Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Netanyahu, speaking at UN about Iran

In response to my note “The Bombing of Iran – hypothetical considerations” (http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/09/bombing-of-iran-hypothetical.html ) a reader asked if I had read Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly. It is a sad thing to read. On the one hand Netanyahu is fearless and vehement in what he says. On the other hand, why should he have to say things like this in 2009? The bulk of the U.N. seems to be where Hitler and the Nazis were in the 40s.

The Netanyahu speech can be found at http://mwcnews.net/content/view/33366/42. In it Netanyahu says, “. . . if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. . . .”

COMMENT:

Reading this speech, and especially the portion I quote above, and applying it to the matter of whether Israel truly expects diplomatic efforts to turn Iran from their nuclear ambitions, I would have to conclude that Netanyahu does indeed intend to wait and see, but it is apparent that he is not optimistic. For Netanyahu and Israel “the Jury is still out on the United Nations.”

In another portion of the speech, Netanyahu apparently to show the deficiencies of the UN how in Palestine “. . . after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians ? Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.”

He goes on to describe how Israel used the utmost care in conducting surgical strikes and yet though the UN gave the 8 years of Palestinian bombing a free pass, they did not do that to Israel’s response. The logic of Netanyahu’s speech doesn’t permit us to apply this lesson of Gaza to what Netanyahu might intend to do to Iran, and yet this has been a topic on the minds of many. What will Israel do if Iran intends to do something like the Nazis did against London? Is it a mere coincidence that he describes what Israel did in response to being bombed from Palestine? Or should we view it as fair warning to Iran?

The bombing of Iran -- hypothetical considerations

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLT558247

The above article, written by Dan Williams for Reuters is entitled “Analysis – Israel rethinks anti-Iran warnings.”

A while back I posted a note arguing that Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if US negotiations with Iran failed. Have I already been proved wrong? I’ll quote a few passages from the Williams article and comment below.

“. . . Suddenly, the Iranian "existential threat" seems to have receded from Israel's horizon.

“It began with a bombshell Sept 18 newspaper interview in which Defence Minister Ehud Barak asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran could not destroy the Jewish state. Similar public remarks followed from the general in charge of all military operations.

“Even hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman now sounds skittish about his government's long hinted-at willingness to go to war rather than see an enemy get the means to make a bomb.

“’God forbid -- there's no need to attack anything,’ he told Israel's Channel Two television on Monday.

“While Israeli officials insist that ‘all’ options remain available for tackling their arch-foe, few dispute that Barak -- the top strategist, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- has taken a new rhetorical tack as major world powers prepare to revive negotiations with Tehran on Thursday . . .

“Short on the forces necessary to deliver permanent damage to Iranian nuclear sites, the Israelis hope the new talks will work, one official said -- or, failing that, eventually trigger U.S.-led military intervention. ‘The last thing we need to do right now is to distract from the diplomacy with the kind of threats that Iran can point to as 'proof' that they, not us, are the endangered party,’ the Israeli official said. . . .”

“A unilateral Israeli attack could draw reprisals on U.S. Gulf assets, further testing already strained ties between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama. Should Iran cut off oil exports, Israel may find itself blamed for a new global crisis. . . .”

"The idea that Israel can do the world's dirty work is under serious review. Sufficient follow-up support just isn't there."

“. . . Barak said that Israel . . . could deter or fend off any future attack by a nuclear-armed Iran.

"’I don't think we are on the brink of a new Holocaust,’ he said, clashing openly with Netanyahu's repeated likening of today's Iran to Nazi Germany on the eve of World War Two.

“. . . Netanyahu said he saw ‘eye to eye’ with Barak. The Prime Minister's Office denied that there had been any change to Israeli strategising on Iran. . . .”

As defence minister to Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, Barak was cautious on warmaking. According to a security cabinet official at the time, Barak argued against the 2007 sortie that destroyed an alleged Syrian atomic reactor, calling it hasty. Barak's aides denied that, and the fact that the air strike happened points, at the very least, to his ability to close rank. . . .”

“Iran is dead set against recognising the Jewish state and has numerous, distant, fortified and -- in the case of an uranium enrichment plant disclosed last week -- hidden nuclear facilities.

"Barak's thinking on Iran definitely appears to have sway, for now," said an Israeli security official who is not aligned with the Defence Ministry. . . .”

COMMENT:

If we assume, for purposes of discussion, that Iran has deadly intentions toward Israel and has a nuclear armed missile, where in Iran would they launch it? If you look at a map, the shortest distance from Iran to Israel is over Iraq. Would Iran risk retaliation from the US by sending its missiles over American’s ally, Iraq? Perhaps not. If they move their launching site far enough north to avoid flying over Iraq, they would have to send it over Turkey, Syria, and perhaps Lebanon or Jordan to get to Israel.

If they move their launching site far enough south to avoid sending it over Iraq, they will have to send it over Saudi Arabia and Jordan to reach Israel. Saudi Arabia has been a traditional enemy of Iran. Could Iran negotiate a deal with the Saudis and Jordan to destroy their mutual enemy, Israel? Perhaps, but if the Saudis and Jordan did, they would risk antagonizing the US. Would they risk that?

But perhaps Ahmadinejad will argue that he has looked into Obama’s eyes, and Obama blinked, convincing him that the US will NOT retaliate if Iran sends its missiles over Iraq.

So even after Iran gets its nuclear weapon and a missile to transport it, launching it in the direction of Israel is not without its problems. And one mustn’t forget that many of North Korea’s test launches fell far short of their intended targets. Would Saudi Arabia or Iraq feel so confident in Iran’s technological capability that they would have no concern that a missile launched toward Israel not fall short and hit Saudi Arabia or Iraq?

But how does Israel view all these possibilities and have they truly taken their threat of bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities off the table? If I were in charge of defending Israel, I would not take too much comfort in Iran’s over-flight difficulties. All the nations under discussion are more or less enemies of Israel.

Notice also that by seeming to back away from its Anti-Iran threat, Israel is doing its part in assisting the diplomatic process. Let the diplomacy be entirely about Iran’s nuclear weapons and not about an impending threat from Israel. Let Iran be seen as the belligerent nation and not Israel.

Also for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that diplomacy with Iran fails, and Iran continues developing nuclear weapons. If Israel then decided to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, all the over-flight problems discussed above would have to be dealt with by Israel. So how would they do it?

One way would be to fly over Saudi Arabia and assume the Saudis would not retaliate; which would probably be a safe assumption. They would certainly complain, but probably not retaliate. Could the Israelis fly over Saudi Arabia without Iran getting wind of it in advance? I don’t know.

Sending a force down the Red Sea and around the Saudi Arabian Peninsula is another possibility, but that might be even harder to do without being observed.

Another possibility would be to cross Syrian airspace. They could then cut across the semi-independent Kurdish territory. The Kurds are not fond of the Iranians and might very well be encouraged to look the other way.

FURTHER COMMENTS:

Would Israel be justified in bombing Iran? Assume that you are in charge of a nation (Israel) and if another nation (Iran) expresses maniacal hatred towards you, threatens to destroy you and begins building a weapon to do just that, will you choose to let it happen or will you choose to destroy that weapon before it can be used against you?

