UNIVERSITY – THIS IS PROVING ELLUL’S POINT ABOUT PROPAGANDA, IN SPADES - Ellul said it was the educated elite, the intellectuals, not the masses, who were most susceptible to propaganda].

"But the fact is they [these ordinary bluecollar Scots factory workers] have come to despise Muslims.

" None of them have been on internet searches looking for information on Islam, none had heard of JW/DW so their present position of malice and disgust is being fuelled by what they see and hear in the MSM'.?
"I heard no mention at all of ‘Moderate Muslims’ or ‘Good Muslims’ not a word, as far as this lot are concerned Muslims are bad and that’s that. No sounds of tolerance whatsoever...

"The workers here don’t seem to be particularly interested in what Mohammed did or said, they show little knowledge of the Koran or the Hadiths; they don’t need to know any of that stuff. They just hate Muslims. Why?

"Recently two terrorists in the UK have escaped the horror of being sent back to Libya, as this would infringe their human rights apparently, good for them! This is one reason to hate Muslims, because they get away with murder……?"It takes years to get convictions against preachers of hate and we are entertained on TV by seeing these people parading themselves espousing venom and spite, another reason to hate Muslims, they get away with promoting murder….
"We read about police protection for these terrorist sympathisers on their marches in the centre of London as they celebrate murder.
"We read about demands from and submission given to Muslims on subjects ranging from school food to segregated swimming sessions, this list as you know is practically endless...
"It should be noted that this was just one little tea break in an nondescript factory full of people of no great importance, how many other tea breaks up and down the length of this country [BRITAIN] are having similar discussions?".
- Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at April 28, 2007 5:37 PM

One wonders how many others, out there 'under the radar', in the great unwashed of the USA, Canada, Australia and, yes, Western Europe, are doing the same: in pubs, and on factory floors, beaches, sports fields, veterans' associations, and so on. People who don't go to university, don't read anything but the sports page; who are judging Islam by the Muslims they encounter in the street, and are seeing arrogance, bullying and deceit.

The primitive masses of the Ummah, suffused with Islam, are one thing. The masses of the 'West', and of non-Muslim societies affected by the ideas of 'the west', may turn out to be something else again.

To get a clue of what may underlie the surprising groundlevel consensus (hostility toward, rejection of, Islam) that jihadtobejoking described, read James Surowiecki, "The Wisdom of Crowds", especially part 2 of the first chapter, on the response of the markets to the Challenger disaster. 'Frank': in light of your remarks about 'commercial empires' you may find this book thought-provoking. (Gladwell's 'Tipping Point' and 'Blink' complement Surowiecki's book quite nicely).

Surowiecki's chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8, though he doesn't know it, are describing patterns that probably only properly apply within our 'universal civilisation' (as Naipaul calls it), in communities where thinking for yourself, 'the golden rule' (even toward nonrelated strangers), reciprocity, Agreement, compromise and co-operation have - over centuries, very, very slowly and painfully, with many dreadful lapses - become almost second nature.

Those principles are certainly NOT second nature within the Ummah - which is why it oscillates violently between war of all on all, and ruthless despotism.

To begin to understand the foundations of our freedom - why and how 'crowds', in this 'universal civilisation' that we inhabit, CAN be 'wise' (whereas they were not and could not be, in pagan Greece or Rome; and they are not, and cannot be, in Islam's 'civilisation of deception') - read Tom Cahill's "The Gift of the Jews", and Franz Rosenzweig's "The Star of Redemption".

PS I found Surowiecki's book thought-provoking in light of my recent reading of three years' worth of lively exchanges on the jihadwatch/ dhimmiwatch comments floor. It exposed some of the dangers we need to beware of, as a virtual community/ classroom/ thinktank, especially since we have by now appointed our respected 'experts' and opinion leaders. Value our dissenters!

But what also became clear is that the principles of behaviour Surowiecki delineates - indeed, celebrates - are completely alien to Islam, as demonstrated by the online conduct of every Muslim who has ever posted here.

