The Battle of Tours

Homeland Security's Double-deal duplicity

2012-02-02T18:29:00.002+08:00

Just love those government reports on terrorism! What I love about them is seeing the new and inventive ways they have of turning their eyes away from reality. Remember the report on the Fort Hood Massacres? The one, which IIRC, was about 98 pages long and managed not to mention the word "Islam" even once, even though Nidal had been screaming "Allahu Akhbar" over and over, as he mowed down his fellow soldiers, and after having handed out copies of the Koran.
Now we have a two-fer, a double-deal, if you will, in the latest report from DOHS: Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008.
Simply put, there's a double duplicity:
First, the duplicity of lumping "Other crimes" with "Terrorism". Rather like lumping spiders and monkeys together and saying that you're analysing primate behaviour.
Second: the "fallacy of range". Going back to the 70s for terror, of course you're bringing in the leftist terror of the 70s and 80s. What we want to know is about the terror of today. I wrote about this "fallacy of range" in more detail at Terrorists are not Muslims... except for the 94% that are!
Shame on the DOHS, and its alleged "Center of Excellence". What PC crock!
H/T Judicial Watch.

Morgan Freeman: the Easy Reader

2012-02-02T16:39:00.000+08:00

This is really cool! Discovered it appropriately enough, on Discover Magazine's Cosmic Variance Blog, where Sean Carrol posted it as "Mind = Blown"... He says that many years before he went through the wormhole, Morgan Freeman was the Easy Reader on a '70's kids program. And he also notes that the theme song is a dead ringer for Amy Winehouse's "Rehab". "Flip back and forth between playing them if you don't believe me", says Sean.
Here's Morgan, cool, man...

And here's Amy

"The Third Jihad": see it for yourself and make your own judgement

2012-02-02T10:14:00.004+08:00

There's been a big hullaballoo about a new documentary called "The Third Jihad". The first two Jihads were: (1) the expansion, by military conquest, of Islam throughout North Africa, Southern and Eastern Europe in the centuries after the death of Muhammad. And (2): the Ottoman Empire, which extended to Eastern Europe until defeated in WW1. The "Third Jihad" the makers of the documentary take as being from the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 to today.
Now the hullaballoo: Mayor Bloomberg is denouncing the film, and the Council of American Islamic Relations, CAIR, itself a branch of the Brotherhood is calling for it to be banned. Various groups have called it a hate-film.
You can see the doco here, to make up your own mind.
Clare Lopez, an ex CIA officer, speaks plainly and clearly about the film; she doesn't come across as a red-neck "Islamophobe" -- hear her on the vid below. Note her statement that CAIR is the Hamas representative in the US, as proved by in US courts in the Holy Land Foundation trial of 2008. Hamas, in turn, is an arm of the Brotherhood, as stated in the opening paragraph of the Hamas Charter.

BTW:

Should we deal with the Muslim Brotherhood?
There are some who say that since the Muslim Brotherhood is so anti-western and committed to bringing down the west, (in its own words,"eliminating and destroying western civilization from within...") that we should not deal with them.
But we knew that the Soviet Union was also committed to destruction of the west, but had extensive dealings with them. So, I think we should deal with the MB and its arms such as CAIR, and even Hamas. Just that we should be very clear as to who they are, and what they want, not believe in fairy tales that they are, underneath it all, just would-be democrats and freedom-lovers at heart. Nor should we allow members of outfits such as CAIR to work in government, certainly not in senior positions.

Is this film McCarthyist?
"No it isn't", for the following reason: Communists were recognised as a danger to the US in the late 40s early 50s. It was just that McCarthy didn't find many, or falsely accused people of being communist, so "McCarthyism" became pejorative.
By contrast, members of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood related bodies, are not even recognised as a danger (FBI aside) by the Obama Administration, and hence are allowed free and open access to government officials, with no concern as to what the ultimate aim of the MB is -- as clearly stated by the Brotherhood itself, as above.

Mark Steyn should stick to his knitting

2012-02-01T15:11:00.002+08:00

Then again: what is his knitting? He's an expert on everything, isn't he?
I should say I really enjoy reading Steyn's pieces and his books. I'm a regular reader on his blog. He writes beautifully, wittily, pungently, cogently. Just not always correctly.
He's robust and correct in his writing on Islam, free speech, human rights and so on.
But when he writes about the US economy? Fuggedabout it.
Take his latest piece, "Sorry, Newt, only the debt ceiling will reach the moon".
He says the US has "unprecedented world-record brokeness". The US is not broke. Broke means you can't repay your debts, and is specifically defined as being when you can't pay the interest on your debt. The US interest payments on its debt is at 3% of GNP and was higher in the 80s (4%). Economists say that the level of concern is when interest repayments reach 12% of GNP. The US is a long way from that.
More: the US interest payment as percent of GNP is dropping. Just yesterday, for example, the US announced that it would need to borrow $US 400 billion less than was previously forecast, so interest payments are dropping, not increasing.
As for "world-record", they're only world-record because the US has a "world record" GNP. The US debt has been a "world record" since 1945, simply because of the size of its economy. And this debt is known as US Treasuries, a favoured safe-haven investment for investors. And they still are: US Treasury rates are at record lows. Were the debt (ie Treasuries) a concern, the markets -- something Steyn strongly supports (as do I) -- would have bid the prices down, and hence interest rates up. There's no hint of that. Clearly the markets know something Steyn doesn't.
He talks of the $US 1.5 trillion budget deficit. And indeed that's what it's projected to be. But it's coming down, by projections, and is nowhere near the high of the post-war levels. Again these levels of deficit are easily handled by issue of Treasuries.
He's wrong too about China. He talks scarily of the debt held by his invented "First National Bank of Shanghai". But as I showed here, the main US debt is owned by Americans. China only has about 7.5% of US debt. That's not something scary. China is the largest foreign holder of US debt and is not likely to sell, as the US is its major market.
So, no, Mark, the debt won't "reach the moon". It'll stay firmly planted on the earth: in the US to be specific.

One country, two cisterns

2012-02-01T14:45:00.000+08:00

Letter to South China Morning Post:
There has been a lot of correspondence recently about clashes between Mainlanders and Hongkongers over public manners.
Regina Yip says we should "learn from each other" (Opinion, Jan 29) and Anthony Cheung says “we must not live on past glory” (Insight, Jan 31). Fine as those principles sound, we must ask: who has more to learn from whom?
Speaking as one who has studied, lived and worked in China, and now lives in Hong Kong, I believe it’s the Mainland from Hong Kong.
I had my own experience recently of Hong Kong’s public manners coming into conflict with those of the mainland. In a shop in Pacific Place a group of mainlanders was smoking (in Pacific Place!). I said to them -- in Mandarin -- that they ought to stub out their cigarettes as there was a stiff fine for smoking indoors in Hong Kong. With some bad grace they did so. When they left, the shop staff thanked me. They said that whenever they told mainlanders they should not smoke, they were ignored...
There are other public manners we take for granted here, but which are not so on the mainland: orderly queuing, not spitting in the street, standing on the right on escalators, not eating on the MTR, and so on.
The mainland does have campaigns from time to time, to promote “spiritual civilisation”; in other words, “public manners”. But we already have them here. We should not feel ashamed to stand up for them. Why go backwards, only to need our own “spiritual civilisation” campaigns when public manners have deteriorated?
This goes further than the arguably trivial matter of public manners. Hong Kong’s success has been based on the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, transparent and clean bureaucracy, a robust ICAC, and so on. These are all issues the mainland is still grappling with. But we’re already there. Why should we be ashamed of that?
We should stand up for our public manners and for what’s made our success and not give them away because of well-meaning but mistaken notions of “learning from each other” or assuming that our “past glory” is somehow irrelevant to our present and future success.
Yours, etc,
PF

[PS: the "two cisterns" is a play on "One Country, Two Systems", the basis for government in Hong Kong, where we are very independent of the Mainland/Beijing and to the very different public toilet situations in China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong has the best-kept and cleanest in the world. China, mainland, the opposite. I didn't point this out in the letter....]

Schettino, "the careless one", steers Costa Concordia onto charted rock

2012-02-01T12:20:00.008+08:00

BBC: "Costa Concordia: Ship's previous close pass of Giglio"

Well, guess what? I looked up "the meaning of 'Schettino'" and got this:

“Schettino, for instance, can be a diminutive of Francesco; but it also translates as `

careless

. ”

Verbatim: VERBATIM: The Language Quarterly Vol XIX No 2

[I was actually looking to see if there was some meaning of "Schettino" that I could use in a smart-arsed title for this blog; but this'll do]

Schettino is, of course, the name of the captain of the ill-fated Costa Concordia, currently lying on her side at the North-east bit of the Island of Giglio in Italy, after a prang with a rock. And was he "careless"! Oh boy, was he ever!

The point of this rather off-topic post is this: to say that the accident was clearly and unequivocally the fault of Schettino, the "careless one".

When I first heard of the accident I said to Mrs Battle I said "it's the captain's fault". At the time -- and still today [*] -- Schettino was claiming he hit an "uncharted rock". But there's no way a rock around Giglio would be uncharted. Here in Hong Kong, where we've been sailing for many years, we use Chart-plotters and paper charts and there's no rock or reef that is not charted. I speak from some bitter experience, as we've hit a rock ourselves, and, yes, it was charted, but that's too long a story to go into. I also have charts from Navionics installed on my iPhone and it also has all the rocks and reefs charted -- so far we've not found any that aren't. Just to make sure, I installed Navionics for Europe and sure enough the rock the Costa hit is clearly marked. It's even now been labelled "Costa Concordia Rock"!

If all the rocks and reefs are indicated on charts of Hong Kong, occupied only for a hundred years or so, they are even more thoroughly marked for Italy, on seas sailed since Roman times.

There were some early comments that maybe the instruments failed on Costa. But again, that's a crock. On our boat we have the electronic charts. But if they fail --and they have, whilst on the ocean -- we have hand-held GPS back-up, also with charts loaded. And as final fail-safe there are the paper charts and sextant. Are we supposed to believe that a 115,000 tonne cruise vessel has less electronic and paper chart back up than our little yacht?

What happened was that Schettino -- carelessly -- came too close to the peninsula marked in the chart above. His carelessness was compounded by the fact that he was doing this "sail-by" at night. And was doing it "by sight" alone! It's notoriously difficult to tell the distance at night. What does puzzle me, though, is why none of his other crew on the Bridge didn't point out to him that he was sailing straight for the newly-named "Costa Concordia Rock", and I hope we learn about that in due course from the enquiry.

The chart above is from a BBC report, which indicates that the "incident" happened in the middle of the circle. It didn't. Where she hit was at the bottom left of the circle above, where the peninsula sticks out. There's a rock just to the right of the little island you can see there (I'm sorry I don't know how to mark it on the picture), which is at depth of 7.3 m. That's marked -- on my iPhone Navionics Chart!! [To be precise: 42 21.333' N 10 55.830' E. Copy/paste that into Google Maps and see where it takes you. No big ship should be there].
Costa draws 8.2 m, so there you have the reason for the "incident" -- 8.2m doesn't divide into 7.3m. Mind you, that 7.3m is the minimum depth at Lowest Astronomical Tide, and since tides around there are perhaps 1 metre, he must have hit it at low tide. Had the tide been high, he may have just passed over it. Bad Luck? Uh-uh: bad management: "careless"!

In any case, for a captain to take a huge cruise liner, close to land, at night, by sight, all of these mean he's...

I don't touch here on the egregious way Schettino acted after the prang: leaving the ship early, refusing to return, and so on. So that his name, in addition to meaning "careless", will also become a synonym for "coward". One take on this, amongst dozens: Mark Steyn's "No more women and children first".

***********

[*]: AFP story in today's South China Morning Post is behind a paywall. It says:
"He [Schettino] says he took the ship on "tourist navigation" to bring it close to Giglio but that the reef he hit wasn't on his nautical charts."
PF: "Impossible"!

Kos Kommenters are also ageing hippies

2012-01-31T17:07:00.015+08:00

Front page photo in the Canberra Times, 19 Sep 1970.
Your humble blogger, with pipe. Leftie of old...

Those dreadful Kommenters over at the Daily Kos are not just frat boys and sorority gals, as I thought. A reader who knows them much better than I says they are also "ageing hippie types". Well, that coulda been me too, folks, as I was certainly a hippie in the sixties, when the movement was born and burned brightest. As they say, "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there", or words to that effect. For they truly were times of Sex, Drugs and Rock & roll, and lucky to be at Uni at the time, we partook of each and every one of those "S-D-R".
Reminds me of the copper Gene Hunt in "Ashes to Ashes", who's leading a raid into some villain's house. To his troops he says "Right.... now, about police brutality,.... lots of it!". For us, sex -- lots of it -- drugs -- lots of them -- rock and roll -- lots of it. Remember, if you can, that this was when the groups like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, Blind Faith, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Them, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane, King Crimson, Keef Hartley, Procol Harum, etc, etc, etc, were new. New! (Holy Mackerel, even just writing them down, the sheer brilliance, all new, makes me breathless still).
And we'd go out and buy their albums the day they came out. Big, bright vinyl albums, with wonderful, artsy covers, sometimes hallucinatory, to go with the times, Surreal man! And play and play and play them, until someone at some booze and drug-fueled party stubbed a roach out on it, the sad demise of of too many of those vinyl visions of magic. Well, of mine, anyway.

Hauling myself back to the topic at hand: the Kos Kommenters. Well, as I said, that could've been me, with the same leftist views that we all had back then, in the sixties. For that's what we all were, we imbibed leftie-cum-socialism with the Kool Aid (which was indeed laced...). The great Neville Wran, Premier of NSW, a Labor man, was to talk dismissively decades later, of "chardonnay socialists". Well, we were "toke socialist" (or, more cruelly, "token socialists"; middle class kids calling for "dictatorship of the proletariat"). We were against the Vietnam war -- of course! -- we thought America was "Amerika" -- Yippie-cute! -- supported freedom fighters the world over, no matter how dictatorial: the Viet Cong, Che, Mao, the whole grisly montage.
But over time, I changed my thinking on some of these views. So while I'm certainly in the "aging" category, I's a hippie no more.
First to go was belief in Socialism. This happened as a result of experience: I went to China to study Mandarin for two years in 1976-77 and worked there in the Embassy until '83 (later was to work again in China in the nineties and am still in Hong Kong). That was still the time when China had "closed doors", and I only got to study there because I was sponsored by Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs. If I had any illusions about socialism, they were shattered by the experience in China, which still called itself socialist at the time. The flagrant corruption of the system, the way it kept people under its boot, the inefficiency of the economy, of food distribution (we had to have ration coupons for all our daily food needs from rice to meat), of factories (we went to work at two factories as part of out education), the sheer futility of so much of daily life, the grindingness, the tedium of it -- all in such huge contrast to what I've seen since in China. All that made me change my mind about socialism and plump for good ol' capitalism as the way to generate the best for the most (paraphrasing Churchill, "the worst system; except for all the others").
Other quaintly or fondly held beliefs of my hippiedom days also went by the board, as I trod along life: like the sanctity of trade unions. Having been a TU member and then later in life, in Hong Kong, the boss of a business, I reached my conclusion that they're an anachronism, at least the way they're currently structured; they more often impede progress and welfare for workers of the world than help them "Unite!" under feeble banners.
And now to my favourite subject: Islam. My views on that changed, as for so many people, in the wake of 9/11. I've described elsewhere how that came to pass; not immediately after 9/11, but after hearing the repeated claims -- by W. Bush, amongst others -- that Islam is a "Religion of Peace". How does that gel, I wondered eventually, with the ongoing attacks after 9/11 and the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic opinion leaders, who I learnt were "imams". "sheikhs" and "ayatollahs".
So I read the texts, the core documents of Islam, the "Trilogy" and then got onto blogs about Islam. And there you have it.
What seems to have happened to these "elderly hippie types", the Kommeters on Kos, is that they haven't modified their views one jot. And they're proud of that! They shouldn't be. I recall a saying, I think by John Maynard Keynes, when confronting in debate someone who appeared to be proud of his unwavering views on such-and-such a topic. "How often do you change your shirt, Sir?" asked Keynes. "Why, once day of course", replies the fellow. "And how often do you change your views?", asks Keynes. "Never!" says the man proudly. "How unsanitary", says Keynes. One should change ones views on the basis of changed evidence. That's only sanitary.
And that's what I -- and millions like me -- have done on the issue of Islam. If I had a view of Islam before 9/11 it would've been something like Islam is just another religion, like the others, full of fairy tales, and not for me, atheist that Iv'e been since age nine. Just like all the others, equally uplifting, equally silly, as the case may be.
Oh, how I learnt the opposite! Islam is unique, is very much different from other world religions, from all of them, especially the two most often lumped with it: Christianity and Judaism.
But the Kommeters at Kos? No, no, they've hewed to the deluded comfort of the sixties, kumbaya, Islam is the "religion of peace" and all that. Views unchanged, unruffled, by reality.
"How unsanitary", as Keynes would say...

********

A reader has sent me a note about the issue of: "is there a moderate Islam"?
This exercises a lot of minds Muslim and non. It's critical to whether or not we manage to get on with Islam.
My own view is that there is one Islam, as defined in the Koran. And also reflected in the Sira, the life of Muhammad, as he's revered as the "perfect man" in Islam. And that these reveal a violent ideology. However, that's not to say that there aren't many millions of peaceable Muslims, even "secular" Muslims, if that's not a contradiction in terms (it is, but let's leave it for now...). But there's no really moderate Islam. I've often quoted Turkish PM Erdogan on this: "... there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam, and that's it".
Nonetheless, strategically, I think we have to act as if there is. We have to deal with, and make common cause with, those Muslims who self-identify with moderation. Otherwise the task of trying to get on, to share the world, is simply too big. I've said a bit more about this before.

Canadian Honour Killing conviction: interview with MCC spokesman

2012-01-31T10:26:00.006+08:00

Letter to BBC:
You carried yesterday an interview with a spokesman from the Muslim Canadian Congress. He claimed that (1) the Shafia killings should not be called “honour killings”, but murder for “ego” or similar, and (2) that they had nothing to do with Islam.

But: (1): Honor killing is defined as the “killing of family ... member... due to the belief that the.. victim has brought dishonor on the family...”. . Mr Shafia repeatedly said, in phone intercepts, that he had killed his daughters because they had impugned his honour, and in Court repeatedly claimed that the most important thing to him was his “honour” (while of course lying about his involvement; some “honour”...). That is: “Honour” was the sole motivation for the killings.

And (2): Mr Shafia also specifically said that his daughters had impugned Islam. Islamic Law does not mandate “honour killing”, but permits and enables it. There is to be no penalty under Islamic law, for the killing of one’s children. The most authoritative manual of Islamic Jurisprudence says:

“not subject to retaliation is a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.”
(Umdat al-Salik O1.1-2; 2.4*)

Question: how can the phenomenon of “honour killings” (UN says at least 5,000 per year worldwide), be tackled if the prime motivation and enabler for it -- “honour” and Islamic Law -- are denied, by the likes of the MCC spokesman?
Yours, etc,
PF

**********

* For Umdat al-Salik, see sidebar on left for link: in English it's "The Reliance of the Traveller". This is a must-have reference guide for anyone interested in Islam and Sharia law.

"Geert Wilders Says There's No Such Thing as Moderate Islam"

2012-01-30T17:41:00.008+08:00

I picked up the latest Newsweek the other day, when I had nothing else to read and liked the cover. Mind, I don't often pick up Newsweek; it's hopelessly leftie, but of a sort that I can't abide usually: that is, simplistic, shallow, insipid. Not at all like, say, the The New Yorker, also a leftie mag, which I happily read from week to week, or The Atlantic, ditto.
The "Newsweek magazine" inside had a longish story by Christopher Dickey about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, titled as above, and subtitled: "Can't Someone Tell Geert Wilders to Stop His Anti-Muslim Diatribes Before Somebody Gets Hurt?".
This is a trashy piece, long on ad hominem short on analysis of what Wilders has actually said in his years talking on the topic of Islam. And the sub-title's a shocker. For a start, Wilders doesn't do "diatribes" against Muslims, but speeches against the ideology of Islam (for Dickey, I guess it's a "speech" if he agrees with it; a "diatribe" if he doesn't). Muslims as people and Islam as ideology are very different things; Wilders has been at pains to point this out time and again. Dickey may not know this, in which case he's inexcusably ignorant, or he knows and doesn't care, or mixes the two deliberately duplicitously, to heighten the impression that Wilders is a "bigot" and "islamophobe".
I think Wilders has made a tactical error in calling for the banning of the Koran. I know why he does it: he says that if Mein Kampf is banned, then for consistency so should the Koran, for it's equally supremacist and anti-semitic. But he'd be better calling for no book banning rather than more -- indeed he does call for a European First Amendment, to entrench freedom of speech. A grand idea and one that he ought to highlight ahead of book banning...
But by calling for a banning of the Koran, that's what gets the news and makes it easy for his critics to label him extremist. ("bigoted diatribes by the Muslim-hating book burner!")
And some of his other views are expressed with a pungency that borders on confrontationalism. The wonderful anti-jihad fighter, Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggests that some of Wilders' views could be somewhat more carefully expressed, and I agree with her.
But as to whether he's peddling lies about Islam: he's not. There's much discussion in Islamic and non-Islamic circles about Islam vs moderate Islam, and whether Islam can be reformed. It's doctrinally consistent and correct to say that there is only one Islam, and therefore no such thing as a "moderate Islam".
Muslims themselves say this.
Take Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan who has said: "There is no such thing as moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam's Islam and that's it.". So, is Erdogan an "Islamophobe"?
Still, I think there's some strategic sense in acting as if there's a moderate Islam. [eg]
But, back to Wilders, it's not at all incorrect to argue that Islam's Islam, and that according to its core texts it's inherently violent.
Now, the article by Dickey, referenced above, is a case of what Bruce Bawer says "... this is what happens, alas, when a mind is so besotted with ideology as to blind itself to even the most obvious of realities".
What is encouraging, though, is that the comments tear into Dickey and his views (if we can dignify his half-digested inanities as "views"). They're having none of his rubbish. In that sense they're like the commenters on a recent Karen Armstrong apologist piece in The Guardian, in which they tore into her duplicitous piece on an exhibition of the Hajj. In this regard, the readers of Newsweek and The Guardian stand in stark contrast to those on the Daily Kos, where they are willfully ignorant of Islam -- which doesn't stop them, however, from heaping contumely on someone who does (E.A. Bell). I wrote about that here, et. praecedente.

