January 31, 2006
Here is a video produced by the Deuce Four that I found via Doubletap and which I posted over at Google Video. Just press the play button below to watch it.
It's the best kind of porn: Iraq war porn.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:53 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 2 kb.
Here is further commentary on Rusty's earlier post on the Washington Post's new role as supplier of material aid to a known terrorist organization: WaPo Sinks to New Lows: Terrorist EditorialToday the WaPo provides a forum for a deported Hamas terrorist, Mousa Abu Marzook, to recite his propaganda talking points, in "What Hamas Is Seeking." What the author couches in words like "freedom and justice" has another meaning - the destruction of Israel. more...
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
11:33 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 3 kb.
January 30, 2006
A new video tape from al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has most Americans wondering exactly what that gross little mark on his head is?In the new video aired by the Arab world's number one pro-terrorist satellite television station, Zawahiri taunts the President for missing him in an air strike in Pakistan saying, "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."
The Muslims masses, for their part, deny knowing where Zawahiri is. Because, as we are reminded nearly every day by the MSM, it is only a small minority of extremists in the Islamic world that support terrorism. Therefore, by definition, the Muslim masses can't know where Zawahiri is hiding, can they?
Word on the street from the Muslim masses regarding Zawahiri's funny head mark vary. Some claim it is a birth mark, however such marks are common among those wishing to seem incredibly pious in the Muslim world. Such marks come about when the pious one genuflects often during prayer, touching the forehead to the ground five times daily.
A source particularly close to Ayman al-Zawahiri, though, tells us that the mark is, "really a bullseye...kind of the equivalent of the tattoo in the small of a chick's back...if you, er, get my drift."
No, we at the Jawa Report do not get your drift. What is it, exactly, that you are implying?
Zawahiri continued from his hiding place somewhere in the caves along the borders of Pakistan-Afghanistan, "Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation."
One wonders if that forehead thingy isn't some kind of mark of the beast symbol? Like, maybe Zawahiri is really Gorbachev? You've never seen the two in the same room have you?
The man with the mystery forehead mark also says in the video, "My second message is to the American people, who are drowning in illusions." No word yet on the more realistic illusion of creating a global Caliphate from a cave in Waziristan.
"I tell you that Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures," says Zawahiri.
So, what is that annoying mark any way?
Hat tip to Tim from Opninion Bug.
Related from Counterterrorism Blog, who has extensive analysis.
More at Michelle Malkin, In The Bullpen, Protein Wisdom, Stop the ACLU and others....
Posted by: Rusty at
02:34 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:34 AM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
Meanwhile, the Left continues to compare the Christian Right with these fascists calling them the 'American Taliban'. Soooooo, when is Pat Robertson going to issue a fatwa against Kanye West?
AKI:
The Muslim worldÂ’s two main political bodies have said they are seeking a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions, in the wake of the controversy caused by publication by a Danish newspaper of cartoons which many Muslims believe denigrate the prophet Muhammad. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, head of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, said in Cairo the OIC would "ask the UN General Assembly to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs." Ahmad Ben Helli, secretary general of the Arab League, confirmed contacts were under way for such a proposal to be made to the UN.The interesting question raised by all of this: is Islam inherently unable to support freedom of speech and have radical fascist Muslims found their greatest allies in the Western Left which is often game for passing 'hate speech' laws?
Posted by: Rusty at
08:00 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
January 19, 2006
A complete copy of the Department of Justice memorandum can be dowloaded here.
Thanks to Confederate Yankee who has comments on the document here. Jason also has comments here. I will be eager to see what others are saying about this memo.
The document is very legalistic. At the heart of it, though, is the assumption that the war against radical Islamists is a real war. If a real war then we must fight it like a war. Wiretapping, then, is a form of spying on our enemies. The normal rules do not apply in war.
The opposing side wishes to treat the global conflict we are engaged in as if it were a simple criminal matter. Wiretapping a terrorist is like wiretapping a drug lord and the normal rules apply.