Never mind about the Muslim street. What matters is that 'the western street' may be developing the same intuitive, gut-level rejection of the Islamic gestalt, that many on, say, the Hindu street, already feel.

The 'immune system' of the Infidel world may not, after all, have been entirely disabled.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 22, 2008 11:32 PM

PMK -

We forget that the Executive Branch determines policy, the Defense Department executes the policy.

I suspect that we could destroy Saudi Arabia's economy by seizing its oil fields. This is because the production of oil repesents a major portion of their economy. (Have you ever purchased anything made in Saudi Arabia, besides oil? Neither have I ...)

I am confident that we could seize and hold some Middle Eastern oil fields - but would let appropriate members of the military identify those most easily taken and defended from counter attack. Logistics is an issue, but is surmountable. Logistics was an issue in Normandy, 6June1944 - and we handled it.

As far as holding an oil field once taken is concerned, this is a light workout for American firepower. Those of us who have seen America lay down a steel curtain ... have little doubt that we can hold a Middle Eastern oil field. This is because the terrain tends to be flat and barren - counter attacking troops would be detected at long enough range to be engaged by airpower, artillery, and long-range direct fire. Plus, we have napalm.

Yeah, we could hold an oil field. Let the pro's handle it.

Posted by: Havoc at January 23, 2008 1:28 AM

dumbledoresarmy:...in communities where thinking for yourself, 'the golden rule' (even toward nonrelated strangers)...become almost second nature.

Take out the word 'almost' and we are home.

What practicing the 'Golden Rule', and extending it
out to include 'the other', even unto the animal kingdom, does to a human psyche, is a book in itself, but I think you already know the answer.

And you are right, this may be a little slow in many places, but it does not exist at all in the Ummah.
Allah's rule is not golden.
Thanks for the good write...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 23, 2008 1:47 AM

Anti jihadism is a failure, and will continue to be a failure until we address the problem of the polled 70% trust for the muslim enemy. That needs to be 100%. Any cult based on slavery to a god concoction, must be deemed unconscionable, and treated as we treat cannibalism. There is no deity named "allah" and Muhammed was a revenge seeking pedophile, whose "prophet" status was purely rhetorical, and based on monstrous deceit.

Jihad Watch needs to publicize the Pashto heroin trade - cum Albanian' Euro-debilitation - which is going on with Bush indulgence. And you should openly advocate re-patriation of the Arabian Desert oil fields, to their Anglo-American sovereigns. Two points: first, the well torchings in Kuwait were put out within a few months (suppression technology is advanced 15 years since then); second, damaging sovereign property is an act of war (any Saud reaction to re-patriation, should be met with nuclear annihilation); the House of Saud has no familial or tribal roots near ANY oil field in the terrorist entity; polls in the terrorist entity have revealed support of up to 95% for al-Qaeda; 100% of the major Wahabi clerics, pronounced Taliban practises as authentically islamic.

Posted by: supercargo at January 23, 2008 2:06 AM

Havoc:

Forget the oil economy; we can destroy Saud' water and food sources, putting them into a state of fatal desperation. However, be aware that VP Cheney was paid over $60,000,000 for his unearned post Gulf War 1 contacts. Bush 1 took almost as much "an-fal." Bush 2 expects even more. The more wealth that is stolen from the pockets of Americans, the more kickbacks will be expected by Bush 2. A $200 a gallon price for oil is not a problem for the President: it is a personal solution.

Reminder: modern "arabic" is a US invention, devised at MIT and Beirut's American University.

Hugh Fitzgerald: what do you think of the "Beirut- Frankenstein" theory? Churchill claimed, "I created Jordan with the stroke of a pen." US nation-building linguists, created arab nationalism; current US nation-building arabist lackeys, created islamofascism.