There are other possibilities of course, you might against all existing evidence “hope for the best.” Surely, you might hope, no nation would deliberately destroy your entire nation. Against that you might recall that in the middle of the twentieth century, a group (German Fascists) with quite a lot in common with the political elements of Radical Islam attempted to do the equivalent of that and made considerable progress.

You might also hope you could rely on your ally, the US, to protect you against Iran (there is a hint of that in the Williams article), but some American administrations have failed you in the past. The Obama administration might be another. Are you willing to risk Israel’s existence on the assumption that it is not?

You might also think that no rational human being would bomb Israel out of existence, but do you really think that Ahmadinejad meets that description?

CONCLUSION:

Does the Dan Williams article provide any reason to retract my argument that Israel will attack Iran if negotiations (to get them to stop building nuclear weapons) fails? Iran hasn’t withdrawn its threat against Israel. It is still (according to supposedly reputable intelligence reports) building its nuclear weapons. In fact the British think Iran is very close to completing these weapons (see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/837f30a0-ad30-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html ). So, no, I don’t believe that anything in the Williams article is cause to change my opinion. If the US did the job then Israel wouldn’t have to, but I don’t think the present American administration has the stomach for something like that.

Monday, September 28, 2009

On the "Right Wing Conspiracy"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/bill-clinton-says-right-wing-conspiracy-now-after-president-obama.html

The above article, posted in ABC News’ “The Note” and entitled “Bill Clinton Says Right-Wing Conspiracy Now after President Obama.” I’ll quote from the first part of it and comment below.

“ABC News' Kristina Wong reports: Former President Bill Clinton says the right-wing conspiracy that attacked him during his presidency now is after President Obama.

“When asked whether the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is still present today, the former president answered without hesitation, ‘Oh you bet. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was,’ Clinton said today on NBC's ‘Meet the Press.’

"Right-wing conspiracy" was the term used by former first lady Hillary Clinton to describe the tactics her husband's political enemies used to attack his presidency after revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinski.

"’I mean they may be hurting President Obama . . . they can run his opposition up, but fundamentally he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that's not a good prescription for a good America.

"’I mean, they're saying things about him just like when they accused me of murder and all this stuff they did, but it's not really good for the Republicans or the country, what's going on now . . .’”

COMMENT:

I’m sure Clinton is intelligent, but being a product of the modern educational system, he has a poor grasp of logic. The definition of “conspiracy” is “a combination of people for an evil purpose, an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime in concert as treason, a plot.” To be opposed by a rival political party is not “evil,” unless our whole political process is evil. What is evil about opposing programs and policies? Democrats do it all the time. Are they evil?

Or is Clinton talking about the ongoing search for malfeasance. Both sides do that too. If a political leader is caught doing something wrong, people get together to oppose what he did. If “evil” is involved it is the malfeasance of the offender that is evil not the opposing of it. Opposing evil is not evil.

And we need to be reminded that the term, “vast right wing conspiracy” was coined by Clinton’s wife when he was caught in an adulterous relationship with Monica Lewinski. Surely the President, who seemed to confess his malfeasance, knows that he was guilty of malfeasance in office (evil). Surely he knows that opposing that malfeasance is not evil.

In what way is Bill Clinton being illogical? His conclusion does not follow from his premise. Why is that? Okay, let’s try and build Clinton’s argument using the Oxford dictionary of English definition of “Conspiracy” which is what I quote above.

Major Premise: Conspiracies are the gathering together of people for an evil purpose

Minor Premise: The Republican Party gathered together to attack me over the Monica Lewinski affair.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Republican Party is guilty of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

But note that attacking Bill Clinton over malfeasance in office, which is what the Monica Lewinski affair was, was not evil. The affair itself was evil. Therefore the Clinton’s are guilty of fallacious reasoning.

FURTHER COMMENT:

Note that I am giving Clinton the benefit of doubt. I’m assuming that he has not mastered the use of logic. There is an alternative to my assumption, however. Sometimes politicians understand perfectly well that they are being illogical but do it anyway because the public is gullible and poorly educated and will not, most of them, be able to find the flaws in such reasoning. A clever slur, as the term “vast right wing conspiracy” obviously is, is probably worth thousands of times more (in the political coin of the realm) than a well-reasoned argument.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Davies' "A History of Poland"

I’ve begun Norman Davies, God’s Playground, A History of Poland, Vol 1, “The Origins to 1795. Years ago I was interested in early American Civilizations and recall being outraged over the destruction of early records by Catholic Priests and Monks. What the Communist oppression did in Poland reminded me of that. The Catholics could argue that the history of the Aztecs was demonic, the work of the devil, and needed to be destroyed. In regard to Poland, nothing was produced from 1944 through the collapse of the USSR that did not correspond to the Communist Party Line. The Communists assumed, as did the Catholics before them, that everything that did not support their cause was irrelevant if not counterproductive.

In Davies chapter 1, he discusses the various histories of Poland prior to his. There was a slight easing after 1960. Davies writes that “The Stalinist nightmare had passed. The air of gloom and shame which Stalinism had injected into everything connected with Poland’s independent past, was being dispelled.” But Communistic thinking still had a stranglehold on the writing of Polish History. On page 18 Davies writes, “. . . the respectable face of history-writing in the People’s Republic was irreparably scarred by the detailed revelations of an official censor who defected to the West in 1977 and who took a complete set of the Censorship Office’s directives with him. . . Publishers were required to submit an annual publishing plan for approval in advance. They were then required to submit every approved title for scrutiny and to incorporate all the censor’s textual changes before printing. No undesirable author or subject could find a way into print, and no approved text could ever contain unapproved material. . . the Black Book of Polish Censorship showed beyond question that the controls were far more extensive than anyone outside the Party elite could have suspected. For the directives were not merely concerned with negative methods of suppressing or limiting information. First and foremost, they constituted a huge body of pre-emptive instructions which laid down what facts were to be known, what interpretations were to be preferred, what aspects were to be emphasized, and which people were to be praised. In the large historical section, for example, much space was allotted to the American Bi-Centennial of 1976. Here, the Polish censors gave instructions to the effect that ‘the American Revolution’ was to be presented in a positive light; that Americans were to be congratulated on their achievement; and that the overthrow of British imperialism by the colonists was to be lauded. The progressive role of Poles, such as Kosciuszko and Pulaski, was to be stressed, as was the reactionary role of German (Hanoverian) redcoats. At the same time great care was to be taken to keep history apart from current affairs. Polish readers were not to be told that workers in the USA belonged to free trade unions, drove cars, ate steaks, and generally enjoyed a standard of living unimaginable in the Soviet Block.”

On page 19 Davies writes, “Once the regimes of the Soviet Bloc had collapsed, a whole academic industry of dubious sovietological studies, which had fed off these regimes, collapsed with them.” However Communist repression had been stultifying. “. . . no native star had been hiding its light under a bushel only to blaze forth as soon as the political restrictions were lifted.”

