al-Jazeera's Chief editor speaks out...`It's all Israel's fault! '

al-Jazeerah's chief editor, Ahmed Sheikh gave an extremely interesting and revealing interview to Pierre Heumann of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche. In view of al Jazeerah's new status as part of the official Western dinosaur media, this is required reading for all Joshua's Army members...as well as for anyone who ever considered al-Jazeerah `just another unbiased news source'.....as well as a window into the Arab mindset.

Emphasis and comments are mine, of course.



Mr. Sheikh, as the Editor in Chief of Al-Jazeera, you are one of the most important opinion-makers in the Arab world. What do you call suicide bombers?

For what is happening in Palestine, we never use the expression "suicide bombing."

What do you call it then?

In English, I would describe it as "bombings."

And in Arabic?

Literally translated, we would speak of "commando attacks." In our culture, it is precisely not suicide.

But instead a praiseworthy act?

When the country is occupied and the people are being killed by the enemy, everyone must take action, even if he sacrifices himself in so doing.

(which is why the Palestinians are firing rockets at Israel...to them, it's all `occupied Palestine' and there is no place for the Jews there)

Even if in so doing he kills innocent civilians?

That is not a Palestinian problem, but a problem of the Israelis.

(Yup. It's the Jews fault that the Palestinians kill Jews!)

You're avoiding the question.

Not at all. When the Israeli Army attacks, it kills civilians. An army should be able to distinguish between military and civilian targets. But how many innocent people did it kill in Beit Hanoun? And then they justify this in saying that the grenade went astray, that there was a technical problem or something. But who believes that?

There's a difference between Palestinian "commando actions" and Israeli military operations. In the one case, the aim is to kill as many civilians as possible; in the other, it is exclusively a matter of military targets.

Oh really? If the Israelis made such mistakes only once or twice a year, I would agree with you and say that it didn't happen intentionally. But such mistakes happen every week. There are three possible explanations for this: either the military equipment is not up to date or the soldiers are badly trained and do not know how to use their weapons or they do it intentionally. Now, we know that the Israelis get the best weaponry from the American arsenal and that the soldiers are well trained. That leaves, then, only one conclusion: they do it intentionally.

(Of course, this creep would never admit that if the IDF was trying to kill civilians, the Palestinian death toll would be in the tens of thousands and this war would have been over a long time ago.)

You come originally from Nablus: a city that was occupied by the Israelis in 1967. In 1968 you left your homeland to study in Jordan. When you say that, is it the Palestinian in you speaking, who regards Israel as the enemy, or the journalist, who is dedicated to finding the truth?

The journalist.

(Hah!)

So your personal background has no influence on your work?

When I'm in the newsroom, I forget my personal background. I set aside my political convictions. The news story is sacred for me. One cannot change it. One has to broadcast the story, as it is. Unchanged.

Still, I have trouble believing that you leave out your personal history in assessing a story.

You're right. It's not always possible at work completely to separate oneself from one's personal background. For example, in the newsroom one evening I received the images of the poor little girl whose parents were killed on the beach in Gaza and who was screaming in such a heartbreaking way. I went into my office, closed the door, and cried. Then I decided to broadcast the images of the girl screaming, but without commentary. In this case, you could, of course, say to me that it was the Palestinian in me who acted. Nonetheless, I do believe that one can separate oneself from one's personal background provided one works hard enough at it. In the newsroom, an editor has to set aside his personal feelings. Otherwise, you lose credibility.

(Lessee...on the one hand, he says he's an unbiased journalist. And then he says he isn't!)

How did you report on Beit Hanoun, where 19 Palestinians were killed?

We interviewed people on location. We even spoke with the Israelis. We wanted to know from them if they had done it intentionally, which, of course, they denied. We had to ask them that. As professional journalists, we can't afford only to speak to Palestinians. Even if you hate the Israelis that doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak with them. They are, after all, a party to the conflict.

Did you show all the images from Beit-Hanoun or did you censor particularly gruesome bloody scenes?

We didn't show close-ups of what was too brutal. We don't want to turn the spectator's life into a nightmare.

Evidently, for your coverage of Iraq other standards apply. You have repeatedly shown beheadings of western hostages. In the U.S., you are accused of using Al-Jazeera to incite the Iraqi population against the American troops.

The U.S.A. is occupying a country and one has not only to expect, but also to accept that the people there resist. You see yourself: in the end, the American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had to resign. Because everyone in the White House and in Washington understood that the man was a catastrophe. In fact, I am sorry about his resignation. (Laughs.) With his attacks against us, he was a very good promoter of Al-Jazeera. But seriously: now even Tony Blair, in his interview with Al-Jazeera [November 18], has admitted that the war in Iraq is a disaster. The British now say that he misspoke, that he didn't mean it like that. But I ask you: can one justify the American policy and America's actions in Iraq? My opinion is clear. The Americans should stop accusing us of putting the lives of their soldiers in Iraq in danger with our reports.

(so, when it comes to Beit Hanoun, al Jazeerah excercises restraint. When it comes to terrorist propaganda against the West,it doesn't)

Is that why you again and again broadcast tapes of Osama bin Laden that your station receives?

You are a journalist and you must know actually that if somebody offers you a tape or an interview with bin Laden, you don't hesitate to accept the offer -- even if it will get you sent to Guantánamo.

It's striking, of course, that Al-Jazeera has a quasi-monopoly on information coming from the milieu of bin Laden. Obviously, you are close to them. On conservative blogs, your network is even called "Osama TV."

Because the Americans are in a difficult situation in Iraq, they are looking for scapegoats and they've found one in Al-Jazeera. In the last five or six years, we've received maybe two or three tapes per year. That's news that we cannot hold back from our public. Besides, we're not the only ones to get mail occasionally from bin Laden. In the past, CNN was also in the mailing list, and news agencies like the AP or broadcasters like Al-Arabiya also receive messages from al Qaida. It's true, though, that we receive such tapes more often than the others. Then we put this information in a news context. When, for example, bin Laden offers a 90-day ceasefire or when he takes responsibility for the bombings in Madrid, we have, of course, to report on it. It's news.

(let's not answer that question directly, right Mr. Sheikh?)

It's not only in Washington that you have few friends among those in power. It's also the case in the Arab world.

We are not aiming to overthrow any regime. It is part of our code of honor, however, that we value people's right freely to express their opinions. We provide information, nothing else. We see ourselves as a pluralistic forum dedicated to the search for the truth. If in the process we manage to help to push through reforms, of course we're happy about that.

Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting for ten years now -- but there is precious little democracy or reform to be found in the Arab world.

We don't say to the Egyptians "Overthrow the regime!" That is not our job. But if the people should vote out Hosni Mubarak one day at the ballot box, we will report on it of course. We are always uncovering cases of corruption -- like just recently in Egypt. If one disseminates such information, sooner or later it has to have an effect. People begin to pose questions.

You don't only target the Egyptian regime, but practically all the Arab regimes in the region. As consequence, the editorial offices of your network are always being shut down. In what countries are you blacklisted at the moment?

Saudi Arabia has never allowed us to work. Just once, we were allowed to report on the Hajj and I went there to shoot a film. Tunisia and Algeria have stopped us; Iraq banned us temporarily; for a time our reporters were also not allowed into Syria, Jordan, and Kuwait. We also have problems in Sudan, because we report on the atrocities in Darfur, where innocent people are being killed. In Khartoum, they weren't happy that we broadcast a report on this subject and they threw us out. Later, however, the Sudanese thought better of it and they let us work in the country again. We never make compromises, because we don't want to put our credibility at risk. The Iranians also shut down our bureau for a time, after we broadcast a report on the oppressed Arab minority in Iran. The report provoked demonstrations in Iran and the Iranian government held us responsible. We don't want to serve as the mouthpiece of those in power -- as, unfortunately, so many of our competitors do.

(But hey, let's not forget..let's demonize Israel and the Jews, even though they have never shut down al Jazeerah)

You describe yourself as independent. Since the amount of advertising on Al-Jazeera is limited, one has to wonder who is financing such a costly news channel.

The Qatari government covers 75 percent of our expenses. The remaining 25 percent we cover ourselves through our commercial activities. But we take no instructions from the Qatari government.

(`government'? You mean the Emir, don't you?)

One hears it said, of course, that your independence ends where criticism of the royal family of Qatar, your financiers, begins.

What nonsense! Whoever says that obviously does not follow our broadcasts very carefully. We do criticize the government of Qatar.

For example?