A few highlights:
On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network launched the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history. Al Qaeda’s leadership repeatedly has pledged to attack the United States again at a time of its choosing, and these terrorist organizations continue to pose a grave threat to the United States. In response to the September 11th attacks and the continuing threat, the President, with broad congressional approval, has acted to protect the Nation from another terrorist attack. In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the President promised that “[w]e will direct every resource at our command—every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every tool of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every weapon of war—to the destruction of and to the defeat of the global terrorist network.” President Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress (Sept. 20, 2001). The NSA activities are an indispensable aspect of this defense of the Nation. By targeting the international communications into and out of the United States of persons reasonably believed to be linked to al Qaeda, these activities provide the United States with an early warning system to help avert the next attack. For the following reasons, the NSA activities are lawful and consistent with civil liberties.Great opening. Let's see Ted Kennedy argue with that.
For the historically retarded amongst us:
In reliance on these principles, a consistent understanding has developed that the President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. Wiretaps for such purposes thus have been authorized by Presidents at least since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940.What? Not FDR? Say it isn't so. It is so. The more educated on the Left will admit that FDR (and all other war time Presidents) engaged in the same sorts of activities that Bush is engaging in. But they will argue, like I heard Gore Vidal argue in the recent History Channel documentary on Abraham Lincoln, that those wars were real wars and those actions (such as Lincoln arresting newspaper publishers) were needed to save the country wheras Bush's war is illigitimate and therefore his actions are despotic. See how that works? If you agree with the war then curtailing of civil liberties is okay, but if you disagree with it then curtailing civil liberties are not okay. I wonder how the Northern Peace Democrats felt about Lincoln's actions? But I digress, back to FDR in a letter to his Attorney General.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
08:25 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1468 words, total size 10 kb.
have not broken the law when it comes to warrants on listening to America's private conversations. As far as The Department of Justice backing the Bush Administration inherent authority to listen to international phonecalls with suspected terrorist abroad. Yes Bush has that authority abroad with international phonecalls. But does the President of the United States have the inherent authority to listen to domestic phone calls with suspected terrorist abroad without a warrant? We will soon find out. My guess is no. Even a policeman who arrests a suspected child molester, better have the smarts to recite the molester Miranda rights, or else that molester could be free to go. I hope that Bush has the smarts to understand his actions and the consequence of them.
It should be noted that it is not yet clear if the voice on the tape played by al Jazeera is indeed that of Osama bin Laden. Even if this is bin Laden, it is not clear when the tape was made. Notice that the voice claims that Pentagon figures indicate a rise in U.S. casualties. In recent months, U.S. casualty rates have declined dramatically.
UPDATE: It just occured to me that bin Laden is admitting what we already know and which the Left continues to deny: that Iraq is the battlefield on which our war with al Qaeda is being waged. The 'truce' being offered is that al Qaeda will halt its war where? Iraq and Afghanistan.
UPDATE: Contrary to what is being said by talking heads in the media, bin Laden does NOT mention the London bombings. He simpley notes bombings in European capitals. This could also be a reference to the Madrid, Spain, bombings which would make this recording very old indeed.
UPDATE: Here is a full translation from the BBC. Much better than the original al Jazeera story which we've taken down. A note that the transcript is of what al Jazeera broadcast, not the actual tape which was not aired in its entirety.
My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it.(thanks for heads up to Chad Evans):I had not intended to speak to you about this issue, because, for us, this issue is already decided: diamonds cut diamonds.
Praise be to God, our conditions are always improving, becoming better, while yours are the opposite.
However, what prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of US opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said that the withdrawal of troops would send the wrong message to the enemy.
Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground.
In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging and operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favour, praise be to God.
The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses.
To go back to where I started, I say that the results of the poll satisfy sane people and that Bush's objection to them is false.
Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as he claims.
In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.
On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.
The evidence for this are the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition.
As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to the failure to breach your security measures.
Operations are in preparation and you will see them on your own ground once the preparations are finished, God willing.
Based on the above, we see that Bush's argument is false.
However, the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land.
We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect.
We are a nation to which God has disallowed treachery and lying.
In this truce, both parties will enjoy security and stability and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan which were destroyed by the war.
There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.
