Facebook Twitter Google +1     Admin

Se muestran los artículos pertenecientes al tema THIS WORLD.

Fuck Islam

I am a supporter of the EDL here in England. I have been to four demos. You can see my various accounts of the EDL in my website below.

This is a response to an article by Martin Smith of Unite Against Fascism, who violently oppose the EDL. Martin Smith is the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party.


Martin Smith, ‘The BNP and the EDL’, Socialist Review, March 2010,

i) What’s wrong with football fans, Mr Smith?
ii) Martin Smith’s Account of the Stoke Demo
iii) The Far Left Loves the Far Right Really
iv) Racism?
v) Martin ‘Runs With Muslims’ Smith the Street Fighter
vi) Gramsci and Mr Smith
vii) Revolution?

What’s wrong with football fans, Mr Smith?

Citizen Smith doesn’t seem to like football supporters. They are too British for him. Too patriotic. Worst of all, they haven’t read Trotsky or even Lenin. Bastards! Martin Smith seems to find it hard to make a distinction between ‘football hooligans’ and ‘football fans’. Does Citizen Smith know that one out of every two British males is a football fan? Fancy being against so many people. Then again, this is Citizen Smith and the UAF/SWP we are talking about. If you’re not brown, or a student, or a Muslim, then they don’t have much time for you. The vast majority of British people just aren’t Marxist or Islamist enough for Citizen Smith. All we can do is laugh when Smith says, conspiratorially, that so-and-so ‘had already begun to build alliances with football supporters’. Shock horror! What next, alliances with, uh, working class white people? Never!

I love Smith’s little excursion into Marxist ‘class analysis’. Smith thinks that the media portrays EDL as ‘working class yobs’. He thinks that the media is wrong. Apparently, ‘many [EDL] come from “petty bourgeois” professions – the classic base of fascism’. Well, I never! I didn’t know that I was ‘petty bourgeois’ and the EDL members I have talked to are petty bourgeois. Doesn’t it show what a sad little train spotter Smith really is when he resurrects terms like ‘petty bourgeois’ from the dustbin of Communist and Trotskyist history. Anyone who uses these quaint little pseudo-technical terms must be a complete arse. These words are dead today. In any case, the SWP/UAF Alliance is full of middle class people. Alex Callinicos, of the Central Committee (yes, Central Committee) and a few others, are upper middle class. Actually, Callinicos is from an aristocratic background. But they are not ‘bourgeois’! Why is that? Because they are Marxists. A Marxist may be middle class, but he can’t be bourgeois. In fact no Marxist can be bourgeois, no matter how rich he is. How neat. And how tidy.

Yes, I too talk about class. Specifically the middle class and professional/student basis of the UAF/SWP Alliance. That is not because I’m against the middle class. I’m not. What I am against is middle class people who pretend they are not middle class. Or middle class people who speak out against what they call ‘the middle class’. As well as those Marxists middle-class SWP-ers who class right-wing middle class people as ‘bourgeois’ or ‘petty bourgeois’. It’s not the middle class I’m against. It’s middle class far-leftist hypocrites.

You see the EDL can’t win. If it were full of working class members it would be accused of being full of ‘yobs’. Now Smith is saying it is full of, or run by, the ‘petty bourgeois’. In any case, this petty-bourgeois fixation is simply a result of Smith and co. reading too many books about the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany and Italy in the 1920s and 30s. He is trying very hard indeed to fit the EDL and its actions into his own potted history of fascism – the things he has read about again and again in the vast and boring corpus of Marxist history and theory. But the cap doesn’t fit, Smith. This is Britain in the year 2010. It’s not Germany or Italy in the 1920s or 30s. The situations are completely different. The British have always despised Nazis and Trots equally. Extremism doesn’t sit that well in England, unlike in Europe. That’s why far right and Trot groups still do better on the Continent. That’s why the British hate the SWP and the far right.

In any case, what point is Smith actually making by stressing the ‘petty bourgeois’ fan base of the EDL? Is it really the simple point that historically the petty bourgeois were the backbone of the Nazi Party? Is that what he is getting at? Eddie Hitler was also an artist and a vegetarian. Perhaps some sociologist should do a study of the EDL and see how many artists or vegetarians there are.