We criticize the large presence of the American air force in the country. We also criticize the fact that the Israelis are permitted to have a diplomatic representation in Doha. But, besides that, I have to ask you: what happens in Doha that would be worth reporting about? Qatar is a small country. Apart from the skyscrapers -- which spring from the ground like mushrooms and nobody knows why they're needed -- absolutely nothing happens here. It is impossible to compare Qatar with Saudi Arabia and the social unrest there or with Iran or Iraq. Our situation at Al-Jazeera is comparable to that of the BBC. This highly respected network is also financed by the government. If the BBC is independent -- and nobody doubts that it is -- why don't people accept that this is also the case for us?

(In other words, al Jazeerah criticizes Qatar in relation to Israel and the US..but would never dare say a word against the royal family.)

Of course, the BBC is financed via taxes. . . . Up to now, one could only hear Al-Jazeera in Arabic. Since mid-November, an English-language news channel is also part of your group. Does this represent competition for you?

Not at all. Our new channel is the perfect complement for us.

Let's do a test. Suppose that your bureau uncovers a corruption scandal. Who reports first on it and thus gets the praises for their investigative work: you or your colleagues with the English-language channel?

It would be destructive to create a situation of competition at the interior of the Al-Jazeera group. So, we would bring out the revelation simultaneously, in Arabic and in English. After all, we belong to the same organization and we work together in perfect harmony. If, however, we send out two reporters and in the end our man comes back with a worse story than his colleague at the English-language channel, I'd give him a slap. I couldn't accept that.

But it's possible that you will have to accept that your budget could be restricted by the new channel, since the investor is the same.

I hope that won't be the case. I hardly believe that the investor will permit budget cuts at the Arabic channel. I'm convinced that it will remain the most important part of the organization.

How can you be so sure?

The influence of the Arabic channel in the Arab world is enormous. Go to Amman or Jerusalem or Cairo or Casablanca: With around 50 million spectators, we are the most important source of information in the Arab world and the most important opinion-maker. In Palestine, for example, we are seen by 76 percent of the population.

(The fact that they are the most important opinion maker in the Arab world explains a great deal, doesn't it?)

What are you expecting from the English-language channel?

We are hoping to contribute with it to the mutual understanding of cultures. Above all in a time of crisis, it is important to clear up misunderstandings in order to defuse conflicts.

Of course, often you stir up conflicts. For example, in the case of the Mohammed cartoons.

I can't accept this accusation. For example, we interviewed the editor of the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons. In doing that, we helped to reduce tensions.

Of course, many people claim that you outright staged the conflict.

Nonsense. We never even showed the cartoons. It was not us, but a news agency that first reported about the cartoons. It was a good story, a very important piece of news. It had consequences. There were demonstrations, there were debates. It was a subject of conversation. And, of course, we had to report on all that. It is not, after all, the responsibility of a news organization to decide whether to play up a particular story or to cool things down. That's not our job. We have to report and in as unpartisan a manner as possible. If the situation does not calm down, that's not my fault. I only have to guarantee that my sources are reliable, credible and precise.

(oh, please, my sides!!)

Did you abide by this rule in your coverage of the Pope's speech?

When the Pope claimed in public that Islam and the Prophet Mohammed only use the sword and accused Muslims of being ignorant, our editor did not really grasp the significance of this text. Until I explained to him that it was a highly important speech and that he should make a headline out of it.

(In other words, aside from misrepresenting what the pope said, Mr. Sheikh saw to it that it was publicized to inflame the jihadis throughout the Islamic world.)

Was it right and was it necessary to give so much weight to a speech that the Pope gave in the context of an academic ceremony?

Of course. We have to report, after all, what the highest authority of the Church thinks about Mohammed and Islam.

But the Pope merely cited a medieval scholar.

But why did he do that? Normally, one cites someone in order to support one's own point of view.

You have become one of the most important opinion-makers in the Arab world and you play in the major leagues of the international media. What is your journalistic credo?

I am not a big fan of the CNN motto to try always to be the first with news. I consider scoops that are obtained at the cost of truth and precision to be dangerous. In order to avoid only one mistake, I prefer that the competition gets to a story faster than me ten times. Because a mistake costs us our credibility. Of course, we still do strive to be fast. We always have a suitcase available with $150,000 dollars in cash in it. Whenever we want to send a reporter to a war zone, we hand the suitcase over to him, so that he can pay his expenses underway in an unbureaucratic manner. That gives us flexibility.

Mister Sheikh, as a young man you had to leave your homeland. What effect did this have on your personality?

If I had stayed in Nablus, I probably would have turned out differently. But deep within you there is something that never changes; and that is the formative influence of one's childhood. We always remain children. If the child in you dies off, then you're finished. So, it is a blessing for humanity, if the child in you is kept alive.


What do you remember for example?

I still remember clearly how the Israelis invaded our town in June 1967. We were expecting them from the West, but they attacked from the East. Since I wanted to study, after that I went to Jordan. Of course, that was important for my later development. If I had remained in Palestine, I would see the death and the problems every day. I would have to witness how Palestinian land is confiscated. I would even have to put up with having to speak with the enemy at road blocks. I would have to put up with the daily humiliations of the occupying power, but also to observe how Israelis are killed by suicide bombers.

( Truth detector: in actuality, Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, because King Hussein believed Nasser when he said the Jews were finished. Again, a real view into the Arab mindset, where everything is Israel's fault)

How do you see the future of this region in which news of wars, dictators and poverty predominates?

The future here looks very bleak.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

By bleak I mean something like "dark." I've advised my thirty year old son, who lives in Jordan, that he should leave the region. Just this morning I spoke with him about it. He has a son and we spoke about his son's education. I'd like my grandson to go to a trilingual private school. The public schools are bad. He should learn English, German, and French -- Spanish would also be important. But the private schools are very expensive. That's why I told my son to emigrate to the West for the sake of my grandson.

You sound bitter.

Yes, I am.

At whom are you angry?

It's not only the lack of democracy in the region that makes me worried. I don't understand why we don't develop as quickly and dynamically as the rest of the world. We have to face the challenge and say: enough is enough! When a President can stay in power for 25 years, like in Egypt, and he is not in a position to implement reforms, we have a problem. Either the man has to change or he has to be replaced. But the society is not dynamic enough to bring about such a change in a peaceful and constructive fashion.

Why not?

In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East.

Who is responsible for the situation?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.

Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?

I think so.

(Like I said..it's all the Joooos fault)

Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?

The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?

Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.

(Ah, and that's the crux of the matter..that the despised Jews would actually have the nerve to not only recreate their own country on `Arab land'. but that they would have the unmitigated gall to not only survive but to prosper. The nerve of those people!)

Pierre Heumann is the Middle East correspondent of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche. His interview with Ahmed Sheikh originally appeared in German in Die Weltwoche on Nov. 23, issue 47/06. The English translation is by John Rosenthal.

Thanks and a hat tip to KF

4 Palestinians shot in Gaza gunfight between Hamas and Fatah

The Beast claims some more victims...4 Palestinians were shot today when Hamas goombahs fired on a Fatah rally in Khan Younis, Gaza today and Fatah gunmen took them on in a full blown shootout.

The gunfight happened after Palestinian cappo del tutti Abbas ordered his security forces to deploy across Gaza after three sons of one of his supporters were killed yesterday on their way to school.

In this particular turf war, Abbas is at a supreme disadvantage, since Hamas has the boots on the ground in Gaza....and probably in the West Bank as well.

Abbas is being urged to dissolve the Hamas government and call for new elections by his Fatah supporters. Hamas has said (and rightly, in my view) that this would amount to a coup d'etat. Theyare urging Abbas to resign and want new presidential elections.

It may take some time, but eventually,people will realize that one of the major roadblacks to Middle East peace, starting with Oslo and the empowerment of Yasir Arafat was the notion that a second Arab Palestinian state was a step in the right direction.

Kofi Annan delivers one final bit of nastiness toward the US

And he had the gall, the absolute nerve to do it at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, a place dedicated to the man who helped realize the UN as an ideal in the aftermath of the ashes of World War II..an ideal that Kofi Annan has done more than his share to tear down and despoil.

Annan has served ten years as UN secretary-general, a decade that has seen the UN sink to its lowest and most corrupt level ever.

A complete link to Annan's remarks can be found here
.

Annan repeatedly invoked Harry Truman's name, and singled out the United States in urging nations to, in his words, "do the right thing," and "play by the rules."

Mr. Oil-for-food has been a splendid example of what that means.

This corrupt, jumped-up international civil servant actually included this in his remarks:

"..human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that Right Has Might."

That is why this country {the US} has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism.

When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

One could say the same thing about Kofin Annan's UN.with much more justification.


Good riddance.

Then and Now...

Now , the Arabs want to get on to the Nuclear weapons bandwagon

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal

As Harry Truman once said, some of this behavior is like a gang of puppies relieving themselves on a fire hydrant...one gets away with it and then they've all got to do it.