Posted by: supercargo at January 23, 2008 2:26 AM

duh_swami said

What practicing the 'Golden Rule', and extending it out to include 'the other', even unto the animal kingdom, does to a human psyche, is a book in itself

Yes.

Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 2:33 AM

OT
Special Guest...
Treadwell and his girl friend did not deserve to be eaten by the bear. Probably he should not have taken his girlfriend along. It seems he had such good success that he forgot the basic rule, wild animals are unpredictable. I love a rattlesnake, but I know better than to try and shake hands with it, because the snake may not know I love it. Interesting article, thanks...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 23, 2008 3:01 AM

Conspicuous by their absence...thesaracen, Naseem and their ilk. Why? Because they know they cannot defend this barbarity...that is at the heart of their "religion". They are at war and must pick their battles.

And that dip Treadwell...he committed suicide. It just took a while. (And it was ugly. Bears don't kill...they eat.) He didn't raise the bears he was around, he just walked into their home and got et. Was bound to happen sooner or later and everyone around him tried like hell to get him to see that. They tried to make him understand that he was putting the bears in danger...that sooner or later one or more would attack and have to be killed. And that's exactly what happened. He killed those bears sure as he pulled the trigger himself. There to protect them indeed!

Posted by: Alaskan at January 23, 2008 3:55 AM

"Wahab said he did not immediately have the details of the paper that Kambaksh circulated, other than that it was against Islam."

...could have been a copy of the Magna Carta, The Ten Commandments, or the Constitution of the United States....

....but in Islam, it could well have been a copy of Mad Magazine...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 23, 2008 6:13 AM

There can be no meaningful democracy without de-Islamicization. That's the flaw in our strategy. Would we have overthrown a Communist or Nazi regime and replaced it with a more moderate version of the same?

Posted by: jewdog at January 23, 2008 7:26 AM

"Would we have overthrown a Communist or Nazi regime and replaced it with a more moderate version of the same?"

We wouldnt but our PC leaders would.

Posted by: Elric66 at January 23, 2008 7:47 AM

Alaskan,

"Conspicuous by their absence...thesaracen, Naseem and their ilk. Why? Because they know they cannot defend this barbarity...that is at the heart of their "religion". They are at war and must pick their battles."

Precisely! Even when I'm polite and civil, they still resort to basest level of logic and reasoning to defend their faith. And, quite frankly, do a very bad job at that!

Posted by: boneshack at January 23, 2008 8:35 AM

Logistics was an issue in Normandy, 6June1944 - and we handled it.

Havoc,

Face facts. This isn't 1944. We aren't at war with a nation. Our leaders won't declare war on Islam. They won't declare war on Saudi Arabia, even if we should. They won't put this country on a war footing. They can't. Why? Because we are in a global economy. The army isn't nearly as large as it was in 1964, let alone 1944. In addition, we had people on the ground ready to support us once we landed on Normandy. We didn't have to fight the entire population of Europe, only the German Army and its supporters. Most joined us in the fight.
We don't control the seas. We don't control the sky. We don't control the flow of arms. Seizing an oil field is easy. Keeping it is hard. Are our soldiers supposed to become oil workers? Who are we going to get to pump the oil and transport it to the tankers? Logistics ARE an issue. Are we going to guard every square inch against saboteurs? We didn't have that problem in 1944. The Germans did. To top it off, we didn't have television to show us every "innocent" person who was killed in an attack and to show the world the "evil" United States.
We have the best trained military in the world. We have the best supplied military. We just don't control the supplies. We don't have the industries we had in 1944.
Plenty of other countries, like China, crave Middle East oil. They'll do whatever it takes. We sold ourselves out to China. We have made our own bed. It's time to lie in it.

Posted by: PMK at January 23, 2008 9:15 AM

RE: "...China...They'll do whatever it takes."

If you had a billion people, that is: 1,000,000,000 people, aware of the modern world, eager to join it, currently living in poverty, limited to one child per family, having no heat in their country homes, etc., you would do whatever it takes too.