Initial reaction is that of Howies, but if the tape is real then it is certainly not of recent origin. At least, it is highly unlikely that it was made following the attack in Pakistan last week.
Also, does bin Laden actually believe he is winning in Iraq? If alive, he is hiding in a cave somewhere, his forces resort to murdering civilians by human bomb, a series of elections have been held in Iraq, Sunni terrorists are openly fighting against al Qaeda terrorists, etc. Winning indeed.
Hat tip BAF BAF, Sucram, and Tribeca.
UPDATE: Remove all liquid from vicinity. Click this link. Wait for it. Scroll a tiny bit down. (via Jay)
Posted by: Rusty at
11:26 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 866 words, total size 5 kb.
What is so interesting about Jill Carroll's mother's appeal is that it reveals the underlying assumption that even those on the Left have about the terrorists ('freedom fighter' or 'Iraqi Minutemen' to the Left) that we fight. What is that assumption? That the terrorists are murdering, uncivilized, pieces of human garbage.
Wait, you say, I'm on the Left and I don't believe the insurgents are really bad people. They just want the U.S. out of their country and they are driven (read: forced) to take extreme measures to accomplish their goals. You would do the same.
Of course, those making this claim do not really believe it. Let us examine Mary Beth Carroll's words. I am not accusing her of being on the Left, but the same rhetoric comes from organizations such as The Christian Peacemakers team, Giuliana Sgrena's Il Manifesto, and murdered hostage Margaret Hassan's CAIR International--all on the Left. AP:
The mother of abducted American reporter Jill Carroll appealed Thursday for her daughter's release, a day before the deadline captors set for killing her if U.S. authorities don't release all Iraqi women in military custody.Of course, if I were a relative of Jill Carroll I would be doing anything and everything to secure her release, even if that meant taking the "she's not your enemy" tactic (even if that meant paying ransom). So, let me reemphasize that I believe Mrs. Carroll's words are perfectly legitimate under the circumstances."They've picked the wrong person. If they're looking for someone who is an enemy of Iraq, Jill is just the opposite," Mary Beth Carroll told CNN's "American Morning."
She said video images aired by Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday gave her hope that her daughter is alive but also have "shaken us about her fate."
"I, her father and her sister are appealing directly to her captors to release this young woman who has worked so hard to show the sufferings of Iraqis to the world," she said, reading from a written statement....
"We hope that her captors will show Jill the same respect in return," she said. "Taking vengeance on my innocent daughter, who loves Iraq and its people, will not create justice." [emphasis mine]
But here words remind me of similar statements by Islamic clerics, Leftist organizations, and Borders sans frontiers all of whom make the same arguement, yet have no personal stake in the outcome of the hostage crisis. Taking Mrs. Carroll's words as an example of Leftist rhetoric, do you see how the underlying assumption is revealed? The insurgents would not kill Jill Carroll if they understood that she is a journalist on their side. The opposite, then, must be true: if Jill Carroll was a pro-war journalist then the natural course of events would be for the insurgents to kill her.
What kind of people intentionally murder unarmed civilians who are under their control? Even those on the extreme Left must admit that murdering a civilian is a barbarous and uncivillized act, and that those engaged in such psychopathic behavior are subhuman scumbags.
But, there is a state of denial by the extreme Left. They believe that the political orientation of the hostage should have some bearing on whether or not killing them is vile murder, or just the tragic consequences of war. They may not realize that they believe this, but they do, as revealed by their own words.
And the ability to differentiate how worthy hostage victims are of death puts those on the extreme Left who engage in such judgement in a similar category as the murdering terrorists who they are so eager to condemn only when the hostage shares their political persuasion: they too are evil vile scum.
Remember the recently reiterated words of the nation's most popular blogger, Leftist Markos Zuniga of The Daily Kos, when he found out American civilian contractors had been murdered in Fallujah: Screw them.
To those who take and murder hostages in Iraq, I have a different message: do not kill Jill Carroll, because she is a human being who poses no imminent threat to your safety and killing her would make you a murderer. Her political stance is unimportant. Murdering any hostage is wrong.