Looking at how Iran is getting away with developing atomic weapons in violation of its treaty committments and defying the entire world, the Arab states are now studying a shared nuclear program ..for peaceful purposes, of course.

A statement issued after a two-day meeting of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council said the group had "commissioned a study" on setting up "a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Which, given the generally parasitical nature of the countries involved means that they're going to sniff around and see what's for sale.

The group consists of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

The Saudis, by the way, are already exempted from IAEA oversight...because of direct intervention by President Bush. And the Saudis are already in possession of missile technology purchased from the Chinese.

As Iran flexes its muscles and continues to work towards consolidating the Shiite bloc, look for the efforts of these countries to get into the nuclear club to intensify.

Exactly what we need....a bunch of corrupt, xenophobic religious fanatics with nuclear toys...just another of those fun little consequences of our failure to forcefully confront Iran.

Lovely.

What would we do without the dinosaur media?

Looks like they've finally noticed the ongoing jihad in East Africa, something Joshua's Army members have been aware of for at least a year.

At that, this article doesn't link the ongoing action in Somalia with the Sudan's assault on Darfur, And it mentions that the Jihadis who make up Somalia's Islamic courts would consider the proposed UN peacekeeping force a cause for `holy war'...without mentioning that the Islamic courts have already declared a holy jihad against Christian Ethiopia.

It does, however,briefly mention the arms, money and training the jihadis of Somalia have received from the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. without going into details.

You need to read JoshuaPundit for that.

The Beast continues to eat its own - 3 Palestinian children killed in Hamas/Fatah driveby

This might very well be the opening shots of the civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

Carl in Jerusalem at Israel Matzav gets a Joshua's Army commendation for being the first in with this truly sad story.

Palestinian `gunmen' murdered three sons and a bodyguard of Palestinian General Intelligence officer Baha Baalusha, a Fatah loyalist in Gaza City’s Rimal district. The boys, aged 6 to 9 were shot dead outside their school.

While Hamas has officially denounced the shooting and disclaimed any responsibility, The Palestinian Intelligence services have pretty much fingered Hamas or maybe its affiliate, the PRC as the culprits.

Nothing much goes on in Gaza without Hamas having a say in it. And this sounds pretty much like an attempted hit on Baalusha that went wrong. Baalusha was injured a while back in a previous assasination attempt.

The killers opened fire on a street crowded with hundreds of school children, most of whom ran away screaming to try and find a hiding place. Aside from the four fatalities, 4 other people were wounded and taken to a local hospital with gunshot wounds. 30 shots were pumped into the children's car alone.

"I was walking with my young brother, Wael, who is 9, and we just crossed the street in order to take him to the school when shooting took place," said 12-year-old Fadwa Nabulsi, still shaken by the bloody scene.

"We saw fire coming from one car. We started screaming and children started running. I was crying, and I lost Wael for about half an hour. Then I found him hiding in a falafel shop. I'm trying to find my father to take us back home," she said.

I feel deeply for these children...but considering the absolute glee with which the Palestinians target Jewish children, and considering what the Palestinians have taught their children since Oslo and continue to teach them, it's hardly surprising that they would treat their own children this way:


In a further escalation, Fatah `gunmen' fired on the convoy of Hamas Interior Minister Said Siyam today in Gaza. No injuries in what Interior Ministry spokesman Khaled Abu Hilal dismissed as a 'random attack'.

Could be that the attack on Baalusha was a retaliation.

The background of all of the hits and murder attempts is the ongoing power struggle between Hamas and Fatah...and as I've written previously, in some aspects it's a proxy war between the US and Iran.

Mark Steyn: ISG stands for `Inane Strategy Guesswork'

Mark Steyn hits another one out of the park fisking the ridiculous notions of the Iraq Study Group. Here's a sample:

"Well, the ISG -- the Illustrious Seniors' Group -- has released its 79-point plan. How unprecedented is it? Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

But, alas, such flashes of originality are few and far between in what's otherwise a testament to conventional wisdom. How conventional is the ISG's conventional wisdom? Try page 49:

"RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria . . ."

Er, OK. I suppose that's what you famously hardheaded "realists" mean by realism. But wait, we're not done yet. For this "Support Group," we need the extra-large function room. Aside from Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, the ISG -- the Iraq Surrender Gran'pas -- want also to invite:

". . . the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States . . ."

Er, OK. So it's basically an Arab League meeting. Not a "Support Group" I'd want to look for support from, but each to his own. But wait, Secretary Baker's still warming up:

". . . the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council . . ."

That would be America, Britain, France, Russia, China. A diverse quintet, representing many distinctive approaches to international affairs from stylish hauteur to polonium-210. Anybody else?

". . . the European Union . . ."

Hey, why not? It's not really multilateral unless there's a Belgian on board, right? Oh, and let's not forget:

". . . the Support Group should call on the participation of the United Nations Secretary-General in its work. The United Nations Secretary-General should designate a Special Envoy as his representative . . ."

Indeed. But it needs to be someone with real clout, like Benon Sevan, the former head of the Oil for Food Program, who recently, ah, stepped down; or Maurice Strong, the Under-Secretary-General for U.N. Reform and godfather of Kyoto, who for one reason or another is presently on a, shall we say, leave of absence; or Alexander Yakovlev, the senior procurement officer for U.N. peacekeeping, who also finds himself under indictment -- er, I mean under-employed. There's no end of top-class talent at the U.N., now that John Bolton's been expelled from its precincts.

So there you have it: an Iraq "Support Group" that brings together the Arab League, the European Union, Iran, Russia, China and the U.N. And with support like that who needs lack of support? It worked in Darfur, where the international community reached unanimous agreement on the urgent need to rent a zeppelin to fly over the beleaguered region trailing a big banner emblazoned "YOU'RE SCREWED." For Dar4.1, they can just divert it to Baghdad.

Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker's "Support Group," relax, it's a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions -- return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it's in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That's what Hollywood would call "high concept."

Read the rest here

Weekend Monkey Sez: Live the life you love..and love the life you live

See you in 24, gang!



(hat tip to Muddy Waters)

Another home grown jihadi caught...

While we face a threat from terrorists affiliated with the likes of Hamas,Hezbollah and Iran here in America, by far the most insidious threat is from home grown jihadis like this 22-year-old Chicago man, Talib Abu Salam Ibn `Derrick' Shareef.

He was caught red-handed by the FBI trying to purchase hand grenades and a handgun from a federal agent to attack the Cherryvale shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois during the Christmas shopping season.

According to the feds, Shareef became friends with a witness who was working with the FBI and told to him that he wanted to commit acts of "violent jihad," as well as other crimes.

Shareef is a US citizen...and when the rest of the facts come out, I'm sure we'll find that he was recruited either in prison or through one of the hardline Wahabi Muslim mosques.

UPDATE:

The Smoking Gun has the actual FBI affidavit.. Shareef told the FBI's informant that he planned "to disrupt Christmas," adding that, "I swear by Allah man, I'm down for it too, I'm down for the cause, I'm down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man....I probably would have eventually ended up stabbing the shit outta some Jews or something. Just stabbing them niggers with a steak knife...Because during that war with Hezbollah, man, I had already started to look at synagogues out here..."

Shareef had already prepared a martyr's videotape to let the "enemies of Islam" know that "the time for jihad is now."

"This is a warning to those who disbelieve, that we are here for you, and I am ready to give my life...May Allah protect me on this mission we conduct."

The unbelievers are your inveterate foe. —Qu'ran 4:101

Congress approves US-India nuke deal

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon

Congress reached Agreement On U.S.-Indian Civil Nuclear Cooperation Bill today.

This is a bigger deal than it appears at first sight. It allows U.S. shipments of civilian nuclear fuel to India and changes decades of American anti-proliferation policy.

Today's agreement reconciles separate versions previously endorsed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and clears th eway to bring the bill to a vote before sending it to President Bush to sign.

The bill allows U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at 14 civilian nuclear plants; eight military plants would be off-limits. U.S. law curently bars nuclear trade with countries, such as India, that have not submitted to full international inspections and who have not signed the NPT.

"We now have the opportunity to achieve a geo-strategic realignment of India with the United States," Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos said. "This will be of immense importance to global security and economic development, while at the same time furthering our interests in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons."

Jihad in East Africa heats up

Somalia Islamic Courts-Ethiopia fighting has been reported in the town of Dinsor, 70 miles south-west of the Somali interim governmant's government base in Baidoa.

Ethiopia claims that it has only a few hundred `advisors' supporting what's left of the non-Islamist Somali interim government.