"Ban the Burqa"

2012-01-30T16:49:00.001+08:00

Speaking of the Burka (see my immediately preceding post), it should be recalled that there are many Muslim women, especially in western countries, who would be more than happy to see a ban on the Burka. They don't want to see imported into the west this antediluvian anachronism, the medieval and non-religiously-mandated tent forced on women by male-dominated fundamentalist Islamic societies. I have noted this before, eg here and here.
I recently came across another article by a woman in favour of the Burka ban (though not, I assume, a Muslim), "Ban the Burqa", by Claire Berlinski. She acknowledges the arguments against banning the burka:

These bans are outrages against religious freedom and freedom of expression. They stigmatize Muslims. No modern state should be in the business of dictating what women should wear. The security arguments are spurious; there are a million ways to hide a bomb, and one hardly need wear a burqa to do so. It is not necessarily the case that the burqa is imposed upon women against their will; when it is the case, there are already laws on the books against physical coercion.

But she comes out in favour of a ban anyway, on the following practical ground, one that affects all women in western societies:

If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.

On the issue of whether the burka is mandated by Islam (it isn't), see this video of 25th Jan by Michael Coren [h/t BCF]:

Muslima (?) and Child (II)

2012-01-30T16:28:00.003+08:00

"The Western Burqa?"

I posted about this last month here.
I got an answer from my old mate:

"Thanks for your interesting discourse on the drawing based on Da Vinci's work.

"I don't think I will see a pale breast poking out of a dark burka on any local streets, but I suppose it must happen behind doors. I wonder if public breast feeding as common in JC's time? Was Leonardo's painting something commonplace?

"Here is a photo of a life size sculpture recently completed -- The Western Burqa?

All the best..."

I must say, I didn't realise that the original drawing was a comment on medieval (or biblical) mammary mores... So I'm still no clearer as to whether the original drawing was meant as irony or moral equivalence.

Still, the question my mate raises -- "was breast feeding common in JC's time?" -- led me to an interesting post here. It would seem that it was, as there were paintings in Roman times with public breast-feeding...

Am I too soft on China?

2012-01-28T18:42:00.003+08:00

I do get that criticism from some of my mates and mate-ettes... That I seem to be an apologist for China.
All I'd say about this is that I write in defense of China because (1) it's not as bad as people make out and (2) it's on "our side" when it comes to the big issue of today: the battle between Islam and The Rest.
For example, in a recent post on one of my favourite sites, Blazing Cat Fur, the link was to a site by an "Binks". I found the post by Binks so ignorant that I had to respond and I did so here.
Then, I came across the SCMP article below. For those that don't want to read it all, here's the guts:

The amount of US Treasuries owned by China: 7.5%
The amount of US consumption provided by China: 2.7%

In other words, the whole scary thing of China controlling US debt and swamping consumers with "Made in China" products is just so much rubbish.

Big bad China? US crying wolf

Despite the political posturing, Americans still hold most of their country's debt, and still make most of the profit off everything that's sold there

Kevin Rafferty
Updated on Jan 26, 2012

Here is a simple two-question quiz for the start of the Year of the Dragon. Sorry, these are not trivia - the world economic mess is too serious - but important questions whose answers are clearly not understood by politicians, particularly in the US, given their posturing.

The questions are: how much is the US dependent on China's goodwill in buying US treasuries to pay for American profligacy? And how much do spendthrift Americans rely on China to feed their greedy habit for cheap consumer goods? Please give percentage figures.

If you were to ask the average American, and probably the average world-aware Chinese, you would probably get a high number - up to 50 per cent, especially for consumer purchases, surely not below 20 per cent. Try the questions at a family get-together to mark the new year.

The correct answers are so low as to make you blink. China, including Hong Kong, holds about 7.5 per cent of US Treasuries totalling US$14 trillion, according to calculations based on US Treasury reports from late 2010. China's share of US consumption expenditure is just 2.7 per cent based on "Made in China" imports, and the true figure is a paltry 1.2 per cent, according to recent research done by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

These figures should make politicians and opinion-makers think hard about the implications not only for policy, but also for the way they approach economic relationships. The lessons are that they need to think more, and be more careful about slinging mud about unfair trade practices or demanding protection.

In fact, 42.2 per cent of US Treasuries are held by American institutions and individuals, 17.9 per cent by the Social Security Trust Fund and other slices of 6 per cent and 2.1 per cent by the US Civil Service Retirement Fund and US Military Retirement Fund.

This means that almost 70 per cent of American debt is held by Americans. "We depend far less on the kindness of strangers than you might imagine if you listen to the intertubes," says Barry Ritholtz in his blog the Big Picture.

China's big holding reflects both the fact that the US dollar is still the world's pre-eminent reserve currency, and the Faustian bargain struck between the two countries as China geared up its exporting machine and American consumers welcomed a surfeit of its goods.

But even when it comes to dressing and amusing Americans, the US is a long way from having sold out the family store to China. Dr Galina Hale and Dr Bart Hobijn of the San Francisco Fed, who write for the bank'sFRBSF Economic Letter, say: "Although globalisation is widely recognised these days, the US economy remains relatively closed. The vast majority of goods and services sold in the United States is produced here. In 2010, imports were about 16 per cent of US gross domestic product. Imports from China amounted to 2.5 per cent of GDP."

They analyse the figures in terms of US personal-consumption expenditures and found that in 2010, 88.5 per cent of US spending was on items made in the United States, leaving a foreign share of 11.5 per cent, including 2.7 per cent for China.

Authors Hale and Hobijn have another important service to render in their research. They point out that: "If a pair of sneakers made in China costs US$70 in the United States, not all of that retail price goes to the Chinese manufacturer. In fact, the bulk of the retail price pays for transportation of the sneakers into the United States, rent for the store where they are sold, profits for the shareholders of the US retailer, and the cost of marketing the sneakers. These costs include the salaries, wages and benefits paid to the US workers and managers who staff these operations."

Their analysis of the costs show that of the 11.5 per cent of US consumer spending on goods and services, 7.3 per cent is the import cost and the other 4.2 per cent is for US activities. But they add that in the case of imports from China, the US share is much greater: the true cost of the imported goods from China is not 2.7 per cent, but 1.2 per cent - since the rest of the price goes into US pockets.

"On average, of every dollar spent on an item labelled "Made in China", 55 cents go for services produced in the United States," Hale and Hobijn write.

The authors say that this is because retail and wholesale margins are higher on consumer electronics and clothing than on other items. But it is also because many of the imported goods are produced in factories in China at the direct behest of companies like Wal-Mart and Apple, and the Americans have used their muscle to keep labour costs at rock bottom.

There are complex moral issues here about whether big US retailers should pay "slave wages" in China and other poorer countries, or raise wages and cut margins or raise prices to continue domestic production.

But the intimate connection between powerful Americans and China's export policy shows the hypocrisy of political demands for protection to keep the Chinese intruders out. I am tempted to revise the old saying and claim that there are lies, damned lies and politics (not statistics as in the original).

My critique of Eric Allen Bell's article

2012-01-28T16:58:00.012+08:00

In my post just before this one I criticised those who took the hammer to E.A.Bell ("Daily Kos Kommentors"), for his article here. I was shocked, to be frank. I expected that they would take him to task. What I didn't expect was that they would simply heap ordure on him from a great height without even looking at, let alone understanding, the guts of what he had to say. I was shocked that the comments were virtually 100% ad hominem. (and that the one or two comments that took them to task for being ad hominem were themselves labelled... gulp!... ad hominem!)
A question then arises: was his article worthy of such contumely? Was it really that risible, that horrible, that ignorant, that bigoted?
Answer: NO.
I've got through his article sentence by sentence. It's all true and verifiable not only according to western analysts, but also according to Islamic sources.
There's only one statement that I'd quibble with, but then only in terms of his being a bit "boisterous", or "confrontational". And that's his first statement:

Imagine a man who is the equivalent of perhaps 100,000 Osama Bin Ladens in terms of the violence he conducted in his lifetime in the name of religion. [emphasis in the original]

Saying 100,000 times Osama bin Ladens means, in death terms, 3,000 x 100,000 which is 300 million. Now there are figures around that the number of deaths owing to Islam, since Muhammad, is about 270 million. I'm sure that figure is questionable, though I'm sure also that it could be confirmed, or largely substantiated. That doesn't matter. The point is: it's a touch confrontational to state that right at the outset and is only going to raise hackles.
As for the rest of the statements, they are all verifiable from Islamic sources, either the Koran, the Hadith or the Sira, the life of Muhammad.
So, why would the Kos Kommertors simply heap ordure on E.A. Bell without taking issue with his statements? [I dunno. Possible answer: Hive Mind]
One characterisation for sure, one that is for sure not ad hominem... it's bigotry. ("complete intolerance of any... opinion... that differs from one's own") [ref].
Read the Komments on the Kos and see if they're not completely intolerant of any opinion differing from their own...
Encouragingly, it's not all bad on the Left: The Guardian, also left-wing, carried a risible article by Islam apologist Karen Armstrong. But in this case, the commentors, almost all critical of Armstrong, were knowledgeable, cogent, substantive. That is: non ad hominem. Not bigoted. Willing to hear the other side.
Surprise: Hurrah Guardian!

My critique of the Daily Kos' Kommentors

2012-01-25T20:48:00.007+08:00

"Me? You talkin to me?..."

The other day I stumbled into a Frat house, Alpha Beta Beta [*], and found a food fight in progress. Cup cakes being thrown at one poor sod, hotdogs splattered on him. It was a wild, screaming orgy of anger, a victual lynching. “What’s going on here?” I asked. “That guy said our Frat house has a hole in the roof”, said one, munching on a waffle, while lining up for another strike at this dissenter. I looked up and saw a hole in the roof. “But, there is a hole….” I said, but was interrupted….

… by reality. Because that’s not what happened at all. It’s just what it felt like when I visited the virtual Frat house, the comments section of the Daily Kos. A bunch of unruly youngsters letting loose on one of their members who’d merely stated the truth in one of his posts (articles on Kos, by the way, have a cutesy name: a “diary”. You need to know this to understand the comments).

So I thought I’d do a critique of the comments for you.

First, I suspect they’re young. They strike me as being undergraduate. That would account for the short, sharp and direct comments, allowing no room for doubt. They have the surety and brevity of youth. I suspect they’re undergrads for that would account for their views about Islam. Since the imbibing of the “Orientalism” lore of Edward Said by academe, any criticism of Islam has been taboo, and it’s accepted wisdom of the Academy that it’s the “religion of peace”, with any violence done in its name only by those who have “hijacked” it. Poor dears, they can’t be held accountable for their baleful ignorance for it was foisted on them. They need only to keep their minds open and read and they’ll eventually come out of their fug. Maybe.

They are also all of a type. There is hardly a dissenting word in all 270 of them. Anyone who does dissent is rapidly dealt with, showered with an avalanche of virtual victuals, the food fight farrago.

The comments are almost all, almost each and every one, ad hominem. That is, they criticise the Diarist, not the contents of his post.

But they don’t know the meaning of ad hominem, it seems. There’s one comment that actually does make a substantive point – that the commentors should focus on the content of the article, not simply blast the writer as “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, etc. That one, rare, substantive comment is dealt with how? By being called ad hominem! Or, in the cutesy-speak of the Kos, it’s called “ad-hom”.

I’ve done some heavy lifting here on these comments and counted the number of times they use ad hominem comments themselves. Here are the results:

They call Eric Allen Bell the following:

Sockpuppet: 24 times

Bigot: 20 times

Troll: 17 times

Islamophobe: 4 times

The terms “sockpuppet” and “troll” are particularly beloved of Leftist sites. What happens is this: if someone agrees with an article that the regular residents of the site find offensive, they will label that person a “sockpuppet”. In other words, they are saying that the commentor is in fact the writer of the article posing as a commentor in another guise.

That’s an extraordinary assumption, but it achieves the aim of alienating the article’s writer as being one who cannot possibly have anyone else supporting him, only himself in disguise. I’ve had experience of this myself: I’ve been on another Leftist site supporting an unpopular post, and have been labelled a sockpuppet of the writer, when it’s been just little ol’ me, folks.

And the other one they love to toss around is “Troll”. If they’re not a sockpuppet, then they’re a Troll. A “troll” is:

an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war

Why can’t someone have a view, and express that view, without being labelled a Troll? That, I don’t get.

As for “bigot”, consider the meaning of the word:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

In the case of EAB, the way in which he presents his argument is the opposite of bigotry. He clearly sets out his argument and allows for, indeed invites, opposite views and efforts to refute. What he does not ask for, or deserve, is simply to be heaped with contumely, while his argument, the substance of his article, is ignored. Indeed, looking again at the definition of “bigot”, doesn’t it seem that the commentors on Kos are rather themselves deserving of the label, not EAB? Are they not “intolerant of any differing… opinion”?

Moreover note this: that EAB does not put forward his argument as a long-held view. It’s a conclusion he’s come to recently, as a result of reading and analysis. That, by itself, argues against bigotry, for he has changed his world view, in other words not at all “utterly intolerant of any differing…opinion”.

Mind you, not all Leftist sites are as intolerant, closed-minded, herd-instincted, not all are swarms of hive-minded bigots. … Take the recent post in The Guardian, a certainly Left-of-centre publication. On 21 Janurayr they published a piece by Karen Armstrong (h/t BCF), a very Islam-apologist piece. The hundreds of comments bore two characteristics, so different from those on the Kos: First, they were argued at some length, more than the usual one or two smart-arsed words of a typical KosKommenter. Two, they eviscerate the lazy, sloppy and plain wrong statements of Armstrong. And that’s despite the fact that Armstrong pushes a line that’s usually swallowed whole by the Left: Islam as the tolerant “religion of peace”. In other words, the commentors at the Guardian have some knowledge and some integrity. Those at the Kos are a bunch of – ad hominem warning! – ignorant swarming bigots.

Selected posts and PF comments thereon: [the heading of each post is in bold in the original and is labelled with orange figures in brackets, the number of positive or neg ticks that it gets. In some cases there's bold in the body, which is bolded by me, PF]

He's not replying because he's a fraud and (11+ / 0-)

a fucking coward [here]

PF: in what sense can EAB be considered a “coward” when he’s posted something he knows will bring the wrath of the wrighteous on him?

Religion or people, the world is complicated. (21+ / 0-)

Wasn't long ago, certainly in my lifetime, that blacks were second class citizens, which some could argue is still so. Same with women and other minorities.  Thinking that the Islamists are trying to spread Sharia Law all over the world does sound kind of like Islamophobia. [here]

PF: where to begin here? There is an embarasse of richesse of Islamists who are trying to spread Sharia law: from those in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya to those in the west such as the various Sharia4UK, Sharia4Germany, Sharia4[xx] and the Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts in the west, which have as their clear and unambiguous aim the imposition of Sharia law. The majority of Muslims in Muslim countries want Sharia law and a large minority, sometimes a majority, of Muslims in the west want Sharia law as well. What’s “Islamophobic” about pointing that out, unless you simply don’t know that that’s the case.

Needlessly inflammatory (20+ / 0-)

This diary serves no useful purpose and should be deleted. [here]

PF: shut down debate. That’s the way.

you might want to take a look (28+ / 0-)

at the history of some other major religions. then maybe you wouldn't come off as such a bigot. or maybe you still would. [here]

PF: the old “all religions are the same, all equally violent” argument. We don’t deny the violence of Christianity, etc, just that it’s largely historical. The violent religion of today is Islam. There’s no other like it.

A similar list could be made for (21+ / 0-)

Christianity, at least since it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Religions don't like competition, and get nasty when challenged, even in small ways. Even Hinduism has violent extremist adherents. Be thankful for the American 'tradition' started by Roger Williams, of separation of church and state, and freedom of belief, it is battered but still standing. [here]

Hinduism? When was the last time we had a major Hindu atrocity?

I have done an analysis of religious terrorism and Islam comes out as 98% of violent groups.

Well, at least you've finally come clean. (20+ / 0-)

You hate just about everybody, don't you?

One day you're accusing each and every single person who ever served in the USMC of being a serial killer, and on the next you're spouting your unreasoning hatred of Muslims.

About time for you to find another site to troll, Bell. [here]

PF: He specifically doesn’t come out as being “spouting ..unreasoning hatred of Muslims.” He says that most Muslims don’t hew to the violence of Islam. And that’s true. What he says is that Islam is inherently violent. And that’s true too.

You could argue with this one (22+ / 0-)

until you are blue in the face. He wraps himself in a cloak of liberalism to justify freely expounding this bigotry. When confronted, he doubles down and insists this progressive site has it all wrong and that we are lock-step lemmings who are too mired in political correctness to think independently. As Barney Frank said, you may as well argue with a table. [here]

PF: “when confronted”?? He’s not been “confronted”. No one had challenged him on what he’s said; they’ve only attacked him as being a “bigot”, or “islamophobe”. There’s not been any real confrontation of the points he makes in his post.

E, without a doubt. (10+ / 0-)

Muslims and tigers and bears, oh my! [here]

PF: by voting “E: this person is admitting to not having read or analysed any of the contents of Bell’s post

A freeper did this? (8+ / 0-)

I vaguely remember, perhaps from Karen Armstrong's book, that Muhammad, the Prophet, held Christianity in high esteem.

When his followers were threatened by the idol-worshipers, he sent them to seek protection from a Christian king.

He also followed some Jewish tradition, like bowing towards Jerusalem, fasting, etc.

Darn, it's late, and I'm too sleepy to think straight.

Anyway, if Islam is the religion of the sword, then Christianity is the religion of the bullet. Neener-neener-neener.

Or something like that. :-)

Hmm, maybe I should've waited until I'm less sleepy before I write a reply. [here]

PF: I’ve read a number of Armstrong’s books. I did so after reading the core documents of Islam: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah. After those and then reading her, I found her books duplicitous, in error either by omission of commission. This poster “vaguely remembers”… who? An Islamopologist who’s duplicitous?. You don’t need to believe my view of Armstrong. Have a look at the comments on a recent article of hers on the left-of-centre The Guardian here.

Note then the moral equivalence of Islam’s sword and Christianity’s “bullets”. On 9/11 Osama attacked the US, when the US had not troops in Muslim lands. The US counter attacked. And that’s “Christianity as the religion of bullets”?

E for sure (10+ / 0-)

This diary should be deleted.[here]

PF: censorship

Hmmm... (15+ / 0-)

Do you have proof for the all of the things you suggest?

And by the way, you can add other religions to the list of those who have murdered, oppressed, and tortured, all in the name of their religion.

As for the question, I think you ARE a Islamophobe who wants to group all Muslims in with a small group of fundamentalist, extremist Muslims. [here]

PF: “proof”? There’s a vast amount of proof of the “things” EAL “suggests”, the clearest being the core documents of Islam: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah. Then there’s the practice of Islam and its 14,000 acts of Jihad since 9/11.

“Other religions … who have murdered….[etc]”: of course, but that’s in the past. Today, 94% of terrorist acts are by those adhering to Islam.

If anyone finds the above comment harsh... (16+ / 0-)

please note that I've been calling this diarist out on his Islamophobic rants since Sunday. EAB has proven himself over a series of his diaries, commentary therein and commentary in another Kossack's diary to be little more than an attention-whoring bigot whose relationship to fact and truth is... tenuous. [here]

PF: there is nothing in EAL’s post that can be shown to be untrue. So in what way is his “relationship to fact [sic] and truth.. tenuous”]?

Your diary gets an "F" (14+ / 0-)

but your "poll" gets an "E". [here]

PF: by voting “E: this person is admitting to not having read or analysed any of the contents of Bell’s post

This is bigoted trolling and this user will (17+ / 0-)

not be long for this site.

All human history is a tale of small advances of civility over savagery, and savagery is right near the surface even today in the most advanced societies.