Murdering anyone, regardless of the victim's politics, is an act of evil which cuts your soul off from humanity. If you do kill her, I hope you are hunted down like the pigs you are, and slaughtered. For you have reealed your own inhumanity and no longer can claim the rights and priveleges of man.
And to those who would appeal to the hostage takers by arguing that Jill Carroll ought not be killed because she is really on their side, please think about what you are saying. Your words reveal what you really think of the insurgents in Iraq. And if you are still comfortable supporting them after this assumption has been clarified, then there is nothing left to say. Your nature has been unmasked for all the world to see.
UPDATE: See the subtitled al Jazeere video of Jill Carroll from MEMRI here (thanks to Tribeca). Notice the reason why al Jazeera supports the release of Jill Carroll? Because she is a journalist and they are obliged to support journalists going unharmed.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:35 AM
| Comments (135)
| Add Comment
Post contains 936 words, total size 6 kb.
)January 18, 2006
No doubt those jihadis believe the lies and propaganda put out by pan-Arabic and Leftwing media that the U.S. is detaining hundreds--if not thousands--of women. Worse than that, these media outlets claim that U.S. forces routinely murder, rape, and purposefully humiliate Iraqi women.
So, how many women is the U.S. holding in Iraq? EIGHT.
No doubt there have been abuses in Iraq, but to claim that America is systematically demoralizing Iraq's women when only eight of them are being detained is a lie of magnificient proportions. Such lies and propaganda have consequences. The continued killing of American troops and kidnapping of civilian hostages is one of them.
U.S. forces in Iraq said on Wednesday they were holding eight women prisoners, after the abductors of an American journalist threatened to kill her if the authorities did not free all Iraqi women within 72 hours."We have eight females. They are being held for the same reasons as the others, namely that they are a threat to security," said Lieutenant Aaron Henninger, a spokesman for the U.S. military detentions operation. Some 14,000 men are held at Abu Ghraib and other jails on suspicion of insurgent activity.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
January 17, 2006
Instead of replying directly to James, I punted and sent the article off to our good friend Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Robert has delivered the promise he made to me to rebutt Schwartz's article. Here is a bit of it:
Schwartz then turns back to the Sunnis, asserting that “moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: ‘what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?’…If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate.” In contrast, “If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying ‘there is only Islam,’ or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like ‘Salafism’ -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist.”READ THE ENTIRE THING.But is opposing Wahhabism enough to make one a moderate? After all, the Deobandis in Afghanistan are Hanafi Muslims, not Hanbalis like the Wahhabis — but they had no trouble making common cause in jihad with the Wahhabis. What’s more, the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists invoke to justify their actions weren’t invented by the Wahhabis; they have always been there and were exploited by Muslims fighting violent jihads long before Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born.
After all, the primary difference between Wahhabi Islam and more traditional variants of the religion is not jihad warfare against unbelievers, but the Wahhabis’ practice of takfir, or the classification of Muslims of other sects as among those unbelievers. Schwartz accordingly eschews takfir: “Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.” Very well, but what of jihad against non-Muslims? Schwartz says: “Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.” Maybe not, but I’d like to see him define “radical” and “fundamentalist.” Even the Ottoman Empire, of which he is fond, waged aggressive jihad against Christian Europe over a period of centuries. Not radical or fundamentalist? Pardon me if I am not reassured.
Wahhabism is not the problem. Wahhabism is a problem, because it has state sponsors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to spread its dogma. The problem then is main stream Islam--even moderate Islam.
Moderate is a meaningless term which can only be understood as relative to the society we are talking about. For instance, could a historian distinguish between moderate and extremist Nazis? A moderate Nazi might be said to be one who is thoroughly antisemetic, but who insists that the 'Jewish question' ought to be solved through forced segregation and laws against intermarriage. The word moderate, then, can be used to describe ideologies which only seem moderate when compared to a much more extremist alternative. If that moderate ideology were examined on its own terms it might very well seem extreme.
If the only thing that differentiates moderate Muslims from extremists are a rejection of takfir and of terrorism, then truly the world is full of moderate Muslims. But is that enough?
I have a very simple way to determine if the form of Islam is acceptable to me: does it reject Sharia. That is it.