The Islamic Courts militia, which rules most of Somalia has already declared `holy war' against Christian Ethiopia.

"New fighting has started in Dinsor. Our forces have been raided by Ethiopian troops, so people get up and fight against the Ethiopians," Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed told a crowd of hundreds after Friday prayers.

Since the Islamic jihadis seized Dinsor on Saturday without encountering resistance or firing a shot, an `invasion' by Ethiopia seems unlikely.

Earlier Friday, Sheikh Abdullahi Ali Hashi, a spokesman for the Islamic courts, claimed that Ethiopian troops had shelled the Somali town of Bandiradley, and that Ethiopian troops and tanks had taken up positions near the town.

If this is true, the Islamic Courts advance into Dinsor puts the two fighting forces only a mile apart.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution yesterday calling for an African led peacekeeping force to Baidoa and easing an international arms embargo on Somalia to help the interim government re-arm.(That's how things work sometimes when you don't have oil to sell, unlike the Sudan/Darfur situation). The Islamic Courts have rejected this and say they will attack any force coming into Somalia.

The Islamic Courts are receiving assistance from Iran and Hezbollah, as I revealed here, and Somali fighters from the Islamic Courts fought with Hezbollah in the recent Lebanon War.

As I predicted. look for this to heat up...especially as the jihadi government in the Sudan continues mopping up in Darfur.

Lebanon: Nasrallah's Orange Revolution

The standoff in Lebanon continues, with the remaining functionaries of the Siniora government blockaded in their offices.

In an excellent capsule analysis`Nasrallah's orange revolution' Ha'aretz reporter Zvi Bar'el examines how this is playing out...and what the various players in the game are up to.

Watcher's Council results, 12/08/06

The winners are in for this week's Watcher's Council:








Thw winner was AMERICAN FUTURE - On Negotiating with Iran and Syria — Part II Marc's fine essay on the fallacy of trying to involve our enemies in stabilizing Iraq when they have no interest in doing so.

In second place was The Glittering Eye: How to lose support for a war An interesting and well-written piece by Dave in which he uses Walter Russel Mead's classical divisions of the American polity to explain how the Bush Administation lost support for the Iraq war.


For non-Council posts the winner was Council alumnus Dr. Sanity: "COME FOR THE EGALITARIANISM, STAY FOR THE BESTIALITY AND TYRANNY"

In second place was The Adventures of Chester: History's End, History's Beginning

Complete results can be seen at the site of our fearless leader,Watcher of Weasels

Hearty kudos to all the winners!

Pearl Harbor..and 9/11

65 years ago on this day, December 7th, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack launched from a Japanese carrier force..while Japanese diplomats in Washington were still talking peace with Cordell Hull, then our Secretary of State.

They killed 2,403 Americans, mostly servicemen, and destroyed most of America's Pacific fleet.

The next day, December 8th,President Roosevelt went before Congress and asked them to declare war, and our nation took up the task of fighting not only the Japanese, but their axis allies as well.

Remarkably,that resolve came when the nation was largely unprepared for war.

Less than 4 years later, Germany, Japan and Italy were in ruins, their militaries destroyed, their capacity for evil extinguished. And a great darkness passed from the earth.

America was hardly free from politicking or dissension during World War II, but it was kept to a minimum, within bounds...because the American people knew that to let the evil of fascism continue, to not achieve victory,would be unthinkable and a sin against their posterity.

Sixty years after that grim December morning in Hawaii, there was another sneak attack on American soil. 3,000 Americans, mostly civilians perished in the flaming ruins of the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania.

It's been over five years since that happened, and we appear to be no closer to victory then we were the day after the attack.

Why is that?

Our military is not less competent or less courageous, we are far richer and more powerful than we were in 1941 and our enemies are much weaker than us, compared to how strong the Nazis, Fascists and Japanese were then.

What's changed?

Leadership for one thing.

On December 8th, 1941, President Roosevelt went to Congress and asked them to declare war against specific enemies. He called on his fellow citizens for sacrifice and support, in eloquent words that expressed the shock of the country and girded it for the struggle ahead. Once Congress declared war, he immediately put the nation on a war footing. He put together bipartisan commissions to mobilize the nation's labor, industry and manufacturing for the war effort. He called on his fellow citizens for shared sacrifice and instituted rationing of food, gasoline and strategic materials.

Roosevelt, aside from incarcerating and/or deporting anyone who was a known security risk or might have potentially been one gave the FBI carte blanche to intercept all overseas phonecalls and cable transmissions and to intercept any domestic mail within the US that it deemed necessary. I've personally seen a citation and medal given to one elderly woman who steamed the stamp off a domestic letter and found some microfilm under it...which resulted in the destruction of a Nazi spy ring and sent 6 spies to the gallows.

One can only imagine what the response of Congress and President Roosevelt's fellow citizens would have been if he had announced that America was now involved in The Great War On Aviation, that we should all calm down, that the creed of our enemies meant peace, that the goal of this war was `safety and security' rather than victory, and that everything would be all right if we would just go shopping.

That's essentially what we got after 9/11.

Imagine how different it might have been had President Bush had conducted himself the way FDR did after Pearl Harbor....

Another problem is the continued denial about who our enemies are. I don't think it's any coincidence that in the Harry Potter novels, JK Rowling has some of her characters refer to Voldermort as `you-know-who' or `the One we do not name.'

Many of our politicians, including the president, have been doing the same thing for five years now. It's only in the last year or so that President Bush has even allowed phrases like `Radical Islam', `Islamic Fascism' , and `Caliphate' to be part of his turgid rhetoric.

Take a hundred or so reasonably well-informed Americans into a room and ask them to write down the countries who are actively involved in waging and supporting jihad against America. Does anyone doubt that most of them would come up with pretty similar lists?

But our own government and influential elites , (for obvious reasons) tiptoe around this reality, and continue to spout the fiction that this is a different war, that we lack clearly defined enemies.

There has never been a terrorist or `insurgent' movement that has survived for long without a safe haven to train, regroup, recruit and finance. The Weathermen, the Baider-Meinhof Gang, and the IRA in its latter days are good examples of this principle. Destroy the enablers and the havens, end the terrorism.

Unlike World War II, we have put limitations on our war-making and our military that are self-imposed, and often counter-productive.After Pearl Harbor, anyone talking about `limited war' or `rules of engagement' and `exit strategies' would have been laughed out of the room at best and scorned as a coward or traitor at worst.

In that kind of climate `victory' becomes a controversial word.

Americans today, for the most part, are not less patriotic or less unified then they were 65 years ago. Anyone who was in America after 9/11 knows that.

They were merely allowed to go back to sleep, and lulled into the idea that this was another limited war without a significant effect on their personal lives.

It may take another Pearl Harbor type strike on America to harness the nation's energy again, to convince people that this is the existential war that it is, and that it must be fought accordingly.

Pearl Harbor is thought to be a tourist attraction today, a peaceful monument to the men who died there.

It is, but it's more than that. It's a monument to the Americans who defeated the enemies of freedom, the monsters that attempted to enslave them and their Republic.

It's a monument to victory.

And something that's a living example of lessons from the past that we need to revisit.

The Iraq Study Group - move along, nothing to see here!

The Iraq Study Group is an interesting study in a lot of fuss about nothing, both for its content and the character of the people who put it together.

The initial idea is one made for the media - a `bi-partisan' group of prominent public servants who would offer President Bush what they termed `a last chance to get it right' with 79 recommendations on Iraq and the Middle East.

There are lots of places where you can read the report for yourself..here's one of them: TigerHawk which will give you a 160 page PDF version. Or you can go to The Truth Laid Bear for a page by page HTML version.

Of course, you can actually buy this `bestseller' if you like - it's already for sale.

Save yourself the money and effort. I'll give you the gist of it, and what it really means.

Essentially, this is an exit strategy, mostly penned by people who were against the Iraq war in the first place,and are of like mind with the Sunni autocracies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They are also almost unanimously against any sort of action against Iran and Syria...as a matter of fact, Lawrence Eagleburger, who's a member of the group even suggested that President Bush should be impeached if he took any steps of that nature.

The one thing the report gets right is that things aren't going well there..but aside from recommendations to pull all of our troops out by `08 and the farcical suggestion that Iran and Syria, the countries with a vested interest in turmoil in Iraq, can be negotiated with to help in stabilizing that situation!

"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq," the report says, "the United States should try to engage them constructively."

Oddly enough, there's reason to believe that the study group may have been the victim of deliberate Iranian sponsored disinformation.

