Blast kills top Iranians

A suicide bomber killed six senior Revolutionary Guards commanders, including two of its top officers, and 29 other people yesterday in one of the boldest attacks against Iran’s most powerful military institution.

The attack highlighted deepening instability in a southeastern region of mainly Shi’ite Muslim Iran bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many minority Sunnis live in the impoverished area, which has seen an upsurge in bombings and other violence.

State media said a local rebel Sunni group, called Jundollah (God’s soldiers), had claimed responsibility for the attack, the deadliest on the elite Guards in recent years, which also wounded about 30 people ahead of a meeting with tribal chiefs.

The talks were part of efforts to foster Shi’ite-Sunni unity and the Guards said the attack was aimed at fomenting sectarian strife in Sistan-Baluchestan province, media said. About 10 senior tribal figures were among the dead.

Iranian officials also accused the United States and Britain of involvement, a charge denied by Washington. Tehran says the US backs Jundollah to stir trouble in the border area and has also linked the group to Sunni Islamist al-Qaeda.

The armed forces’ headquarters issued a statement warning of “revenge”, the Fars News Agency reported.

The south-eastern province is the scene of frequent clashes between security forces, ethnic Baluch Sunni insurgents and heavily-armed drug traffickers.

Jundollah, which accuses Iran’s Shi’ite-led government of discrimination against Sunnis, has been blamed for many deadly incidents during the last few years.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said those behind the attack would be “seriously dealt with” and called on Pakistan to help catch and hand them over. Iran has in the past said Jundollah members were operating from its neighbour.

“We ask the Pakistani government not to delay any longer in the apprehension of the main elements in this terrorist attack.”

The Foreign Ministry summoned a senior Pakistani diplomat in Tehran and said there was evidence that the perpetrators entered Iran from Pakistan.

The deputy head of the Guards’ ground forces, General Nourali Shoushtari, and its commander in Sistan-Baluchestan province, General Rajabali Mohammadzadeh, were among the dead. Shoushtari was also a senior official of the Guards’ elite Qods force.

“Rigi’s terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the attack,” said state television, referring to Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of Jundollah which is linked by some analysts to the Taliban in Pakistan.

The US condemned the bombing.

“We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives. Reports of US involvement are false,” said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly.

The bombing and allegations of foreign involvement risk overshadowing talks between Iranian and Western officials in Vienna today intended to help resolve a standoff with the West over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In London, Saman Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, said: “We are very concerned that the Iranians will respond by executing Baluchi detainees. That has been their response to previous incidents – simply taking people out of prison and killing them.”

Goldhagen’s ‘Worse Than War’ Shows ‘Ordinary’ People Participating Willingly, Eagerly in Eliminationism, Genocide

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” created a firestorm of controversy when it appeared in 1996. He argued that the Holocaust — Hitler’s “Final Solution — was accomplished without coercion, that “ordinary” Germans and others in countries occupied by the Nazi regime during World War II willingly — even eagerly — murdered Jews and Gypsies was attacked by critics who accused him of blaming an entire nation — “collective punishment” — for a genocide they said was committed by bureaucrats and special killing detachments.

The book, which grew out of Goldhagen’s Harvard doctoral dissertation, argued that

Germans possessed a unique form of antisemitism, which he called “eliminationist antisemitism”, which developed over centuries prior to the 20th century. Goldhagen contends that “The German perpetrators of the Holocaust treated Jews in all the brutal and lethal ways that they did because, by and large, they believed that what they were doing was right and necessary. Second, that there was long existing, virulent antisemitism in German society that led to the desire on the part of the vast majority of Germans to eliminate Jews somehow from German society. Third, that any explanation of the Holocaust must address and specify the causal relationship between antisemitism in Germany and the persecution and extermination of the Jews which so many ordinary Germans contributed to and supported.”

“Hitler’s Willing Executioners” was honored by the Germans themselves in 1997, but was attacked by many prominent Holocaust historians — including Jewish ones (Goldhagen himself is the son of a Holocaust survivor) — and Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish academic and the son of Holocaust survivors, who accused Goldhagen of joining the “Holocaust Industry ” which justifies the creation of Israel at the expense of Palestinian Arabs, whom Finkelstein supports.

Goldhagen’s “Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity” (PublicAffairs, 672 pages, $29.95) applies his theory that “ordinary” people participated willingly, even eagerly, in the 1994 Rwanda massacre by Hutus of Tutsis, the Serbian genocide of Muslims and Croats following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Indonesian massacre of communists in the 1960s, the Khmer Rouge genocides in Cambodia, the massacre of 200,000 indigenous Maya and leftists in 1980s Guatemala, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s massacre of Marsh Arabs and Kurds in the 1980s and other eliminationist/genocides that continue to this day in Africa.