Martin Smith become even more pathetic than, well, Martin Smith when, in hushed tones, he tells us that the ‘leading figures behind the Luton protest [were] a self-employed carpenter and another runs his own internet company’. Really! Now I’m definitely not going to vote for the EDL. I mean, carpenters – they’re all Nazis, especially Jesus! What the EDL should be full of, instead, are lecturers from the London School of Economics or from the Embrace Diversity Department at Staines University. Oh, and one STIOE member is an ’American student’! Which bit of that description don’t you like, Citizen Smith? It can’t be the ‘student’ part (the SWP is entirely made up of students, except for its ex-student leaders). So it must be the ‘American’ part.

Smith’s Account of the Stoke Demo

Citizen Smith is not very keen on either facts or the truth. Not if the facts and the truth get in the way of a good story or, more importantly, in the way of the Revolution or the leftist radicalisation of young British Muslims. He claims that the EDL, after the Stoke demo of 23rd January, ‘directed their anger on the Asian community, smashing up shops and attacking Asian people’. Everything is right about that account except for the facts. Firstly, within half an hour of the demo ending the city centre streets were more or less clear of EDL demonstrators. Secondly, which ‘Asian community’ is he talking about? There is no Asian community near the city centre of Stoke so how could EDL members ‘smash’ their shops? Finally, not a single riot van was overturned, unless it was overturned only in Smith’s head. I also doubt that a single Asian was ‘attacked’. I saw very few Asians in the city centre that day. I saw lots of black people. Some of them joined the EDL demo, I’m sorry to say, Mr Smith. And why not? The EDL has more in common with the average black person that the middle-class Trots who run the SWP/UAF Alliance.

What exactly does Smith mean by ‘anti-Muslim riot’ when there were no Muslims there to riot against? Or does this just sound good on paper? Perhaps it will give a few middle-class Trot/SWP students a sense of excitement and their first taste of a scrap.

The Far Left Loves the Far Right Really

If Smith uses the words ‘racist’, ‘thugs’, ‘Nazis’ enough times, he thinks he will be able to persuade all and sundry that the EDL really is full of racists, thugs and Nazis. Repeat a lie enough times and many people will believe it. I think some Nazi once said that. And Smith is himself a red fascist; so he should know… Oh, I forget. Socialist Worker recently argued that it was a big mistake to conflate the far right with the far left. Well, the SWP would say that, wouldn’t it? After all, it is far left. Not only that, but it justifies and defines itself almost exclusively by its opposition to the far right. What a nice little club the far right and far left belong to. They love each other really. They certainly need each other.


Smith mentions the ‘terrifying rise in anti-Muslim racism since 9/11’. Apart from the fact that there has been no ‘terrifying’ rise in anti-Muslim attacks, what about the real rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain and Europe? You won’t hear much about that from Smith and his friends because many of them are anti-Semites. Oh, no, they are ‘anti-Zionists’. Their monomania and neurotic obsession with Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with the one thousand five hundred years of European anti-Semitism. It is a complete coincidence that Trots go to bed at night thinking about Israeli ‘crimes’ and the sad, sad Palestinians. They don’t worry that much about the plight of the southern Sudanese black Christians or animists, or the Kurds. No. It the behaviour of the Jews in Israel that really gets to them. After all, Israel is the ‘front line of America’.

Anyway. ‘Anti-Muslim racism’? What does that mean? That’s like, ‘anti-Tory homophobia’. It doesn’t even make sense. After all, people like Smith himself keep on telling us that Muslims don’t constitute a single race. That doesn’t matter to a Trot. As long as the phrase ‘ant-Muslim racism’ helps him recruit a few young naïve Muslims and a few naïve middle class students. He doesn’t really care how he recruits them. If lies, distortions, alliances with reactionaries (Muslims), etc. work, they he’ll do it. He will do anything to further the Revolution and increase militancy amongst young Muslims and non-Muslim students. Anything.

Martin ‘Runs With Muslims’ Smith the Street Fighter

Smith cleverly tells us about the ‘electoral and a street fighting wing’ of fascist organisations. Does that include red fascist organisations like the SWP and UAF? They certainly have a ‘street fighting wing’ and a nice wing (the good cops) which dupes members of the leading parties into joining the UAF.

The SWP can’t be electoral because it is against parliamentary democracy. However, that didn’t stop Smith from accusing the BNP of not believing in democracy and the vote. But that’s for far- right reasons, which are bad, not far-left reasons, which are good. Indeed Martin Smith himself is a street fighter. He is called ‘Martin “runs with Muslims” Smith’. There are photos of him running with Muslims, attacking two Birmingham shoppers, teasing a police dog, and haranguing a Birmingham shop keeper. He was also arrested for street fighting outside the BBC. In addition, he was reported to West Midland Police for attacking shoppers in Birmingham. So Smith is in favour of far-left street fighting, but against far-right street fighting. This is something everyone knows already.