Davies praises the work inspired by Polish professor Jerzy Kloczowski, but it may be that even today, the best history of Poland remains the work of the British historian Norma Davies.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Radical Islam must not be tolerated by Moscow

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/09/window-on-eurasia-north-caucasus_23.html

The Above article, written by Paul Goble, is entitled “North Caucasus Descending into Unrestricted ‘Civil War’ Where No One is Safe, Moscow Paper Warns.” I’ll quote from the article and comment below:

“. . . The recent increase in attacks on religious leaders and ordinary citizens in the North Caucasus, the editors of “Nezavisimaya gazeta” say, highlights a dangerous new development in that region: the increasing role of radical extremists who do not feel themselves limited by any moral considerations.

“. . . Terrorism in the region . . . has moved into ‘a religious-political phase’ . . . This change . . . is reflected in the murder last Sunday of Ismail Bostanov, the deputy head of the Muslim Spiritual Directorate (MSD) of Karachayevo-Cherkessia and Stavropol kray, and in the decision of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to pull down a mosque bearing the name of one of his earlier opponents Dzhabrail Yamadayev.”

“ . . . in recent times such attacks are taking place with stupefying regularity . . . [and] of the entrance into the ranks of the militants of ‘a large group of radically inclined young people who decide on their own [rather than relying on religious authorities] who is right and who is guilty.’

“What that means . . . is that what is now going on in the North Caucasus is ‘not only a religious conflict between supporters of radical Islam and those who support traditional views on the faith’ but also a reflection of the end of any ‘protected’ zones in the ‘hot republics’ of the region.

“In short . . . there are now ‘no limits’ in the North Caucasus regarding who may be attacked and no place where anyone there can feel safe.”

“. . . today . . . suicide bombers . . . are not concerned about the number of dead be they soldiers, civilians or Muslim leaders.

“This trend, the paper says, bears ‘obvious signs of a civil war, a war which has passed into a new phase’ and which is occurring in Chechnya . . . In that republic too, ‘the militants are becoming more active,’ and ‘the civil war is a political stage of the conflict.’

“What Moscow should do ‘in order that the North Caucasus will cease to be called a bubbling cauldron remains an open one,” because ‘at the federal level, there is only one order – immediately liquidate the militants. And that is not happening.’ Instead, their number is increasing, and their attacks are becoming more unlimited.
Indeed, the paper notes, there is widespread disagreement among the expert community. Some analysts say that what is taking place is a response to ‘the excessive application of force by law-enforcement agencies.’ Others say that in the North Caucasus, there is ‘a well-organized terrorist network with which the siloviki are not capable of coping.’

“And still a third group, the paper notes, ‘are talking about a religious war’ which has arise as the role of traditional Islam has declined and ‘the influence of radical Islam has grown.’ Each of these has something to say, the paper suggests, but even taken together, they do not provide a complete understanding or comprehensive guide to action.

“But what is most unclear of all . . is just what the Russian powers that be in Moscow think regarding what is going on. Up to now, the impression has been that in the North Caucasus, they are simply living ‘in hope that everything [there] will sort itself out on its own’ – a hope, the paper implies, that appears increasingly a vain one.”

COMMENT:

The problem being described by the editors of the Nezavisimaya gazeta is the same problem being faced in many parts of the world. Russia as well as the West is crippling itself by refusing to abandon that Liberal-Democratic ideal: Toleration. Fascism and Communism in the 20th Century were so intolerant that there has been a reaction in the Liberal-Democratic world – a reaction that implies that all things, every idea, every political position, every religious viewpoint must be tolerated. Radical Islam arose at just the right time for them. They have been given a free pass to engage in the most heinous of crimes and because all the rest of us are tolerant. We are so tolerant we refuse to do enough to stop them. We make excuses for them. Just as Moscow is hoping the problem will resolve itself, so are the governments in Europe hoping that time will soften the radicalism that they find so troubling.

Where are the Russian philosophers, the “intellectuals” to put this matter in perspective? Toleration of evil is not acceptable. Surely we would all agree to that simple statement. We do not need to define Evil exhaustively. We need merely to agree to assume that this particular phenomenon, Radical Islam, is Evil. Next we need to take steps that follow from that assumption. If it is evil then those who promote it must be stopped. Create laws outlawing Radical Islam. Define what it is and what it is not and then take all necessary steps to oppose it.

What grounds does Moscow have for believing the problem presented by Radical Islam will “sort itself out”? Isn’t that what we thought prior to World War II. Haven’t Russians and others criticized the US (justifiably so) for assuming the problem presented by Fascism would “sort itself out” without American involvement?

At what point do we decide that Radical Islam isn’t going to sort itself out and that action must be taken? We don’t seem to have such a “point.” We have drawn no line in the sand. We have no direction. Radical Islam is still running rampant wherever it wants to go. Sayyid Qutb urged that Mohammad’s Jihad must be continued, that a “true” Muslim must understand that Islam will be in a state of war (Jihad) until the infidels (that’s us, Moscow) are killed or converted to Islam.

If you want to be “tolerant,” be tolerant of traditional Islam, but under no circumstances be tolerant of Radical Islam.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

RE: Russia still not reconciled to loss of Empire

Eric Yost, wrote the following in response to http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/09/russia-still-not-reconciled-to-loss-of.html . I have a few additional comments below:

Lawrence wrote: How pathetic you [Russia] are if all that can be said w about your future is that you will continue to sell raw materials to the West and Weapons to the West's enemies.

Two strains have long been prevalent in Russian thought, and were well established in the 19th

century: one is the "Slavophile" recognition of unique Russian identity, as crossroads between Asia and Europe (Lev Tolstoy); the other, just as significant, is the European identity, that Russia is the eastern extent of Europe (Ivan Turgenev).

To my understanding, both, acting together (Pushkin), constitute the Russian identity.

Consider: Russia is traditionally Christian

(European) but uniquely so in its Eastern Orthodox tradition (Slavophile); Russian classical music is European (Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovitch) but uniquely so in its Slavophile composers (Khachaturian, Schedrin, Sviridov). For a particular example, in pianism, Russia is European, but uniquely so (the Russian school of piano technique). Another example: in the 20th century, Russia produced, as a group, the strongest chess players. Chess is itself a hybrid of an Asian game that was refined and codified by Europeans.

Historically, Russia resisted both the Teutonic knights (Nevsky) and the severe Mongol invasion.

My sense is that Russian identity, at least in its high culture, is part of both worlds yet not a complete member of either. This is a lonely place and calls for a great sense of balance. When Russians feel they are respected, I believe they can achieve this balance, as they have done throughout history. However, when they feel condescended to or belittled, Russians always veer to an extreme Slavophilism or extreme Westernism

-- depending on who is condescending or belittling them.

Granted, this is cultural analysis and has little to do with the Russian power elite, who seek crises and global political instability to drive up the price of oil. But it speaks to something deeper -- a sentiment upon which the Russian power elite rely in order to rule. Putin knows this as well as Stalin did.

All the best,

Eric

Lawrence’s Comments:

I often have something like this in mind when I write about Russia’s modern woes. I’m a great admirer of Dostoevsky, having read two of his novels (The Brothers Karamazov & Crime and Punishment) several times, and probably all of them at least once. I read Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Anna Karenina probably twice each. And I read a number of lesser Russian writers but no one quite captured my imagination as much as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy – unless it was Mikhail Sholokhov.

As to music, I’m not the aficionado that Eric is, but at one time, probably the same time I was reading Sholokhov, I was listening to Shostakovich quite a lot, and while I came to imagine he was repeating himself too much to listen to as regularly as I had been, I have never tired of Tchaikovsky.