That's not an excuse or justification for anything. Forget the philosophies, politics and history of how those people came to exist. The fact is they exist today. Now what do we in the West do about it? Something constructive I hope.

Posted by: BrooksImp at January 23, 2008 11:21 AM

What to do...what to do?

Ban and condemn Islam, expose it for what it is, which was a bid for money, sex and power. Be completely intolerant of Islam as was the case with the Nazis.

Islam should be named as teh enemy, and no more tolerance towards it in any way. This should be recognized,, and all resources, money, everything poured into R&D to do everything humanly possible to get off that oil and take away the fuel for Islam.

The west isn't showing any real determination to get off the oil, and to call Islam out for what it is. Big oil companies making fortunes, of course they like the status quo.

Right now everything is wrong, at the head of it is Islam, then we have the leftist fascists and their pagan god of multiculturalism, the tool specifically used in order to destroy our civilizations. ( It's working as we are feeble in our response to clear acts of aggression from Islam) These ideologies need fought, and the West needs to isolate Islam, the Islamic world, and the best way to do it is to take away their only source of power.....oil and their cloaking device of hiding their political ideology behind the freedoms granted to religions.

This isn't happening, and I have no confidence it will happen. As we speak, multiculturalism is the religion of our societies, particularily where I live. More Muslims are coming into our countries each day, unscreened. Everyday we give protection to groups dedicated to the destruction of our societies.

Our leaders, and our society is making it increasingly more difficult to combat the problems we face, so infact things only get worse.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at January 23, 2008 11:53 AM

duh_swami, are you sure it's off-topic? Practicing the Golden Rule with those who have no concept of the Golden Rule has consequences, as you rightly pointed out.

And I agree with Alaskan too; by not respecting the reality of the bear's behavior, and by falsely assuming the bear was "peaceful" and non-threatening, he paradoxically ended up getting the bear killed (and himself and his girlfriend).

Posted by: special_guest at January 23, 2008 12:40 PM

No one is any good at prediction, yet everyone is a spinmaster. Events are chaotic at best. People must make decisions with incomplete present information without the benefit of hindsight. Governments are not exempt from this rule. Sometimes we get it right.

The problems are multidimensional with a mix of religious, political, philosophical, cultural and historical foundations. I think nothing is gained by directly attacking these individual foundations because each foundation is supported by intransigent and powerful masters fully vested in their own past.

The solution that will lead to real benefit in terms of controlling chaos and increasing general prosperity is not on any path directly opposed to the above, enormous forces. And I don't think you could point to the enemies we currently fight as purely representing just one of the above forces. The people we fight are badly corrupted mixtures who would have to be fought in one form or another. Regardless of foundation, they will always have to be fought.

With a full understanding of Islam, I don't think it's realistic, pragmatic or profitable to attack Islam head on. Study it, illuminate it, explain its injustices, place it in the broader context of general moral principles, and I think over time cooler heads will prevail.

Posted by: BrooksImp at January 23, 2008 12:45 PM

Meanwhile in Kuwait

I'm often reserved about crossposting things here that come from middle eastern gay email groups and press releses here.

What follows represents a story from this month's guardian. The situation sounds a bit dire. I sure that if we had some openly traqnsgendered members in our armed forces, we would be able to make a big stink. As things remain, "Only Silence can be shared."

The most powerful weapon we possess is a humanity that calls out for mutual repect.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2008/01/boys_must_be_boys.html

Boys will be boys - or else
Brian Whitaker
January 23, 2008 2:00 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2008/01/boys_must_be_boys.html

In his book Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the prominent religious scholar, writes:

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared that a woman should not wear a man's clothing or vice versa. He cursed men who imitate women and women who imitate men ...

"The evil of such conduct, which affects both the life of the individual and that of the society, is that it constitutes a rebellion against the natural ordering of things. According to this natural order, there are men and there are women, and each of the two sexes has its own distinctive characteristics. However, if men become effeminate and women masculinised, this natural order will be reversed and will disintegrate.