Just as “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” challenged the conventional wisdom about the Holocaust, so does “Worse Than War” apply his reasoning to other examples of eliminationism and genocide, past and present.

Goldhagen argues in his new book that we shouldn’t view genocides as mysterious aberrations or a series of unrelated atrocities, but rather as a form of politics which can be responded to politically or even through military intervention. In discussing the Rwanda genocide, Goldhagen shows how Hutus demonized and dehumanized Tutsis in much the same manner as the Germans did the Jews and the Turks did the Armenians during World War I. Two decades before the Rwanda massacres, the Tutsis in the neighboring country of Burundi massacred many of their nation’s Hutu peoples.

One of the more controversial aspects of Goldhagen’s book might be his labeling of President Harry S. Truman as a mass murderer for the August 1945 atom bomb attacks he ordered on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. He also describes one of the first genocides of the 20th Century, the 1904 mass murder of the Herero people in the German Empire’s colony of South-West Africa, now the independent nation of Namibia.

Throughout the book, Goldhagen eschews euphemisms like “Nazi” in favor of German, Indonesian, Guatemalan, British and other terms descriptive of the nation behind the eliminationism. The British followed the example of Spain in colonial Cuba in creating “concentration” camps in South Africa for the Boers during the Boer War, the model for camps in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Turkey and even the U.S. with the “internment” camps for more than 100,000 Japanese Americans beginning in 1942. Goldhagen says we should also stop using the euphemism “ethnic cleansing,” widely used in the 1990s to describe the genocide committed by the Serbs and lately used to describe the horror of Darfur where Sudanese Arabs are murdering and starving their black fellow Muslims. Goldhagen wants to drop the phrase “suicide bombers” in favor of “genocide bombers,” because he believes that’s what they are.

Goldhagen says the United Nations not only does little or nothing to prevent eliminationism and genocide — specifically citing the non-effort by the UN in Rwanda and Durfur — but is complicit in the process because of its failure to stand up to Political Islam, a movement that advocates eliminationism of Jews and Christians — and Western Civilization itself. The 9/11 attacks were an example of Political Islam in action, he says. Goldhagen would like to see the UN dissolved and replaced by an effective United Democratic Nations, which would exclude dictatorships and actively prevent eliminationism and genocide.

The author writes that too much emphasis has been given to “high-tech” methods of mass murder, like the gas chambers and crematoria of the German death camps. The Hutu murdered some 800,000 Tutsi with clubs and machetes, at a rate equal to or exceeding that of the Germans, he says. The dust jacket of the book has the word “War” spelled out in machetes.

Eliminationism takes many forms, including death marches of Jews from Auschwitz and other death factories toward the end of the war by the Germans and widely used by the Turks in the Armenian genocide starting in 1915. Death marches were also used by the German Empire in the South-West Africa Herero mass murders, and by the Japanese in the infamous 1942 Bataan death march in the newly occupied Philippines.

Goldhagen says that rape is also a form of eliminationism, as evidenced by the rape camps set up by the Serbs to humiliate Muslim Bosnian women whom they knew would be shunned by their husbands when they were released. Rape was widely used by the Japanese in the aptly named 1937 Rape of Nanking, China, which killed in excess of 200,000 people. It’s part of the ongoing Darfur genocide genocide and was widely practiced as a form of revenge on their German attackers by advancing Soviet troops in World War II Germany. Another form of revenge on the Germans was the forcible expelling of ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia as the war was ending. Millions of Germans were expelled, contributing to a new “industry” of German victimization by writers such as the German historian Ernst Nolte.

Goldhagen says we should put a bounty of $10 million on the leaders of nations practicing eliminationism, with lesser but still substantial amounts on the heads of those carrying out the policies of the dictator in charge. And it’s invariably dictators behind these murders and rapes and starvation. Democratic nations aren’t eliminationists, at least since the end of colonialism. As recently as the 1950s, democratic Britain practiced eliminationism on the Kikuyu people of their colony of Kenya, he writes, describing in detail the response to the perceived but exaggerated “Mau-Mau” threat to the 50,000 white settlers in Kenya. Concentration camps were used in this eliminationist effort — less than a decade after the dismantling of the German camps.