I appreciated, perhaps still do, Wassily Kandinsky and read and appreciated (in my misguided youth) the Russian spiritualism of H. Blavatsky.

This is all to say that I agree with Eric’s argument that Russia is essentially European. I may have even suggested that in the past, but Michael Kuznetsov is supported by recent articles in rejecting that suggestion. Modern Russia believes itself to be, and wants others to recognize it as distinct from European Civilization. My own belief that it is not is weakened by Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations. In the first part of that work, Huntington presents the commonly accepted conclusions of social scientists that the “Orthodox Civilization” is distinct from the “Western Civilization.”

I discussed this a bit with Kuznetsov at some point. I find it difficult to accept that the Orthodox and Latin Civilizations are “distinct” from Western Civilization. We have similar, if not the same, roots. We revere Christianity. I am not convinced that Huntington’s “clashes” need to go on amongst these three “Civilizations.”

Nevertheless, when Russia finally recovered from the after effects of the demise of the USSR, it made it known that it did not appreciate the EU swallowing up Russia’s “near abroad” neighbors. It invoked a 19th century “sphere of interest” rationale. The EU, however, believed itself to have gone way beyond such thinking. Not only could it not revert to 19th century thinking, it thought it positively dangerous to do so. Surely, they believed, that sort of thinking contributed to the disastrous wars of the 20th century.

Russia, of course has not threatened war with the EU or the US over the EU’s and NATO’s acceptance of these Near Abroad nations, but Russia has been grumbling. As the articles I’ve been quoting have indicated, Russia doesn’t like what is going on inside the Federation with its minorities, and outside with Near Abroad nations lusting after membership in the EU and NATO.

Eric mentioned the “High Culture” of the Russian intelligentsia. My first thought upon reading that (and I don’t mean this to be a criticism of Eric’s argument, merely a bit of “free association”) was that it seemed in a sense comparable to “Traditional Muslims.” That is, whenever there is a tendency to consider all Islam as being Radical, some will invoke the “Traditional Muslims.” Not all Muslims are Radical, they will argue. In fact only a few are Radical and the “vast majority” of Muslims are “Traditional,” and willing to live and let live. I have argued against that belief because the evidence for the existence of these “Traditional Muslims” is scanty. Where are they, I have on more than one occasion demanded to know? If they exist, they are either living in Europe or the US or are being very quiet.

Eric isn’t voicing an opinion on how influential or prevalent the High Culture of the Russian Intelligentsia is, but I would be interested in hearing more on that subject. I’ve been quoting Russian Journalists who in some sense may be part of that Intelligentsia, I don’t know that any of them are. And if philosophers, novelists and poets are speaking out today in Russia about Russia’s current problems, I have not encountered them.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Russia still not reconciled to loss of Empire

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/09/window-on-eurasia-russias-trajectory.html

The above article, entitled “Russia’s Trajectory Reflects ‘Shock of Loss’ of Stalinist empire, Moscow analyst Says,” was written by Paul Goble. I’ll quote from it and then comment below:

“. . . Vladimir Putin was wrong to say that ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe from Russia’s point of view was the collapse of the USSR,’ the Levada Center’s Aleksey Levinson argues. . . .:

“[The USSR] was a utopia realized as an empire . . .and an empire realized as a utopia.” [Many Russians feel a] sense of being ‘defenseless’ against the rest of the world. . . [This ‘Shock of Loss’] explains . . . their search for a new utopia . . . .”

“’The Gorbachevian elite . . . attempted to realize a utopia of openness, while the early Yeltsin one pursued one of encapsulation and paralysis.’ And that in turn opened the way to ‘the current form of utopia . . . [based upon] a neurotic-aggressive expression of resentment.’”

“ . . . Left in a position of one-on-one with the rest of the world, Russia is at the same time living through the phantom of the imagined reconstruction of the empire/utopia and the [simultaneous and very different but real] need to become a national state . . .”

“. . . Russia is painfully losing the imperial resource but surprisingly acquiring a national, national-confessional and ethnic resource,’ a development that is promoting ‘a phenomenon never before seen in the history of Russia – the symbolic unity of the ruling elite and the public.’

“One example of this . . . is the almost universal approval among Russians of military actions against Georgia last year, a level of support they did not manifest for Moscow’s earlier campaigns in Afghanistan and Chechnya, when many parents did not want to send their sons to fight.

“Another reflection of this ‘consolidation’ of the nation . . . is the nature of the support for Putin. . . the figure of the president symbolizes this new (pseudo-imperial and really national-ethnic) unity . . .”

“As the old system collapsed, the ruling elite first sought to employ “universalist (‘all-human’ and ‘democratic’) values,” but these turned out not to be much in demand. And consequently, as the process of devolution proceeded, elites turned ever more to “particularistic and pseudo-universalistic ideological values,” which have proved more popular.”

“. . . All this would seem to “promise this regime long years of a peaceful life,” but “Russia, entering into the phase of transforming itself into ‘a national state’ faces . . . a demographic crisis . . . ‘the logic of the construction [by ethnic Russians] of relations with various ‘others’ whose national and ethnic flowering has been delayed . . . [is] contradictory.”

“As other nations have felt in the past, Russians now have a sense of being ‘a “disappearing people,”’ one whose existence is threatened by demographic decline and by the demographic rise of people who often are viewed as fundamentally different [from] and hostile to the Russian nation.

“. . . ‘one cannot exclude [the possibility] that the demographic crisis, the fear of losing control over too broad a territory . . . will generate another . . . military [action] . . . .”

“At the very least . . . the projection of this line in the next decade promises the gradual loss [Russia’s place] in that part of the world dominated by the West.”

“Given that this is the likely trajectory of Russia’s development, ‘the most acceptable policy’ for the West . . . will be [the] marginalization of . . . contemporary Russia … [especially since Russia has nothing to] offer [the] West besides raw materials and arms (for [the West’s] enemies).”

[All this] suggests, given “the logic of the international situation,” that Russia should “reorient” itself toward China. [However] an equal partnership is not possible [and] anything less is something Russian society . . . won’t accept, leaving post-imperial but not yet national Russia in an increasingly difficult position.”

COMMENT:

I am not persuaded by Levinson’s “logic.” Why should Russia need to “reorient itself toward China.” The “Logic” that presents itself to me is the precedent of the British and Japanese Empires. Britain and Japan both lost their empires after World War II. Did they assume that the loss of status associated with loss of Empire was unacceptable. No, we know they did not. They were practical. They moved on and advanced their “Nations” quite far. They are both major economic powers in the world today.

Why is it that Britain and Japan had the ability to accept their new status but Russia does not? Does Russian hubris so overwhelm them that they would rather see Russia destroyed? One is reminded of Hitler’s desire to see Germany destroyed in the final days of World War II.

I can feel Russians bristle as they read this. They will think, “how dare you speak of Russia in this way? Didn’t we create Sputnik? Didn’t we create Atomic Weapons?” Sure, I will answer, but that was in the past . Let me see you do something now. How pathetic you are if all that can be said about your future is that you will continue to sell raw materials to the West and Weapons to the West’s enemies.