Gramsci and Mr Smith

Smith mentions his hero, the ‘socialist’ Antonia Gramsci. Gramsci’s main thesis was simple. He knew that the revolution would not happen, at least not in the immediate future. So what to do? Gramsci suggested taking over, infiltrating and being entryists in important institutions, from the universities and colleges, to the media and even the church and police. The tactic was, basically, to take over these institutions and groups and make them ideologically communist or Trotskyist in nature. It has worked in the UK. The far left has ‘won the culture war, but lost the economic war’. But instead of out-and-out Trotskyism, which the British would never swallow, what we have instead is the Politically Correct Cultural Revolution. This is a nicer form of far leftism.

Martin Smith is the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party. He has heeded Gramsci’s words and he and the SWP have formed UAF. Smith also runs the Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) show. He is certainly doing his bit for Gramsci and the Revolution. Martin ‘runs with Muslims’ Smith has even created his own version of Mussolini’s squadre d’azione. You can see him in action in a few photos and videos. I think his boot boys are called ‘Red and Green Action’. The ‘red’ stands for ‘red fascism’ (Trotskyism) and the ‘green’ stand for ‘Islamofascism’. I bet Smith’s red ‘sword’ is nine inches long when folded in half!


Smith indulges in some classic Trotskyite scare-mongering. In one breath he tells us that ‘the BNP gained 17 percent’ of the vote in Barking in 2005. That’s only 17% in one constituency. From this meagre evidence he then tells us in the next breath that ‘the Nazis are making serious breakthroughs at the ballot box’. Apart from 17% not really being a ‘breakthrough’, this vote involved a lot of protest votes from the electorate. And why is that? Because people like Smith and the middle class professionals who run the UAF/SWP Alliance, and the universities and much of the media, gave up on the white working class years ago. Smith and his mates now ‘run with Muslims’. They embrace other kinds of diversity – any kind of diversity, as long as it is not the white working class. For example, Martin writes that EDL members ‘talked about the fear of losing their jobs or businesses’. He doesn’t show any compassion for their plight or even an analysis of why things are the way they are. The only thing that he concludes from this is that such people become attracted to ‘typical… fascist/ultra right wing nationalist movements’. This just shows us why some people are doing precisely that, Mr Smith. Because you don’t give a shit about anyone except middle class students and Muslims. That is, anyone who will be fodder for the Trot Revolution, which the working class refuse to be. And that’s why the SWP gave up on the working class. It just wasn’t into the Revolution. Never mind. Let’s try the Muslims and Islamists instead.

07/03/2010 17:36 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Oriana Fallaci on Moslem women

The Useless Sex
by Oriana Fallaci

Horizon Press 1964 pp. 26-32

Moslem women rarely walk alone along the street. Generally they walk in groups, with their children, and with the husband who keeps three paces ahead to make it clear that he is the master and she must follow him. There are times when even girls who are students, the most progressive girls, do not evade this ruling. You can see them coming out of high school, muffled up like nuns, and they are girls who know all about Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci, but if you come too close or try to photograph them, they'll suddenly huddle together in a group, lowering their heads as sheep do when they're afraid.

In a land which is struggling to convince women to take off their veils, explaining that they prevent the skin from breathing, carry infection, and enfeeble the sight, such anachronism is cruel. In the streets you might still happen to see cars with closed curtains: these are the cars of the richest Moslem women, for whom it is not enough to hide their head in purdah. Inside the houses, into which incidentally it is extremely difficult to gain admittance, you will very rarely set eyes on any women. At home they do not wear the veil, and if accidentally or on purpose you mistake the door and enter their quarters, you are met by a concert of shrillest screams. A friend of mine in Karachi who has employed a certain gardener for the last three years, tells me that she has never once seen his wife without her veil. 'I really think,' she says, 'that that woman has never been touched by a ray of sunshine.'