“Worse Than War” gets its title from the estimated 150 million victims of eliminationism in the bloody 20th Century — continuing into the 21st — more than double the number of those killed in the wars of the same period. It’s a painful book to read but it’s necessary now more than ever. Exhaustively researched and with interviews of survivors of eliminationsm in Guatemala and Rwanda, “Worse Than War” will be followed early next year by a PBS documentary that will make its talking points available to an even wider audience.

Publisher’s web site: www.publicaffairsbooks.com

Goldhagen’s web site: www.goldhagen.com

Whose Religion Is the UN Protecting from Defamation?

The United Nations is once again on the verge of introducing a resolution that undermines everything the world body supposedly stands for. The “”Defamation of Religions” resolution won’t stop the reprehensible and all too common defamation of religious belief worldwide. But it will throttle the religious liberty and personal safety of Christians and some other faith groups. So much for the UN providing a forum to promote peace and safeguard human rights.

The Defamation of Religions Resolution, introduced annually at the UN, seeks to silence words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion. It sounds relatively innocuous. However, many who would be tempted to endorse the resolution ought to know that the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization of 57 countries with majority or significant Muslim populations, has been the driving force behind it. And the OIC’s goal is anything but peaceful.

Many Christians living in Muslim-majority countries are already severely impacted by restrictive laws – especially those living under strict Shariah law. From the right to worship freely to the ability to share the gospel, the Defamation of Religions Resolution (in years past called the “Defamation of Islam” resolution) threatens to justify local laws that already marginalize Christians.

Although proponents justify the “defamation of religion” concept as protecting religious practice and promoting tolerance, it really promotes intolerance and human rights violations of religious freedom and freedom of expression. These resolutions have empowered repressive government and religious extremists to suppress and punish whatever they deem to be offensive or unacceptable speech about a particular favored religion or sect.

In fact, blasphemy laws in some countries have been used to justify actions that selectively curtail civil dissent, halt criticism of political structures, and restrict the religious speech of minority faith communities, dissenting members of the majority faith, and persons of other religious faith or no faith. Under these laws, criminal charges have been levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations.

Two months ago, for example, Muslim extremists rampaged for several days through a Christian area in Gojra, Pakistan. The violence killed at least seven Christians, caused 19 injuries and left more than 100 houses looted and burned, according to Compass Direct News.

The rioting was touched off by an unsubstantiated rumor of “blasphemy” of the Quran. Muslims use blasphemy laws in Pakistan against Christians and other minorities in land and other disputes. Under these laws, no evidence is required to accuse and have someone arrested on a charge of blasphemy.

The persecution of Christians goes far beyond Pakistan, and their plight may worsen if the resolution is approved at the UN this fall. An estimated 100 million Christians worldwide suffer interrogation, arrest and even death for their faith in Christ, with millions more facing discrimination and alienation.

Policy experts at the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, however, believe there is a real opportunity to defeat the resolution this year. Some members of Congress and non-profit organizations will be urging countries to join the U.S. and vote against it.

Open Doors USA is helping to lead the advocacy effort at the United Nations to prevent this non-binding resolution from passing. As part of its “Free to Believe” campaign, Open Doors will lobby key countries, organize a petition drive for Open Doors supporters to campaign against the resolution, and speak to the media.

For more on the campaign, go to www.OpenDoorsUSA.org. A Free to Believe petition invites signers to “Say NO to the Defamation of Religions Resolution.”

As Americans, we have enjoyed a long tradition of religious liberty. The Defamation of Religions Resolution is a blow against religious freedom.

You can make a difference in the lives of thousands of persecuted believers. It is crucial that this resolution is defeated. We need to stand in the gap for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

---

Dr. Carl A. Moeller is President/CEO of Open Doors USA. Open Doors works in the world’s most oppressive countries, strengthening Christians to stand strong in the face of persecution and equipping them to shine Christ’s light in dark places.

Delusions of terror

HIS wife describes a loving husband. A psychiatric report reveals a violent upbringing, serious teenage drug abuse and a descent into chronic mental illness. The police record shows a history of juvenile delinquency, a string of minor adult convictions and, finally, a guilty plea to a charge of preparing for a terrorist act.

The life and crimes of 28-year-old Hussein (not his real name), co-accused in Sydney’s recent marathon terror trial, provide a compelling portrait of the making of a terrorist and the formation of a terror cell. Hussein was one of four men to plead guilty last year, while another five were convicted last week on the charge of preparing what the authorities said could have been a “catastrophic” attack.

NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, who presided over the trial and the sentencing of the four who pleaded guilty before the trial began, said Hussein and his co-conspirators were devout Muslims who believed Islam was under attack, it was their obligation to defend it, and the primary means of doing so was jihad, which included the killing of “infidels”.