Why is it that Britain and Japan could survive their loss of Empire but you cannot? Are you less than they? I am not intending an insult here. I would much prefer that Russia would recover from their malaise and ascend to the forefront of successful nations, but what I read nowadays inspires pessimism in that regard.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Suicide bombers from North Caucasus using drugs

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/09/window-on-eurasia-north-caucasus.html

The above article was written by Paul Goble and posted on his web site, Window on Eurasia, 9-16-09. I’ll quote from it and comment below: It is entitled, “North Caucasus Militants Using Drugs, Not Religion, to Produce Suicide Bombers.” I’ll quote from the article and comment below:

“. . . Like the assassins of centuries ago, anti-Russian militants in the North Caucasus today are using drugs to create “zombified” suicide bombers, according to a Moscow newspaper, a charge that will discredit the militants, undermine calls for negotiations with them, and spark new fears about people from that region among Russians at large.

“In an article entitled ‘Robots of Death’ in today’s ‘Trud,’ Elena Yuryeva says that ‘North Caucasian schools for militants have begun to attract drug specialists [from Middle Eastern countries] for the preparation of shahid suicide bombers,’ . . .”

“Before the militants, who Yuryeva stresses are no longer motivated by ethnic or religious considerations are sent on a suicide mission, they are given drugs by their ‘bandit’ leaders ‘after which it is impossible to stop or persuade them not to go ahead’ and attack their targets even at the cost of their lives. . .”

“’suicide bomber schools’ in various parts of the North Caucasus have trained 30 such people already, of whom 13 have already been killed, either in the course of attacks in which they lost their lives or because they ‘have been liquidated by the forces of the special services.’

“. . .’the remaining suicide bombers now can be anywhere in the North Caucasus.’ Moreover, she says, ‘part of them have received an order to go to Moscow or other major Russian cities’ and carry out their deadly attacks.

“Kaloy Akhilgov, press secretary to Ingushetia President Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, told Yuryeva that . . . ‘suicide bombers before setting out on a mission take psychotropic medicines and drugs” and that this process is conducted by ‘qualified foreign specialists.’

“ . . . experts in the field such as Leonid Gedko of the CIS Narcotics Control Center ‘have confirmed that in reality it is easiest to transform a person into a “living bomb” with the help of specially selected medical preparations’ than it is to rely on religious or ethnic “fanaticism” as was the case earlier.

“As Takhir Bazarov, a professor of social psychology at Moscow State University, put it, ‘the goals which the instructors of the diversion schools pursue consists in the stupefaction of the consciousness of their pupils. This can be achieved with instruction in religious intolerance but with the help of narcotics, this process takes place much faster’ . . .”

“. . . articles like the one in “Trud” certainly will [provide] yet another justification for the view of Vladimir Putin and others in Moscow that the only thing Russia can do with the militants is kill them and for the view of many ordinary Russians that “people of Caucasus nationality” represent a threat.

“. . . tensions about migrants from [the North Caucasus] in major Russian cities . . . have prompted populist officials like Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to demand deep cuts in the number of migrants allowed and led to the organization of often violent anti-migrant groups, that attention could lead to even bigger problems than the one Yuryeva has described.”

COMMENT:

Reading this article, after reading Fahid’s note about how wonderful, good and kind Islam is, fills me with the irony of these matters. I doubt, however, that someone as “faithful” as Fahid can see it.

I notice that the terms “Islam” and “Muslim” do not appear in the above article. Does that mean that Russian journalists have become as “Politically Correct” as their European and American journalistic brethren? Are there “religious fanatics” in the North Caucasus that are not Islamic? This article might inspire readers to think that there might be. But there aren’t. Islamic suicide bombers from the North Caucasus are using drugs to complement their religious fanaticism. Since the concept of using of drugs came from the Middle East (according to Trud), the home of the suicide bomber, they have probably been using drugs there as well.

Here is your Islam, Fahid, killing civilians and children and causing responses that are as violent as you are. How can you talk of goodness and kindness as though these concepts are “absolutes” when you don’t intend them to be. Your “goodness” and “kindness” is only to be applied to your fellow Muslims – and yet in reading this article, what kind of “goodness” and “kindness” is it to turn your fellow Muslims into drug-induced suicide bombers?

The Trud journalist, Elena Yuryeva, seems to believe it wrong for Putin “and others in Moscow” to think “the only thing Russia can do with the militants is kill them.” But if I lived in Russia, that is what I would think. Does she object to self-defense? Has Russia grown a set of pacifists?

Had Fahid responded to my first note admitting that Radical Islam is a serious problem in the Islamic world, I could have sympathized with him and had a peaceful discussion with him. If the mythical “peaceful” traditional Muslim truly exists, then let him speak up and say that he disapproves of Radical Islam. Otherwise, I shall think he approves of the militants. We may be confused in the West and in Russia, but most of us aren’t pacifistic. You had better build up your drug supply, you Militants. Putin “and others in Moscow” are being very practical when they think “the only thing” to do with Islamic “militants is kill them.”

Fahim's Islamic Spam

On 9-14-09, Fahim Kamtan Mirza submitted what had the form of a response to my note "Is Radical Islam invading Tennessee?" In actuality it had nothing to do with it. That same day, I responded to Fahim and asked him several questions especially if he would distance himself from the more violent representatives of Islam. He has not responded. The more I look at his note, the more I'm convinced it is Spam. We all get Spam. The Spammers don't care about what we think, they just want to sell their product. On a Rhodesian Ridgeback discussion group site, we regularly get Spam advertising dog grooming. I responded once, informing the Spammer that Rhodesian Ridgebacks don't need grooming. Their fur is very short. They can benefit from a bit of brushing in the morning. I manage about a minutes worth before my two are off to re-explore the back yard, but grooming? No. Even so, we still get this fellow's spam. He doesn't care. He works according to statistics. If he sends out 10,000 spam emails and gets back 100 responses, then he is a great success. As to the other 9,900, let them be damned. That's what Spam is.

But after catching my attention, and proving himself to be nothing more than a Spammer, I will take another look at what Fahim has written

Fahim: What Does "Islam" Mean? The word "Islam" itself means "Submission to Allah." The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of "Christianity" which was named after Jesus Christ, "Buddhism" after Gutama Buddha , "Marxism" after Karl Marx, and "Confucianism" after Confucius.

Lawrence: Is Fahim attempting to imply that Islam did not come through Mohammad's commentary? Nonsense. Without Mohammad there would be no Islam. Without Christ there would be no Christianity. Without Gautama Buddha there would be no Buddhism, etc, etc.


Fahim: Similarly, Islam is not named after a tribe like "Judaism" after the tribe of Judah and "Hinduism" after the Hindus. The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the will of the only true god worthy of worship, "Allah" (known as God "the Father" in Christianity).

Lawrence: I'm reminded here of a Christian Cult Leader, Herbert W. Armstrong, who attempted to support his arguments (British Israelism among them) that theTen Tribes of Israel had immigrated to Europe. He looked at the names of Rivers and countries: Denmark meant the march of the tribe of Dan, for example. The Danube was named after Dan, etc, etc. This sort of argument can take in only the very gullible. It is not based upon history or anthropology. As to how religions and other beliefs are named, they are not named by an external source. Christians, for example, originally called themselves "The Way," emphasizing that Christ was the only way to Salvation, the only way to the father, and all other beliefs, especially those which came later are heresies.