There's plenty of sun in the lands of Islam: a sun that is white, violent, blinding. But Moslem women never see it - their eyes are conditioned to gloom like the eyes of moles. From the darkness of the mother's womb they pass into the darkness of the father's house and from this to the darkness of the tomb. And in all this darkness nobody takes any notice of them. Asking a Moslem about his women is like asking him about a secret vice, and when one fine day I said to the editor of a Pakistani newspaper: 'I have come to ask you about the problem of Moslem women,' he became quite angry and answered: 'What problem? There isn't any problem of Moslem women.' Then. he handed me a sheaf of typescripts which were all about the dress of Moslem women, the jewels of Moslem women, the make-up of Moslem women, and about how they use coconut oil to give lustre to their hair, and how they use henna to stain the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet red, and how they use antimony mixed with rose water to colour their eyelashes. 'Here,' he said, 'you'll find everything about Moslem women.' Then I asked him what the percentage of illiteracy among Moslem women might be, and he replied angrily: 'Why should a woman have to learn reading and writing? And to whom would she need to write? The only person she could write to is her husband. If the husband is living with her, what would be the point of sending him a letter?'

A thousand and three hundred years have passed since Mohammed raised his voice in the scorching desert of Arabia, and although something new is now taking place among the women of Islam, the vast majority of his faithful followers continue to observe his laws as if time has stood still. It is true that in Tunisia President Bourguiba condemns to imprisonment any man who takes more than one wife and exhorts the young women to cast off their veils, but, as the weekly paper L'Action reports, 'the parents are ashamed of this'. It is quite true that at the American University in Beirut and at the Beirut College for Women the girls wear blue jeans, go water skiing and dance rock and roll, but, as Time Magazine reports, you are still likely to overhear a couple of male students make such remarks as: 'Would you ever marry a girl who had been to the cinema with another boy?' 'No, no I really don't think 1 would.' It is quite true that in Nigeria an eccentric woman called Zeinab Wali gives a weekly broadcast in the course of which she urges women to come out of their houses and get to know the trees, the mountains and the butterflies. But when the wife of a minister of Kaduna asked her husband's permission to go out and get to know, the trees, the mountains and the butterflies, the husband held a family council during which it was decided that she should be allowed out only after five in the evening - when there is still sufficient light to be able to see but when the sinful brilliance of the sun is turning to twilight. It is quite true that in Egypt there is an auxiliary force of women in the army, but Nasser still hasn't had the courage to abolish polygamy because, he well knows, the men would revolt against such a measure. If polygamy ceases it certainly won't be his doing; it will simply be because maintaining two wives is expensive.

Not even women of such authority as Princess Aisha in Morocco succeed in breaking down these laws that have been unchanged for, centuries. On one occasion in Tangiers I saw Aisha. She was defiantly attired in skirt and blouse, driving an open car, and the Moroccan women were wild with admiration. Some were hurling away their mantles, others were pressing round her at the risk of getting themselves run over, and a French journalist told me that this was nothing compared with what had happened a few years previously when, in a square in the Tangiers casbah, Aisha had climbed up on a platform and, dressed in a blue Lanvin outfit, had made, the following speech: 'I know well enough the wicked customs and prejudices that weigh down upon us; we must slough them off. Modern culture is calling us, and it is vital for the life of our nation that we should imitate 'our sisters in the West who are making a contribution to the progress of their countries.' However, the French journalist told me, next day Sidi Mohammed Tazi, mandate of Tangiers, had given orders that any Moroccan woman dressed in European clothes should be put under arrest: 'What is all right for a princess is not all right for other women. If our women start wearing Western clothes, before long they'll be drinking, then dancing, and then they'll be going down at night to sleep with men on the sea-shore:' When photographs appeared of Aisha in a swimsuit on the beach at Rabat, EI Glaoui of Marrakesh judged them outrageous and Aisha, with her jodhpurs, her brief tennis skirts and her Benny Goodman records, contributed not a little to the sultan's exile in Corsica and subsequently in Madagascar. When Aisha returned, acclaimed by thousands of women, the strongest among whom had refused for two 'years to surrender themselves to their husbands 'so that they should not give birth to children conceived in humiliation', she had to keep her speeches considerably more prudent. 'The emancipation of women,' she said, wearing a heavy mantle, 'should not be sudden like a surgical operation. The veil of itself has little importance. The important thing is that a woman should be free to choose whether to wear it or not.'

They are, therefore, the most unlucky women in the world, these women with the veil, and the paradox is that they often don't realise it because they don't know what goes on outside the sheet that imprisons them. They suffer and that's an end of the matter, like the Mother of the Departed I met one morning in Karachi. And they dare not even rebel.