Hussein was born in Australia to Lebanese parents in 1981. He had a difficult relationship with his father which, in Whealy’s words, included “considerable violence”. He was expelled from school in year 9 for violent conduct and fell into “bad company”, juvenile crime and heavy use of amphetamines, ecstasy and LSD.

He was diagnosed with depression at 18. The judge said his drug use was a “significant factor” in the subsequent onset of hallucinations, delusions and paranoia, and ultimately a diagnosis of schizophrenia in 2002.

Married under Islamic law to an Australian Muslim convert, Hussein worked intermittently as a labourer in the building industry but ended up on a disability support pension, unable to work. He turned to religion for solace and support.

The psychologist who interviewed him in prison wrote: “After he began to realise he had a problem, he began to hang out with Muslims. They reminded him of God. He attended mosque regularly (because) this made him relaxed.”

Hussein attended the Haldon Street prayer room in Lakemba, which was a magnet for a crowd of similarly lost souls. Many of them were former street hoodlums with a history of drug use and petty crime who had turned to Islam to straighten out their lives.

He gravitated to a group of like-minded men from similar backgrounds, who embraced the aggressive and empowering brand of Islam that was popular among some who frequented the prayer room.

The path to radicalisation for young men such as Hussein and his cohorts is well trodden. It is described in a police intelligence report, which led to the Sydney cell’s arrest.

“Belonging to a jihadi group can instil in its members a sense of empowerment, control and purpose that few experience outside this collective … the life of a jihadi allows theindividual to form a perception of their new self, frequently in contrast to their previous existence, as someone of importance and influence.”

Their new-found self-esteem is further enhanced by a conviction that they are “doing God’s work”, the report says.

“An opinion that one is protecting victimised Muslims throughout the world can instil a feeling of exclusivity, elevating one’s own sense of self-importance and purpose.”

The report says these individuals undergo “a cognitive transformation” that allows them to embrace “a world view which makes violence not only acceptable but also an absolute necessity”.

In addition to rookies such as Hussein, the crowd at the prayer room included a group of older men who had already embraced the concept of militant jihad.

They included one man, convicted last week, who had been under surveillance since at least 2000, when the remnants of a military-style training camp were found on a rural property owned by his family in NSW.

Another was a Bangladeshi-born man, also convicted last week, who was under watch for his links with the Indonesian militant group Jemaah Islamiah and the French terrorist Willie Brigitte.

Two other men who cannot be named were on the ASIO watch-list, because both were believed to have trained with the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

This hard core of radicals believed Australia was a “land of war”, which made it an enemy because Australian troops were involved in fighting Muslims overseas.

In January 2005, Hussein was heard in a covertly recorded conversation with one of his co-conspirators discussing the role of Australian forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and East Timor, and referring to Australia as “a stuffed-up country” and “the sons of dogs”.

One of the men who pleaded guilty, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told a forensic psychologist in prison that the events of September 11, 2001, had a profound impact on him. He was visited twice by ASIO officers, apparently because he was known to attend the Lakemba prayer room. He said he began to worry about his family’s safety and about what he saw as the persecution of Muslims worldwide.

The psychologist wrote: “He began to question the morality and motives of world powers and the situation of Muslims worldwide. In the context of the group of young Muslim men who centred on the mosque he said his consciousness was heightened and he interpreted things he heard as justifying retribution.”

The man who, like Hussein, had a history of family violence and drug abuse, told the psychologist “his religious fervour became a vehicle for past unresolved anger about his own life”.

It was the London bombings of July 7, 2005, in which 52 people were killed, that triggered this individual into action, according to the psychologist’s report.

“He recalls being impressed by the impact that event had on London. He understood from news reports that the city was brought to a standstill and the communication network was disabled … He was struck by the magnitude of the impact and thought it had probably made many more people aware of the plight of the people of Iraq and the interference of the United States.”

He claimed his intention was to create the same impact without claiming casualties.

“(He) said he thought if he could do something similar in Australia without hurting people, it would extend awareness of aggression against Muslims and alert Australians to oppose the government and stop the nation’s alliance with the United States.”

The man told the psychologist he researched the London bombings and found that hydrogen peroxide was an ingredient in the explosive TATP, known as “the mother of Satan”. He said he became obsessed with collecting bottles of the chemical. He claimed he had no idea what he would do with it but felt he was “doing something”.

“I felt a sense of satisfaction … it was letting out my anger,” he said. At the same time, others in the cell were placing orders for hundreds of litres of chemicals that are known precursors for the high-powered explosives favoured by terrorists.