The last book in the Bible concludes with the following: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." This warning has usually been taken by Christians to apply to the entire Bible. Thus, when someone comes later with a "new Gospel" like Mohammad, he is declared a heretic. Note that Paul in Galatians wrote, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned."


Fahim: Anyone who does indeed submit to the will of Allah as required by Islam is termed a "Muslim," which means one who has submitted to the will of Allah. Many people in the West have developed the sad misinformed trend of calling Islam "Muhammadenism" and it's followers "Muhammadins." This is a totally foreign word to Muslims and unrecognized by them. No Muslim has ever called his religion "Muhammadenism" or called himself a "Muhammadin."

Lawrence: Fahim continues beating this drum. Did I in my note call Islam "Muhammadenism"? No, I did not; so why is he writing this to me? That is a rhetorical question. He isn't writing this with my note in mind. He is spamming me.


Fahim: What Is The Basic Concept of Islam? Islam teaches us that this life is a life of worship. We are placed on this earth in order to worship Allah and obey His command. During this earthly life we are subjected to a series of trials. We have the option of enduring these trials and conforming to certain laws, and our reward will be great in the next life, or we may decline to endure these trials and choose to not conform to the law, then we will be made to regret it in the next life.

Lawrence: We can see here that Islam is a "works based" religion. A Muslim gets to heaven because he works to get there. He "deserves" it. This is very different from Christianity, which relies upon Christ. A Christian relies upon Christ's righteousness and not his own "lest any man should boast."

However, let Islam be "works based." Let it be so. Now let us look and see what they have made with their work. Look anyplace you like and you see chaotic governments, ignorant gullible people, violent people, people burning and raping and mutilating. Am I looking in the wrong place, Fahim? Then please tell me where to look so I can see the good things that you Muslims have worked. Am I being to general, too vague? Since that is what I criticize you for, I want to avoid that guilt. Look at the cities in Tennessee that began this discussion. Read of how firemen and policemen are afraid to perform their duties in the midst of these people who "worship Allah and obey His command."

I have more examples: Oriana Fallaci (The Rage and the Pride, and The Force of Reason); Bruce Bawer's (While Europe Slept, How Radical Islam is destroying the West from Within), Claire Berlinski's Menace in Europe, why the Continent's Crisis is America's, too); and David Selbourne's the Losing Battle with Islam).

Look at what you have written, but then look out in the world and you will see that the Islam there is very different. It does not match what you write.


Fahim: Each person will be solely and completely responsible for their own final reward. We are also told that God has designed these laws to make this life a better, safer, and more tolerable one for us. If we elect to conform to them then we will see the result in this life even before moving on to the next.

Lawrence: Is life "better, safer, and more tolerable" for you? Middle-Eastern Islam is worse, less safe and less tolerable than all other areas except for sub-Saharan Africa. Even those fanatics, the Communists are better than you. After playing out their experiment for most of the 20th century, they recognized it as a failure and gave it up. But you refuse to give up your failure.


Fahim: We are told that the earthly life is a life of faith and work, and the next life is one of reward and no work. We have been placed on this earth to worship God, fast, pray, be industrious, good, kind, respectful, and a source of uprightness and morality. We are told that God has no need of our worship. Our worship can not increase the kingdom of God nor add to His power, however, it is in our best interests both in this life and the next that we do.

Lawrence: Where can we see this industry? Not in the Middle East, not in North Africa. Not in Pakistan. Where shall I look? And where, pray tell, are you "good, kind, respectful, and a source of uprightness and morality"? Are you "good," you who try time after time to destroy Israel? Do you respect other people's rights? Can we trust you to do the right thing and behave decently? Can we look to you and see examples of Morality? No, we cannot. You do not deserve these attributes. How can you write what you have written? Oh, I've read it before. You need a gloss of obfuscation: Good but only to those who think just as you do. Kind, but only to your kind. Respectful, but only to those who are just like you. The Nazis in Germany could say those things as well. Take your words out of the realm of abstraction and apply them so we can see them for what they are. And we will see that you are no better than the Fascists in these regards.


Fahim: Unlike some other religions which claim that God entered in a covenant with a certain group of people and that this group is genetically better than all other human beings, or closer to God, Islam on the other hand teaches that no color, race, tribe, or lineage is better than any other. Islam teaches that all humans are equal in the sight of Allah and that the only thing that can distinguish them in His sight is their piety and worship.

Lawrence: Fahim criticizes the Jews here, but aren't the Arabs doing the same thig? Don't you criticize those who can't read the Qur'an in Arabic as less than those who can? If I tell you that I have read the Quran, which I have, won't you in a Pavlovian reaction tell me I understand nothing because I don't know Arabic? The Jews, at least want nothing more than to be left alone. You on the other hand make a nuisance of yourselves by intruding yourself into the lives of the rest of us. Why not get your own house in order before first?

Fahim: "O humankind! Verily! We have created you from a male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily! the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing. Verily! Allah is The Knower, The Aware." The noble Qur'an, Al-Hujrat(49):13. Learn quran because it's the best way to feel Islam learn quran online, learn quran http://www.learningquranonline.com learn quran online, learn quran

Lawrence: And so ends the Spam of Fahim with this quote from the Qur'an, but log onto his web site and you will see the Spammer's hook. You will see that learning the Qur'an on-line costs money. Here is the fee structure for the U.S and Canada. If you live elsewhere there is a fee structure for you as well:

For USA and Canada Monthly Fee:

Days

Duration

Monthly Fee Amount

Currency

3 days classes

30 min

$55

US Dollar


6 days classes

30 min

$80

US Dollar


weekends Sun-Sat

30 min

$30

US Dollar


weekends Sun-Sat

45 min

$45

US Dollar


Monday, September 14, 2009

RE: Is Radical Islam invading Tennessee?.

Fahim kamtan mirza responded to my "Is Radical Islam invading Tennessee?" with the following. My comments will follow his note:

What Does "Islam" Mean?

The word "Islam" itself means "Submission to Allah." The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of "Christianity" which was named after Jesus Christ, "Buddhism" after Gutama Buddha , "Marxism" after Karl Marx, and "Confucianism" after Confucius.

Similarly, Islam is not named after a tribe like "Judaism" after the tribe of Judah and "Hinduism" after the Hindus. The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the will of the only true god worthy of worship, "Allah" (known as God "the Father" in Christianity).

Anyone who does indeed submit to the will of Allah as required by Islam is termed a "Muslim," which means one who has submitted to the will of Allah. Many people in the West have developed the sad misinformed trend of calling Islam "Muhammadenism" and it's followers "Muhammadins." This is a totally foreign word to Muslims and unrecognized by them. No Muslim has ever called his religion "Muhammadenism" or called himself a "Muhammadin."

What Is The Basic Concept of Islam?

Islam teaches us that this life is a life of worship. We are placed on this earth in order to worship Allah and obey His command. During this earthly life we are subjected to a series of trials. We have the option of enduring these trials and conforming to certain laws, and our reward will be great in the next life, or we may decline to endure these trials and choose to not conform to the law, then we will be made to regret it in the next life.