"Among those who are cursed by Allah and His Angels, both in this world and in the Hereafter, the Prophet, peace and blessings be on him, has mentioned the man whom Allah has created as male but who becomes effeminate by imitating women, and a woman whom Allah has created as female but who becomes masculinised by imitating men. For this reason the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade men from wearing clothes or things pertaining to women."

According to the website IslamOnline, "Aspects of such imitation include the manner of speaking, walking, dressing, moving, and so on."

Quoting a Saudi scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, it continues: "Wearing adornments on the wrist and neck, and on the ears is an imitation of women, as this is something that is only for women. So it is not permissible for men to wear bracelets, earrings, anklets, or chains."

The Kuwaiti parliament has now taken this religious advice to heart: on December 10, it amended the penal code so that anyone "imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex" could be jailed for up to a year or fined up to 1,000 dinars (£1,790).

Since then, at least 14 people have been arrested in Kuwait City and thrown into prison for the new offence, according to Human Rights Watch. Several were picked up at police checkpoints, one in a coffee shop and two more in a taxi.

A Kuwaiti newspaper said the "confused" men were "deposited in the special ward" of Tahla prison, and that prison guards shaved their heads "as a form of punishment".

Citing friends of the accused, Human Rights Watch said three of them had been beaten (one of them into unconsciousness), and all denied access to lawyers.

The Kuwaiti parliament is dominated by conservatives and Islamists who have also been trying to oust the only female member of the country's cabinet. The move against "opposite sex" dressing follows a report last September that the government was launching a campaign "to combat the growing phenomenon of gays and transsexuals".

Human Right Watch believes the new law is particularly targeting transgender people, whose rights are already heavily restricted in Kuwait (they are not allowed to have gender reassignment surgery or to change their legal identity). The treatment of the 14 detainees is also a breach of Kuwait's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the New York-based organisation says.

Several Kuwait MPs have already reacted strongly to the protests from Human Rights Watch.

Duaij al-Shimmari, a member of the Islamic Constitutional Movement, said: "Non-believers have their religion and we have ours ... We will not allow anyone to interfere with our religious beliefs."

Dr Ali al-Omair, a Salafist MP, accused the human rights organisation of luring other nations to practise vice and lewdness in the name of personal freedom, while Faisal al-Muslim, who heads a parliamentary committee monitoring "practices alien to Kuwaiti society", said: "The law criminalising people who imitate the appearance of the opposite sex must be implemented and respected ... Kuwait should ignore any international criticism."

Posted by: skevin at January 23, 2008 1:26 PM

ssa said:

Japan was different; her emperor got on the radio and admitted that he was no god. Earnestly he asked the people to forgive him. Mohammed is long dead; he cannot possibly be back to do the same.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We can still insist that preference for any religion should be removed from the constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is more pointed because religious fanatics attacked us in the name of that religion.

There will be reactions regarding the cultural norms, historic traditions of the country, blah, blah, blah.

The only valid response is that is very good but we cannot allow it since religious fanatics started this war in the first place.

Otherwise, picture Japan after WWII: Their leaders want to keep Shintoism as the state religion because of cultural norms, historic traditions of the Japanese, etc.

The reponse was NO. Japanese people can believe whatever they want but the government CANNOT sanction any religion. In particular, it cannot endorse the religion that was used as an excuse to attack us in the first place in Pearl Harbor.

If McArthur had left shintoism as state religion, the current Emperor could today send Kamikazes into New York in the name of Japanese religion. After all the Emperor would still be God per government policy.

Was McArthur a Shintophobic. No it just made sense to remove religion from the Japanese constitution and government.

Posted by: 2pacshakur at January 23, 2008 1:53 PM

'The reponse was NO. Japanese people can believe whatever they want but the government CANNOT sanction any religion. In particular, it cannot endorse the religion that was used as an excuse to attack us in the first place in Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: 2pacshakur '

.....RELIGION was never involved in Japans decision to bomb Pearl Harbor....