All major religions, even Buddhists and Hindus, even to this day have adherents who engage in savagery for religious reasons. That's human nature.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures, out of which grew Islam, are certainly filled with savagery, as many here have pointed out.

But religions also do a lot of good, and are generally a force for civility, and the great majority of religious people, in all traditions including Islam, are peaceful.

There is something very ugly about the way this diary attacks a prophet from the Dark Ages and then immediately jumps over 1400 years of history to cherry-picking miscellaneous outrages from some of today's Muslims.

Among other things, this is very unfair to the majority of Muslims who are decent people. About half of my law clients are Muslims, and in general they are extremely pious, intelligent, decent people. Troll Islamaphobic diaries like this are a real insult to them.

This user should be banned outright. He seems incapable of understanding why his approach is so revolting. And by the way, I'm not speaking here as a "leftist." I'm speaking here as a human being. [here]

PF: The prophet is considered the “perfect man” (Al-Insan al-Kamil). He is not just some “prophet from the Dark Ages”. Indeed to say so, as a Muslim, would be considered the worst blasphemy. As for “cherry picking miscellaneous outrageous”, what’s to cherry pick when the “outrages” are daily, in the Muslim world and beyond?

Again: we get the cal lfor this to be “banned outright”. That is, for censorship.

I don't like people cherrypicking religions: (10+ / 0-)

they are big and complicated and anyone can find a clause from a sacred book from a thousand years ago, a practice that nobody follows nowadays, or a problem with a founder, or a problem with the followers. And anyone can ignore the fundamental humanity of the adherents, too.

BTW, I don't like to see condemnation of a billion people out of some warped idea of progressive thought. [here]

PF: again, an argument that “the Bible and the Koran” are equally violent. But:

(1) The fact that the Bible is violent doesn’t excuse the Koran being violent.

(2) The Bible and the Koran are subject to the principle of abrogation. The New Testament abrogates the Old Testament of the Bible. Most Christians follow the NT. In the Koran, the Medinan verses abrogate the Meccan verses. Medina verses are more violent. Therefore verses which are more violent abrogate those which are more peaceable. All Muslims follow the Koran and the most recent verses, those that abrogate the earlier verses.

(3) The Bible is descriptive; the Koran is proscriptive. That is, the Bible tells us what’s happening. The Koran tell us what Must happen. Which leads to the most important difference:

(4): The Bible is written by Man. The Koran is the word of God. The Bible can be interpreted – and has been consistently subject to exegesis; the Koran cannot be interpreted since it’s the word of Allah.

In their own way (3+ / 0-)

believers who have dropped such ideas are also cherry picking.

But I agree about the blanket condemnation, and HR'ed the diarist for it. If he picked a specific, present-day problem caused by religious extremism, I think he'd find the audience much more receptive. He could be doing that instead of trying to make the entire religion, and all its believers, look dangerous. [here]

PF: where does this comment want us to begin, in picking “specific, present-day problems caused by religioius extremism”? What about Egypt and the killing of the Coptic Christians? Or Iran and the repression of its own people? Or Saudi and the repression of its women? Or, or….

Do you think people here (16+ / 0-)

Are stupid? [referring to this comment] You registered 3 days ago, the only comments you've made have been in EAB's diaries, and you use almost the same language he does about people who disagree with him. So let's pretend you aren't his sockpuppet, and ask you this- if the "vast majority" of Muslims across the world don't follow the archaic teachings of Muhammed, much like Christians ignore the rape, murder, patricide and genocide in the OT, that would make this and Eric's earlier diaries nothing but the rants of an islamaphobic ignorant fool, correct? [here]

PF: “archaic teachings of Muhhamed”?? That would be enough to get you a death sentence in many Muslim countries; Pakistan for example. Muhammad is the “perfect man” (Al-Insan al-Kamil). Muslims cannot “ignore” him, like “Christians ignore the rape, murder…” etc..

No, you are wrong. (11+ / 0-)

From the FAQ:

Do not troll rate people for expressing a contrary opinion, so long as it is expressed in a civilized fashion. The exceptions are for conservative talking points or debunked or false information; this isn’t a site for conservatives, they have entire swaths of the internet in which they can regale each other with their reality-impaired fantasies.

This is not a site for hatemongers or those who prop them up. If you do not accept that basic premise you are welcome to leave, or you will be shown the door. [here]

PF: this post is quite shocking to me: that you can only be of one thought-type, or you can’t post here.

this is a blog dedicated to (11+ / 0-)

Electing Democrats. One doesn't get in trouble for discussing conservative viewpoints here or for being a conservative. One gets in trouble for pushing bigoted screeds like the diary above or for registering a new account under a different name simply to give support to said bigoted screeds in an attempt to make it seem like there are people on this blog that support you. People who are trusted users can still see hidden comments, so please don't stop posting! [here]

PF: same as above: shocking that you can’t post here if you’re not of the Hive Mind.

[*] Alpha Beta Beta: A Bunch of Bigots.

The Bell tolls, it tolls for thee.. and thee heed not...

2012-01-23T17:30:00.001+08:00

I wrote about the wowie-zowie moment here, about Eric Bell's article on Islam.
It seems it's too much for the good readers of the Daily Kos, as reported here. Apparently Eric Bell has been banned from the site. So much for free speech. He did nothing but set out clear and unequivocal facts about Islam and the apologist site Loonwatch.com, of which I've had personal experience of their censorship, here.
What's interesting about the comments is this: on the Kos site, the comments are all ad hominem. That is: Bell is a bigot, a racist, an Islamophobe. And moral equivalence: the Bible is as bad as the Koran; Christianity (and Hinduism!...) is as bad as Islam. In short, not a single one that I read actually took to task any of the points raised by Bell.
On the JW site, by contrast the comments are along the lines of: the Kos commenters haven't read the core documents of Islam (as it seems clear they have not) and are seemingly incapable of facing facts (which it seems clear they are not). And they quote facts about Islam.
In short, Kos readers: ad hominem. JW readers: factual statements.
I do wonder why? What is it about these people that they deny the nose in front of their face? How can we have such massive cognitive dissonance?
[The cognitive dissonance: holding "progressive" views, such as belief in universal human rights, the rights of minorities, of women, freedom of speech and of conscience, tolerance of others, and all that, on the one hand. And on the other hand, spruiking for Islam, which stands in opposition to all these worthy goals, and is -- surely there can be no doubt about this -- the single most intolerant religious ideology on the planet].

Good to see REAL hate crimes being prosecuted...

2012-01-23T17:05:00.001+08:00

These are the men who want to set the agenda for how we
should live...[source]

It's a refreshing change to see real hate crimes being prosecuted -- that is, those in which people call for others to be killed for the "crime" of not being like they are: in this case for being gay. The usual reports of "hate crimes" tend to be about those who report on such issues and decry them. Those who point out the supremacist and violent nature of Islamism, for example; these are most often the messengers who are shot.
In this case the three men prosecuted had called for the killing of homosexuals. The only issue on which they had some dispute, it seems, is the method of execution: should they be burned, hanged or thrown off high roofs....
I heard a report about this on BBC World-service radio, in which a lady Muslim representative was denouncing these three men (good) and then went on to say that they did not represent the views of the "majority of Muslims in the UK" (wrong).
She's wrong statistically:
According to a survey in 2007, 70% of Muslims in the UK believe that "homosexuality is wrong and should be outlawed". That's at page 47 of the report "Living apart together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism", by Munira Mirza, Abi Senthilkumaran and Zein Ja'far (note: not a bunch of cranky white guys...).

Other report: The Guardian.

DO ask for whom Eric Bell tolls...

2012-01-22T11:48:00.004+08:00

He Tolls for Thee..
If Thee believe that Islam is just like any other religion, that Christianity is just as violent (or not) as Islam, that the Bible is just as bad (or good) as the Koran, that violent Jihadis have hijacked the "religion of peace", or any other such pabulum.
For this is a wowie-zowie moment!
In a left-of-centre website, The Daily Kos, the left-of-centre columnist, Eric Allen Bell writes some truth about Islam and its apologist website Loonwatch.com.
Bell's article is here.
I've had my own run ins with Loonwatch here. They really do censor their site, allowing comments only if they are supportive of their line, or critical ones only if they then have the last word and allow no refutation.
Bell is even more coruscating in his criticism than I have been. EG:

After over a year of communication with Loonwatch.com in the making of "Not Welcome" I have come to the realization that this organization is fundamentally a radical Islamic front, covering up for terrorism, spreading distorted information about the reality of rapidly spreading Islamic fundamentalism - through lies of omission. To tell a half truth is to tell a lie and the lie that Loonwatch.com tells everyday is to cover up the atrocities within Islam and only focus on attacking its critics. [source]

And he makes a remarkable mea culpa:

I have only recently come around to a hopefully more expansive point of view. When I finally read one of your [Robert Spencer] books for the first time, I kept waiting for the part where you would prove yourself to be a "Loon" so that I could stop reading, but that never happened :)

I watched the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" and wanted so badly to prove wrong what I had seen and heard - but I could not. This was not only humbling but it has caused me to really rethink and rethink the possibility that perhaps the truth is not politically correct. [source]

The JihadWatch post on Bell has interesting comments and discussion on whether the anti-jihad movement is, or should be, a Left vs Right thing. See the discussion here, especially the posts of "Tolerance Lives", et. seq. I agree with the line that it should not be a left/right thing, as what it's about is freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, equal rights for women and minorities. In other words, it's all about basic human rights that have been hard-won over centuries in the West. These are Rights that -- by rights -- should be the concern of the Left, but the "rights" of a fundamentally intolerant religion to oppress its women and minorities, have trumped the greater human rights, in the minds of too many on the Left. The more that open their eyes to the reality of a fundamentally intolerant ideology, the better.

Plump Prince: Pouff! or Prevail?

2012-01-21T15:18:00.004+08:00

Guitar Hero. Next stop: feather duster??

Will the new puffy dictator survive or will North Korea succumb to internal squabbles, even unto major change? I am refererring, of course, to the portly new child-tyrant, Kim Jong-un, son of Jong-il and grandson of Il-sung...

I nailed my colours to the mast, with an off-the-cuff prediction that he'd be a goner in a few months. I admit a minimal amount of analysis to make this judgement. I've visited North Korea: four times in the early eighties, doing some coking-coal business and at that time it seemed to me that maybe it was due for a China-style opening up. Of course that didn't happen, so that should be a guiding light, shouldn't it? Still, isn't enough enough? For the the people of that benighted country, and even, surely, for its leadership?

My judgement, slender and slight though it was, turns out to be shared by the late, great Christopher Hitchens. I'm reading his excellent collection of Essays, "Arguably", and in "Worse than Nineteen Eighty-four", he concludes: "... why should it be assumed that their failed state and society are permanent? Another timeline, oriented to liberation and regime change, is what the dynasty most fears."

Then I read an excellent article, "Racial Purity, North Korean Style", by B.R. Myers in the Herald Tribune, in which he makes a powerfully and knowledgeably argued case that the odious regime, "headed" by the porcine Kim Jong-un will continue.

"... his succession makes perfect sense in North Korea's ethno-nationalistic personality cult. People who value racial purity always consider some bloodlines purer than others, and ... no bloodline is purer than the eternal presidents."

I dunno. I guess I'll just have to fall back on the time-honoured journalistic "time will tell".

Update: a video of a talk by B.R.Myers, about a year ago: "The Cleanest Race", an in-depth look at North Korean society. This guy seems to know his stuff.

The Islamic Trilogy

2012-01-18T12:54:00.009+08:00

I've often said (eg) that in seeking to understand Islam you need to read the core doctrines and these are three: (1) the Koran, (2) the Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) and (3) the Sirah (or life of Muhammad).
I've never labelled these a "Trilogy", though I wish I'd thought of this earlier. Or perhaps even -- though more provocatively -- a "Trinity": provocative because Islam abhors the Christian Trinity, the doctrine of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. To Islam, that's the worst kind of blasphemy, for nothing can be associated with the one God, Allah. To associate others with Allah is shirk, worse than murder and subject to death under Sharia law.
Anyhoo... I just came across this article, "A Taste of Islam", which talks of the "Islamic Trilogy": the same three I mention above.
Read it all, it's repays careful study.
A quote:

I sat down and reread the Koran, read the Sira (Ishaq and Al Tabari), read the Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim). These are the absolute foundational texts of Islam, the source code, the DNA. I was following Sun Tzu’s advice; know your enemy and attack your enemy’s strategy.

And that's even if you limit "your enemy" to Al-Qaeda-type jihadis, for they are most certainly motivated and justified by the Trilogy. See the excellent and eye-opening "The Al-Qaeda Reader" for example.
[BTW: the Sira I've read -- and linked on the left here -- is that of Ishaq; that's fine and enough. The Hadith I've read is Bukhari, and again, that's enough, as Muslim's Hadith repeats most of Bukhari. There's also the links online, which I've put at the left. If you want to know about Islam, and not what its apologists (or indeed its critics) tell you, then you need at least to read one of each of these]

Islam in Norway

2012-01-18T12:38:00.006+08:00

[Update 30 Jan: in Staganger, Norway, 90% of rapists are "non-western immigrants" (aka, in reality, Muslims, mostly from Pakistan) and in Oslo the figure is 100%. These are Norwegian police figures.]

I've been following the issue of Islam in Norway for some time now, especially through the writings of Bruce Bawer , who also writes on the US, as in this piece recently about "All American Muslim" the reality TV show. [E.G. of Bawer on the Islam issue in Norway].
Norway seems to be concentrate the quintessential nature of the Islam-west tensions in Europe, nice little tolerant country that it is. It's like the petrie dish of the issues.
In this piece by "The Observer", we have an analysis of the nature of Islam in Norway and an examination of whether it is as democratic, open and pluralist as the Norwegian body politic and media would have its population believe. The Observer shows that it is not. In case after case, the Islamic Council of Norway, the largest Islamic organisation in the country, has come out in favour of terror, of the murder of authors and film-makers, of the subjugation of women, of forced marriages, of the whole sorry lot of Islamic doctrine and prejudice that are becoming drearily familiar in all countries with growing -- but still minority -- Muslim populations. It can only get worse.
About a third of the way down, The Observer says:

By scrutinizing the Muslim community honestly, and judging them solely on the views and positions they hold, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they don’t believe in normal democratic principles, period. In fact, it’s ludicrous and very dishonest to even hint that someone who wishes to kill another person for having offended his or her religion should be classified as a peace-loving and democratic person.

And concludes:

When the Norwegian authorities tell us that Muslims in Norway are peaceful, hardworking, and democratic, they don’t really have any hard evidence to back up this claim. As a matter of fact, there is ample hard evidence and empirical data that can be used to refute all of their claims. The authorities’ arguments are basically empty shells, and will eventually collapse.

If time, read it all. It's longish, but a sober and balanced assessment in my view.

The intolerance of diversity

2012-01-18T12:09:00.004+08:00

I was in Australia last week and my mother tells me that over the Christmas period in Canberra there were various calls for Christmas trees not to be put up, for Nativity scenes not to be displayed, and so on, the usual -- these days -- litany of people trying to stifle an important part of western cultural heritage, one that has been part of the scenery of celebration for the religious and secularists alike for generations. No more, it seems. She says that the reasons given were that these symbols -- the trees and the manger -- were offensive to "other religions", which my mum -- not a regular anti-jihadist, it must be emphasised -- takes to mean that it's offensive to Muslims. She's right of course. But there are also some atheists who rail against trees and nativities, in mistaken belief that they threaten the separation of church and state or for some other nonsensical reason.
I'm all in favour of the Christmas symbols, though I'm an atheist from way back. So is Pat Condell, who eviscerates the "totalitarians" who want to crush Christmas. In the video below he says [@1'30"]:

Religion needs to be kept in check when it tries to step on people, or when it tries to elbow its way into their lives uninvited [read "ROP"]. The nativity doesn't do this; it doesn't even come close.

(Initial h/t on this to BCF)

Islam in America

2012-01-16T07:45:00.001+08:00

The reliably Islamopologist Huffington Post announces a seminar to teach Americans the "truth" about Islam, "In an effort to shed some light and promote facts, not fear..." . [source]
What struck me in the piece was the news that 14% of Americans say they know "a lot" about Islam. And only 57% say they know "only a little". That is, 43% of Americans know "a lot" or "something" about Islam. Given that Muslims are only about 1-2% of Americans, those are rather high figures, and I'd guess higher than the number who know something or a lot about, say, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, or the like. And if that's the case, it would be because of concern about Islam.
Now, are the folks promoting the above seminar going to be able to overcome the knowledge that nearly half of Americans have about Islam? Because there is this fact, or at least this assertion by me: that if you study the core documents of Islam: the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah (the life of Muhammad), it's impossible not to be concerned about Islam, even unto the point of being scared. That is, unless you like supremacism, homophobia, mysoginy and the suppression of free speech and minority rights.

"Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of the World' as Ultimate Goal"

2012-01-13T10:43:00.002+08:00

"Brotherhood"? What Brotherhood??

I've written quite often about the Muslim Brotherhood, mainly because its clear aim is the re-creation of the world-wide caliphate, with its imposition of sharia law. And if that seems like a pie-in-the-sky goal, the second main concern about the Brotherhood is that it's represented in the west, especially in the US and Europe, through a vast array of organisations, that western governments deal with, without knowing their Brotherhood connections.
More: if they do know of the connections, they willfully ignore them. They close their eyes; they cover their ears.
Yet they are a clear and present danger. And not one seen only by wild-eyed drooling paranoiacs. To study the Brotherhood is to be worried.
Raymond Ibrahim notes the pronouncements of senior Brotherhood leaders and how the west does nothing to take them into account. Instead welcoming their elevation in recent "Arab Spring" elections, as in Egypt.

"Andelusia Spring", reclaiming "occupied" Spain for Islam

2012-01-12T10:23:00.000+08:00

It was probably only a matter of time....

Controversies over Islam dominated the Christmas and New Year holidays in Spain this year.
These conflicts reflect the growing influence of Islam in Spain after mass immigration from Muslim countries. They are a harbinger of things to come, especially as the Muslim population in Spain is predicted to double within the next fifteen years.

Actually, the effort to "reclaim" has gone further, as Islamists try to make Sharia law the law of Tower Hamlets, in UK, which were never part of the evil empire....

"Jihadist group declares war on France for being 'hostile to Islam'"

2012-01-05T15:58:00.001+08:00

"The leader of an armed, radical Islamic group out of west Africa, Hamada Ould Mohamed Kheirou, declared “war” against France Thursday over what he calls French hostility towards Islam. The threat came in a video reportedly seen by AFP journalists and is not the first time the jihadist group has vowed to wage war with the increasingly Islamized France...."

From The Blaze (I don't know about this site, first time I've seen it, that I recall).

"... our way of life is not up for grabs, our laws are not negotiable..."

2012-01-05T15:51:00.001+08:00

The wonderful Douglas Murray.

"If you tried to invent a mode of dress more illiberal than any other, you'd come up with the burka...."

"The only signal that should be given by any democratic government is that to say 'our way of life is not up for grabs; our laws are not negotiable. If you would like 7th Century backward Sharia law, then, sadly, there are places you can get it'".

Vid link here.

Muslim Brotherhood Organizations In America: Goals, Ideologies And Strategies – Analysis

2012-01-05T09:28:00.003+08:00

I'm not sure where I came across this article, I think BCF, in which case thanks to them!

It's a very useful reference guide, in particular for the connection with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which presents itself as the voice of Islam in America and is often accepted as that by the US government. In truth, as this article shows, CAIR a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the aim of which is, in its own words,

"... eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers...."

Muslim moderation: Mission impossible?

2012-01-03T16:55:00.005+08:00

[Postscript: picked up on BCF here]
The whole issue of whether Islam can be reformed is a hot topic, in Muslim and non-Muslim circles. After all, for people of good will, we surely hope, wish, desire, pray, for a more "Moderate Islam", one which does not see its main aim as being to become the supreme religion in the world, supremacist in nature. To change that, if at all possible, would be wonderful.
My leftie-liberal friends assume it's only a matter of time. That Christianity had its Reformation and that Islam will have its, in due course.
I'm not so optimistic. The key stumbling block is the Koran: it's "uncreated", the literal word of God. Hence, any change in the Koran is by definition, blasphemy. That's a huge stumbling block, one that didn't exist in the exegisis of the Bible: a "library" (literally) of books written by Men. Hence the Bible could be reinterpreted without fear of blasphemy.
I've been reading "The Closing of the Muslim Mind", by Robert Reilly, an academic tracing of this whole issue, and it's not made me any more optimistic.
There's an article I came across today by Mustafa Akyol, called "Islamic Liberalism: Mission Impossible?", which tries to find some positive in this issue. I hope he's right. But even this fellow Akyol, one feels, is drawing a pretty long bow.
It's critical to support any moves in the Islamic community towards a more moderate form of Islam. It's just that one can't really hold out much hope. Well, I hold the hope, but I fear it'll be dashed.
[Summary of the Akyol article in Andrew Dish's "The history of liberal Islam", where I came across the article, via Google Islam alerts].