In October 2005, in one of the final acts of the terror conspiracy, Hussein was filmed on a CCTV camera in a suburban BigW store in Sydney, accompanied by two of his co-conspirators. He had stolen six clocks and 140 batteries and hidden them in an empty box. He later confessed that the theft constituted an act in preparation for a terrorist act.

Whealy said the items Hussein had stolen were “capable of constructing six timed explosive devices, each of which could have detonated a number of explosive devices, which could have caused at least serious damage to property and possible loss of life”.

The judge found there was no evidence that any target had been selected but said this did not mitigate the criminality of the terrorists in preparing for such an act.

Hussein was sentenced last month to seven years in prison with a minimum of five years and three months, discounted because of his mental illness. Whealy said it may be the case, as Hussein’s lawyer argued, that he was influenced by others who took advantage of his mental illness, but added there was no evidence to support this.

His non-parole period ended last week and he was released the day before five of his co-accused were convicted.

The psychologist who examined him said that as a result of finally receiving appropriate medical treatment, the 28-year-old had made a “remarkable recovery” from his mental illness, which his lawyer claimed was a significant factor in his crimes.

He said that Hussein was now a “remarkably different person” no longer holds extreme religious views and is unlikely to further offend.

Hussein’s wife told the court that the couple wished to move to the country make a new start in life.

She said her husband regrets having missed out on his married life during the four years he spent in prison, and wants to start a career and make something of himself.

She added that she is prepared to support him and that there are “many people who love and care for him”.

In handing down the sentence that allowed Hussein to be freed last week, Whealy accepted there is some evidence he has moved away from his former extremist views, but cautioned that if he returns to the mosque, he and his family will have to take “special care” that he is not exposed to extremist influence.

Australia’s counter-terrorism authorities will no doubt be paying very close attention to his every future move.

Sally Neighbour is a senior reporter with The Australian and ABC’s Four Corners and author of In the Shadow of Swords and The Mother of Hussein.

Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom

2009 marks the eighth anniversary of September eleventh. While most Americans can recount where they were when the twin towers in New York went down, the passage of time–and the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001—has a tendency to lull many of us into a sense that everything is okay–for now.

The men and women who had to jump from the upper floors of the towers to avoid being burned alive–the falling executives, their neckties whirling in the wind, the dozens of co-workers who jumped holding hands, the constant shocking “thump” sound of bodies hitting the ground so that the news media eventually had to “black out” the audio– did not know what was happening to them. They may have known of a hit by a “random airplane” but they knew nothing of an organized terrorist attack. They went to their deaths unaware that this first major attack on American soil also had a side component: the slow buildup of a radical Islamic powerbase throughout Western Europe.

This buildup began in the 1970s when Europe agreed to trade crude oil with Arab countries in exchange for promises of unchecked immigration (Strasbourg Resolution 492, 1971). As Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci noted in her book, “The Rage and the Pride,” after the agreement the streets of her native Florence were flooded with immigrants selling pencils and chewing gum. Likewise, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the Netherlands also permitted free-for-all immigration of Muslims from Morocco, North Africa and the Middle East.  This was not immigration on a case by case basis, but a careless open door policy that led to the creation of radical Muslim enclaves in what had always been progressive, modern democracies. Unlike other immigrant groups, the new citizens avoided assimilation into the culture of the host country. In time they began to opt for Sharia-style Law within their own communities.

Women who refused to wear the burka, went to the hairdresser’s, or were discovered to be in adulterous relationships were (and are) judged according to Sharia Law, while the secular laws of the host nations are conveniently put aside.  Stoning and honor killings are common, as European politicians and government officials often turn a blind eye. Fallaci and author Bruce Bawer both contend that the “blind eye” in question is the result of an undue emphasis on political correctness and multiculturism.

“Do Muslims stone adulteresses?” Bawer asks, playing the part of the multiculturist politician.  “Well, we execute murderers. Does Iran imprison, torture, and execute gays? Well, what about Guantanamo? Indeed, in recent years the politically correct response to every criticism of Islam could be summed up in those three words: ‘What about Guantanamo?’—the point being that until the West itself is morally without blemish, no one has any right to criticize even the most heinous crimes against humanity by any non-Western individual, movement, group, or power.”

Once more, Bawer writes that these “PC” progressive governments have turned its major cities into houses divided against themselves.