Each person will be solely and completely responsible for their own final reward. We are also told that God has designed these laws to make this life a better, safer, and more tolerable one for us. If we elect to conform to them then we will see the result in this life even before moving on to the next.
We are told that the earthly life is a life of faith and work, and the next life is one of reward and no work. We have been placed on this earth to worship God, fast, pray, be industrious, good, kind, respectful, and a source of uprightness and morality. We are told that God has no need of our worship. Our worship can not increase the kingdom of God nor add to His power, however, it is in our best interests both in this life and the next that we do.

Unlike some other religions which claim that God entered in a covenant with a certain group of people and that this group is genetically better than all other human beings, or closer to God, Islam on the other hand teaches that no color, race, tribe, or lineage is better than any other. Islam teaches that all humans are equal in the sight of Allah and that the only thing that can distinguish them in His sight is their piety and worship.

"O humankind! Verily! We have created you from a male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily! the noblest among you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing. Verily! Allah is The Knower, The Aware." The noble Qur'an, Al-Hujrat(49):13.

Learn quran because it's the best way to feel Islam learn quran online, learn quran http://www.learningquranonline.com learn quran online, learn quran


COMMENT:

Fahim,

What you have provided is an evangelistic note that doesn't in any way respond to the comment you are purportedly responding to. I wouldn't describe the Quran as you do, but that's okay. Here in America, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I'm not going to attack anything you have written.

However, I will draw your attention to the difference between "thought" as you provide it above and "action" as we've heard witnessed in regard to the teachings from the Al Farooq mosque in Tennessee and the response among the Somali members of that Mosque. The "action" we read about there is very different from your "thought." We hear of Teachers who preach hatred toward the "infidel." That "action" doesn't fit your "thought." When we see immigrants moving to the US and Europe refusing to integrate and instead demanding that the counties who have rescue them conform to their own conception of Islam, that "action" doesn't conform to your "thought."

If the "action" of Muslims in the world corresponded to the "thought" as you present it above, then we could live at peace with one another . . . unless when you write such things as "obey His command" you have in mind the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and his followers, or teachers like him. The tenor of your note does not indicate that you do, and I am giving you the benefit of doubt.

So if you choose to respond further I would like to hear how you distance yourself from the less peaceful followers of Islam.

Osama bin Laden criticizes Barack Obama

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6185820/Osama-bin-Laden-calls-Barack-Obama-powerless.html

The above article, entitled “Osama bin Laden calls Barack Obama ‘powerless.’ It was posted on 9-14-09. I want to consider the “logic” of Osama’s arguments. So I’ll first quote the article and then examine his arguments below.

“Al-Qaeda's As-Sahab media released a video featuring a still image of bin Laden and an audio statement, said IntelCenter.

“In the tape bin Laden reportedly said Barack Obama was "powerless" to stop the war in Afghanistan.

“SITE Intelligence Group, a terrorist-monitoring firm that translated the address, said bin Laden blamed the war on the "pro-Israel lobby" and corporate interests.

“In the tape, bin Laden directly addressed the American public.

"’The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby,’ he said.

"’The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.’"

“The purpose of the address was ‘to remind you of the causes’ of Sept. 11, he said.

“Bin Laden argued against the claims that the war was necessary for US security, saying current White House officials were merely following the strategy of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney to ‘promote the previous policies of fear to market the interests of big companies.’

“When Mr Obama became president and retained many of the Bush administration's military leaders, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, ‘reasonable people knew that Obama is a powerless man who will not be able to end the war as he promised,’ bin Laden said.

“‘If you end the war, so to it,’ bin Laden said. ‘But if it is otherwise, all we will do is continue the war of attrition against you on all possible axes.’

“The release came two days after the United States marked the eighth anniversary of the al-Qaeda-sponsored September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people.

“‘The video shows a still of bin Laden while the audio statement plays.

“There is no video footage of bin Laden or of anything else, aside from the graphics surrounding his still. There is no media footage or footage from other groups, IntelCenter said.

“The group described the release as ‘an address to the American public’ and said bin Laden typically releases such a statement annually around September or October.”

COMMENT:

Consider OBL’s first statement: “The Time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby.” This reminds me of the approach of Goebbels: If you present the same lie often enough people will eventually believe it. Notice that “terrorism” is a tactic intended to inspire fear. Osama’s language indicates that he understands that perfectly well. “Terrorism” is the chief tactic of Al Qaeda, but he boldly accuses the anti-terrorist campaign designed to destroy him and his allies as terrorism. The war in Afghanistan was intended to remove his allies, the Taliban, and kill or capture the Al Qaeda members living in Afghanistan. If this was terrorism, then its intended victims were the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Also in his first statement is his assertion is that the “neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby” are causing this “terrorism” as an ongoing enterprise. But whatever influence the neo-conservatives had, and it wasn’t much, it ended when Obama took office. As to the “Jewish Lobby,” doesn’t Osama realize that Jews are predominately liberal and if anything are inclined to be lenient on captured terrorists and anti-Israel enterprises? I subscribe to the largely Jewish publication Commentary, and in the September 2009 issue is a “Symposium on Norman Podhoretz’s New Book” Why are Jews Liberals? This is a well known fact of American politics, but Osama doesn’t know it (unless he does and is simply lying).

Osama then says “The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.” This wasn’t the reason for the beginning of Al Qaeda’s “dispute” with America. That beginning was caused by Saudi Arabia’s asking for American help against Saddam Hussein. Osama begged the Saudi leaders to let him fight against Saddam, that he would lead that fight and defeat Saddam, but the Saudi’s chose to ignore Osama and ask for help from America. Early on, when Osama decided to war upon America, Palestine was not a major issue. But Saddam is gone; so now it is. Osama might more accurately have said “The current reason for our dispute with you is . . . “

What Osama is doing here is drawing his line in the sand. This isn’t a new line. Others have drawn it before him, so he is declaring his oneness with the implacable enemies of Israel. There is to be no peace with Israel, only perpetual war until Israel is finally destroyed. America blithely sends diplomats to Israel and Palestine from time to time to create a peace agreement, but that is surely naïve given the number of Arabs standing on the other side of the line with Osama declaring eternal war against Israel.

Osama’s next statement is paraphrased: “Bin Laden argued against he claims that the war was necessary for US security, saying current While House Officials were merely following the strategy of former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney to ‘promote the previous policies of fear to market the interests of big companies.” This comment, if it accurately depicts what Osama said, is amusing. Al Qaeda attacks the US, destroys the Twin Towers, in New York, and when American sends its military after his stronghold in Afghanistan, he calls it “policies of fear.” What he does is the righteous work of Allah, but when America responds, it is engaged in a “policy of fear”: funny stuff.

As a result of the American decision to war against Al Qaeda and his supporters in Afghanistan, “big companies” produced the equipment the military used in this war. Who in the world would believe that it was the other way around, that is, that the “big companies caused America to go to war against Al Qaeda? That isn’t entirely a rhetorical question because most of the Middle East is denied a free press; so the Arab “man in the street,” inundated with conspiracies theories against the US and Israel may very well believe it. And of course we have a few in America like Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky who already believe it.