Now, lessee...Iran and Syria are pretty much largely responsible for destabilizing Baghdad and Iraq, and Iran controlss Moqtada al Sadr and the Shiite militias.. Meanwhile, Syria and Iran simultaneously using Hezbollah to overthrow the elected Lebanese government. So...why would Iran and Syria want to `stabilize' Iraq, give their avowed enemy the Great Satan an exit and create a free democratic nation as an example for their own oppressed populations to look up to?

Baker is correct that Iran was `somewhat helpful' after the fall of Afghanistan. He neglects to mention that a lot of al Qaeda fighters were given refuge and free passage through Iran, and that the Mullahs had just seen the US military take out the Taliban with relative ease and might have had a sneaking suspicion they might be next.

Which goes to prove that negotiating from strength is one thing with these people. and negotiating from weakness is something very different.


And of course, there's a lot on Israel, somehow the magic source of all the Middle East's problems!

Here's another bit, straight from James Baker's (and his Saudi master's) litany:

"The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability." Among other things, that means "a commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

If Israel magically disappears, does that mean that al Qaeda, the Sunni death squads and the Shiite militias are going to disband? Are they going to stop killing one another? Is the Iraqi government going to be less ineffectual and corrupt?

President Bush has given more support to the idea of a Palestinian state than any previous administration. Did that change anything?

This approach has been tried, over and over again...Oslo, land for peace, more land for peace,money, more money, more concessions..and it has always failed, for one simple reason: The only formula the Arabs will accept is one that obliterates the state of Israel.


That's the unpleasant core issue that `realists' like Baker and company simply refuse to grasp, the whole enchilada - the unwillingness of Arabs to live in peace and equality next to Jews, to simply accept them as part of the neighborhood. Solve that little problem and the rest of the Arab-Israeli conflict gets real simple to work out.

So that's the important parts of the ISG report...let's leave before the next presidential election, let's bribe Iran and Syria so we can leave, and let's bribe the Sunni and Shite factions to stay quiet long enough to make it look good. And while we're at it, let's give Iran and Syria the Jews as part of the price for allowing us to withdraw gracefully.

Longtime Carter aide resigns, accuses Carter of plagiarism and errors in new book...(but you knew that, right?)

Ahh, Jimmy Carter, the foul, failure besmirched Israel hatin' gift that keeps on giving...

Today, in the midst of ex-President Carter's swing through the dinosaur media to promote his latest screed, Kenneth Stein, the Carter Center’s first executive director and founder of its Middle East program, sent a letter to Carter and the media that was a mite critical of the ex-president.

According to Stein's letter, Carter's new opus, “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid,” was `replete with factual errors, material copied from other sources and simply invented segments,' according to an excerpt of the letter published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

`Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book,' Stein wrote.

Carter's response, through a spokesmouth was that he stands by the book.

Naturally.

Watcher's Council Nominations, 12/06/06

Every week, the Watcher's Council nominate two posts each, one from the Council members and one from outside for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week's Council nominations can be found at the site of our fearless leader, Watcher of Weasels


We have something new in store for you this week...blogger Andrew Olmsted has been selected to fill the vacant seat on the Watcher's Council. He has a fine site, provides a unique perspective and will, I'm sure, be a worthy and most welcome addition to the Council..check him out.


1. J O S H U A P U N D I T: Hiding behind the wall... An old friend sent me last week's Tom Friedman's latest from the NYT, in which he epitomizes the neo-isolationist, `realist' position. Of course, people like Friedman are not `realistic' in any sense of the word.

His latest proposal? In one sentence: let's get out of Iraq and the Middle East as soon as possible, become energy independent and build a `virtual wall' between the region and ourselves.

What's even more grimly humorous is that he cites what he refers to as the `successful' Israeli tactics of retreating from Gaza and building a wall to hide behind and suggests we emulate them!

No joke.

In this weeks' piece, I examine Mr. Friedman's ideas, which have become very fashionable in the wake of the problems and mismanagement in Iraq, and explain why he and those that think like him are living in delusion.


2. Gates of Vienna: The Latest Chapter of The Incredibly Shrinking Church In her fine essay, Dymphna writes about the wit n' wisdom of the newly elected Presiding Bishop of the Epicopal Church, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, as revealed by Mark Steyn's take on an interview with her.

As Dymphna points out, `The choice of this particular person to lead this particular church at this particular time demonstrates to perfection how and why The Incredibly Shrinking Church is showing all the signs and smells of rigor mortis.'


3. Done With Mirrors: Who loses Calimachus has an extremely well done piece this week on the perceptions of `who lost Iraq' here in America as opposed to among our enemies. He talks about the phenomenon of lost national will and it's supreme importance in victory and defeat.

4. Soccer Dad: Carter slanders, russert defers Soccer Dad writes about the recent appearance of anti-Semite and ex-president Jimmy Carter on Tim Russert's `Meet the Press' and does a superb job of eviscerating Carter's slanderous and dissembling replies to Russert's questions and takes issue - rightly so, from the clips and transcripts I've seen - with Russert's softball handling of this interview.

If Jimmy Carter was talking about Muslims or Arabs instead of Jews, would his reception have been the same? One wonders...

5. Right Wing Nut House : A WELCOME DIVERSION: LET’S TALK COFFEE Hey, Rick's a coffee lover! Me too. Everything you ever wanted to know about G-d's gift to Monday mornings. And well written too, I might add.


6.The Sundries Shack: Meet the New Strategy. Same as the Old Strategy. Jimmie takes on the Iraq Study group report in his usual entertaining and straightforward style.

I'd would only say that the Iraq Study Group did in fact come up with a couple of new wrinkles - like bribing Syria and Iran with concessions to allow us to leave and getting a lot of those concessions by pressuring Israel to endanger its security, in exchange for `security guarantees' and a UN peacekeeping force.

The Israelis will only go for this if they've forgotten their history. Aside from the more recent fiasco in Lebanon, there was a UN peacekeeping in Sinai as part of the `security guarantees' to Israel as part of the settlement of the 1956 war. In 1967, the UN force pulled out in less than 24 hours when Nasser ordered them out..without even bothering to inform the Israelis that they were leaving!

7. Rhymes With Right: Dennis Prager Dead Wrong On Ellison & Koran Here, Greg writes about the flap caused by talk show host and author Dennis Prager's crusade to get newly elected Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to swear his oath on a Bible rather than a Qu'ran
`out of respect for America's traditions.'

I know Dennis personally, and he's a brilliant man,but he could not be more wrong on this one. Aside from the constitutional issues,which Greg points out beautifully, there is the little issue that, according to the Qu'ran, no oath made by a Muslim to a non-Muslim is binding anyway.

As a matter of fact, if it's a matter of promoting Islam, Muslims are encouraged to practice taqiya (dissembling)towards infidels!

As an ex-member of the Nation of Islam and CAIR's own congressman, Ellison is unlikely to be overly solicitous about niceties like oaths, if it comes down to a choice between sharia and the Constitution.



8. ShrinkWrapped: The Road to Hell ShrinkWrapped writes about the selective parsing and interpetation of the First Amendment by activist judges like Justice Breyer. Is some freedom of speech more protected? All animals are equal, but are some animals more equal than others


9. The Glittering Eye : How to lose support for a war Dave also writes about the necessity for civilian support for war. here, he uses Walter Russell Mead's classic political/historical divisions to show how each of these groups perceived the Iraq War..and how the support of the members of each of these groups was lost. A fine analysis by Dave, and one I agree with for the most part.


10. The Education Wonks: Suspending Disbelief In Oregon Here, EdWonk writes about a student who was expelled for telling another student that leprechauns don't exist.

Of course they exist...I saw the movie!

11. AMERICAN FUTURE - On Negotiating with Iran and Syria — Part II In the second part of a twofer Marc writes a fine piece on the so-called `realists' and the stupidity of trying to enlist parties to stabilize Iraq thathave absolutely no interst in doing so. Well done.

12.Andrew Olmsted : What the U.S. Needs from its Armed Forces: Major Andrew Olmsted's debut piece concerns the purpose of our armed forces and how the method and mission have changed to emphasize counter-insurgency:

`American interests, at least according to our actions of the past century, stretch well beyond the borders of the United States. As long as we determine our national interests in that fashion, the ability to defend ourselves alone will be insufficient. That means we need armed forces capable of fighting and winning against insurgencies as well as in high-intensity conflict. That means we need to make some significant changes in how we construct our armed forces'.

I agree with Major Olmsted..but I would add one small point. Some wars are fought as `counter-insurgencies' when what they really are is wars against a foreign power with a counter-insurgency element - like Iraq.Go to the source and interdict the supply routes and the logistics and the counter-insurgency takes on a more manageable character, in my view.


That's this week's lineup..enjoy!

Robert Gates: Signaling American disengagement from the Persian Gulf?

It may just come to that.