I had gone, that morning, to speak with the Begum Tazeen Faridi who is head of the All Pakistan Women's Association in Karachi. Tazeen Faridi is a vivacious woman, with skin gold as honey, who likes to describe herself as 'a Moslem woman who doesn't wear the veil and possesses a surname'. She belongs to the limited number of women who count as somebody in this land, such as the Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, Ambassadress in Holland, and the Princess Abida Sultan, Ambassadress in Brazil. She has a husband who respects and admires her, an office prudently devoid of placards and posters, in front of which informed Moslems pass with the same grimace of disgust that teetotallers would reserve for a glass of whisky. The chief, aim of her life is the advancement of Moslem women: book of law and Koran in her hand, she fights like a wild cat against poly¬gamy, and is so modern-minded that some time ago she even tried to send a Miss Pakistan to the Miss Universe contest which is held in Long Beach. The story of this election is worth the telling: the daring maidens who agreed to take part in the con¬test paraded in swimsuits before twelve Moslem ladies and then in purdah before twelve Moslem gentlemen. What the Moslem gentlemen are supposed to have seen remains a mystery: purdah makes it impossible even to tell whether the wearer is fat or thin. However they placed their trust in Tazeen Faridi, who assured them that the favoured candidate hidden beneath the sheet was most beautiful and worthy to go to Long Beach. She never actually went, let us be clear about that. The Karachi Times revealed that the Begum had suppressed an important detail, namely that Miss Pakistan would not be parading in purdah at Long Beach but, on the contrary, in a swimsuit: the Begum barely escaped a lynching.

So there I was, talking with Tazeen Faridi in this little office full of useless manifestos, when this Mother of the Departed arrived. She came in looking suspiciously over her shoulder, as if she were afraid she was followed by a horde of religious fanatics intent on shaving her head, and her black burka didn't even have the little holes at eye level- how she managed to walk without tripping I do not know.

'Down with that rag,' said Tazeen Faridi. And because the woman drew back, hesitating, she snatched it off. I caught my breath at the dreadful stench that was released and stared. Be¬neath there was a woman of about forty, black and sweating, covered with jewels and bruises. The worst bruise was over her left eye, and one lip was swollen. She dabbed at her lip with a handkerchief and didn't dare to speak. Then, somehow, she managed to find her voice. And here, word for word, is what she said. I haven't altered so much as a comma in what Tazeen ,Faridi slowly told me, in English. And Tazeen is too honest to have invented anything.

'I was fourteen years old and he was thirty-two. My aunts and cousins told me that his nose had been eaten away by smallpox, but he was taking me for three thousand rupees and, ugly as I was, I couldn't expect anything better. They exchanged sweets and gifts, they signed the agreement and he took me to his house. He assigned a boy of thirteen to keep watch on me, but he always shut himself in the room with the boy and paid no attention to me. In the end he took me, but when the time came for me to give birth I was taken ill. My aunts and cousins looked for a lady doctor, but the lady doctor wasn't to be found. There was only a man doctor, but he didn't want me to take off my clothes in front of the doctor and my baby son died: I became the Mother of the Departed and he was kind because he didn't cast me out. However he took another wife, younger than me, and when her time came it was I who had to help her. He continued to keep me in the same manner as her and he used to give me the same jewels, exactly the same, but he used to beat me. The lady doctor came and she said I ought to have asked for a divorce. I said, "All right, but I haven't got any money for a lawsuit and anyway, what can a divorced woman do?" Then he saw another girl. She cost thirty thousand rupees because she's a beautiful girl so he wants to get back my three thousand rupees, but my aunts and cousins haven't got them any more. He also says he hasn't got enough money to keep three wives and then I'm old. So he said, "Talak, Talak, Talak", and repudiated me. The lady doctor told me to come here. I have come. But now where shal! I go, what shall I do?'
In the same way that doctors don't get upset about their patients' stomach aches, Tazeen Faridi showed no emotion at this tale and promised the woman that she would try to find a place for her in some institution or with some family that needed servants. Naturally the best thing would have been a widows' home, but then she wasn't a widow so there was no good hoping for that. Then she told her to leave, to come back if she was in need, and to me she explained that she had sent the woman away because in the Moslem world a woman cannot live alone, not even if she is working. If she does live alone it means she is a lost woman. 'This is the reason why there are no spinsters and why repudiation is the equivalent of civil death. According to the new law a woman can ask for a divorce, But, this means facing a lawsuit and along with the lawsuit the scandal. A man, on the other hand, can say 'Talak, Talak, Talak', without any lawsuit, and he becomes free as a chaffinch again. It isn't even necessary to give alimony. You understand?'