“In those cities, all you had to do to travel from a modern, post-Enlightenment democracy to a strict patriarchy out of seventh century Arabia was to walk a few blocks,” he states, adding that this transformation “went almost entirely unmentioned in the American and European media.” The change, however, was first spotted in the Netherlands by Pim Fortuyn, author of “Against the Islamization of Our Culture,” and a candidate for the Dutch parliament.  Fortuyn’s contention was that fundamentalist Islam was irreconcilable with Western democracy. He warned his countrymen to rethink government subsidization of Muslim schools, mosques and community centers. For this he was called a fascist and compared to Hitler. Fortuyn was later murdered by an extremist who didn’t like his views on immigration.

Left wing progressives and the European media explained that Fortuyn had it coming because he criticized Islam. Similarly, filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who had made a television film which featured a Muslim woman discussing how women were treated under Islam, was shot and killed (his throat slit) while riding a bicycle in downtown Amsterdam. Although van Gogh’s film was just revealing a well known truth, Dutch politicians, in the name of multiculturism, “were inclined to deplore van Gogh’s alleged ‘insensitivity’ to Muslim feelings.”

Van Gogh’s murder, Bawer says, “was proof not that Western Muslims needed to adjust to the realities of free speech but that Westerners needed to assimilate traditional Muslim limitations on speech.”

Bawer, an American who moved to Norway to be with his partner, says that the PC multiculturist mindset has so infected American journalism that “a moderate Muslim now denotes someone who might not stone an adulteress to death himself, but who would defend to the death another Muslim’s right to do so.” He cites several examples of The New York Times refusing to review books that attempt to explain or criticize the slow transformation of Europe into Eurabia. In one instance, he cites a New York Times profile of a famous American Inman that went out of its way to be fluffy and soft. (The Inman, Sheik Reda Shata, believes in suicide bombers if they target Israeli soldiers; he also refuses to shake the hand of any woman and thinks that music should be forbidden if it ‘encourages sexual desire’).  “One could not easily imagine the Times running a profile of James Dobson or Pat Robertson that started out in quite this way,” he writes, referring to the Times profile that was more PR fluff piece than objective journalism. “No reporter would try to get away with it; no editor would accept it; readers would flood the Times with outraged e-mails asking why the liberal Times was apparently trying to get them to warm up to a fundamentalist.”

Bawer believes that “The pretentious, abstraction-ridden multicultural rhetoric” in today’s politically correct world of journalism “succeeds in whitewashing the execution of gays, apostates, adulterers, and rape victims, and in entirely removing from the picture of the Islamic world the victims of these abominations.”

He gives examples of how the Egyptian-based organization, The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, seeks “to conquer the West not through terrorism but ‘through gradual and peaceful Islamization,’” the proof of that being the current state of Western Europe.

Not surprisingly, Bawer’s book has been criticized as “shrill” and “over reactive” by much of PC press, though that seems far from the truth when the author lays out the frightening, verifiable facts.

Thom Nickels can be reached at ThomNickels1@aol.com.

Alan Poole: Why BNP will get an easy ride on Question Time

ANYBODY who caught Peter Hain’s rash of early-morning interviews today will surely feel immense sympathy for the BBC over their decision to grant British National Party Gruppenführer Nick Griffin a slot on this week’s Question Time.

Hain’s argument, in a nutshell, is that the BNP’s policies on race and religion are so unacceptably poisonous that they should be automatically precluded from public debates with proper politicians.

And he counters the theory that such a ban would be contrary to the British tradition of free speech by citing a recent court decision that the BNP are an “illegally constituted party.”

Until such time as they rewrite their rule-book, he says, they have no right to top up the oxygen of publicity they secured with their recent successes in European and local council elections.

The problem, of course, is that (a) Hain is such an unpleasantly unctuous operator that one is automatically disposed to take the opposite view to any proposal he makes and (b), far more importantly, the BNP would, to paraphrase Kevin Keegan, love it, just love it, if the invitation to join David Dimbleby and co was now withdrawn.

At a stroke they would have the proof they needed of the media conspiracy that is riding roughshod over the rights of decent White working-class Britons in order to hand our beloved country on a plate to a cabal of Black Muslim/Jewish homosexuals.

Whether the original decision was right or wrong, the BBC now have no choice but to stick to it.

Where they have missed a trick, sadly, is in granting Griffin what, in advance, looks an easy ride, because lined up against him will be Justice Minister Jack Straw, Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, Conservative peer Baroness Warsi and playwright/critic Bonnie Greer – all people with impeccably anti-extremist views but none of them exactly over-blessed with the persuasive passion of a born debater.

No, the BBC should press on as planned but try to persuade one or more of the above pussycats to recall a convenient prior engagement, thus giving them the excuse to draft in an attack-dog substitute – and who better than George Galloway?