"The Japanese attacked for mainly one reason, to rid the United States threat in the Pacific Ocean so Japan could easily conquer all the island nations "

....The Attack was strictly a Military move...no religion involved...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 23, 2008 5:19 PM

exsgtbrown says:

.....RELIGION was never involved in Japans decision to bomb Pearl Harbor....

"The Japanese attacked for mainly one reason, to rid the United States threat in the Pacific Ocean so Japan could easily conquer all the island nations "

....The Attack was strictly a Military move...no religion involved...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Removing the US from the Pacific may be the reason for the war, but the religion placed a part in allowing the Japanese leaders unquestioned following for their policies. After all, they were using the God-Emperor as the common thread in pursuit of Japanese supremacy. Every gun had the chrysantemum stamp of the Emperor-God that everyone had to obey.

If the religion was no part at all, how come Mc Arthur relegated Shintoism to personal religion and not part of a state-sponsored religious framework as before the war?

Posted by: 2pacshakur at January 23, 2008 5:53 PM

"If the religion was no part at all, how come Mc Arthur relegated Shintoism to personal religion and not part of a state-sponsored religious framework as before the war?

Posted by: 2pacshakur"

...Unlike most other religions, Shinto has no real founder, no written scriptures, no body of religious law, and only a very loosely-organized priesthood.

....During Japans consquests in the 20th century, their Shitoism was never used as reasoning for their military action, the people they conquered were not forced to submit to it,

Shinto is a tolerant religion which accepts the validity of other religions. It is common for a believer to pay respects to other religions, their practices and objects of worship.

MacArthur’s contempt(no doubt influenced by the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of Japanese soldiers on the battlefield or in prison camps) for Japanese religion was at odds with his unfortunate decision to keep Emperor Hirohito -- the living symbol of State Shinto -- in power and use him to communicate U.S. directives to the Japanese people.

....generally speaking MacArthur was a military general, not a theologian. He
declared that Japanese religion was not to be used "to conceal ultra-nationalism and militarism" -- a rather ironic twist considering the close, formal ties between the faith of the American missionaries and the U.S. military.

...Is there a connection between Japanese religion and Japanese military conquests...probably not....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 10:36 AM

duh_swami wrote:

Treadwell and his girl friend did not deserve to be eaten by the bear. Probably he should not have taken his girlfriend along. It seems he had such good success that he forgot the basic rule, wild animals are unpredictable.
....................

I think the above attitude you describe is pretty accurate for Amie Huguenard, who told friends she was nervous about being around the bears, but loved nature and figured her boyfriend knew what he was doing.

Timothy Treadwell's story is a lot darker. In Werner Herzog's documentary, Grizzly Man, you see him on camera in raptures describing the ultimate 'return to nature' that being eaten and digested by wild animals would represent.

I am still saddened by their terrible deaths, but I have no doubt that Treadwell, at least, was deliberately courting his violent end.

Some Westerners seem to have almost the same attitude--a fascination with a deadly Islam that would consume them.

Posted by: gravenimage at January 24, 2008 3:01 PM

exsgtbrown said:

...Is there a connection between Japanese religion and Japanese military conquests...probably not....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shinto is probably a great religion and all but the issue is how a state uses ANY religion. As long as the rulers are semi-enlightened there is no problem in marrying a religion to the state. As soon as the state leaders get not-so enlightened ideas (Japanese supremacy, clearing the path for the Mahdi, global caliphate), they use the religion to squash opposition with the sanction of Heaven.

I think that happened in Japan, and definitively is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq were the religion may not be so peaceful to begin with.

I'm just proposing it may be a good idea to decouple religion from the state in Afghanistan and Iraq. That way the spectacle of journalists getting the death penalty for reprinting something critical of a religion can be avoided.

Posted by: 2pacshakur at January 25, 2008 10:24 AM