*************

Update: earlier article on same subject, by Mustafa Akyol here.
Update, 2 Feb '12: On the issue of: are there "moderate Muslims": "Islam means Peace", Rajeshkumar, 31 Jan '12:

The real Muslims are the ones who follow the Quran and the examples of Muhammad in every walk of life. Ultimately, they become terrorists. They are not ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists’. They are ‘good, modest and obedient’ Muslims who take their faith seriously. The wishy-washy Muslims are weak in their knowledge and faith. The wishy-washy Muslims are not ‘moderate or progressive’ Muslims, but as the real Muslims call them, they are “hypocrite”. [Source]

Invisible gorillas: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

2012-01-03T09:32:00.006+08:00

In a recent article "Return to Terror Square", Guy Somerset notes:

"...that not only did the militant Islamists pull off a feat no one expected (except everyone who was paying any attention), they went about celebrating it in much the same way as before."

It's certainly true that the triumph of Islamist parties in Egypt -- the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Nour Party -- has surprised many in the mainstream media, especially the likes of The Guardian, The New York Times and the BBC (the Beebs has even admitted to being "naive"). But it's not simply the case that they were not "paying attention". It's just that they were paying attention to different things than those to which we in the counter-jihad bloggosphere were paying attention.
This made me recall the famous experiment in 1975 which...

"... asked subjects to watch a short video in which two groups of people (wearing black and white t-shirts) pass a basketball around. The subjects are told to either count the number of passes made by one of the teams or to keep count of bounce passes vs. aerial passes. In different versions of the video a woman walks through the scene carrying an umbrella, or wearing a full gorilla suit. After watching the video the subjects are asked if they saw anything out of the ordinary take place. In most groups, 50% of the subjects did not report seeing the gorilla."[Ref]

What the MSM were looking at was the "basketball": the "youth", the "brave fighters for democracy", the stirring crowds in Tahrir Square, the downfall of Mubarak, and so on, as if that were all there were. Meantime the bloggosphere was looking at was the "gorillas": what was likely to lie ahead, the inevitable -- we thought -- rise of Islamist parties. And that was shown to be the case.
Of course, we need to make sure that we're still not focussing on just one thing -- the gorillas -- and not seeing that there may indeed be some basketballs being thrown around.
One such is the youth. If there is to be any hope in Egypt for an outcome less dreary and backward-looking than the Islamist parties, in cahoots with -- or not -- the Army, then it's in the youth. That's the view, or hope anyway, of Magdi Abdelhadi in this article.
Let's try to keep an eye on the gorillas and on the balls.

"Radical Islam and the Holocaust"

2011-12-30T18:21:00.003+08:00

This article quotes a Saudi who learnt about the reality of the Holocaust, in contrast to what he had been taught in Saudi text books. He quotes from p92 of a textbook printed in Saudi in 2006-07, which draws on “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the 19th Century invention of Russian anti-Semites in Czarist Russia. This is from the Saudi textbook:
‘As one reflects on the nature of the Muslim-Jewish conflict, it becomes evident that it is basically a religious conflict; it is not a political, or a national, or an ethnic one, or about a piece of land, as some claim. It is a struggle between truth and falsehood, between a belief in the Unity of God and Shirk [worst type of unbelief]. This enmity can only disappear when Jews embrace our faith, or when we embrace theirs, (Allah forbid!) Thus, if we understand the true nature of this conflict, and that there is no end to it, we would realize how misguided are those who talk about finding a solution for the conflict.’
Anyone who thinks that giving land to the Palestinians will solve the problem in the middle east has not read the history or understood the driving philosophy behind current "peace" efforts, which amount to delegitimising, demonising and ultimately destroying Israel.
That's not to say that Israel does not offer peace. It does. (According to UN Resolutions 181 and 242). But it requires security in return. It requires recognition of its state in return. Neither of these has been offered in the years since 1949.

"Europe's Inexorable March Towards Islam"

2011-12-30T16:32:00.001+08:00

... As the rapidly growing Muslim population makes its presence felt in towns and cities across the continent, Islam is transforming the European way of life in ways unimaginable only a few years ago.

What follows is a brief summary of some of the more outrageous Islam-related controversies that took place in Europe during 2011....

Read more from Soeren Kern, in Hudson New York, December 29, here.

"Jihad" means war in the name of Islam.... and the clash of civilisations

2011-12-29T09:27:00.006+08:00

PS: I've got into various arguments with people here in Hong Kong, including those in the Islamic community and local political types, in the press and elsewhere, about the meaning of the word "Jihad", which they take to mean "struggle" and only struggle. Of course it does mean that, but it also has another meaning, namely "holy war". This is by far its more common meaning. I have quoted authoritative sources on the issue, including the classic manual of Islamic Jurisprudence (The Umdat Al-Salik). So what's quoted below is in support of my contention re the meaning of "jihad" as commonly understood in Islamic circles today.
It's by noted Islamic scholar Andrew Bostom:
"... there is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite contemporary apologetics. Jahada, the root of the word Jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran—under a variety of grammatical forms. With 4 exceptions, all the other 36 usages (in specific Koranic verses) are variations of the third form of the verb, i.e. Jahida. Jahida in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people—meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like”, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E.W Lane. Indeed, Lane’s, An Arabic English Lexicon (6 volumes, London, 1865) is still used to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars for definitive Arabic to English translation. Thus Lane, who studied both the etymology and usage of the term jihad, observed, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers.”"
[Emphasis added]
And, earlier in Bostom's piece, a quote from Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations", a view I hold to, rather...
"The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts,…have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims….Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples….Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population, but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in inter-group violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming. There were, in short, three times as many inter-civilizational conflicts involving Muslims as there were between non-Muslim civilizations….Muslim states also have had a high propensity to resort to violence in international crises, employing it to resolve 76 crises out of a total of 142 in which they were involved between 1928 and 1979…When they did use violence, Muslim states used high-intensity violence, resorting to full-scale war in 41 percent of the cases where violence was used and engaging in major clashes in another 39 percent of the cases. While Muslim states resorted to violence in 53.5 percent, violence was used the United Kingdom in only 1.5 percent, by the United States in 17.9 percent, and by the Soviet Union in 28.5 percent of the crises in which they were involved…Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth-century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny."
Says Bostom:
"The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture."
[Though of course, it can make tactical and strategic sense to act as though there are moderate versions of Islam.]

Islamapologist sites are pusillanimous pissants

2011-12-27T18:02:00.010+08:00

Any time you want to comment on Islam apologist sites (eg, Loonwatch, Islamophobiawatch, Politicusa), they want to "moderate" your comment before it's posted: then, often as not, they don't publish it. That's if it's critical of Islam, even if it's soberly, calmly and factually so. By contrast, sites like Jihadwatch, RaymondIbrahim, Blazing Cat Fur and DanielPipes all allow comments to be posted straight away, without moderation (they reserve the right to remove posts that are offensive, racist, etc). They let the hurly burly of free speech take care of any idiocy that may pop up; the readers do it.
This suggests to me that the Islamapologist sites can't face the facts.
Just recently, I made two posts to Politicusa, and neither one was published.
One post was in response to an absurd Chomskyan assertion in the comments section that the US military are the "American Taliban", and they had caused 9/11.
His statement, in part:
Corey Mondello on December 20, 2011 at 5:16 pm: "... Fundamentalists from ANY religion are terrorists, and the conservative Christians here in the USA who have infiltrated the US Military and the US Congress, are America’s terrorist, the ‘American Taliban’. They are the reason why 9/11 happened…it wasnt “our freedoms”..."
My response:
You should read “The Al Qaeda Reader”, in which Osama bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders write about why they attack the West — and it’s nothing to do with the nonsense of the “American Taliban” or any other such post-modern relativist slush.
It has to do with the fact that the west are unbelievers. This is stated clearly and repeatedly in their writings.
Infidels have three choices: (1) convert to Islam;(2) pay the jizya tax (the tax on non-Muslims); or (3) be killed. OBL had “invited” the US to Islam several times, which it had ignored, and since it was not paying the Jizya, they had to attack and kill.
It’s all there in his own words.
And my comment on the main article:
From main article:“Muslims in this country by and large seem content with the set-up. I am never accosted at my door, in my yard, or in Wal-Mart parking lots by Islamic missionaries wanting to hand me literature or witness for Mohammed.”
My comment:
Huh?…
The Muslim Brotherhood in the US operates through many fronts and have said that their aim is to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with the Koran. The head of the Council of American Islamic Relations has said the same. There is push for courts in the US to instal Sharia law. Many Muslims have tried, and in some cases succeeded, in killing fellow Americans in the name of Islam. At least five studies — including one by a Muslim Sheikh — have shown that 80% of mosques in the US promote and sell publications of violent jihad against infidels.
Saying Christian fundamentalists are the greatest danger is a complete nonsense (I’m atheist, btw) and counter-factual.
The fact that you meet nice friendly Muslims at the local Wal-Mart is irrelevant — “analysis” by anecdote. The real concern are the opinion makers such as Hamas-linked CAIR and the various MB fronts (ISNA, MSC, etc). These are profoundly anti-American, better organized and greater in number than the Christian Fundamentalists.

"Was the Arab Spring a Victory for Extremism?": Jeffrey Goldberg

2011-12-27T17:39:00.003+08:00

.... The big news out of Cairo late this fall was not the Muslim Brotherhood’s triumph in parliamentary elections, even though the Brotherhood-affiliated party took 37 percent of the popular vote. The main news was made by the more extreme Nour Party, which is affiliated with Egypt’s Salafists. The Salafists, who believe that the world should be made over to look as it did during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, took almost 25 percent of the popular vote. In other words, the majority of voters in the Arab world’s most populous country chose either a party whose motto is “Islam is the Solution” or a party that believes that medieval Arabia is an appropriate state model.

Terrific article, thanks to BCF.

We were there!

2011-12-27T17:26:00.003+08:00

"Kim Jong-il, North Korean dictator, dies". NYT, 19 Dec

Huang Wenguang recalls being in Peking in 1976, when Mao Tse-tung died (The Dear Leader is dead, again, IHT, Dec 26). I was there as well, a young, new student of Chinese, newly landed in the capital. And also there was a 14-year old, about the age of Huang, I guess, called Jing and she was to become my wife about two decades later. I recall, as does Huang, the tears on the street, some of them real, some crocodile, squeezed out to make sure that one didn't get reported for being less than fully caring of the Great Leader.
And that leads him to thoughts about Kim Jong-il's death, and the outpourings of grief and "grief".
He wonders if the new "leader", Kim Jong-un, might lead to opening up in North Korea. He's too smart to commit himself. For my part, I'd simply observe that we thought there might have been an opening in the 80s when we first went there to do some coking coal business. That was the time that Deng Xiaoping had begun the full opening up of China, and it seemed opportune for the "little brother" to follow in those steps. But they didn't.
And I bet they don't again. At least while "un" is there... My bet is that Jong-un will be the same as his dad, as long as he can, but that that that may nit be long.
There will be a power struggle, he will be overthrown and then we might get something happening. But not with him there.
At least that's my bet.

Regulate Marihuana Like Wine

2011-12-24T09:48:00.003+08:00

Just in from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:

Five Law Enforcement Against Prohibition speakers have been busy this past year launching a new California initiative,REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE WINE (RMLW). I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about RMLW and ask you for your support on this initiative.

LEAP speaker Judge Jim Gray (Orange County Superior Court ret.) and LEAP Executive Board member Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (LAPD ret.) played a major role in writing the initiative. LEAP speakers Lieutenant Diane Goldstein (Redondo Beach P.D. Ret.),Deputy Nate Bradley (former deputy sheriff, Sutter County) and Officer Kyle Kazan(former police officer, Torrance P.D.) joined Judge Gray and Deputy Chief Downing as part of RMLW's executive board to put their professional skills to work on the complex - - and expensive - - process of signature gathering, volunteer coordination, campaign appearances and fund raising.

LEAP's Board of Directors viewed RMLW as a great step forward because the initiative will repeal prohibition of marijuana for adults and regulate and control its growth, processing, packaging, distribution and sales just like the wine industry in California, in addition to allowing hemp agriculture and products. An added benefit, as reported by California's independent Legislative Analyst, is that RMLW will save California's justice and prison systems tens of millions and provide tax revenues in the hundreds of millions.

The LEAP Board of Directors has fully endorsed the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative and has encouraged participation by LEAP's speakers to help get RMLW on the November 2012 ballot in California. Today we are calling on all of you, as LEAP supporters, to help our partners at RMLW in California. They need your help to get the job done. If you live in California, GET INVOLVED. Volunteer to gather signatures, take speaking engagements and DONATE, $5, $10, $15, $25 or more if you can afford it. If you don't live in California, please DONATE as much as you can as quickly as possible.

The campaign urgently needs money for more petitions, press announcements, validation of signatures already collected and hard costs to cover volunteer expenses. They also urgently need to end this quarter with as much money in donations as possible, since the media will look at their Form 460 report in January to decide whether this important initiative is serious or not. Please make a generous donation today, so we can celebrate the end of marijuana prohibition in California a year from now and continue the leadership for all states that has consistently come from California.

Thank you,

On Gingrich and the Palestinians

2011-12-23T15:20:00.003+08:00

You know, I have to simply bite the bullet: most of my friends and relatives are Islam apologists (it's a "Religion of Peace", the "extremists" have "hijacked" it, and so on), and pro the Palestinian narrative (the Jews invaded and stole the land from long-term residents of Palestine, and so on).
The other night I was at a dinner party, when someone raised the issue of Newt Gingrich's recent statement about the invention of "Palestine". They were getting all huffy about him, silly right-wing Republican, and all that. I intervened and said that his statement, if you parsed it closely, was 100% correct. I happened to have just read the evidence for this, and when I mentioned it, they stopped with their line, I think cause they recognised that I had facts on my side. Then they asked about what was the true story about the Middle East, as all they read and watched was the main-stream media, so I got into that a bit too, as, again, I had some knowledge and facts on my side.
What's interesting, and kind of sad, is that none of them had done any research on any of the issues, relying instead on just what they saw in the MSM.
Anyway, I'm going to halt this here, as I'm not feeling that well, and maybe will update later. For now, I'll just note some references on Newt's statement.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/origins_of_the_palestinian_identity.html
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/39578
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/newt_catapults_into_lead_in_rascism_race.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/palestinians-outraged-by-gingrich-remarks.html

Update: the fact that Palestinians are an "invented" people is not to say that they shouldn't have their own land -- after all, Jordanians are an "invented" people, Pakistanis too, and many others. It's just that the basis for getting their state should not be that they've "always" been there in Palestine, as "Palestinians" and were only "driven out" by the Jews, for that's not the truth either.
Meantime, it seems to me that the writers on the right of the question -- that is, those that support the Gingrich statement -- do so in a crunchy way, like carrots. That is, with facts and figures. On the other side, you have soft squishy stuff, like fairy floss, emotion as "argument". An example of the latter is "We are Palestinians", by Daoud Kuttab, which is mere ipse dixit as "argument".

Gingrich's statement:
"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community," Gingrich said. "And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940's, and I think it's tragic."

Read more

"Second period of Islamic power"

2011-12-20T21:23:00.001+08:00

...if Islamism is capturing Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and will capture other Muslim nations as the Arab Spring advances, where is the historic evidence that these Islamic regimes can convert their states into manufacturing and military powers...

The simple answer, which is also the accurate one, is that there ain't....
Read more...

North Korean People's Army Funky Get Down Juche Party

2011-12-20T13:37:00.003+08:00

As a regular visitor to North Korea in the early 80s (for some coking coal business) -- the craziest, weirdest, but most fun thing you could do standing up -- I really appreciate the funky stuff of this crazy place. This vid courtesy old mate, and co-visitor to the DPRK, SF.
Update: Hitchens on North Korea: "A Nation of Racist Dwarfs".

Muslima (?) and Child

2011-12-20T09:45:00.011+08:00

[Postscript: this post was linked at BCF, and one comment was: "now, if he had drawn Muhammad in the Manger"...]

I got the card at left from an old school mate of mine, a fine fellow I've known and loved for near on 50 years now, and for those many years an artist and teacher in Australia.

He makes his own Christmas cards each year, always a little original wood-block print, always thoughtful, simple, elegant.
But I must say, this one got me thinking: it's provocative and ambiguous.

Is the message (a) that we're all one folk, all humans, all love our babes; that -- with the church and mosque in the background -- all religions are the same? Or is it (b) a satirical take on Muslims' claim to Jesus as the "first Muslim", Jesus as a "prophet" of Islam?

I suspect it's the former, but would rather like to know from my mate, in case it's the latter.

So I wrote him a letter in response (he doesn't really do email), the first draft of which I showed my son who said it was a bit "preachy", which I agreed it was.

So I just sent him a simpler one and simply questioning "what's the message?"-- assuming, that is, that it's ok to question an artist on the meaning of his art. Isn't the standard artist's response supposed to be that you take the piece on its own terms and make up your own mind about it?

In any case, I find this card has certainly got me thinking, and that's also one of the aims of artists, is it not? [And if the aim really is point (a), maybe then I can get "preachy". After all, that's one of aims of we counter-jihadis, isn't it: to enlighten our friends on Islam!...].

20^th December 2011

G’day Mate,

Got your card yesterday and it’s sure provocative! I’m also wondering about its meaning.

Is the message (A) that we're all one folk, all caring humans? That despite this woman (if indeed it is a woman; you can’t really tell, can you?) being in a body bag [*], she still cares for, still nurtures her babe. That -- with the church and mosque in the background -- all religions are the same?

And then the Babe: is it baby Jesus? It looks a lot like the small Da Vinci painting we saw in the Hermitage in June last year; indeed surely it takes its inspiration from it, for there's no other similar "Madonna and Child" that I can find:

Madonna and Child: photo taken by me at the
Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, June 2010

Of course, Islam’s claim of Jesus being the “first Muslim” is consistent with Muhammad’s plagiarism of much of Judaic and Christian doctrine at the time, half-understood and partly-digested as his “understanding” of it was. But, to Muslims, Jesus is not divine; he was just a person, albeit a “prophet” (of Islam!), and Christianity’s claim of Jesus as one of the Trinity is blasphemy to a pious Muslim. Hence, pious Muslims not only don’t celebrate Christmas, but also say that Muslims should not even congratulate those who do celebrate it, since the birth of Christ, as a deity, is “shirk”, the association of others with the One God, Allah, and is “the worst of crimes”. So maybe your message is (B) a satirical take on Muslims' claim to Jesus as the "first Muslim", Jesus as a "prophet" of Islam?

So, in all, a very provocative and thought-provoking card at this time of Christianity’s most important festival, (itself of course plagiarised from earlier pagan celebrations. Then again, it's been appropriated to rather more peaceable outcomes….)

BTW: I came across this photo of you [not included here]... at Amalfi, July 2005. Just at the time, I now recall, that the above body-bag person’s co-religionists showed their love of tolerance and diversity in the UK by bombing and murdering their fellow citizens.

I’ve been sailing and driving through Africa this year. Not sure what’s on next year, but would love to see you, you and family, here in Hongkers. If you’d like to see my blogs on the travels, let me know and I’ll send you the links.

I remain an atheist, but now term myself a "Judaeo-Christian Atheist": in that our culture and civilisation, its reformation and enlightenment – its tolerance of we atheists -- are grounded in those two Abrahamic faiths, and not at all on the other allegedly Abrahamic faith.

So.. as a Judaeo-Christian Atheist, I wish you a very Merry Christmas!

(And hope you keep me on your Christmas Card list, after this bit of a rant…)

...

Cheers, ...
PF

[*] PS: “body bag person”: bit rude innit? Well, consider the Da Vinci painting above: the love of the Virgin for her Babe shines from her face. It's important that we see her face.
But what is the person in the body bag thinking? Given that leaders of Hamas have said babies are viable tools in suicide bombing?? What’s s/he thinking? Is it love of child? Or hatred of infidels? One can't tell. There are many good reasons to revile the burka. Many free-thinking Muslim women revile it. Just one of the reasons is security; seeing the face; judging.
[Click on "Burka" at the left under "Labels" to see other posts on it]

Long Live the Hitch!

2011-12-19T16:45:00.007+08:00

Hitch at home, Washington D.C.
April 26, 2007. NYT.

Christopher Hitchens died on December 15th and the memorials since have been prolific and warm.

A mark of the greatness of this essayist and polemicist -- perhaps the best since his hero Orwell -- is that the obits were as generous from the left as the right. In the "counter-jihad" and usually right-ish bloggosphere, he was remembered for his sound stance on the "religion of peace", even as he savaged their icons like Kissinger. For example, Robert Spencer salutes him here. (With great vid of Hitch tearing apart the world's favourite "moderate" Muslim, Tariq Ramadan). While on the left, his deft wit and independence were celebrated, even as he savaged their icons like Michael Moore.

Graydon Carter, the editor of the rather lefty Vanity Fair said something like -- and I paraphrase -- "if you read Hitchens, you felt you knew him; if you knew him, you felt blessed". That's one wonderful RIP, right there. Carter's in memoriam is here.

From Slate.com, where he wrote a regular column "Fighting Words", the main link to memorials and his essays is here.

From Vanity Fair: the main links and essays are here.

Author Ian McEwen, in the New York Times, "Christopher Hitchens, consummate writer, brilliant friend".