Now like Hain (albeit in a very different way) Galloway is one of those politicians who gets your back up even when he is delivering precisely the point you would love to make if granted the opportunity.

But he is a public speaker of unquestioned power and charisma and, more pertinently in this case, an intellectual bully – a deplorable quality when used to destroy some numpty rash enough to dial up his TalkSport show but a thoroughly legitimate weapon of master-race destruction if trained on the despicable Mr Griffin.

We Lost! We already lost the war in Afghanistan! Not admitting it is a serious mistake!

Unless we admit we lost the war, the bad news can only get worse. There are different degrees of defeat. Delaying signing a peace treaty could mean US troops leaving from on top of the US embassy (like in Vietnam) or even a total collapse far worse than the collapse of the Soviet Union after it bankrupted itself partly by the Afghanistan War. General Stanley McChrystal’s grim blunt assessment that we would lose unless he got 40,000 new troops in a hurry in order to starve off a relatively quick defeat, in no way expressed any optimism that we would win in the end even with more troops. I would like to reinterpret his statement as implying that we should leave rather quickly rather than face a possibility of a last minute panicky retreat like in Vietnam.

Actually there is still a window of possibility for a quick hollow victory in Afghanistan where the Taliban agrees in the future to hand over any al Qaeda leaders for trial to any international court that requests, in exchange for a quick US withdraw.

There is very little chance for the divided leadership of the Taliban to actually comply with such an agreement or for an al Qaeda leader to allow himself to be taken into Taliban custody. But this would prevent al Qaeda from cheering that a relatively few al Qaeda suicide bombers chased America out of Afghanistan. However people like Dick Cheney would argue that we really lost to al Qaeda and help al Qaeda crow a little.

A similar scenario actually happened once before, but no Democrat, or Bush-hater, sabotaged not allowing al Qaeda to cheer. Bin Laden originally vowed to drive US troops out of Saudi Arabia, It was his main claim for 9/11. In 2003, George Bush withdrew US troops, from Saudi territory and if 9/11 never happened US troops possibly could be still on Sacred Muslim territory. Western infidels in Mecca, in bin Laden’s mind, was the biggest affront to Islam in what he sees as a 1000-year-old war between Islam and the West. When US troops began leaving Saudi Arabia, private contractors moved in. Al Qaeda smelling what they thought was a trick that US troops would stay in Afghanistan disguised as private businessmen and private contractors. Al Qaeda attacked the private contractors. This scared most Saudis who previously had mixed feelings toward al Qaeda. Saudis rely a lot on non-Muslim servants. Muslim servants are supposed to follow the same customs Saudis do like to pray five times a day. It could be a little awkward for a Muslim servant to watch them do such things as skip prayers, or on the other hand for Saudi’s not to frown a little if a Muslim servant had overlooked them. In many little ways, and some major ones, not being able to hire non-Muslim servants would drastically change the Saudi way of life. Attacking contractors made al Qaeda very unpopular in their country. However, if back then when US troops left Democrats would have yelled, “Bin Laden won!”, like Cheney would do today, al Qaeda could have crowed a little about victory.

Obama preformed close to miracle in Iraq, US troops left the cities under the condition that they wouldn’t return unless ethnic strife or a government request brought them back in. Remember all the warnings during the Bush administration that the bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites would become extremely intense, unless the US were kept in-between them.

Now, thanks to Obama, the Shiites are ignoring highly provocative al Qaeda suicide attacks because they would rather US troops stay out then to randomly get even with Sunnis in tit-for-tat ethnic strife.

If the US continues to waste vast sums on ever more expensive smart weapons, like drone airplanes, until the dollar collapses, and since most Americans are far away from food sources we will be fighting with each other over food here at home rather than the US fighting a war abroad. The usual way a war ends is that of a signed peace agreement. This is much preferable to a hasty last minute withdrawal. The Taliban doesn’t want to see Afghans continuing to die, they are willing to try to make at least small compromises in exchange for peace.

Sometimes a military defeat is attempted to be covered over by a political event. Hitler didn’t seize southern France during World War II, the Vichy government took power. I contend that if moderates like Arlen Specter continue to be kicked out of the Republican Party until the next US administration is proud of torture and human rights infringement like Cheney and the constant escalation of the war advocates at the Washington Times want, it would be a defeat of the US Republic. Sun Myung Moon who founded the Washington Times believes in what he calls “Godism” not democracy, all major decisions made by a central higher authority. Some of those who work at the Washington Times may also go further than Cheney’s belief that sometimes human rights and Democracy gets in the way of what needs to be done. I contend that many who shrilly advocate sending more troops to Afghanistan aren’t concerned about Afghanistan but in using the war to disrupt the domestic progressive agenda. They far more interested in change in this country than worrying about change in Afghanistan.