Robert Gates, the Bush Administation's handpicked candidate to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence made a number of interesting statements today during his Senate confirmation hearings that could indicate which way the wind is blowing.

Gates was clear that, if confirmed to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, he would be open to all recommendations for a new direction on Iraq, including those to be presented tomorrow by the Iraq Study Group whom Gates used to be a member of, chaired by the Saudis' own man in Washington James Baker.

"All options are on the table," Gates said Bush had told him.

When asked by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?" Gates replied simply, "No, sir."

But he also said the coalition was not losing - "at this point."

Cornered later, Gates clarified that his comment about not winning carried no rebuke to American troops. "Our military wins the battles that we fight," Gates said. "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments."

Gates said that Bush "understands that there needs to be a change in our approach in Iraq, that what we are doing now is not working satisfactorily."

No kidding.

In another interesting bit, Gates, when asked if Iraq ws the central front in the war on terror said `it's one of the fronts.' Which would seem to indicate that Iraq's importance is being downgraded.

On Iran and Syria, Gates made some startling admissions that seemed to signal a major change in the US approach to Assad and the mullahs. Urging caution and a preference for diplomacy, Gates said armed conflict with Iran could have "quite dramatic" consequences "because as we have seen in Iraq, once war is unleashed in it becomes unpredictable," and that an attack on Syria would "immensely complicate our relations with virtually every country in the region." He said that Iran could respond to a US attack by closing off the Persian Gulf to oil exports and "unleashing a significant wave of terror" in the Middle East, Europe and the United States itself...He went out of his way to say that an attack on Iran was a last resort.

In response to a question about Iran's threat to destroy Israel, Gates said,"If Iran obtains nuclear weapons no one can promise it would not use them against Israel," but that he felt Iran was only developing nukes as a `deterent'.

Translated this statement pretty much confirms to me that the Bush Administration is considering simply living with a nuclear armed Iran, that the Bush administration will renege on its long-held pledge to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and that Israel is more or less on its own when it comes to dealing with a nuclear Iran.

Unfortunately for Gates and those who think like him, it won't just stop with Israel.

To say on the one hand that a country like Iran is capable of unleashing a `significant wave of terror' in Europe and America and then to imply that you have no problem with a country with those capabilities developing nuclear weapons because they're `just a deterent' is beyond folly.

Hiding behind the wall...

Looking at New York Time's columnist Thomas Friedman's new column, `The Energy Wall' is valuable, because it articulates what's become a very common, if mistaken mindset among the American public...especially since it's become all too evident how the Bush Administration squandered a brilliant military victory in Iraq and how poorly our national interest has been served.

Friedman starts out by saying that the way out of the mess in Iraq and the Middle East is to examine the Israeli-Arab conflict and emulate the tactics used by the Israelis, namely the Gaza withdrawal and the constuction of Israel's security wall.

Friedman's simple proposition, boiled down to one sentence is this: let's get out of Iraq and the Middle East as soon as possible, become energy independent and build a `virtual wall' between the region and ourselves. In Friedman's words, `a wall of energy independence that will enable us to continue to engage honestly with the most progressive Arabs and Muslims on a reform agenda, but without being hostage to the most malevolent.'

Friedman and people that think like him are deluding themselves, just as the Israelis were.

The idea of a withdrawal and a virtual `wall' against the Islamic fascists won't work any more than Israel's withdrawal and physical wall has. I'm amazed that Friedman, presumably an intelligent and informed man, can advocate for the US the very tactics that have failed in Israel. Perhaps this self-styled `expert' ought to spend some time in Sderot.

Here's why a `wall' won't work : the beast is no longer merely confined to the Middle East, but here among us, and will be even if we never import another drop of Arab oil. The toothpaste is already out of that particular tube.

Here in America, we have allowed the virtual takeover by the Saudis of almost every mosque and madrassah in America through the Saudi funded front, the Islamic Society of North America. They appoint the imams, fund the mosques, pick the texts and teachers for the madrassahs and above all push the wahabi hardline agenda, thus doing whatever they possibly can to create a generation of Muslims in America and the West with large groups of what Daniel Pipes has aptly called `cultural jihadists', people who symphathize with and support jihad even if they're not actually strapping bombs to themselves or plotting terrorist attacks against their supposedly `native' country.

The Saudis and UAE also fund CAIR, the MSA and the MPAC, perhaps the only instance in America of political lobbying groups being openly funded by foreign governments since the bad old days of the `China Lobby'. Aside from open lobbying of congress and lawsuit intimidation through these groups, the Saudis and the UAE also have a practice of buying well connected government figures as their personal lobbyists...like ex-president Clinton, ex-senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker (his lawfirm, Baker-Botts is the Saudis' legal representative in the US), Jimmy Carter,(who receives $10M per year for the Carter `Peace ' Center), and soon, if not already, this fella..

On the other side of the equation, Iran's proxy Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have a number of cells and symphathizers already existing here in America..anyone who doesn't realize that should read what Steve Emerson or Robert Spencer have had to say about it.

In order to truly `build a virtual wall', we would have to expel a whole bunch of people from the US, control access to the country and make a few laws reminiscent of the ones FDR put in place during WWII to deal with enemy aliens, sabotage, sedition and domestic surveillance. I have a feeling that Friedman and his fellow isolationists would be screaming bloody murder at any attempts to actually secure the home front. And even while such steps might be necessary and desireable, they would hardly eliminate the problem in an age of nuclear armed jihadis.

It's not about oil or even Israel. We are dealing with people who feel they have nothing to lose and Paradise to gain. The OG Mohammed told them so, when he commanded them to fight the unbelievers until they either died, converted to Islam or paid the tribute willingly and `feel themselves subdued'.

They aren't going away just because we ignore them.Not while a single part of dar harb remains to be conquered.

Energy independence is fine, and I'm all for it...but it will have zero impact on funding jihad. Oil is fungiable and the Arabs will simply sell their oil elsewhere. And continue to use the profits to wage jihad against the West.

Islamic fascism is exactly like the 1930's variety. It will have to be militarily defeated AND humiliated at its source nations before the slate is clean and there is any chance of reform or peace.

As much as it would be comforting to simply wash our hands of the matter and take a vacation from history, we simply don't have that option. A smoking crater with the charred remains of 3,000 of our countrymen was the price we paid the last time we tried it. The price will be much higher if we avoid our responsibilities to our posterity and our country.

The sooner we realize that and take on the task at hand, the better and less costlier it will be.





Hat tip to the old general, Giv Cornfield for sending me Friedman's original piece.

The Islamification of Russia..and the backlash

Muslims pray on the pavement outside the central Sobornaya Mosque,Moscow

I've written before about Russia's status as a dying nation - at least, the Russia we know. And Islam thrives as Russia's population falls, because that's the only sector of Russia where the population is rising, something Putin and other Russian leaders are painfully aware of ..as are the mullahs of Iran.

The Sobornaya Mosque is one of only four mosques in Moscow serving a Muslim population of 2.5 million — the largest of any European city. Like Moscow's other mosques, the Sobornaya Mosque overflows with worshippers on Fridays and holy days. Muslim leaders have been trying to get permission from the city to expand the mosque, and to build many more, but so far, their attempts have failed and the building of more mosques has been prohibited.

Part of this is due to traditional Russian xenophobia, but much of it is due to real fear of an Islamic takeover of traditional Russian lands.

Many Russians associate Islam with Islamic terrorists from places like Chechnya who have carried out dozens of attacks against civilians. On Russian television, Muslims are most often portrayed as either criminals or religious radicals waging a holy war against Christians. One of Russia's bestselling novels of last year, The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris, depicts a mid-21st century Europe where Islam is the state religion and Christians are repressed and forced to live in ghettos as dhimmis.

The main problem is demographics. The non-Muslim population simply isn't having children.

Russia's overall population is dropping at a rate of 700,000 people a year, largely due to the short life spans and low birth rates of ethnic Russians. Abortion is widespread - I seen estimates that state that up to 70% of pregnancies in non-Muslim Russia are terminated by abortons.

Since 1989, Russia's Muslim population has increased by 40 per cent to about 25 million. By 2015, Muslims could make up the majority of Russia's army and they could account for 20% of the population by 2020.

According to the CIA World Factbook estimate, Russia's overall fertility rate is 1.28 children per woman, far below replacement figures.

Muslim Russians, meanwhile, are having children, with a fertility rate of up to as many as 10 children per woman.

If current trends continue, more than half of Russia's population could be Muslim by mid-century.

it is this, along withother factors that is behind the explosion in extreme Russian nationalism lately.

Hostility is already high and rising between the country's ethnic Russian population and the Russia's Islamic community and ethnic violence is on the rise.