He was described as the world's most important public intellectual. I read all his stuff and was a great fan. Though he did surprise me a touch with his bottom line on Israel, towards the end of his memoir "Hitch-22"...

We miss you, Hitch! Long live Hitch!

**********

PS: there's a rare vid of Hitch taking apart Chris Hedges a leftie columnist at Truthdig and making some pungent points on Islam and suicide bombing, here.
A sample:

.... the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It’s this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there’s been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won’t listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.

PPS: Death of the execrable Kim Jong-Il has just been announced. Here's Hitch on North Korea: "A Nation of Racist Dwarfs" (!), Slate, Feb 1 2010.

"Off with long beards and Muslim Veil"

2011-12-19T16:27:00.001+08:00

What the Chinese authorities are concerned about, of course, is that these outward dress and facial hair choices are markers of Islamic piousness, and that piousness is in turn a marker for potential violence -- the Koran and Hadith are clear on what the pious Muslim must do to infidels such as the Chinese communists....
From the South China Morning Post, 16th December:
A city in the heavily Muslim Xinjiang region has begun a campaign to discourage veils and long beards so as to "dilute religious consciousness", media reports said yesterday.

The notice by the government in the city of Yining was uploaded by several mainland news websites and by Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, though it then vanished from the Yining government's website,www.yining.gov.cn.

Many Uygurs, Muslims native to Xinjiang, resent the rule of Beijing and controls on their religion, culture and language.

The region has seen sporadic cases of violent unrest.

The notice said the government in the Dunmaili district of Yining had decided to "further implement the party's activities to dilute religious consciousness and advocate a civilised and healthy lifestyle".

One of the campaign's aims, it said, was to end "the abnormal phenomenon" of ethnic minority people wearing Arab dress, growing long beards or covering their faces in veils.

Women who had "been transformed" would be invited to hold talks to discuss their experience, as would women who had launched successful careers. Yining government officials declined to comment.

Hou Hanmin , a Xinjiang government spokeswoman, said she was not aware of the notice but that generally people in the region, including ethnic minorities, were free to wear what they wanted.

"However, for certain jobs and in education there are rules about what you cannot wear, simply as a matter of convenience," she said by phone.

Yining has a population of some 515,000 people, about 46 per cent of whom are Uygur, according to the 2010 census figures. It was the site of deadly riots in 1997.

Parts of Xinjiang have become more conservative and Islamic over the past few years, despite government efforts to reverse that trend.

"Criticism of Islam could soon be a crime in America"

2011-12-14T18:28:00.001+08:00

This is a terrific article by Clare Lopez.

It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. [Read it all]

Roger Cohen: "Come home to Israel".... should really be "Come down on Israel"

2011-12-14T11:33:00.006+08:00

... I know several Israeli expatriates or would-be expatriates and their feelings are consistent. They are troubled by the illiberal drift of Israeli politics, the growth of a harsh nationalism, the increasing influence of the ultrareligious, the endlessness of the “situation,” and the tension inherent in a status quo that will one day threaten either Israel’s Jewishness or its democracy.

They have left or seek to leave because they don’t want all that and no longer believe there is going to be significant change. The ads play to Israeli patriotism, but it’s not patriotism that expatriates lack. It’s hope that their Israel can be salvaged and a two-state peace achieved.

My second reaction is that if Netanyahu could show a fraction of the nimbleness evident when American Jews are offended in instances where Turks are offended (by the killing of their citizens in international waters), or where President Barack Obama is offended (by ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank against his express request), or where Egyptians are offended (by Israel’s dismissal of their democratic aspirations), then Israel would be in a better, less isolated place today.

That's Roger Cohen, expiating on a recently nixed Israeli ad campaign to try to entice Israeli expatriates back to Israel. ("Come Home to Israel", NYT, December 6).
My feeling about Cohen's comments is this: that he must be either a Fool or a Knave.
He's a Fool if he believes that "reaching out" to surrounding countries is going to save Israel's Jewishness of its Democracy. All of history since 1948 indicates otherwise [*]. Acceptance of UN Resolution 181 in 1947 and its two states led to war on the new Israel by surrounding Arab countries; acceptance of Resolution 242 by Israel was countered by non-acceptance by Arab countries; Camp David 2000 gave the Palestinians 97% of what they demanded, but led to the Second Infifada. Handing back Gaza led to intensified rocket attacks on Israel, indiscriminate in their aim. What on earth is there to suggest -- in a much more violently inclined region -- that being "nimble" in dealing with these states, reaching out, to them, would be met with warm huggie-feelies? Answer: nothing.
He's a Knave if he knows all this, but suggests what he does above, anyway. If he knows and still promotes reaching out by Israel, he's advocating suicide by Israel. And maybe that's his real agenda, in common with many left-leaning "pro-Palestinians" in the West, including many Jews in America, and increasingly much of the MSM.
Perhaps the status quo is dangerous -- indeed, it certainly is. But "reaching out", being "nimble", with no acceptance on the other side of Israel's right to exist in security (per Res 242) is more than dangerous. It's suicide.
Why, oh why, don't critics of Israel, if they're genuine in seeking a "two-state" solution, put the heat on where it needs to be: on the feet of the Palestinians, for having failed over sixty years, to offer any genuine security for a recognised Israel, all that's required for peace.
The old saw is true: "If Palestinians lay down their arms there will be peace; if Israel lays down its arms, it will be annihilated".

[*] See also: "31 Opportunities Squandered in Favor of Genocide. Part I", David Meir-Levi, FrontPage Magazine, July 15, 2011. Part II here.

The Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate... non-discriminatory... a terrific partner for the West"... NOT!

2011-12-13T18:05:00.010+08:00

Chit-chat over a hummus and all is right, right? Right??
Kristof chows down on his research on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nicholas Kristof has anointed himself -- or I so anoint him -- the spruiker-in-chief for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Take his latest piece, "Democracy in the Brotherhood's Birthplace" in the New York Times of December 11, a follow up to one just days ago "Joining a Dinner in a Muslim Brotherhood Home", of the 8th. It's what I call "analysis by anecdote". It includes the quotes in the headline above: "moderate... non-discriminatory... a terrific partner for the West". What nonsense!
This is the style: you find someone -- a taxi driver most simply and obviously, or someone at a coffee shop near the town square -- you interview them, and, if they fit your world view of the situation, you quote them. Thus: "so-and-so has seen it all in her young life. Father in the Party, before the revolution, she has suffered in the aftermath of the breakdown of law and order in [insert country here], but her resilience and courage has seen her struggle through the worst of post-revolutionary [xxx]. She says 'da di da di da....', revealing a key aspect of the current situation which is [insert you bias here]".
Kristof does this "analysis by anecdote" by doing dinner. Thus (from "Joining Dinner" above):

First, meet my hostess: Sondos Asem, a 24-year-old woman who is pretty much the opposite of the stereotypical bearded Brotherhood activist.

So, you see, she is "moderate", and therefore so must the Brotherhood be.

And, (from "Democracy in the Brotherhood's Birthplace"):

“They do good social work,” acknowledged Ahmed Kenawi, himself a social worker who hasn’t yet decided whom to vote for.

And:

“The other parties, we just don’t see them,” said Samah Abdulkarim, a 25-year-old teacher who said she is supporting the Salafis. “Or, if we do see them, it’s only during the election season.”

I asked her if the Salafi parties would curb female professionals like herself, and she looked puzzled. No, she said, Salafis are good for women because they help needy women.

So, you see, the Muslim Brotherhood is a caring charity and "good for women".

Not.

The way the Muslim Brotherhood has been covered in the MSM since the start of the revolutions in Arabia is like this: first was "who is this 'Muslim Brotherhood'? Never heard of them". Then, after a month or so, as they'd had a chance to read up on them, it was "my goodness me, they may be something not quite nice and democratic". Then, a while later when they realised that the MB was going to win big in the Egyptian elections it was back to default mode which is "well, they won big, but they're really just a social-working outfit and we can certainly work with them". Which is where we are now.

But the MB is a patient and clever outfit. It practiced its patience during the time, from Nasser to Mubarak, when it were suppressed and outlawed. Now it has power in its grasp, it's not about to endanger it by coming on all strong about their aims for establishment of Sharia law and abrogating the treaty with Israel. It will wait until its Brothers are firmly empowered and then implement their program. To remind what that program is, the motto of the MB is:
....
[just a minute here! I happened to be on the New York Times' website, so I thought I'd do a search of the Brotherhood motto there. It's nowhere on the site. Instead, just as an example of the liberal-left rosy-eyed view of the Brotherhood, I found this bit of nonsense, updated 9th Dec 11 (I wonder if the update is to make it more of the wussy pussy that Kristof argues it is):

The Brotherhood, a group that virtually invented the Islamist movement eight decades ago, is at its core a middle-class missionary institution, led not by religious scholars but by doctors, lawyers and professionals.] Source.

Oh dear. I'm sure there are "doctors, lawyers" and so on. But there are also many, many out and out Islamists, like Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, its spiritual leader.

For the record, the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is:

Allah is our objective

The Prophet is our leader

Koran is our law

Jihad is our way

Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Now, if anyone is in any doubt is that still remains its motto, you need only read the writings of the many Brothers who are not the keepers of the sandwich and soup kitchens Kristof writes about above. In short, the men, and they're all men, who control the organisation. The most senior of whom is Al Qaradawi (passim), the "spiritual head" of the Brotherhood, who is a vicious anti-semite, would-be mass murderer, hater of infidels.

And then, in contrast to the naive ramblings of Kristof, we have the insights of Raymond Ibrahim, who is an Islamic, editor of the essential guide "The Al Qaeda Reader", who points out, inter alia, that the Brotherhood is the progenitor of Al Qaeda. And that they are patient, yet firm, in their resolve to bring Sharia -- and all its viciously sectarian, anti-semitic, misogynist, homophobic, 'honour-crime'-excusing doctrine -- to rule in Egypt.

This video is Ibrahim testifying before the Human Rights Commission at the US Congress, and here is the follow up.

Which do you believe? The naive anecdotal meanderings of Kristof? Or the doctrine-based, scholarly and learned observations of Ibrahim?

I know which one I do. I hope the Administration does too, though I doubt it. That's not to say they should not "deal" with the MB. But they should be clear-eyed about what they stand for. And that's simply this: a medieval view of the world, in which Jews are hated and to be killed, in which women are chattels, in which infidels are to be tolerated only if they pay a tax to Islam, in which Islam has to be spread to the world, preferably by proselytising, but by violence if necessary.

"Moderate"? "Non-discriminatory"? "A terrific partner for the West"? Not.

Update 27 Dec, Related:
Was the Arab Spring a Victory for Extremism? Jeffrey Goldberg, Bloomberg, Dec 24

Update 14 Dec, Related:
Middle East: We're Going to Have a Revolution and We Can Do it the Hard Way or the Easy Way, by Barry Rubin, PJ Media, December 13. With more info on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Another NYT columnist "does dinner" with the Salafists and finds them pussies. "In Egypt a Conservative Tradition Transcends Religion", by David Kirkpatrick, NYT, December 10. This was linked from the Rubin article above.

The Arab "Spring": how 'naive' do you have to be, before you're just stupid?...

2011-12-02T12:46:00.004+08:00

The Left were surprised by the Venus Fly
Trap. The conservative bloggers weren't

I was in Egypt a few weeks back, just before the latest round of convulsions in Tahrir square. So when I watched the news here in Hong Kong, I was, like "there! right there! That's where I was, right on that spot!" and so on.... making me realise just how these things can be just beneath the surface, yet you don't know they're there, ready to pop.
I went around Cairo, for example, "looking for trouble", that's how I put it to my mates: looking for signs of the earlier violence, looking for signs of the violence against Coptic Christians, that had happened literally the day before we arrived in Cairo. So I went to Tahrir and past the burnt out government building on its eastern corner, and over to the Christian quarter, where there were cops (and Copts) but nothing simmering, and no damage visible, and then to Al-Azhar university campus -- this being the oldest Uni in Islam and the seat of Sunni learning, and then to the Al-Azhar park, newly reopened, where young pre-veiling age giggling girls want to talk to me, happy as can be, and older veiling-age girls look on and chat as well, happy families on the grassy knoll overlooking the Citadel.
And yet, just a week later and they're back in the square and the Army's busy shooting them. (well, by "they", I mean men, for it's a men-only thing now, this on-going revolution...)
And then I hear someone on the BBC say that maybe, earlier, when they'd all been giddy with the "Arab Spring", maybe they'd been "naive". Gee, d'yah think?
But whereas the recent violence may not have been apparent -- at least to this non-Arab speaking tourist with no local contacts -- the likelihood that the "Arab Spring" was not going to be all sweetness and light was apparent early on to many not in the BBC. They include such writers and bloggers as Spencer, Emerson, Rubin, Pipes, Steyn the Elder of Ziyon, Blazing Cat Fur, et al...
As the left waxed eloquent about democracy, the will of youth for freedom, of...., well of "Spring", there were many in the conservative blogosphere who were warning of other outcomes and who have been proven right. The outcomes predicted being, in simple form: that democracy would bring to power Islamist forces like the Muslim Brotherhood. The MSM -- BBC and others -- dismissed this idea at the outset, as being "cynical", and various other contumely. Then, they started saying "well, even if the do come to power, they're pretty moderate anyway, secular even". Well, wrong on both counts. The Brotherhood is resolutely anti-western anti-democratic, anti-women, pro Sharia; the whole panoply of values and ideas that are, or should be, anathema to enlightened people (and yes, I say "enlightened" deliberately, aware of how freighted it is, and how it can be thrown at one as a curse almost. A lot of what they MB stands for is, quite simply, backward to the point of barbarism. More about the Brotherhood here).
What if they MSM not been so "naive"? Would things have been any different? Maybe not. But surely, if one is making judgements about an issue -- more importantly if one is a government making policy about an issue, in this case the Obama administration, which seemed to share the MSM infatuation with the "Arab Spring -- then surely you should have the clearest view of what the situation actually is, before you make your pronouncements.
It gets me worried about a bigger "naivety".
By this, I mean the naivety about the encroachment of Sharia law and Islamic values in the West. Those who warn about this trend are pretty much the same people who warned about not being naive on the Arab Spring. But they are routinely dismissed as being neo conservatives (and hence not to be trusted, on that basis alone), that they are bigoted, racist, Islamophobes.
In, short, the naivety which has been owned up to in the case of the Arab Spring, has not led to any introspection by the left, that maybe they're being naive about an even bigger issue, that maybe they can learn from some of those hard-headed bloggers. For that's how they should be viewed: as being "hard headed", rather than xenophobic bigots. The future of the west rests on it; not just the future of Arab countries.
********
Related: Thomas Friedman's "The Arab Awakening and Israel" of Nov 29th. He quotes Netanyahu as follows:
“...the Arab awakening was moving the Arab world “backward” and turning into anIslamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, undemocratic wave.
"Netanyahu added: “In February, when millions of Egyptians thronged to the streets in Cairo, commentators and quite a few Israeli members of the opposition said that we’re facing a new era of liberalism and progress. They said I was trying to scare the public and was on the wrong side of history and don’t see where things are heading.” But, he told the Knesset, events had proved him correct. ”
Ed Husain's Arab Street blog. He's the guy who wrote "The Islamist" recounting his journey from radical Islam, back to reality, to being a "moderate muslim". He tries hard. But he's still suspect, in my view: he says Sharia can be benign; has only criticism for Israel, none for the Palestinian side. He's still Muslim -- says Islam is "rich enough" to be moderate (I don't think so) -- though he claims to be a free thinker: Islam and free thinking are incompatible, in my view -- Islam means "submission" including of one's thought processes to the strictures of doctrine. Still, some interesting stuff on his blog.

"Reducing attacks is Israel's aim"

2011-12-02T11:55:00.005+08:00

Goodness me, I can hardly keep up! Below letter was published today in the South China Morning Post, the third of my letters published in the last few weeks, this one also about Israel, as was the one in the International Herald Tribune (the international edition of The New York Times) earlier this week.
Reducing attacks is Israel's aim

I. M. Wright makes allegations about stolen land and apartheid ("Israel intends to 'segregate' with policies", November 25).

When Israel was created in 1947 by UN resolution 181, Jews were in the majority in the region. They had not become so by driving Palestinians from their "traditional homes", but by a combination of long-term residence and 19th century immigration.

The immigrants bought their land from landlords often resident in Syria - to the extent that the area was often referred to as "Southern Syria".

Moreover, the partition of the British Mandate gave the majority of land to today's Jordan, which could easily have taken more Palestinians fleeing a war initiated by surrounding Arab states, but did not do so for political reasons (to keep the heat on Israel).

To talk of Israel's "apartheid" policies is to confuse intent with outcome. The intent of Israel's defensive tactics, including the wall, is to reduce attacks on its citizens, not to separate based on race and religion. That the outcome affects the "race and religion" of Arab Muslims is because that's who is attacking Israel.

Surrounded by hostile states intent on its destruction, is Israel meant to take no defensive action? To suggest giving land for peace, without ironclad security guarantees, would be national suicide. Israel has offered peace in return for security, and repeatedly been rebuffed.

The conclusion is: if Palestinians lay down their arms there will be peace; if Israel lays down its arms it will be annihilated.

Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay

With friends like these... the pseudo "ally" Pakistan: serial lier and violent west-hater

2011-12-01T15:05:00.005+08:00

The most open "secret" in the world is becoming ever more open: Pakistan supports and funds terrorism, even as it takes American money to fight terrorism.
There's a BBC series on at the moment, forgotten its name, that is all about how wretched an "ally" Pakistan is: that it is duplicitous, that it uses US military aid to fund the Taliban and other terrorist bodies that kill US and its allies' troops. It's scathing. The BBC is a lefty outfit and has not been of a mind in the past to be critical of places like Pakistan: poor, third world, afflicted by colonialism, Islamic, and so on, all hot-button I-must-feel-sorry-for markers of the left. That the BBC is now critical of Pakistan and trenchantly so, is significant.
[Update, 2 Dec: the BBC series is called "Secret Pakistan", airing at the moment. I see news that the BBC World News TV Service has now been blocked in Pakistan because of the series. The much maligned (as being too "lefty") Beebs, deserves kudos for this one, for telling the story as it is: Pakistan, a putative "ally"uses military aid money from the US to fund outfits that are killing American and allied soldiers. And that's just the start: they're also funding the most viciously fundamentalist Islamist forces in Afghanistan, the salafist Taliban].
The second significant story on Pakistan's perfidy is in the Atlantic Monthly: in an article titled The Ally from Hell.
Like the BBC's, it's trenchant and unforgiving. And like the BBC, the Atlantic is generally lefty. So it's great stuff, that they're getting on side to the Pakistan threat, something the conservative bloggosphere has been on about for a long time.
Only thing is: in both cases they end up saying something along the lines of "this is all awful, the lying of the Pakistanis, the way they support Taliban while pretenting to help the US find and kill terrorists. But, for all that, we have to keep them as an ally for if we don't things will be worse. We need them to help us in the fight against Al Qaeda."
Yet, as the Atlantic concedes: focus only on Al Qaeda is too narrow and detracts from the wider fight against bodies like the Taliban, who may prove to be greater and tougher enemies than Al Qaeda.
Christopher Hitchens made a good case for dumping this "Ally from Hell", in his From Abbotabad to worse.
Maybe this is the beginning of the end-game of western, especially US, funding for Pakistan. I hope so. As it goes now, it's dreadful and there's no possible optimism to be gleaned.
Update, 2 Dec: Letter to the Beebs:
Congratulations on a great series and please DON’T be tempted to apologise or resile in any way in response to the Pakistani’s banning of your World Service TV cable! You’ve done the right, honest and brave thing: told it like it is in Pakistan. They are an “ally” in word only, in reality undermining all efforts to reduce terrorism in the region and allow the development of stable people-friendly governments.
As a long-time follower of the BBC — and a frequent critic -- this is one time you definitely deserve bouquets, not brickbats!
Yours, etc, Peter F. Hong Kong

"A pinkwash? Hogwash"

2011-12-01T14:43:00.006+08:00

The International Herald Tribune (aka The New York Times international edition), published my letter yesterday. This is unusual, as they don't often publish letters that are not pro-Palestinian or are critical of Islam. So I guess I should say: good on 'yer! Click the logo for link to the letter. The Pinkwash article is here. Another great critique is here.
Update 2 Dec: a number positive resonses, eg: I wanted to congratulate you on your New York Times letter. It was a very well articulated response. Thank you! Kind regards, Erica L.
November 28, 2011
A Pinkwash? Hogwash
Regarding Sarah Schulman’s “Israel and ‘pinkwashing”’ (Views, Nov. 24): For some people Israel can do no right. Israel is the only gay-friendly country in the Middle East, but for Ms. Schulman that’s just a smokescreen for “co-opting” people into a pro-Israel stance. It is offensive to suggest that one can’t make a judgment on Israel because it’s gay friendly, that we are part of a “pinkwash.” Hogwash.

Israel remains the only true democracy in the Middle East; its Arab population is the most satisfied with its lot of any in the region. Israel has offered Palestinians peace many times since 1947, always rebuffed, sometimes violently.