As a political observe I have no theological interest whatsoever in Islam and could care less if Muhammed was a prophet or not or about Islam's stance on Trinitarian doctrine. I really don't care. What I do care about is whether or not a Muslim believes that law and government ought to be strictly secular in orientation or not.
Even liberal Muslims who believe in the establishment of Sharia carry with them a dangerous and anti-libertarian philosophy. Imagine, for instance, a liberal Sharia court which gives a man a fine for blasphemy. A moderate Sharia court might give the man a light jail sentence. The extremist Wahhabi court might sentence the man to a long sentence or even to death.
In all three cases a form of religious fascism exists. Whether or not we choose to call these varying religious forms moderate or not is really inconsequential. One may be worse than the other, but all three are bad.
The fascism of Franco's Spain was surely more moderate than the fascism of Nazi Germany, but I still would not have wanted to endure it.
As long as Islam embraces Sharia, I will reject Islam as a fascist ideology. Any form of Islam that rejects it is okay in my book.
UPDATE: James Joyner replies here with the usual thoughtful commentary. I also noticed a TB to this post by Ocean Guy, a new blog to me. In it he makes this inciteful comment:
If the Pope is right, then the only difference between extreme, moderate and liberal Muslims is how harshly each would/does treat non-Muslims living in their midst. There are hundreds of years of history which give us clear pictures of the spectrum of treatment that non-Muslims are subjected to under Muslim rule. We'd be wise to learn from them.Indeed. I would add that some slaves had very nice masters who treated them well. Having a nice master, though, still makes one a slave.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:28 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1016 words, total size 7 kb.
Tell me this: why are civilians considered innocent when they have high-ranking members of al Qaeda over for dinner? Is it just me, or doesn't that make them guilty under the Bush doctrine of treating terrorists and those that support them the same? It's not just the Bush doctrine, though, it's common sense. In order for terrorists to survive they must have supporters. that enable them. The only innocents killed by the U.S. aristrike are the children who were forced to wash up for dinner so they could have the honor of eating dinner with members of al Qaeda. I hope their parents rot in hell.
Further, why is it that only the foreigners killed in the attack are deemed terrorists by the Pakistanis? Oh, because, by definition, there are no Pakistani terrorists. You notice how that works?
It's not just the Pakistanis, it seems that the media is quick to differentiate too. As if an IED set off by a native is somehow different than that of a foreigner. For instance, in Afghanistan, we are told, there are Taliban rebels and foreign al Qaeda terrorsts. In Iraq there are native insurgents and foreign al Qaeda terrorists.
At least four foreign terrorists died in the U.S. airstrike purportedly aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, the provincial government said Tuesday.I'll say it again, it is not regrettable that 18 local people were killed. Good riddance. It is only regrettable the Pakistani culture is so disgustingly backward (especially in the so-called 'tribal' areas) that any women killed were probably not married to terrorists by choice, and that the terrorist scumbags probably also had innocent children.A statement by the administration of Bajur, the Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.
Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.
The statement was the first official confirmation by Pakistani authorities that foreign militants were killed in the attack, which officials have said also killed innocent civilians...
"Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack," the statement said, citing the chief official in the Bajur region where Damadola is located.
"It is regrettable that 18 local people lost their lives in the attack, but this fact also cannot be denied, that 10-12 foreign extremists had been invited on a dinner," it said.
UPDATE by Howie: Rusty and Howie posted at precisely the same time, so the editors of The Jawa Report decided just to combine their two posts.
While the spin has been how many innocents were killed in the attempt on Zawahiri, today we have confirmation of a terrorist dinner party.
CNN:A statement by the administration of Bajur, a Pakistan tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.How Rude to miss dinner like that!Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.
CNN : "Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack,"Invite a terrorist to dinner, get bombed. Sounds fair to me.
UPDATE: Confederate Yankee and Rusty Shackleford: two heads, one mind.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:08 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.