Attacks on mosques are not uncommon, especially after terrist atacks like Beslan or the one in Nalchik last year. During rioting last August, ethnic Russian mobs chased Chechens and other Muslim immigrants out of the northwestern town of Kondopoga.

One of the Russian nationalist groups is the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, an increasingly powerful lobby group that has staged dozens of rallies in recent months. Its leader, Alexander Belov, has been extremely outspoken over what he and others like him are calling the growing "Islamification" of Russia.

"Russia is historically a Slavic, Orthodox Christian land and we need to make sure it stays that way," he said, adding that Orthodox Christianity should be enshrined as Russia's official religion and efforts made to convert Muslims.

Belov makes no distinction between Muslim immigrants and Russian citizens of Islamic faith. He says Muslims, no matter what their citizenship, should be restricted from living in "traditional Russian lands."

The Russian government has taken several steps that show recognition of th estrength on nationalist sensibilities.

Aside from prohibiting the construction of new mosques, four Russian regions recently introduced mandatory classes in Orthodox Christianity in all schools. Last month, the Russian cabinet announced a new law that will ban foreigners from working in retails stalls and markets next year. The law doesn't specifically target Muslims, but the vast majority of people working in Russia's markets are either Muslim immigrants or from traditionally Muslim parts of Russia.

Muslims have apperently voiced concern over the trend.

"The image of Muslims presented in the media is very distorted," says Rusham Abbyasov, a spokesman for the Council of Muftis. "When people hear the phrase Allahu akbar ("God is great" in Arabic) they immediately think of people shooting at them or blowing themselves up."

(hmmmm... I wonder why, Mufti..)

Others look forward to a time when huge chunks of what is now Russia can be broken off into Islamist states....some Iran is no doubt working towards.

That day may not be far off.

Quote O' The Day..

"...Talking to Iran and Syria about help in stabilizing Iraq is like the fire department asking an arsonist for help in putting out a fire.."

- Senator Joseph Liebermen, in response to a question about negotiaing with Iran and Syria on Iraq.

Saddling a new horse? Bush meets with Maliki rival at the White House

President Bush Bush Met With Iraqi Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the largest bloc in Iraq's parliament, the Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq..and a political rival of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

Note the clerical garb and the name of a-Hakim's party to get a hint on where and with whom their symphathies aand loyalties might lie.

The president said he spoke with al-Hakim for more than an hour, and reportedly told him that the United States was not satisfied with the progress of efforts to stop the sharp escalation of violence in Iraq.

According to the president, they had a "very constructive conversation."

"I assured him that the U.S. supports his work and the work of the prime minister to unify the country....

Part of unifying Iraq is for the elected leaders and society leaders to reject the extremists that are trying to stop the advance of this young democracy," Bush said.

"We talked about the need to give the government Iraq more capability as soon as possible so the elected government of Iraq can do that which the Iraqi people want to secure their country from extremists and murderers," Bush said. "I told his eminence (Hakim is an Imam) that I was proud of the courage of the Iraqi people. I told him that we're not satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq. And that we want to continue to work with the sovereign government of Iraq."

Whomever heads it..right,Dubbya? Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Kofi Annan's retirement package

In wake of John Bolton's resignation, I thought it would be interesting to look at another UN figure who's tenure is about to come to an end.

Kofi Annan will also be leaving the UN in December of this year, after negotiating a stunning retirement package for himself behind closed doors - largely funded by US taxpayers.

For a start, the U.N.'s Kofi Annan will cash in with two pensions, tax free. He will not only collect a life-time pension in excess of $12,000 a month, tax-free, but was also allowed to cash in a second pension valued at more than $1 million — also tax-free — when he became secretary-general in 1996.

This, of course is in addition to Annan's tax free salary, his $12,000 per month
UN paid `rent' on billionaire George Soros' estate, free medical and UN paid chauffer and limosine.

Annan has also made substantial money from speaking engagements and other "outside" activities. These include his share of a Nobel prize worth $100,000 and a $500,000 cash award for the Sayed Prize, donated by the ruler of Dubai. Just as a coincidence, the judges panel on that personal cash award included two senior members of Annan’s staff and one Achim Steiner - who Annan later appointed to a high paying position as director of the UN Environment Program. After several people - including US ambassador John Bolton - were rude enough to question the propriety of a UN Secretry General accepting a cash prize of this nature, Annan later announced he would turn the money over to U.N. relief in Sudan.

Since Annan has consistently refused to release any financial records other than his U.N. salary, there absolutely no evidence this was ever done. As a matter of fact, additional money Annan has received from those speaking engagements or other "outside" activities have never been disclosed at all. Nor has the United Nations ever released a listing of Annan's bank accounts, stocks or any real estate holdings.

Of course, the most egregious `outside activity' of Annan's UN leadership is the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, for which Annan received $1.4 billion in funding meant to help him monitor its integrity. This is still, beyond a doubt the biggest swindle in the history of humanitarian aid.

Annan likes to tell people that UN graft under Oil-for-Food came down to one staff member, Benon Sevan, the man appointed by Annan to run the entire program who was
"found to maybe have taken $150,000". (Sevan, by the way, managed during the investigation of the program to slip out of New York and back to his native Cyprus, beyond reach of US extradition, and on full UN pension....)

In reality, more than $2 billion of that aid money remains unaccounted for.

Even Paul Volcker’s UN-authorized probe, which was mostly a whitewash, revealed rampant budget padding and corruption by various UN agencies. One of Annan’s own former special advisers, French diplomat Jean-Bernard Merimee, has admitted to taking money from Saddam’s oil deals while working directly for Annan. The Volcker probe further found that Annan personally knew about the graft within the Oil-for-Food program at least three years before it ended, but did nothing about it.

And when Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza was discovered in late 2004 to have shredded reams of U.N. executive-office documents pertaining to the Oil-for-Food investigation, there was no major fuss, and Riza simply retired, on full pension...until Kofi Annan in 2005 approved a special initiative called the Alliance of Civilizations, with funding of several million dollars from a handful of member states who paid for this `Alliance' via one of thos ubiquitous U.N. trust funds. Riza was then brought back to run it, with a promotion to the rank of under-secretary-general.

This is the man who will retire on lavish terms as an honored international civil servant

Simply amazing.

Requiem for an honest man:John Bolton has resigned

John Bolton resigned as our UN ambassador today.

He was originally appointed by President Bush in a recess appointment, good only for the term of the current congress, which expires in about a week.

As before, he was not allowed an up or down vote by the senate due to the obstruction of a small group of senators who refused to allow his nomination out of committee.

In the end, he decided to pull the plug himself.

Bolton served with distinction as an honest man and a dedicated public servant hampered both by often contradictory presidential policy and direction and the nature of the United Nations itself. With all that, he was one of the most effective UN representatives America has ever had, and a true spokesman for freedom.

In the UN itself, Bolton had his problems with the entrenched order, especially Secretary General Kofi Annan. That usually happens when someone questions `business as usual'..especially when business as usual means lining some very well connected pockets.

But perhaps John Bolton's biggest problem with the UN began when he was instrumental in successfully lobbying the UN to void its infamous `Zionism is racism' resolution some years back, before he became our UN ambassador. That in itself was something a number of people in the UN never forgave him for.

He was a voice for transparency and reform in an institution that is fighting tooth and nail to avoid any semblance of those qualities.

American foreign policy and the cause of freedom has lost an important advocate with John Bolton's resignation.

He'll be missed.

Weekend Monkey sez: Be good to yourselves..you deserve it!

Buh-Bye everybody..we'll see you in 24.

Short takes, 12/01/06

Short takes is Freedom Fighter's way of cramming a lot into a small space..kind of like the young gentleman above. Here's a brief rundown of some of today's items of interest:

• Charles Krauthammer in `This Is Realism? ' has officially jumped on FF's bandwagon, although you'll have to go to the last third of his column to see it. His solution for Iraq? Give Maliki an ultimatum: either come up with a political solution in two months or cede power to a new coalition that can, or the US will abandon the Green Zone, retire to its bases, redeploy to Kurdistan where we have real allies and let the civil war take its course.

I wouldn't even give him two months.

• In Mark Steyn's Quartet of ladies shows where we're headed he paints a fascinating picture of a quartet of ladies - Palestinian suicide grandma Fatma An-Najar, the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori,Scarlett Johansson, and Secretary of State Condi Rice - who provide useful metaphors for how things are trending.

I don't totally buy Steyn's `demographics are destiny' argument, as you know..but he's not totally wrong and he does point out a disturbing trend. The chief place we disagree is that I feel things will come to a head much faster than the time needed for a demographic Muslim takeover...