The fact that there are homosexuals in other Middle Eastern countries is irrelevant. Of course there are: There are homosexuals in every society. What matters is how they’re treated. The only place they are treated well, both in law and in practice, is Israel. Yet for Ms. Schulman Israel is just out to “blind us.” Shame on her.

Peter F, Hong Kong

Mona Eltahawy: assaulted by Islam... for wearing pants?

2011-11-26T13:15:00.006+08:00

I see that journalist Mona Eltahawy was assaulted in Tahrir Square. There's a graphic account with pictures here.

One quote from Eltahawy jumps out at me:

".... I lost count of the number of hands that tried to get into my trousers..."

The thing is: it may be exactly about trousers. Let me explain. Eltahawy has spoken out against the mistreatment of women in Islam. Fair and brave enough. But in calling for better treatment of women, she has signally failed to address the crux of the problem: that mistreatment of women is core to Islamic doctrine. She's said for example that there's no sanction in Islam for women wearing trousers. Wrong, Mona.

I recorded back in August 2009 how she had tackled the mistreatment of Muslim women, but had failed to name the reason for that mistreatment, and specifically about wearing "men's clothing":

Mona Eltahawy claims that there is no sanction in Islam for the various “crimes” (her quote marks) such as women wearing trousers, having sex outside marriage and drinking alcohol (“Abusing Women and Islam”, IHT August 15-16). She is wrong on all counts.

The standard manual of Islamic jurisprudence, the ‘Umdat al Salik is the accepted authority of all Sunni schools of Islamic, Sharia law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali). It is certified, inter alia, by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, co-sponsor of Obama’s recent speech to Muslims and the chief centre of Islamic learning in the Sunni world.

Of women wearing trousers, it says: “The Prophet cursed men who wear women’s clothing and women who wear men’s clothing.” (p28.1.3). [more...]

It would seem that Eltahawy has been hoist on her own petard, pants in this case. Naiveness or ignorance of the tenets of Islam is what caught her out. There's no excuse for her awful mistreatment. Just that if you're going to call out the abuse of women, you have to tackle what's at the core of that abuse. Islamic doctrine. If you don't do that, no amount of "Arab Springs" is going to change the fundamental misogyny of Islam.

Note in all the coverage of Tahrir: the extent to which it's (1) Men only and (2) Very Islamic.
********
Update: From the The New Yorker, no less!

TAHRIR SQUARE: MEN WITH BEARDS

Tahrir Square was packed Friday. The crowd was as large and dense, with as much pushing and shuffling and squeezing as I have seen since the night Mubarak fell. Most of those present were Islamists, with untrimmed beards and close-shaved mustaches, wearing white knit prayer caps or the red tarboosh and white turban of scholars from Al Azhar, Cairo’s venerable Islamic University. Many, perhaps most, had come from distant governorates, in buses organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist organizations and parties. Read more...

Israel and "Pinkwashing" -- "Whitewashing the truth"

2011-11-26T10:30:00.007+08:00

I was going to take apart a recent article by Sarah Schulman in the New York Times, called "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'", but, as so often happens, my natural laziness and the Chinese principle of "Wu Wei" came to my aid. Wu Wei is a Taoist concept, meaning in its simplest terms: "do nothing". Often you face a problem: do nothing for a while and bingo! it sorts itself out. So the tearing apart of Schulman's shoddy piece has been done, and done much better than I could have, by David Harris, in his piece "Israel and 'Pinkwashing'": what was the New York Times thinking?
[Update: 25 Jan '12: just came across an article on Schulman's piece by the redoubtable Bruce Bawer, here. The money quote:
To be sure, it never stops being remarkable to me that anyone who professes to care about human freedom – especially someone who is gay and a woman and a Jew! – can be anything but a fervent supporter of Israel, a small free country surrounded by Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, gay-killing neighbors that are intent on destroying it. But then this is what happens, alas, when a mind is so besotted with ideology as to blind itself to even the most obvious of realities.]
I did however overcome my indolence to a little extent, by writing to the NYT, as below. Sometimes they print my letters, though I have a lot more success with the local rag, the South China Morning Post. It's quite difficult to get a letter in the NYT that's critical of Islam or Islamism, or is supportive of Israel, because that's just their left-of-centre bent, but they do from time to time. Anyway, here's my letter: [Update 1 Dec: The New York Times did publish my letter... see here]

For some people Israel can do no right (Israel and "Pinkwashing" by Sarah Schulman, NYT Nov 22).

Israel is the only gay-friendly country in the Middle East, but for Schulman that’s just a smokescreen for “co-opting” people into an anti-immigration, anti-Muslim stance. I find offensive the suggestion that I can’t make a judgement on Israel because it’s gay friendly and that I’m somehow subject to a “pinkwash”. Hogwash, I say. [btw: Schulman’s remarks concentrate on the “global gay movement”, though they no doubt are meant also for the straight community, people such as myself — straight white guys]

Israel remains the only democracy in the Middle East, its Arab population -- both Muslim and Christian -- is the most satisfied with its lot of any in the Middle East, as attested to by many polls. It has offered the Palestinian leadership peace on numerous occasions, beginning in 1947. That leadership has always rebuffed peace, sometimes violently, as in the second intifada after the Camp David summit. And the view that Israel is an “apartheid” state is gross calumny.

The fact that there are gay communities in other Middle Eastern countries is irrelevant. Of course there are: there are homosexuals in every society on the earth. What matters is how they’re treated. The only place they are treated well, both in law and in practice, is Israel. Yet for Schulman — herself gay -- that’s all just out to “blind us”.

Shame on Schulman.

Yours, etc, Peter F.

Israel is NOT an apartheid state

2011-11-25T17:08:00.001+08:00

My letter to the South China Morning Post:
I.M. Wright should study his history before making allegations about stolen land and apartheid. (Israel intends to 'segregate' with policies, Letters, 25 Nov).

When Israel was created in 1947 by UN resolution 181, Jews were in the majority in the region. They had not become so by driving Palestinians from their “traditional homes”, but by combination of long-term residence and 19th century immigration. The immigrants bought their land from landlords often resident in Syria – to the extent that the area was often referred to as “Southern Syria”. Moreover, the partition of the British Mandate gave the majority of land to today’s Jordan, which could easily have taken more Palestinians fleeing a war initiated by surrounding Arab states, but did not do so for political reasons (“keep the heat on Israel”).

To label Israel as an “apartheid” state is to confuse intent with outcome. The intent of Israel’s defensive tactics, including the wall, is to reduce attacks on its citizens, not to separate based on race and religion. That the outcome affects the “race and religion” of Arab Muslims is because that’s who is attacking Israel.

Surrounded by hostile states intent on its destruction, is Israel meant to take no defensive action? To suggest giving land for peace, without ironclad security guarantees would be national suicide. Israel has repeatedly offered peace in return for security, and repeatedly been rebuffed. The conclusion is: if Palestinians lay down their arms there will be peace; it Israel lays down its arms it will be annihilated.

Yours, etc,
Peter F.
********
I.M. Wright's letter

Israel intends to 'segregate' with policies

I refer to the letter by Robert L. Meyer ("Allegations about Israel incorrect", November 16) in reply to my letter ("In backing Israel, US is out of step", November 4).

Your correspondent makes the premise that a connection to antiquity lends legitimacy to land rights. The analogy of the English connection to Stonehenge is untenable as this ancient monument pre-dates the establishment of England by more than 3,000 years.

I doubt that Mr Meyer is suggesting that all the Norsemen, Danes, and Germanic tribesman who invaded and stayed on be disenfranchised and sent back across the North Sea?

However, such a proposition was enacted in Israel in 1948 when 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their traditional homes, most fleeing across the Jordan River.

Mr Meyer is correct that Israel is not now an apartheid state. However, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that Israel's settlement and control regimes in the occupied Palestinian lands of the West Bank and Gaza are apartheid policies, as their intention is to segregate by race and religion.

The hackneyed US statement of a "shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" in the context of Israel's actions in the occupied lands is most surely a mirage.

I. M. Wright, Happy Valley

"Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob": my response to a thuggish letter

2011-11-24T09:36:00.006+08:00

My letter tackling Philip Fang's brutish article received more positive stars than any letter this year, averaging 4.5 out of 5 stars. From a reader re that letter, one of a number in support:

Great letter to the SCMP. Thanks for sticking up for Hong Kong.
“Give me a break.” Yes, give us all a break.
I guess you knew that Philip Fang is Anson Chan’s younger brother. [P: actually, no I didn't and wonder what he's doing attacking his well-known sister. Happy families. Not]

Most other letters in response to Fang's article take him on, but one on Monday supports Fang's line and the introduction of the so-called "Article 23" legislation [*] in Hong Kong: that is, legislation to outlaw "treason, secession, sedition, subversion..." etc. It is a requirement of Hong Kong's Basic Law, though the timing of implementation is up to Hong Kong. Suspicion of the intent of the proposed law is high in Hong Kong and the last time a serious endeavour was made to implement it on the 1st of July 2005, some 500,000 people took to the streets (I was there). The concern was (and is) that that in Beijing's eyes -- and hence in the eyes of Hong Kong's Chief Executive, who hews closely to Beijing's wishes -- "treason, secession" and the rest would weave a net with very fine holes: many could get caught in it, simply by exercising their right to free speech, a right in Hong Kong that's been sacrosanct to date and freely exercised (unlike in China, where it is not, despite being guaranteed in their constitution)

Now it appears there's a move again to put the promulgation of Article 23 back on the front burner. Fang's article pushes for this, and a reader, Peter Lok, shines his shoes. Lok's letter below and mine yesterday in response below that:
Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob [South China Morning Post, 21 Nov 2011]

In his letter ("HK people are genuine patriots", November 16), Professor Steve Tsang refers to Deng Xiaoping.
Yet he deliberately ignores the fact that Article 23 was written into the Basic Law also with the blessing of Deng and those who succeeded him - in an orderly transfer of power, I may add.
There are Hong Kong people and there are Hong Kong people. Article 23 is not directed at those who genuinely "work for the respect, dignity, rights and betterment of one's fellow citizens", as Professor Tsang put it, and for the good of China as a whole.
It is directed at the many rabble-rousers against whom Deng saw the need to insist that there should be a People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong.
I have heard Professor Tsang on the radio and assume from his accent that he hails from Hong Kong so his rabble-rousing views do not surprise me.
Peter Lok, Chai Wan

Mine [not yet published at time of writing]:

Philip Fang’s article on the allegedly “ungrateful” Hong Kong people (“Brat in the family”, Nov 9) has prompted quite a response, mostly in contention with his thesis.
But a Fang supporter, Peter Lok, claims that Article 23 is “directed at the many rabble-rousers” in Hong Kong. (“Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob”, Letters 21 Nov), one of whom he claims is Professor Steve Tsang who wrote a letter taking Philip Fang to task.
Actually, Article 23 is not aimed at “rabble-rousers” but at “any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets...”.
It is the broad reading of the likes of Lok and Fang, equating those speaking their minds (“rabble rousing”) with such acts of treason and sedition, that gives many Hong Kong people pause. Surely we should be concerned at such views; views which would silence valid free speech, by simply labelling it “rabble rousing” and hence — by their unilateral extension — “treasonous”.
Look at Lok’s claim that Professor Tsang Is a “rabble rouser” simply because he “hails from Hong Kong”. That’s ad hominem of the worst sort, and not the basis for rational discourse.
Peter F

[* ]Article 23:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.

Islam's Islam, but strategically you have to support moderate Muslims

2011-11-23T09:51:00.004+08:00

Robert Small causes a small firestorm with his post "A New Model of Islam with Less Bark and More Bite". The simple issue is this: is there a moderate Islam? [Update, 24 Nov: Small answers me, see end of post]
On the one side, Spencer et. al. who say that Islam's Islam, and that at its core it is a violent and supremacist religion.
On the other side, Andrew McCarthy, Robert Small, et.al. who say that there is a moderate form of the religion, or at least moderate adherents and that we should work with that/them to overcome their more radical alternatives.
In my view, Spencer is correct. His view is echoed by the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan, who once said "there is no such thing as moderate or immoderate [sic] Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it". The doctrine of Islam, the core texts, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sirah of Muhammad, all point to the one conclusion: that it is violent, supremacist, anti-semitic, homophobic and the rest of it.
The problem with that conclusion about Islam, correct as it may be, is this: "where does it lead you?". Are you now going to face off against all 1.2 or 1.6 billion Muslims? What policy are you going to follow? Is resistance the only policy you can follow? Or stopping all Muslim immigration to western countries? That's not going to happen, is it, not in my lifetime, anyway.
On the other side, we may even agree, quietly, with the Spencerian view (as I do myself from study of the doctrine) that Islam is inherently violent, but recognise that strategically, tactically and politically, you need to act as if there is indeed a moderate form.
You can actually finesse the "Islam is Islam" issue quite simply: by taking the reasonable view -- as Robert Small does -- that there are moderate Muslims. That I would take as read (even though the commenters on his post don't). As even one of Small's critical commenters points out, the great and incisive critic of Islam, the ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq says "there's no moderate Islam, but there are moderate Muslims".
If you do this, if you assume that there are indeed moderate Muslims -- however much they may infuriate the west by failing to take a critical stand against their violent co-religionists -- then you can work with them and you can make some practical inroads on the issue we face: the Islamification of western societies and the creeping of Sharia into western legal systems.
In short: I think it is best to work on the basis that there are moderate Muslims and to work with them to create an Islam that better fits in with the rest of humanity: that is more like "other religions", a matter of private faith, not a matter of supremacism.
Unfortunately, not one of the commenters on Small's article agrees with him. They may be right, but that robust view, realistic as it may be, is not going to fashion an realistic policy. Pretending, if that's what it takes, may do so.

A New Model of Islam with Less Bark and More Bite
November 20, 2011

By Robert Small

Andrew Bostom's September 25th blog likens my "True Story of Moderate Islam" to a Rudyard Kipling "Just So Story." From his position up there on the watchtower, he apparently can't see that he's guilty of promulgating his own "just so" tale.

Bostom insists that there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam is by definition extreme. His story is long in describing the problem, but short in offering a solution because A) Islam isn't simply going to go away or change on its own, B) even the most moderate Muslim isn't going to completely reject his Islamic heritage, and C) Islam isn't some bad neighborhood of the globe we can avoid; it's 1.6 billion people bound by a common heritage dispersed across many sovereign nations. What's more, the problem more precisely defined is Islamism and its goal of establishing a global Islamic state. Bostom's simple model surrenders Islam to the Islamists, which is ultimately self-defeating because it offers no counter-strategy except resistance.

The best solution is to increase the proportion of moderates to extremists; however, Bostom and other proponents of the simple model are quick to "correct" anyone who dares pair the word "moderate" with "Islam" or give moderate Muslims a measure of relevancy. In my last article, Bostom's targets were the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and its former head and one-time president of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid. Never mind that Andrew McCarthy, in his excellent book The Grand Jihad, wrote of my "much ballyhooed" Wahid that "by any estimation, he is an authentic moderate who urges interfaith tolerance." McCarthy also cites George Cardinal Pell, Catholic archbishop of Sydney, Australia, who describes Wahid's brand of Islam as "synchronistic, moderate, and with a strong mystical leaning" that "thrives because it is reinforced in schools established by Wahid's [NU]." Establishing schools sounds like building infrastructure for moderate Islam to me, but to Bostom, I guess it's just more "uninformed and heavily redacted apologetics."

Don't get me wrong: we need our guard dogs inside the fence -- sniffing out Islamists on our soil, baring their teeth and barking loudly about creeping sharia (Islamic law). But that's not nearly enough to counter the threat in our own backyard, much less on the other side of the fence. We also need a more sophisticated model of Islam that offers a framework for both distinguishing moderates from Islamists (Bostom's mainstream Muslims) and swelling their ranks to help stop the advance of sharia here and abroad.

When Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," he demonized the tyranny of the Communist state, not the people forced to live in it. I think that citizens of the region today will agree that the Russian Federation is moderate by comparison, and it didn't require a direct strike on Moscow to get it there. It took winning at a kind of chess-boxing: physically beating back Soviet expansion outside the USSR by supporting resisters, while playing ideological chess with its central government between rounds. Islam is more complex in many ways, but America could lead the way to similar success against Islamism by identifying Mecca and Medina as representing the geopolitical capital of the Islamic state and opposing the ideology of conquest and subjugation that rules the Middle East.

Unfortunately, our leaders subscribe to an even worse model than Bostom's, erroneously identifying the enemy as "borderless terrorists" and treating militant Islamists like homeless trespassers rather than expeditionary units from an empire. Their counter-strategy has been simple eviction. Worse still, their faulty and superficial definition of "moderate" as anyone who isn't an Islamic militant has permitted Islamist agents to use our institutions to spread "religion of peace" propaganda and lecture us about "Islamophobia."

Religion (peaceful or otherwise) is irrelevant to a Reaganesque doctrine targeting tyranny in any form, and we're losing against the Islamists because political correctness has blinded Western governments to the parallels between communism and Islamism. As Eric R. Staal, in his January article "A 'Containment' Policy for Islamist Expansionism," points out, "[i]f anything, the predominant view is simplistically that Islam is one of the world's Great Religions, morally equivalent to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism."

Bostom and others have certainly been working to correct the predominant view, and we can all agree that Islamic governments based on sharia law are stuck in the dark ages. However, just because they still burn witches in Saudi Arabia (figuratively speaking -- I know they actually behead them) doesn't mean we can't find moderate Islam in places where they've put away their torches and are trying to keep others from getting lit.

As McCarthy concludes in his chapter on Islamism (emphasis mine),

The stubborn fact remains that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who either do not wish to live under the tyranny of sharia or are so indifferent that, even if they would abide by sharia in a Muslim country where it applies, they do not support converting non-Muslim societies into sharia enclaves.

A great many of them are concentrated in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. Bostom frequently cites a 2007 World Opinion Dynamics poll reporting that about half of Indonesian Muslims favor living under Islamic law and think the rest of the world should, too. Conversely, his data demonstrates that the other half (over 101 million, based on a 2009 Pew Foundationpopulation report) don't. As I argued in my last article, the NU with its 50 million members is certainly a better alternative to the Islamist wolves in sheeps' clothing we've been partnering with who dosupport establishing sharia enclaves in non-Muslim societies, including our own.

The flaw in Bostom's model isn't so much its absolutism as that it ignores all those moderate Muslims it acknowledges "may" exist. My model starts with the hypothesis they do exist and determines to find them by defining moderate Islam as follows:

Respects our principle of separation of church and state;
Resists movements within its borders to create an Islamic state;
Allows other religious faiths, including Christians and Jews, to practice openly within its borders;
Rejects blasphemy laws and protects freedom of speech;
Does not seek to establish sharia enclaves in non-Muslim countries or promote the establishment of a global caliphate (unified Islamic state);
Does not harbor recognized terrorists or support terrorist groups operating within its borders or abroad; and
Supports Israel's right to exist.

A model with clear definitions would both allow us to sort out the willing subjects of the Islamic state from those who want no part of the empire and lend itself to a Cold War strategy to contain the empire.

Most presidential hopefuls invoke Reagan, but Herman Cain seems to also understand the power of definitions, telling interviewers:

Reagan's philosophy, as you know, was peace through strength. My philosophy is peace through strength and clarity. We need to clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are, stop giving money to the enemies and make sure that our enemies know who our friends are, that we are going to stand solidly behind.

If Iran can't be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, and it's probably already too late, then Saudi Arabia will be sure to follow. As the Cold War parallel becomes more obvious, it's also becoming clear that the world needs a U.S. president who isn't afraid to dust off the Gipper's playbook.

Taking the Cold War to Islam, however, will require at least one new play: a vigorous domestic energy policy designed to deprive the Islamic state of the petrodollars that fuel its expansionism. If we can find the will, we may be able to help moderate Islam achieve the critical mass necessary to pull the rest of Islam into the Enlightenment.

************

Update, 24 Nov:
Robert Small Sends me email re the post, titled "Nice blog". He gave me permission to post it:

You get it! Thanks for taking the time to write your blog.

When Reagan took a hardline against the Soviet Union, he didn't have

the press, politicians, and politically correct culture working

against him to defend the Communist system and assimilate Communist

principles into our society like they have with Islam. Being an open

Marxist in our society was still a no no until very recently. Our

government is so dysfunctional right now in every area that the first

step is to get true Conservatives in office who will stop working with

CAIR, the Saudis, and the MB, and seek alternative partners who fit a

Jasser/McCarthy definition of moderate. These are going to be Muslims

living outside the Middle East, including groups like the NU who are

themselves under threat from Saudi-funded Wahhabis.

Geert Wilders is right, Spencer is right, Geller, even Bostom may be

right about Islam; but none of them--as far as I've read so far--has

been willing to go out on a limb to propose an offensive strategy--

it's all defense with them. McCarthy, Jasser, Libforall are also right

in that we gain nothing by dismissing Muslims who agree with the

principles of liberty and ignore the fundamentalist stuff but still

identify with their Islamic heritage. Jasser and Libforall/NU are

actually trying to do something to establish a counterweight to

radicalism. There's no reason these two camps shouldn't be able to

work together as part of a dual strategy. I haven't argued in any of

my articles that Islam is not extreme. My position is that it's

critical, as a matter of national security, that we change our

definition of moderate and set the terms of our partnerships rather

than the reverse. There is no political will in our country right now

to do what should be done as far as immigration, energy independence,

or taking a hard line against the Saudi government (our biggest

strategic "partner").