Osama is next quoted as saying “When Mr. Obama became president and retained many of the Bush administration’s military leaders, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, ‘reasonable people knew that Obama is a powerless man who will not be able to end the war as he promised,’ bin Laden said.” The “promise” Obama made had to do with Iraq and not Afghanistan. Also, the American Defense Secretary is not a “military leader” in the sense of being a military man. He is the Civilian Leader of the military. The American military answers to a “Civilian” government and not the other way around. Also, we do not get rid of our generals when a new Civilian administration takes office in the white house.

Osama next says, “If you end the war, so [be] it . . . But if it is otherwise, [what] we will do is continue the war of attrition against you on all possible axes.” America’s anti-Islamist views are shared by the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, some anti-Al-Qaeda forces are being killed, but it is hardly the sort of stalemate that Osama seems to be implying that it is. We are not in trenches where we kill a few and then they kill a few. We are searching for the remnants of Osama’s organization, and of his allies the Taliban.

FURTHER COMMENT:

We do have anti-Americans here in the US. They don’t concern us as a nation because our population is above 300 million, and their numbers are tiny. We don’t believe in taking hammers after gnats. Sometimes I wish it was otherwise, but it isn’t. Given that fact, who in the US besides our anti-Americans is going to be impressed with this Osama “address to the American Public”? Will many in the US move into the cracks and crevices of our society with our anti-Americans after reading Osama’s address? I don’t think so.

This strikes me as an attempt at a bravura performance for the benefit of his supporters in the Middle East. “Look,” he seems to be saying, “I am still alive and well and continuing my Jihad against the American and Israeli infidels. Perhaps, Osama, you should have ended your “address,” with a few lines from T. S. Eliot:

“I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter;

“I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,

“And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,

“And in short, I was afraid.”

Friday, September 11, 2009

Is Radical Islam invading Tennessee?

I was out raking leaves from the yard and thinking about Vijay Kumar and my response to his article http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/09/political-islam-in-tennessee.html . Perhaps I unjustly maligned him. He sounded naïve and impractical to me, but perhaps there really was an Islamist threat in Tennessee; so I put away my rake and set about searching:

http://frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34916

This is an article by Ryan Mauro. It was posted on Front Page Mag on May 19, 2009, and entitled “Muslim Row.” It is subtitled “How radical Islam is invading the State of Tennessee.” I’ll quote from it and then comment below

The Bible-belt state of Tennessee is not known to have been targeted by Al-Qaeda or any other radical Islamic terrorist group, but the Volunteer State may be becoming a hotbed for the growth of extremism. Reports from Nashville, Shelbyville, and Dover indicate that Tennessee has gradually become a stronghold for radical Islamic forces that are transforming parts of the state.

Ryan Mauro writes, “On May 13, I reported on the discovery of extremism at the Al-Farooq Mosque in Nashville by award-winning counter-terrorism expert Dave Gaubatz, an individual that once held top-secret security clearance as an agent for the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations. The library carried extremist texts and audio tapes by known radicals such as Syed Maududi and Ali Al-Tamimi, who was convicted for his role in terrorism. . . .”

“Al-Farooq Mosque is attended by many Somali immigrants, and Islamic websites say that services are offered in Somali. Nashville alone is home to about 5,000 such immigrants, and their lack of assimilation is becoming a common complaint in Tennessee. The town of Shelbyville is the most dramatic example of this problem. . . .”

“Moseley says that the local authorities described being frequently disrespected by the Somali immigrants, which number between 400 and 1,000, and are noticing that many become involved with gangs.

“’Firefighters have told me that the Somalis refused to evacuate their apartment complex during a blaze and when they responded to alarm calls, the firemen are told to leave and that they are not welcome there…I have been told off the record that many officers are hesitant to even patrol after dark the apartment complex where the Somalis live,” he told Jerry Gordon of the New English Review.

“He also reports that the school system is having some difficulty in working with them, as they “have difficulties” with females with positions of authorities, and are very demanding that the schools conform to their wishes. They often try to haggle with storeowners, and sometimes refuse to speak to female supervisors at stores, schools and hospitals.

“The presence of a radical Islamic compound in Dover makes the potential for radicalization among these Somalis much more dangerous. According to unconfirmed reports received by the Christian Action Network, where I serve as a national security researcher, some of these Somalis have moved to this compound, run by a group called Muslims of America, a front for Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The residents here are followers of a radical Muslim cleric named Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, who currently lives in Lahore, Pakistan. . . .”

“These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees. As these communities grow, the U.S. may find itself with unassimilated masses asserting themselves as a state-within-a-state and over the long term, dealing with the "No-Go Zones" and their subsequent instability as seen in France. Should this happen, Americans will look to Tennessee as one of the places where it first started.”

COMMENT:

This is interesting information, and while the article is referring to relatively small numbers of Somalis and some minor problems, I don’t see anything here to make me think I owe Kumar an apology. Mauro tells us of a small number of Somalis causing minor problems, and of a radical Mosque where Radical Islamism is being taught. Rather than the alarmist subtitle that drew me to this article he should have expanded something he mentions as an afterthought, “. . . it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.”

We learn in this afterthought that this is not a premeditated invasion of Islamists intending to cause America trouble, but a group of refugees. We Americans seem to be always taking in refugees from one country or another, but I wonder why we are taking in unreconstructed Islamists, if that is what we have done. Why would we do that?

And then I wonder if perhaps we didn’t do that; if, rather, what we have here is a group of non-Islamist Somalis, some of whom have been converted to Radical Islam the leader of a radical Mosque after they got here. The short solution to this sort of problem would be to shut down Mosques where Radical Islam is taught. Of course we have difficulty in the US curtailing any sort of thought, even anti-American thought, even treasonous thought. There are laws on our books against treason, but authorities have not been willing to enforce them. Perhaps if Radical Islam became a serious presence in the US, that could change, but for now it exists in the shadows, in the periphery, in the margins.

It is not normally the government’s job to integrate immigrants, but if we are going to import many more groups like the Somalis, unusual steps would be advisable . . . if we could manage those steps without running afoul of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Up until now we have had a good record of assimilating our immigrants. We have stood in contrast to France and other areas in Europe in that regard. It would be a shame if in the process of rescuing people that would suffer and perhaps die if we left them where they were, we create a danger to our own citizens.

I have commented elsewhere that we should enforce laws against the declared enemies of this country, but I’m not willing to keep kicking that dead horse. Evidence suggests that we won’t go after traitors and Fifth-Column-type enemies until they seriously hurt us. Which means Kumar is premature at the very least with his Anti-Sharia platform.

And actually, we have never been very good, as a nation, at crying before we were hurt. Objective observers could have seen we were wrong by not acting sooner against the Germans in World Wars One and Two. They could have seen we were wrong by not acting sooner against the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. They could have seen that we should have taken precautions against the men who destroyed our Twin Towers. Despite those obvious truths, we haven’t learned anything, and we haven’t changed. We still don’t like to act until something serious happens, and even after we do act, we aren’t so sure we really needed to, or that we needed to quite as much as we did, or that we needed to in quite the way that we did. Notice that Kumar is as guilty of that sort of thinking as others. He bizarrely, given his concern, opposes the actions America has taken against Radical Islam in the Middle East. He sees nothing good in it. For Kumar, it is all bad.