• In Coulter Gets Results!: Ann Coulter weighs in wonderfully on the six imams removed from that US Airways flight after spouting jihadi rhetoric in the terminal, spreading out in the front, middle and rear of the plane in classic jihadi hijacker fashion, acting suspiciously in the plane, and asking for seatbelt extensions they didn't need and putting them on the floor near their seats.

As Ann puts it: `What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.'

• WHY THIS BLOG IS BETTER THAN THE MSM dept: Well, whaddya know? ABC News has finally figured out that Iran is arming the Shiite militas in Iraq

• While President Bush and Iraqi PM Maliki were mouthing platitudes in Amman, Iraq's president Talibani was in Teheran, talking withAhamdinejad and the mullahs and concluding a security agreement with Iran. No details yet on how that little scenario played out, but as I've said, I think we have a clue from today's events in Lebanon. As for Ahamadinejad he was all smiles: "I advise you to leave Iraq," he said, addressing the Americans. "Based on a timetable, transfer the responsibilities to Iraqi government. This will agree to your interests, too." And Iran's, of course.

Lebanon's President tells civil servants to ignore the Siniora government's orders

It's not being widely reported yet, but Lebanon's pro-Syrian President, Emile Lahoud told the BBC that he has told Lebanese civil servants that they are allowed to disregard orders emanating from the Siniora government.

He claims that this is a way for them to help hand Lebanon over to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria `peacefully protest the government'.

I don't think the Siniora government will be around too much longer.

By the way, here's a message for Colin Powell and his fellow `useful idiots: this is what happens when you talk to Syria and Iran and engage their `help' in sustaining a democratic government.

Mea Culpa!

My apologies to Nazar, Ronbo and anyone else who tried to leave comments this morning.

Usually I'm able to eliminate most of this,but the site has been getting spammed lately by a couple of people selling various wares and I tried a filter to eliminate it.

Unfortunately, it also eliminated the comments!

My apologies for this...

Ahmadinejad writes to America..the dawa preceding the jihad

Of course, there's more to this than meets the eye.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad isn't writing to President Bush any more..now he's going direct to the American people. And in view of the appeasement being pushed by Jim Baker and the Iraq Study Group's report, it's a fairly astute move.

In the earlier letter, Ahmadinejad invited Bush to embrace Islam. That is a well-established Islamic tradition when dealing with an enemy just prior to jihad. If they refuse, then the Muslims are "justified" in destroying them.

This latest missive is the same message - just on a wider scale.

the letter to the American people praises them as "truth-loving and justice-seeking" and urges them to "play an instrumental role" in helping to change Bush administration policy in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad claims that America, under Bush, is pursuing `injustice'.

Iran itself is barely mentioned in the letter. Instead, Ahamdinejad sets himself up as the spokesman for the Muslim world.

Ahmadinejad focuses on America's support for Israel, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the Bush administration's "moral corruption," or as he puts it, the administration's pursuit of "darkness, deceit, lies, and distortion."

Ahmadinejad repeatedly mentions Americans as people of faith, who share Islamic values. "We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people," he drones. "Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine."

And he claims that "the Zionists" control America "because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural, and media sectors."

Not only that, but he warns the Democratic Party that it will lose power if it does not bow to the Islamist agenda.

Bombastic as this seems, we would do well to remember than Ahmadinejad will soon have nuclear weapons, as well as the use of Hezbollah cells and symphathizers scattered throughout America. And he is deadly serious.

Citing the Quran near the close of the letter, Ahmadinejad says that if Americans "repent" of their "injustice," they will be blessed with many gifts. "We should all heed the divine Word of the Holy Qur'an," he says.

The context of this particular verse (28:67-28, Sura "Al-Qasas," or The Narration), is very clear. It follows a graphic description of destruction and devastation that befalls those who fail to repent of their injustice.

It is also contains the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. "And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses."

That's what Ahmadinejad is doing here. The dawa (persuasion) before the jihad.

Get rid of Bush and his policies, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel and the Jews, and embrace Islam — or be destroyed. That's Ahmadinejad's message.

Or in the words of Mohammed, the OG himself:


`When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek God's help and fight them.' —Sahih Muslim, 19.4294

Massive pro-Hezbollah demonstrations in Lebanon - `Siniora must go'!

Hezbollah put crowds in the streets described as `hundreds of thousands' in Beirut today demanding the ouster of the Siniora government.

Hezbollah has branded the Siniora government `a US puppet'. They have cordoned off and blockaded the government's offices.

Hezbollah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Kassem said that the blockade and campaign would continue until Siniora's government falls.

"This government will not take Lebanon to the abyss. We have several steps if this government does not respond but I tell them you will not be able to rule Lebanon with an American administration," he told Hezbollah's al-Manar television.

Translation?



The buzz words used by Hezbollah to cover up the fact that Lebanon is to become the property of Iran and Syria and a Shiite ruled state is `unity government'.

The first step was the November 21st murder of Christian oppostion leader Pierre Gemayel, followed by the resignation of 6 Hezbollah ministers.

Siniora, of course said that his government would not quit, and says that Hezbollah and its allies want to stage a coup.

That's exactly what it is.

And, while we're looking at this, this is what you can expect for Iraq if, as Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group report suggests, we `talk to Iran and Syria' and get their `assistance' in putting together an Iraqi government - a coup that purges any pro-American elements as soon as we leave.

So much for President Bush's fantasies about `Arab democracy.'

Watcher's Council results 12/01/06

The winners are in for this week's Watcher's Council.








My post Genocide? What Genocide? was the winner this week, and I'm pleased that my fellow Council members thought enough of my humble efforts to honor me in this way...especially considering the competition. It's an honor just to be part of this group, let alone win.

I wrote about the absurd spectacle of Sudan's `president' Omar Hassan al-Bashir not only denying that there's any genocide in Darfur, in spite of estimates of 200,000 + people being murdered and a couple of milion ethnically cleansed...but saying it was the Jews fault, a `Zionist plot.'

I also chose to comment on the uselessness of the UN, and the relative silence of the MSM, the ` useful idiots'Left and Muslim `civil rights' organizations like CAIR.

What's more, I wrote about why Americans should care, and what I think our government should do about this tragedy.

A close second to me was Right Wing Nut House : THE ART AND ARTIFICE OF WAR REPORTING Rick's fine post this week in which he wrote about the line between reporting the news and making the news, especially when it comes to repeating enemy disinformation and propaganda.

In view of the revelations about the absolute falsity and political agenda behind a substantial part of the dinosaur media's coverage of recent events, this is a topic that bears discussing. Where do we draw the line between reporting the news and merely relaying enemy propaganda? The widespread use of stringers and sources that may have their own agenda as well as tacit MSM compliance with tyrannical regimes like Saddam's Iraq and the Palestinian Authority in not reporting the truth so as to maintain `access' to a story is something that needs to be explored.

Both of the non-Council winners dealt with this issue as well.

The non-Council winner was Flopping Aces - Backup: Getting The News From The Enemy

And in second place was Patterico’s Pontifications � Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda?


A complete list can be found at the site of our fearless leader, Watcher of Weasels


Hearty congratulations to all the winners!

Pope Benedict goes to the mosque and bows towards Mecca

Pope Benedict continued his unfortunate exercise in dhimmitude yesterday when he visited Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and performed the gesture of praying toward Mecca.

Benedict XVI is the second pope in history - after John Paul II in Damascus in 2001 - to set foot in a mosque. He made the gesture at the `suggestion' of Istanbul Mufti Mustafa Cagrici, who was with him for the occasion.

This makes John Paul's Qu'ran kissing pale by comparison.

Benedict's spokesmouth, Federico Lombardi, was quick to tell journalists afterward that the pope had not actually prayed but was "in meditation."

I'm sure the Muslims will make that distinction as well, aren't you?

The imam instructed the Pope in the basics of Muslim prayer and then said "Let us turn toward the Kiblah" - the direction of Mecca, which all Muslims must face when they perform their prayers.

The pope did so...and `meditated' for about two minutes, in a classical Muslim prayer attitude known as "the posture of tranquility."

Ironically, the Pope had just come from visiting the Aya Sofya Museum, which was once the Christian cathedral St. Sophia, until Constantinople was conquered and the Turks forcibly converted it into a mosque. And while he was in what was once hallowed ground, the Pope was careful to follow the orders he was given by his Turkish hosts not to pray or take any sort of religious posture.

As little as a century ago, just prior to the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish ethnic cleansing of the Greeks in Smyrna, there were still over 2 million Christians in what is now Turkey.

Today, there are less than 120,000.

While some in the West may see the Pope's actions in Turkey as a welcome interfaith gesture, rest assured that the Muslims world will see it as subservience and capitulation.