January 16, 2006
The Muslims do not allow entry to the Temple area to any member of another faith, unless he converts to their religion-- for they claim that no member of another religion is sufficiently pure to enter this holy spot. [more] ..No Jew or Christian is allowed to ride a horse, but a donkey is permitted, for [in the eyes of Muslims] Christians and Jews are inferior beings [more]
Posted by: Rusty at
05:09 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
January 11, 2006
So, can Islam be reformed? I have speculated in the past that such reform might come, but only at great cost and through external circumstances. But, I have remained open, if not skeptical, to the possibility that such a reformation is possible and has, in fact, already begun. Today I learn that I am not alone.
Via McQ who has a discussion going over at Q and O, I learn that the Pope is equally skeptical. Had I not been on vacation, I probably would have caught Hugh Hewitt's full interview, the transcripts of which can be found at Radioblogger:
the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures . And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.On the pro-reform side is the argument that Judaism was able to rid itself of such barbaric practices as the death penalty for blasphemy, so why can't Islam? However, it took the destruction of two Hebrew nations (Judah/Israel), domination by at least three empires, the destruction of at least two temples, two diasporas, and hundreds of years as a minority to do it. Not a pleasent prospect.
McQ has more on why this understanding is important in dealing with Iran.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:03 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
January 10, 2006
An editorial at The Washington Post agrees. Via Glenn Reynolds this article by Reuel Marc Gerecht:
Once again we are confronted with stories about how the Pentagon and its ubiquitous private contractors are undermining free inquiry in Iraq. "Muslim Scholars Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda," reports the New York Times. Journalists, intellectuals or clerics taking money from Uncle Sam or, in this case, a Washington-based public relations company, is seen as morally troubling and counterproductive. Sensible Muslims obviously would not want to listen to the advice of an American-paid consultant; anti-insurgent Sunni clerics can now all be slurred as corrupt stooges.Amen to that!There is one big problem with this baleful version of events. Historically, it doesn't make much sense. The United States ran enormous covert and not-so-covert operations known as "CA" activities throughout the Cold War. With the CIA usually in the lead, Washington spent hundreds of millions of dollars on book publishing, magazines, newspapers, radios, union organizing, women's and youth groups, scholarships, academic foundations, intellectual salons and societies, and direct cash payments to individuals (usually scholars, public intellectuals and journalists) who believed in ideas that America thought worthy of support....
Why did the United States spend so much covert-action money in Western Europe after World War II? Washington was unsure of Western Europe's commitment to democracy and its resolve to oppose the Soviet Union and its proxy European communist parties. The programs had to be clandestine: The foreigners involved usually could not have operated with open U.S. funding without jeopardizing their lives, their families or their reputations. Did these CA projects retard or damage the growth of a free press and free inquiry in Western Europe after World War II? I think an honest historical assessment would conclude that U.S. covert aid advanced both.
Surely democracy in Iraq is at least as shaky as it was in Western Europe after the defeat of Hitler. The real complaint that ought to be made against the Bush administration is that it has allowed such important work to be contracted to a public relations firm (in the case cited above, the Lincoln Group) that has done a poor job of protecting anonymity. Nevertheless, one has to give the Pentagon credit: It seems to be the only government agency that is at least trying to develop Iraqi cadres to wage the "hearts and minds" campaign. The CIA seems to have all but abandoned its historical mission in this area.
The Bush administration shouldn't flinch from increasing its covert "propaganda" efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The history in the last great war of ideas is firmly on its side.
"Propaganda" has come to carry a pejorative connotation but it does not have to be a bad thing. Delivering information to persuade a target audience of your viewpoint is value neutral.Indeed. Goldstein, in top form:
The battle over ideas is essential to a peaceful world; and to insist that the process of disseminating ideas be fair and balanced—that because we are a hyperpower, our use of propaganda is unseemly, whereas the use of propaganda by, say, al-Qaeda is a natural part of asymetrical warfare—is to engage not in self-righteous idealism, but rather to devolve into a moral relativism that disguises itself as high-mindedness. It is the CNN view of the world, one in which the purveyor of information forgets that s/he is supposed to be “objective” and not neutral, particularly where neutrality means resisting taking the side that is objectively pressing for freedom rather than, say, theocratic tyranny and medieval law.Heh.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:08 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 5 kb.
130 queries taking 0.1386 seconds, 664 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