I'm not an academic like Bostom so have no reputation to lose and am

not concerned about the commenters, but I appreciate your piece and

wish you a happy Thanksgiving.

Regards,

Robt

Next day:
Peter,

You're welcome to publish it, but please not my email address. I'm just an average thinking person trying to make sense of the world. The wonderful thing about American Thinker is that they give everyone, everywhere, an equal shot without preference to "credentials." Most of the so-called experts in the world today are leading us astray. America was not founded by academic elites or any ruling class. It was founded by courageous and well-read, intelligent, articulate free-thinking farmers, craftsmen, and businessmen (and I'm sure their wives had some influence), and AT very much exists in this spirit.

I'm not sure if you've heard of Mark Levin. His radio show is available daily as a podcast through iTunes and he's also on satellite (SIRIUS/XM). He's not the average talk radio host, he's a Constitutional scholar and former Reagan administration attorney/advisor and I listen to him every day. He discusses current events within the framework of our founding principles and philosophy. I highly recommend his book "Liberty and Tyranny" and he has a new one coming out in January titled "Ameritopia." I've gained more from him since I've been listening (starting around 2008) than I would have in any masters or doctoral program.

All the best to you,
Robt

"Screams" against Islamism... or fighting the good fight by viewing naked babes!

2011-11-21T20:11:00.005+08:00

Support Egyptian atheist blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy!

Once again, just in from One Law for All...
‘I will be celebrating my 27th birthday in a few days and as I enter into a new year of my life, I think it is time to renounce religion openly...The CEMB is doing a great job by providing a forum for Ex-Muslims and taking a stand against the brutality of this religion.’ - Hassan
‘After 20 yrs of Islam, I finally gave up the prison for my freedom. My main issue with Islam is the awful injustice against women and as a woman myself I could not stand for a religion which belittles me...well done CEMB for creating this unified voice for ex-Muslims!’ – Pariah

Dear friends

These are just two of the many testimonies of ex-Muslims on the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain’s (CEMB) website and forum.

Clearly, an organisation like ours is essential in this day and age - breaking taboos, defending free expression and rights, and challenging Islamism head on. As you well know, it’s not easy and people who do so deserve our full support, including those in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.

20 year old atheist Egyptian blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy is one such person. She has recently posted nude photos of herself as ‘screams against a society of violence, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and hypocrisy’:

You can find out more about the work the CEMB is doing on our newly designed website and via links below.

Thank you for all your support over the past year; we couldn’t have done it without you.

Please do continue to support the CEMB in any way you can. Given the ‘controversial’ work that we do, our only support comes from freethinkers and secularists like you. Every little bit helps go a long way in the fight that lies ahead. If you’d like to donate to our work, please either send a cheque made payable to CEMB to BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK or give via Worldpay.
Thanks again.

Warmest wishes
Maryam
Maryam Namazie
Spokesperson
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Condescending to Aborigenes

2011-11-19T11:30:00.006+08:00

I just heard a report on BBC Worldservice radio, about the Australian government's proposal to tie Aboriginal welfare payments to the sending of their children to school. The proposal is that a family will have to send its kids to school before they can collect their welfare cheque.
This is a kind of tough love.
It's based on years of observations that welfare cheques are picked up, used to buy the minimum of food for survival, then used for grog, and the kids are forgotten.
Then another fellow, an "expert on Aboriginal education" we're told, comes on and says that the policy is horribly condescending.
Then he proceeds to condescend atrociously himself, saying that he'd had "tremendous success" in teaching aboriginal kids to be "proud of your aboriginality" and that it's best to learn in the native aboriginal language first and only then learn English.
This seems to me to be misguided. If you want them to continue sitting round in the bush -- and if that's what they want to do - fine. But if they (not you, white man, but they) want to advance in Aussie society -- and surely it's a soft bigotry to assume they don't -- then they need English first.
Here in Hong Kong there's been a move by the government to have "mother tongue teaching". But guess what? The local Hong Kong Chinese want their kids to be taught in English, not Chinese. These are people who are not in any doubt about their culture; and they're not in any doubt either about what's best for their kids. If it's true for Chinese, when Chinese is massively more widely spoken than any aboriginal language, and who have a very robust sense of their own culture, then it must hold true for aboriginal languages and the aboriginal culture a fortiori.
Spare us from these post-modern "experts"....

Those who speak openly about national issues are patriots, not traitors

2011-11-18T10:22:00.008+08:00

My letter was the featured one in today's South China Morning Post. So far it's running 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Update 24 Nov: has had most number of stars of any letter this year, still tracking 4.5/5.

Those who speak openly about national issues are patriots, not traitors

Updated on Nov 18, 2011

I refer to the article by Philip Fang ("Brat in the family", November 9).
He said that Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun were in "open defiance", presumably of Beijing, and were thus a "Gang of Four". He also said they would be considered "seditious" if we had an Article 23 law, in part because they were not "grateful" enough for the mainland's alleged largesse.

Grateful? That demand is not the sign of a mature or self-confident government.

I was in Beijing during the dark days of the original Gang of Four, in the 1970s, when the government was certainly not self-confident. I recall how it was then - no freedom of speech, labour camps for dissidents; pretty much like it is now, come to think of it.

To hear Hongkongers labelled thus is chilling indeed, especially when those so labelled are staunch supporters of freedom of speech. To call them a Gang of Four is a grotesque inversion.

Mr Fang is just a retired interpreter. But perhaps - though let's hope not - he is a stalking horse for central government opinion.

If this is what Beijing is thinking, it is even more scary. After all, Mrs Chan, Mr Lee, Mr Lai and Cardinal Zen, whatever we may think of their views, are by no stretch of the imagination "endangering state security".

They are committed and concerned residents of Hong Kong - patriots, too, I would suggest - who speak openly and robustly about many issues that affect Hong Kong and the nation.

That is part of the hurly-burly of an open society, part of working through issues and part of providing a safety valve for differing ideas.

That Mr Fang should suggest Hong Kong has descended into "lawlessness and anarchy" through "open defiance" is laughable. It is all the more insulting coming, as it does, from a [former] mainland official - after all, on the mainland, the law is routinely flouted and on the mainland there are daily demonstrations by a population incensed by unlawful and corrupt officials. Yet the mainland, via Mr Fang, seeks to lecture Hong Kong on law and order and anarchy? Give me a break.

It is to be hoped that Hong Kong people let Mr Fang know in no uncertain terms that his trial balloon is a lead balloon; it is, or ought to be, going nowhere.

Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay
Another letter, supporting my view, on 16th Nov:
Philip Fang ("Brat in the family", November 9) cannot be more wrong in accusing Hong Kong people of being unpatriotic brats whose achievements were due to support from mother China. If he were right, the Communist Party under Deng Xiaoping would have made an unforgivable mistake in introducing the "one country, two systems" arrangement to reincorporate Hong Kong into China.

Hong Kong has achieved what it has accomplished because it has developed along its particular path. If this were not the case, there would not have been the need for Deng to allow Hong Kong to keep the system it had.

Being true to what Hong Kong is does not make its people unpatriotic to China, particularly if this has been beneficial to the country. If the city had been harmful to the People's Republic, it would not have been tolerated by patriotic leaders like Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao .

The real issue is what one means by "patriotism". Mr Fang's definition seems to be one that if the people of Hong Kong do not do what he expects of them, they are unpatriotic and should be subjected to the draconian requirements of the proposed Article 23. Being approved of by Mr Fang - and to do so implies going against the approval of three generations of Chinese leaders - cannot be the definition of a Chinese patriot.

A patriot is someone who loves one's country and is prepared to do what it takes for the good of one's country. Since the most basic raison d'etre for a country to exist is the betterment of its people, the ultimate yardstick of one's patriotism is whether one is working for the respect, dignity, rights and betterment of one's fellow citizens.

Hong Kong and its people have, since 1997, demonstrated that they have met such a requirement - without Article 23.

Steve Tsang, professor of contemporary Chinese studies, University of Nottingham, England

Sharia in UK bad for children

2011-11-16T10:05:00.005+08:00

This just in from One Law for All in the UK:

"....there is a real danger that children, within Muslim communities, are at risk of being exposed to sharia law rulings and removed from the protections of the Children Act. Sharia tribunals and councils are gaining ground across the UK. According to a sharia practitioner, the courts are increasingly hearing cases on matters concerning children." [emphasis added]

Shocker! US high school textbooks whitewash Islamic history!

2011-11-16T09:45:00.002+08:00

This just in from Act! for America:

Islam just "became popular"

We have received a lot of emails asking when our textbook analysis project will be completed.

If you’re not aware of this, 18 months ago we launched an in-depth analysis of thirty-eight 6^th through 12^th grade textbooks, to see how they treated the subject of Islam.

The research has been completed, and what we have found will shock you. The historical falsehoods, bias and other misrepresentations of Islam in these textbooks are egregious and persistent.

We are currently completing the writing and final edits to the report, which will document over 245 errors in these various textbooks.

Here’s a small sample of what we found.

“In Medina, Muhammad displayed impressive leadership skills. He fashioned an agreement that joined his own people with the Arabs and Jews of Medina as a single community. These groups accepted Muhammad as a political leader. As a religious leader, he drew many more converts, who found his message appealing.”

McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin, World History - Patterns of Interaction, 2007, p.265

This is patently false. The Jews of Medina rejected Muhammad as a prophet, and as a result he drove two of the Jewish tribes out of Medina and exterminated the third one.

“Shari’a law requires Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews.”

McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin, World History - Patterns of Interaction, 2007, p.268

This is so preposterous, so lacking historical justification or support within sharia law, one wonders how it ever got into a textbook.

“The Eastward Expansion of Islam:

In the early eighth century, Islam became popular in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. …”

Glencoe/McGraw Hill, New York

World History, 2008, pp.285-286

“Became popular” sounds more like a description of a new dance than what happened to the Hindus of India. Tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered during the many jihad campaigns launched against it.

Rather than release this report as we enter the holiday season, we have decided to hold off until early next year. At that time we will mail an Executive Summary to every state and local school board member in America—over 70,000 people.

We will then post the Executive Summary and the full report online for downloading, and we will send out national emails with talking points on how to approach your local school board about the findings in this report.

Stay tuned!

Geo Engineering gets a boost -- Solar Radiation Management

2011-11-14T18:21:00.004+08:00

"Injection of sulphate aerosol is designed to
mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions"
From BBC News, Science & Environment

Professor David Keith makes a good case for Solar Radiation Management on today's BBC Hard Talk (sadly not available in my zone, Asia).
This is the second program on the Beebs in an as many days, on the issue of Geo-engineering, suggesting it's becoming mainstream. Indeed, another article of 24th October on BBC News says "Public supports geo-engineering ideas, study suggests".
I wrote about it last year, and earlier this year.
To the greenies who worry that a technical solution will reduce the political will to charge for carbon, Prof Keith says (I paraphrase): "are we really saying that we don't want to have a technology that will -- or may, we don't fully know yet and have to do more research -- in the short term, reduce the risk of global warming? Is that a moral stance?" And also: "providing seat belts might incline people to drive a bit faster; are we saying that seat belts are wrong?"
He doesn't suggest that SRM is going to be a panacea, or that we should implement it without delay. His main point is that more study and research should be supported, and that if/when it's deployed it should be regulated, in the public arena and done with extreme care: step by reversible step.
That seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposal.
For my mind, we must proceed with the more study he proposes.
If a house is in fire, and you might have some water nearby, the fact that you haven't sorted out the cause of the fire should surely not stop you from using the water....

It's official: Islam ISN'T the "Religion of Peace"!

2011-11-13T16:22:00.000+08:00

For the first time I've seen, the MSM has debated the motion: "Islam is a Religion of Peace", and the Nay's won it. See the Intelligence Squared Debate of October 6th here.
Almost all the undecideds decided that it was NOT a Religion of Peace, based on the arguments of Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an ex-Muslim) and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion:

Pre-Debate Poll Results
41%For | 25% Against | 34%

Post Debate Poll Results
36% For | 55% Against | 9%

Is Phillip Fang a stalking horse for Peking? Chilling, thuggish words...

2011-11-10T09:38:00.001+08:00

Letter to South China Morning Post:
The phrase “Gang of Four” should strike fear into any heart.
In “Brat in the family”, (Nov 9: see below) Phillip Fang says that Anson Chan, Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai and Joseph Zen are in “open defiance” – presumably of Beijing – and are thus a “Gang of Four” who should be considered “seditious” if we had an Article 23 law, seditious in part because they are not “grateful” enough for the mainland’s alleged largesse. Grateful? That demand is not the sign of a mature and self-confident government. I was in Peking during the dark days of the original “Gang of Four”, in the seventies, when the government was certainly not self confident. I recall how it was then: no freedom of speech, labour camps for dissidents. Pretty much like it is now, it seems.
To hear locals labelled thus is chilling stuff indeed, especially when those so labelled are staunch supporters of freedom of speech. To call them a “Gang of Four” is a grotesque inversion.
Fang is just a retired interpreter. But perhaps - though let’s hope not — he is a stalking horse for central government opinion.

If this is what Peking is thinking, it’s even more scary and chilling. After all, Chan, Lee, Lai and Zen, whatever we may think of their views, are by no stretch of the imagination “endangering state security”. They are committed and concerned residents of Hong Kong — patriots, too, I’ll suggest — who speak openly and robustly about many issues that affect Hong Kong and the nation. That’s part of the hurly-burly of an open society, part of working through issues and part of providing a safety valve for differing ideas.

That Fang should suggest Hong Kong has descended into “lawlessness and anarchy”, through “open defiance” is laughable. It is all the more insulting coming, as it does, from a mainland official – after all, on the mainland, the law is routinely flouted and on the mainland there are daily hundreds of demonstrations by a population incensed by unlawful and corrupt officials. Yet the mainland, via Fang, seeks to lecture Hong Kong on law & order and anarchy? Give me a break!

It’s to be hoped that Hong Kong people let Fang know in no uncertain terms that his trial balloon is a lead balloon; it is — or ought to be -- going nowhere.
All in all, scary stuff.

Yours, etc,
Peter F.
Hong Kong

__________________________________

Brat in the family

Philip Fang denounces the ingratitude displayed by some Hongkongers who enjoy the prosperity powered by their home country's boom but continue to deny Beijing the loyalty and trust that is rightfully due

Updated on Nov 09, 2011

Wang Guangya , head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, has let it be known that the No 1 criterion in the selection of the next chief executive would be patriotism.

Patriotism presupposes loyalty and trust - the bricks and mortar of all lasting human relations. Are Hong Kong people patriotic? The answer is an emphatic "no". Generally, Hong Kong Chinese have no idea of their national identity and heritage, and are loath to identify with their brethren on the mainland. They would rather identify themselves with Taiwanese Chinese, Singaporean Chinese, Australian Chinese and American Chinese. They think they are superior. The mindset that fosters this superiority complex is no mystery; Hong Kong people worship money, power and celebrity. Hong Kong creates no true wealth. It indulges in the culture of money making money.

Back in the 1980s, Hong Kong wages rocketed and production moved across the border. Hong Kong has since been reduced to a service-based economy. Its limited terrain has become its new wealth generator. Today, over 70 per cent of Hong Kong's market capitalisation comes from property and related activities; Hong Kong is one of the most expensive places to live in the world today. This social polarisation has moved the city dangerously close to the red-light signal on the United Nations index measuring social upheaval in the wake of income disparity.

The central government must have confidence that the chief executive can keep things under control in Hong Kong. Normally, the interest of the overwhelming majority of 1.3billion Chinese should have priority but, in the case of Hong Kong, the reverse is true.

Beijing has given Hong Kong people carte blanche to run their own affairs. Hong Kong pays no taxes to the central government, which also picks up the bill for the People's Liberation Army, which ensures the special administrative region's security. Hong Kong's level of taxation is very low compared with other similar economies. Yet, mainland China's "tax pain" ranked second in the world in 2009, according to Forbes. Vice-Premier Li Keqiang , during his recent visit, said Beijing had picked Hong Kong to be China's future centre for overseas renminbi trading. Hong Kong last year ranked third in the world as a recipient of foreign direct investment, according to a UN report, a mesmerising performance considering the SAR's size.

All these good things have happened to Hong Kong and its people because of one reason - their country, China. Hong Kong should ask itself this: "My country has done so much for me, what have I done for it in return?" It's time for the people of Hong Kong to ask themselves whether they have lived up to the expectations of the central government. The way things stand, they have let Beijing down badly. Hongkongers have behaved like spoiled brats cosseted with gifts, perquisites and privileges. Instead of showing their gratitude and appreciation, they have turned on their own country.

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was right to condemn the recent acts of hooliganism under the guise of free speech and assembly in the Legislative Council. Hong Kong today seems to be used to lawlessness and anarchy. The law must be upheld and the authorities must not go soft on people who take the law into their own hands.

The open defiance of the "Gang of Four" - Anson Chan Fang On-san, Martin Lee Chu-ming, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun - and the Civic Party, headed by Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, only points to the urgency for the government and Legco to push through Article 23, under which many of their acts would be considered as endangering state security, that is, sedition. People must be made to understand they are Chinese citizens and subject to Chinese laws and sanctions.

Western precepts of democracy and human rights cannot be applied directly to a country the size of China, which for centuries has evolved around Confucian ethics. In the selection of national development models and priorities, China has always maintained an aloofness from the West. Equanimity and self-reliance have been its hallmark. In money management, the central bank has favoured a conservative and cautious policy. This has enabled China to stay clear of the economic meltdown.

The recent downgrading of the ratings of the US and some euro zone nations shattered the myth that the US Federal Reserve and Wall Street knew better when it came to how to manage money. The world, and Europe in particular at present, is looking to China for help.

As part of a family with a patriotic background, listed as descendents of revolutionary martyrs, I sincerely hope the people of Hong Kong will take to heart the overall interest of their country and people, and ponder Hong Kong's own future.

Philip Fang Shun-sang worked for the United Nations as an interpreter and was chief of the Chinese interpretation section before retiring in 1999

Gilad Atzmon

2011-11-09T14:50:00.004+08:00

I've just come across this guy, Gilad Atzmon, courtesy Blazing Cat Fur, reporting Alan Dershowitz's review of Atzmon's latest book, "The Wandering Who?".
Atzmon is a "proud self-hating jew". In fact, he is a Jew hater.
He says he's not an anti-semite -- how can he be? he's jewish, born in Israel and was in the Israeli Defense Forces -- but he's living proof that a Jew can in fact be a Jew hater and a vicious anti-semite. Ben-Gurion would have been kinder: what we call today "self-hating Jews", he said were "lacking self confidence".
Atzmon's own site is here. Have a look around, and see if it's not the sort of stuff, which said by anyone not Jewish, wouldn't be labelled racist anti-semitic bigotry.
In a recent post on his site Atzmon is quoted as saying:
In my entire writing career I have never criticized Jews as people, ethnicity or race.

Yet here he is, in January 2004's "On anti-semitism", saying:

.... we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.

That's straight out of the notorious forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", whose provenance, by the way, Atzmon says is irrelevant, since Jews really are trying to rule the world.

That's Atzmon not criticising "Jews as people"? To say that they're trying to "control the world"?? Get a grip, man!

Atzmon says that Israel's actions towards Palestinians are the same as those of the Gestapo Nazis. That's an absurd and paranoid comparison. More, it's insane and sick.

He says that he wants to see a one State solution with Free Palestinians. And that if it's run by Islamists, so be it. That of course, means the end of Israel, the killing or displacement of all Jews in Israel. If that's what he wants, the destruction of Israel, why doesn't he say so, rather than come out with vile jew-hate and then proclaim himself free of bigotry and anti-semitism, when all he says is dripping with it.

I've ordered his latest book "The Wandering Who" which gets 4-stars, amazingly, on Amazon.

Amazon Review
Here is a 5-star review.
Excerpt from the review:
....Excerpts from the book:

"The `Jewish people' is a made-up notion, consisting of an imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically or textually.

"Nor has much been found in the Sinai Desert to prove the story of the legendary Egyptian exodus - apparently 3 million Hebrew men, women and children marched there for forty years without leaving a single Matzo Ball behind.

"Jews do not have a common origin, that their Semitic origins are a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever, and therefore their act of so-called `return' must be realised as pretext for a tribal expansionist invasion.

"If Shlomo Sand is correct, then the Jews, rather than being a race, comprise a collective of many people who have been hijacked by a national movement based on myths.

"If Jews are not a race and have nothing to do with Semitism, then `anti-Semitism' is, categorically, an empty signifier. In other words, criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology, politics and practice.

"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a Latvian-born philosopher at the Hebrew University, was probably first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion.

"This new religion is coherent enough to define its `antichrists' (Holocaust deniers), and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust denial and hate-speech laws).

"The Holocaust religion serves both right and left Jewish political discourse, but it appeals to the goyim as well, especially those who preach and advocate killing in the name of `freedom', democracy and `moral interventionism'.

"That which maintains the Jewish collective identity is fear.