Let’s back up a moment. Why is it the US’s responsibility to stop al Qaeda when al Qaeda also made horrible attacks in Spain and Britain? To discombobulate Bush’s plans for a coalition government in Iraq, al Qaeda blew up Shiite sacred sites which got many thousands of Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in tit-for-tat violence. This is something many Shiite Muslims in Iran and other Muslims hate him for. If the US wasn’t so egocentric we would realize that purposely creating widespread ethnic strife was a greater crime than 9/11.

Even Saudi Arabia would fight to keep al Qaeda from becoming in charge. The Soviet Union fought militant Muslims in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Unfortunately for them at the time, they did manage to inadvertently convince Muslims around the world that Russia was their enemy, much more that George Bush who constantly insisted that moderates like the King of Jordan was US’s friend. Russia would never allow a militant like bin Laden to take charge of much of the world, especially Muslim areas near Russia, or take charge of Pakistani nukes. Also, al Qaeda made it clear that if the US actually withdrew from Afghanistan they would be attacking China in a big way, already looking for a fight with China over suppression of Muslim separatists in Uighur. Time Magazine referred to an Oct 7th al Qaeda statement threatening China that I think is urgent for both US doves and hawks to contemplate,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929…
Unfortunately the information covered by Time Magazine didn’t get central coverage elsewhere in the media.

During both world wars the US government’s only central purpose was to win. This held true in Korea as well. But Lyndon Johnson also wanted his Great Society programs, and Obama wants health care reform. US soldiers want to protect their buddies much more than any burning desire to win. If the central purpose of US foreign policy was to defeat al Qaeda, we would let Iran get the weapons it wants in return for attacking al Qaeda, something due to their hate of what al Qaeda did to Shiite holy sites they already would have done if not tension between the US and Iran and Israel and Iran hadn’t gotten in the way. This is the kind of policy that the US had during World War two when even Stalin was considered US’s friend.

There is no way we can win against an enemy that envisions a permanent warring class, without making stopping al Qaeda the overwhelming focus of US foreign and domestic policy. No American believes that al Qaeda would be in charge of the world if we don’t take leadership like most did against Hitler and the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because it wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia and feared the then slow march toward victory of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would have been both a psychological and physical blow to extremism, while temporary control of Afghanistan by the US would only be a physical, not psychological, setback.

Actually like everyone else I really don’t have the answers, but let’s lobby Obama in the spirit of trying to get him to do a better job, rather than join those who think criticizing Obama on war is a good way to sabotage Obama and the general progressive agenda.

During Vietnam the theme of the antiwar movement was that “Vietnam was not our enemy” which fit in with the fact that Vietnam never had any plans for the US. Today the theme should be we have no business deciding to be in charge of fighting al Qaeda while paying little attention to what they are all about. I wish I could convey the danger I see in belittling the al Qaeda threat by not only the antiwar movement but ordinary Americans tired of a far away conflict.

Bin Laden’s dream of a permanent Muslim warring class is grim news for the world, including much of the Muslim World. But unlike with Hitler stopping al Qaeda is in no way dependent on US resolve. The antiwar movement should stop risking being a tool of those who are investing their future political clout in the hope that al Qaeda will have another 9/11 some day. Remember Al Qaeda attacked Spain when the antiwar movement there was strong and Britain when Tony Blair was in danger of losing his party’s support, and could only threaten to attack the German Beer fest when Germans wanted to leave Afghanistan, but just the threat had an effect of the German election outcome. But unless we are willing to give up all other domestic and foreign policy in an effort to stop al Qaeda, such as arming Iran who was hurt the most by an al Qaeda attack of Shiite holy sites, we have no business trying to be in charge while are eyes and ears are focused elsewhere. Where there is emotional commitment some want to use anger against bin Laden to spread to anger at Hamas and Hezbollah, others to anger at all religious people who oppose womans rights or gay rights, or anyone who is more than a Sunday Christian. Others just hoping the war ends the progressive social agenda.

I don’t like the way today’s antiwar movement is copying the Vietnam precedent by claiming that al Qaeda is not a problem for us. Let’s reinterpreted General Stanley McChrystal’s grim assessment as meaning that it is likely that any kind of US policy toward sustained change in Afghanistan might not work almost no matter what we do. Reinterpreting General McChrystal’s statements as reason to get out might actually bring and earlier end to the war.

RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
RichardKanePA