"To be a Jew is to see a threat in every Goy, to be on a constant alert.

"...whatever is good for the Jews is simply good.

"The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats. With 24 seats Jews are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims. If Muslims, for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they'd have 200 seats. All hell would break loose.

"Jewish history engages with the basic question of whether a given account is `good for the Jews' or not.

"The dismissal of factuality or lack of commitment to truthfulness are actually symptomatic of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politic.

"In the Jewish intellectual insular world, one first decides what the historic moral is, then one invents `a past' to fit.

"As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionist lobbies and their plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes.

"With millions of besieged Palestinians, Israel has given itself the reputation of a pariah state.

"How is it that, in spite of the Holocaust, Israel and Jewish lobbies invest so much energy in evoking hatred towards enemies of Israel and world Jewry?

"...envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called `pre-emptive' nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish.

Buy it NOW! One of the best books on the Jewish Question in the last 50 years!!!

And here is an answer to that review...

OK, lets debunk some of your quotes from the book.

QUOTE: "The `Jewish people' is a made-up notion, consisting of an imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically or textually. "
REPLY: Dead Sea Schools & excavations in old Jerusalem should put this bogus claim to rest.

QUOTE: Nor has much been found in the Sinai Desert to prove the story of the legendary Egyptian exodus - apparently 3 million Hebrew men, women and children marched there for forty years without leaving a single Matzo Ball behind."
REPLY: 3000 years ago Jews were wondering through the desert, on their way from one place (Egypt) to another (Israel). The Bedouins in Sinai, they also don't leave a single sheesh kabab behind.

QUOTE: Jews do not have a common origin, that their Semitic origins are a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever, and therefore their act of so-called `return' must be realised as pretext for a tribal expansionist invasion. "
REPLY: Only a Saxophone player would miss the discovery of Y-chromosome linking Jews in Europe & ME to their ancestry. Read this published in NY Times:

"Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora.
By NICHOLAS WADE May 9, 2000

With a new technique based on the male or Y chromosome, biologists have traced the diaspora of Jewish populations from the dispersals that began in 586 B.C. to the modern communities of Europe and the Middle East. "

Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346genetics.html

QUOTE:The dismissal of factuality or lack of commitment to truthfulness are actually symptomatic of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politic. "
REPLY: He should tell that load of crap to those 180 Jewish Nobel Laureates. Also, if that same load of crap is any true, successive Prime Ministers in U.K and U.S. Presidents would not seek the Jews advice and council how to run their respective countries..
He only express his own fears and prejudices. otherwise, no Jews that I know, talks like that.

QUOTE: "The Holocaust religion".
REPLY: This is just another one of those convoluted inventions concocted by marginal people - not from a self respecting individual.
In fact, it is Germany itself which since WWII had the courage, to taken this "religious" and remind humanities, the result of blind hatred of one group of humans against another. They are determined to not let it ever happen again to anyone - not just Jews.

So, Who's version of the Holocaust should we take. Germany, or two dubious "scholars".?

"The Problem with Islam"

2011-11-09T14:12:00.000+08:00

A new book by Patrick Sookhdeo is always welcome. Here is a review of his latest, "Islam in our midst: the Challenge to our Christian Heritage".
I've read his monumental "Global Jihad", which, not surprisingly, Islam apologists did not like, though they attack the man, in typical form, not the argument: eg, Mehdi Hasan, who Sookhdeo answered here.
Timmerman, in his review linked above says:
Because of his scholarship and his deep understanding of Islamic texts and Islamic law, it is harder for the pro-Sharia lobby to dismiss him as an Islamophobe.
This is a bit hopeful. The always ridiculous Islamophobia-watch.com will always have a go at the messenger -- any person who lays out the facts of Islam, again with slight impact on the key arguments, preferring the good old standby of ad hominem, e.g."...this right-wing evangelical Christian's bigot..."
He is not (though he is a Christian). Read what he writes and judge for yourself.
[h/t Frontpage mag]

Frogs jump out of the barrel

2011-11-03T17:00:00.000+08:00

You know that hoary old saying: the one about the frog in the water, which heats up so slowly that the frog doesn't realise it's getting slowly cooked and dies for lack of realisation. That's the image that's often used as a simile for what's going on in the west, the slow islamisation that will "cook" the west, before it realises what's going on.
But hand it to the Frogs! They've shown some grit where the anglo-saxon world has not. They've banned the burka and niqab, they've banned religious symbols in the classroom, they've not allowed meat in public hospitals to be slaughtered al-halal (ie, cruelly).
And now there's the case of the satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, which ran a piece with a caricature of Muhammad on the cover, got firebombed for its effort and -- here's the big surprise kicker and the one that truly shows their grit -- have said "we will come back and we will not be silenced".
Good on the froggies!! Show the ragged, poor cowardly "lion" across the water a thing or too about courage and principles.
Couple of links on the fire-bombing:

"French satire no match for militant Islam", by Con Coughlin. Who gets whacked good and proper for saying, inter alia, that Christians would be "equally outraged" if Christ were lampooned. Which of course is absolute nonsense.
"Islam rage in France: Satirical Newspaper Firebombed after Naming Mo as Guest Editor-in-Chief", at Ironic Surrealism blog.

Shooting own goals

2011-11-03T13:46:00.005+08:00

You know how it is?... when you read a sentence that's supposed to make you think "oh, my goodness, how horrible", but instead makes you think "yes, that's exactly right!"?

That's what I mean by scoring an own goal. And there's a lot of it in the writing of apologists for Islam. They'll write something like "so-and-so, says that Islam is a violent religion" and you're supposed to think that so-and-so is a terrible bigot, an Islamophobe. Whereas, of course, if you know anything about Islam, then you would have studied its core documents, the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira (life of Muhammad) and you'll know that it is indeed a religion, not of peace but of violent supremacism.

It's really a measure of how deeply buried such apologists are in the obfuscations of Islam that they will write like this, oblivious to the fact that they've scored an own goal, that their writing is self-indicting. They make it clear just how ignorant or blind they are to the dark aspects of Islam, that in reporting alleged "Islamophobic" comments they are merely highlighting those very same dark aspects of Islam.

The website Islamophobia-watch.com does this all the time, one own goal after another.

Take this post, which reports on a Mr Barrish's contention that Islam is a "totalitarian theocracy" and that it is "littered with human rights violations". Again, we're meant to think "how horrid of Mr Barrish, he's clearly ignorant, for Islam is a Religion of Peace, not a totalitarian theocracy". But, of course, that is a very correct description of Islam. It is totalitarian and it does make a theocracy when it is the state religion (Iran, Saudi Arabia). Moreover, it is indeed littered with "human rights violations", in how it treats women, minorities and the repression of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Keep reporting on that "Islamophobia", you folks at "Islamophobia-watch. com!, you only make it easier for sane and clear thinking folk to better understand the egregiousness of Islam.

"Say no to wind farms: Shale of the century"

2011-11-01T09:26:00.003+08:00

Can this be true? Can shale gas be our saviour?
I will follow this issue with interest.
One suspects that on the further reaches of the green side -- the "watermelons", green on the outside, red on the inside -- anything that looks like it might be a quick and easy fix will not be welcomed, for a deeper agenda is a hatred of human depredations on mother earth. "Life after People" is not a TV show for them, but a fervent hope...
And isn't it interesting how many greenies are against wind farms, especially when they're near where they live. I'm not a greenie, but I don't mind wind farms. Mind you, I'm not sure how much electricity they really deliver. There's the issue of capacity vs the amount actually delivered (something of the order of one tenth to one third, I believe, delivered vs installed capacity)

Administration bans the truth about Islam. In defense of Robert Spencer

2011-11-01T09:08:00.005+08:00

I wrote here about the extraordinary directive from the US Justice Department, banning the use of "Islam" in relation to any violent acts.
Robert Spencer does a better job of "outing" this ridiculous policy, here.
New readers may not have heard of the name Spencer, or perhaps have only heard negatives in the mainstream press, that he is "bigoted", an "Islamophobe", whatever. He is none of these.
But the criticisms continue from Islamic apologists: classic ad hominem, attack the man, don't take on the message.
This ad hominem happened in the comments after his article linked above.
I wrote a defense of Spencer:

Spencer has a body of published work which is subject to scrutiny. I have

read it all and find it informative and where I've had reason to check

it against authoritative Islamic texts, it has stood the test. He is

scrupulous in quoting sources fairly and accurately, knowing that the

slightest slip will be pounced on by Islamic apologists.

I have also seen him in public debate with Islamic apologists where he

always gets the better of them, for he's profoundly knowledgeable on

Islam and has a prodigious memory of the relevant sources.

I have also seen him on numerous TV interviews where he performs well

and knowledgeably.

I'm not rosy-eyed about him though. At times his books (especially

"Stealth Jihad") could use some more rigorous editing. And he trends

to be a bit prickly about criticism, rising to the bait a bit too

often.

But he's clearly, by any measure of reality, thoroughly erudite on

Islam. If he has concluded -- as I had even before coming upon his

writings 8 years ago -- that Islam is not the "Religion of Peace" that

it's hyped to be, but is instead supremacist, sectarian, anti-Semitic,

homophobic and misogynist, then that's because the texts and doctrines

of Islam are so; not because Spencer says it's so.

In other words, don't attack the messenger.

It is exactly trying to kill the messenger that is being practiced by

these attacking Spencer for his critiques of Islam, and of the Administration's

policy on [not] speaking the truth about it.

[I just went back to copy/paste my comment, and see there's follow up comment: "Excellent post, Peter. Another intelligent blogger for our side :-)"]

Islam or Islamist

2011-10-31T16:14:00.003+08:00

The whole issue of whether there is a difference between Islam and Islamism; between a "religion" and a theo-political ideology; between "moderate" and"extremist"; between "reformer" and "fundamentalist"; and so on, all these are subject of intense debate, not least within the non-Muslim community.
This article by Andrew McCarthy is a very good summary of one point of view: that there is indeed a difference between Islam and Islamism.
I agree with his "opponent" on this issue, Robert Spencer, who says there is no meaningful difference. BUT, I think it's important, tactically, to act as if there IS a difference: for otherwise, the enemy, the threat we face, is simply too big. We can't take on the whole of Islam and all Muslims. But we can take on Islamism and extremist Muslims, with the help of Muslims, as well.

Update: Raymond Ibrahim expatiates on this issue as well:
What are the differences between the traditional Muslim and the so-called "Islamist"? As words dealing with Islam continue to morph and multiply, it is important to differentiate, for there are real, if subtle, differences.
...
one must first understand "Islamism"—a hybrid abomination of sorts, whereby the better principles of Western civilization are absorbed and rearticulated within a distinctly Muslim paradigm. For instance, the Western stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice, is, for Islamists, transformed into a stress on Muslim freedom,Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice—all, naturally, at the sake of the infidel.
...
Lest it appear that Islamists are more "humane" than traditionalists, it should be kept in mind that the other—the non-Muslim—is viewed by both groups as the infidel enemy. In fact, whatever subtle differences may exist, the similarities between the Islamist and Muslim are many. Thus, while the traditional Sheikh and the Islamist argued over Mubarak's fate, there was never disagreement over two points—enmity for Israel and Jews, and the permissibility of using deceit to undermine them.

Sup from Dim Sum bonds; don't suck up to Sharia compliant Sukuks

2011-10-31T11:20:00.002+08:00

[Letter to South China Morning Post]
Why doesn’t John Tsang just give up on Islamic Finance? (“No Islamic Bonds despite 4-year push", Business, October 29). He’s failed to tap the market, so now he wants to give them tax breaks. Give us a break, Mr Tsang!

The article states that Sharia-compliant, or sukuk, bonds prohibit interest, or investments in pork, tobacco and casinos. But it’s worse than that. They also prohibit investments in companies or products that benefit non-Islamic religions; any project that promotes equal rights for women and gays; any western defence industries (but not Muslim ones); any western books, films, TV and radio. And, of course, they prohibit investment in any company having links with Israel. In short, they are egregiously discriminatory. And I would argue that such discrimination is illegal by Hong Kong’s laws.

More: Islamic finance products have been linked with funding to terrorist organisations. A portion of Sukuk moneys have to go to Islamic charities, and charities such as the Holy Land Foundation have been linked (eg in the 911 Commission Report) to funneling of money to organisations with terrorist links.[*]

Sharia Finance was first promoted by the radical Pakistani Islamist Sayyid Al-Mawdudi in the 1960s and is promoted today by Islamists like Al-Qaradawi as being “Jihad with money”. [*]

Is this what we want to promote in Hong Kong? Is this the way Hong Kong taxpayers’ money should be spent? Giving tax breaks to a radical Islamist agenda to increase the reach of Sharia, including through terrorism? Giving tax breaks to discriminatory -- possibly illegal -- Sukuks?

Surely, Mr Tsang, it is far better to sup from Dim Sum bonds than to suck up to Sukuk.

Peter F
Hong Kong
[*] http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-to-simon-crean-and-nick-sherry.html#more

"Thought without learning is dangerous" -- the Master

2011-10-31T10:47:00.002+08:00

[To South China Morning Post]
I would like to weigh in on the discussion of Chinese characters by Wang and Dunn (“Revival of old characters isn’t likely”, Letters, October 29).
I write as one who learnt the simplified characters at the Peking Language Institute and Peking University in 1976, then the “old” characters at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1977.
First, it was easier for me as an adult to learn the simplified characters first and then the traditional (“old”) characters. The same must surely be true for children learning them. Going from simple to complex is more sensible than going from complex to simple: walk before you run.
Second: many of the simplifications were done by taking existing hand-written forms as the basis. For example, the character shuo (to speak), printed as 說, was commonly hand-written as 说 , a saving of five strokes in seven for its radical yan (言). This 70% saving is carried over into the many characters that have the “speech” radical 言.
Third: if Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Korea use traditional characters in their trading relationship with China, so what? A click of a software button will convert a document from simplified Chinese to traditional, if needed.
As for “building culture”, which is alleged to flow from use of “old” characters, I make the following observation. I studied both calligraphy and the Analects of Confucius in its original classical Chinese. When I was later the boss of offices in China and Hong Kong, I found that the calligraphic skills of staff on the mainland were far better than those of our Hong Kong staff [at the risk of angering Hong Kong readers: Chinese staffs’ calligraphy was elegant; Hong Kong staffs’ calligraphy was childish]; and their knowledge of Confucian references was measurably better than that of their Hong Kong colleagues. So which way does the culture “build”, Mr Wang?
There is no need for China to own up to any “mistake”, as Dunn contends. Introducing simplified characters helped spread literacy in China and helped foreigners in learning the language. It was and remains a good move.
Messrs Wang & Dunn would do well to heed the words of Confucius, the Master: “thought without learning is perilous” (…思而不學則殆)
**********

Revival of old characters isn't likely

Wang Xiangwei in his China Briefing column is quite right when he says China should reintroduce traditional characters ("How our old characters build culture", October 24).

In addition to cultural factors, there are many practical considerations that recommend such a reintroduction.

First, in an era of digital communications, the speed with which a simplified character, averaging seven strokes, can be written is of lessening importance. A traditional character, averaging 13 strokes, is easier to recognise and distinguish from other characters. Recognition is now the key attribute in reading and writing characters.

Second, traditional characters are much easier to read, not only for Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere but also for Japanese and Koreans. With increasing imports from China, Koreans and Japanese have a greater need to access information in Chinese. Use of traditional characters would facilitate that process.

However, the likelihood that China will make such a change is unfortunately quite low.

The central government is of the mindset that any change made today is an admission of mistakes in the past. An obvious example is the one-child policy, which has long outlived its usefulness and has contributed to an imbalance of the sexes and a future of too few workers supporting too many retirees.

Despite the fact that there has been a need for change for many years, that policy continues, largely in its original form.

David Dunn, Beijing

Maureen Dowd gets all gooey

2011-10-27T16:56:00.006+08:00

Dowd has this thing for Saudi despots. Princes, Ambassadors, anyone representing this foul regime, and she goes all gooey. Remember last year, when in no less than three articles, she let herself be punked by Prince Saud (he of the "aviator glasses", and "demeanor of a Hollywood mogul"). Why, she even headlines one of those articles "Loosey goosey Saudi" bringing to mind Henry Miller's use of "wet as a goose"....
It's enough for these louche apologists for the most barbaric regime in the world to look sideways at her and she goes all wet at the knees.
Take her latest swooning, over Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir:

“They [the religious police] say they can see the outline of your body,” Jubeir translated.

You just know that she's thinking of him seeing the "outline of her body". How? Well, try this:
She talks of the "slender, smartly tailored ambassador", of his "equanimity", of his staying "cool" in the face of threats, of his "dry smile" when he talks to her in "his whispery voice" [oh... how I wish he would whisper over the outline of my body...]
Forget the country al-Jubeir represents; forget Saudi funding of fundamentalist, wahhabi schools throughout the Muslim world; forget their training cadres of youth to hate and fight the west; forget their funding of Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the US and elsewhere in the world; forget their treatment of women, of homosexuals, of non-Muslims.
Forget all that.
All it takes is for a Saudi prince or ambassador to flutter his eyes, to whisper in his dry, cool voice, and Dowd is down for the count, dripping with lust, all "loosey goosey"....
Hell's bells, my dear, do pull yourself together!

The Battle of Tours

Homeland Security's Double-deal duplicity

Morgan Freeman: the Easy Reader

"The Third Jihad": see it for yourself and make your own judgement

Mark Steyn should stick to his knitting

One country, two cisterns

Schettino, "the careless one", steers Costa Concordia onto charted rock

Kos Kommenters are also ageing hippies

Canadian Honour Killing conviction: interview with MCC spokesman

"Geert Wilders Says There's No Such Thing as Moderate Islam"

"Ban the Burqa"

Muslima (?) and Child (II)

Am I too soft on China?

Big bad China? US crying wolf

Despite the political posturing, Americans still hold most of their country's debt, and still make most of the profit off everything that's sold there

My critique of Eric Allen Bell's article

My critique of the Daily Kos' Kommentors

The Bell tolls, it tolls for thee.. and thee heed not...

Good to see REAL hate crimes being prosecuted...

DO ask for whom Eric Bell tolls...

Plump Prince: Pouff! or Prevail?

The Islamic Trilogy

Islam in Norway

The intolerance of diversity

Islam in America

"Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of the World' as Ultimate Goal"

"Andelusia Spring", reclaiming "occupied" Spain for Islam

"Jihadist group declares war on France for being 'hostile to Islam'"

"... our way of life is not up for grabs, our laws are not negotiable..."

Muslim Brotherhood Organizations In America: Goals, Ideologies And Strategies – Analysis

Muslim moderation: Mission impossible?

Invisible gorillas: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

"Radical Islam and the Holocaust"

"Europe's Inexorable March Towards Islam"

"Jihad" means war in the name of Islam.... and the clash of civilisations

Islamapologist sites are pusillanimous pissants

"Was the Arab Spring a Victory for Extremism?": Jeffrey Goldberg

We were there!

Regulate Marihuana Like Wine

On Gingrich and the Palestinians

"Second period of Islamic power"

North Korean People's Army Funky Get Down Juche Party

Muslima (?) and Child

Long Live the Hitch!

"Off with long beards and Muslim Veil"

"Criticism of Islam could soon be a crime in America"

Roger Cohen: "Come home to Israel".... should really be "Come down on Israel"

The Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate... non-discriminatory... a terrific partner for the West"... NOT!

The Arab "Spring": how 'naive' do you have to be, before you're just stupid?...

"Reducing attacks is Israel's aim"

With friends like these... the pseudo "ally" Pakistan: serial lier and violent west-hater

"A pinkwash? Hogwash"

Mona Eltahawy: assaulted by Islam... for wearing pants?

TAHRIR SQUARE: MEN WITH BEARDS

Israel and "Pinkwashing" -- "Whitewashing the truth"

Israel is NOT an apartheid state

"Article 23 is aimed at unruly mob": my response to a thuggish letter

Islam's Islam, but strategically you have to support moderate Muslims

A New Model of Islam with Less Bark and More BiteNovember 20, 2011

"Screams" against Islamism... or fighting the good fight by viewing naked babes!

Support Egyptian atheist blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy!

Condescending to Aborigenes

Those who speak openly about national issues are patriots, not traitors

Those who speak openly about national issues are patriots, not traitors

Sharia in UK bad for children

Shocker! US high school textbooks whitewash Islamic history!

Geo Engineering gets a boost -- Solar Radiation Management

It's official: Islam ISN'T the "Religion of Peace"!

Is Phillip Fang a stalking horse for Peking? Chilling, thuggish words...

Brat in the family

Philip Fang denounces the ingratitude displayed by some Hongkongers who enjoy the prosperity powered by their home country's boom but continue to deny Beijing the loyalty and trust that is rightfully due

Gilad Atzmon

"The Problem with Islam"

Frogs jump out of the barrel

Shooting own goals

"Say no to wind farms: Shale of the century"

Administration bans the truth about Islam. In defense of Robert Spencer

Islam or Islamist

Sup from Dim Sum bonds; don't suck up to Sharia compliant Sukuks

"Thought without learning is dangerous" -- the Master

A New Model of Islam with Less Bark and More Bite
November 20, 2011