'No. I don't understand,' I answered. 'Is it really possible that these people never get fond of each other?'

'Sometimes,' said Tazeen Faridi, 'but they're ashamed to admit it,' rather as if it was a fault.

14/02/2010 21:37 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Iran's Nuclear Project

Fitzgerald: If Iran's Nuclear Project is to be attacked, who should do the attacking?

It seems likely that, in the next week, the Islamic Republic of Iran will meet whatever challenge is posed to it by those who wish to march and express their dissent and discontent. The Revolutionary Guards seem ready to repress the dissenters, whatever it takes, no matter how peaceful and justified those dissenters may be.

They will no doubt be suppressed with a cruelty and violence that the most sinister members of Savak, under the late Shah, could only envy but not dare to emulate. It is likely that all these hopes and dreams for the fall of the regime are seen to be merely projections of those used to the idea that Hollywood Endings are real, that not only does Good Always Triumph, but does so in time for you to leave the theatre and beat the implacable meter maid before she tickets you, or to be safely at home at a reasonable hour, or after the movie go out to dinner, or something else (it's your night out, you decide). That's not the way it happens. The Bolsheviks held a large part of the earth's land mass in thrall for more than seventy years, and that was without many True Believers left after the first few decades. But for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the True Believers are those who believe truly in Islam, and Iran has tens of millions of such people; the hold of Islam is far stronger, reinforced by practically everything in societies suffused with Islam, than Communism ever could have been.

And meanwhile, inexorably, implacably, as fast as it can, the same monstrous regime somehow manages to keep the loyalty of a sufficient number of its scientists to keep the nuclear project full steam ahead. The estimates range from a few months to a year, but no longer....any longer. It may be - who knows? - that the surprise planned for this Thursday might even be the testing of a nuclear weapon somewhere in the Iranian desert. In any case, no sanctions seem likely, no matter how draconian, to be sufficiently damaging. All it takes is for one spoiler, if that spoiler is named China, crossing the international picket line, to undo whatever sanctions the confused, pusillanimous, procrastinating, irresponsible Western world finally, at long last, places -- sanctions that, had they been in place two years ago, might have done the job in time. But now that seems so very unlikely.

But what if these are not merely ordinary sanctions but very special sanctions, the kind the newspapers and political figures like to describe as "crippling" sanctions? Doesn't that epithet give you a good feeling, a feeling that at long last something significant is being done? And you get that good feeling from mere invocation of a word, all because you want so much to believe deeply in the efficacy of those "crippling" sanctions. But when? When? Iran can keep receiving tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues, and furthermore, can smuggle in goods from all over the place, including the former Soviet republics, through Azerbaijan, and Afghanistan, and Iraq. Iran can also have goods flown in by the unstoppable Chinese, who don't care at all about "sanctions" as long as they can have access to oil, and who, furthermore, believe - rightly, I'm afraid - that the West is unwilling to do anything to punish China. (The best way to punish China is for everyone in the West to start boycotting Chinese goods, which deserve boycotting for all kinds of reasons anyway.)

This leaves two possibilities. One is that the West will simply accept the attainment and possession of nuclear weapons by the Islamic Republic of Iran. When one looks at the worry over Pakistan's nuclear armory (and the Pakistani generals are far less chiliastic, less crazily willing to sacrifice themselves and their country than the Twelver-Shi'as who run the Islamic Republic of Iran), and how that worry has forced the Americans to keep involved, and to keep plowing men and money, into Pakistan and Afghanistan, because of fears of what might happen "if those weapons fall into the wrong hands," one wonders how - having presumably learned the lesson of its own negligence in the case of A. Q. Khan and Pakistan - the American government would be moving heaven and earth, and earth-moving through bombs away if necessary, if nothing else works, to prevent another Muslim state from acquiring nuclear weapons. For we know that Iran is even more dangerous than Pakistan, and has sponsored terrorist acts as far away as Buenos Aires, and is closely allied with the most dangerous of current terrorist groups - not the Sunni Al Qaeda but the Shi'a Hizballah.

Perhaps, in the end, the Americans hope that Israel will attack, thus sparing the Administration the need to assume its responsibilities as a great power. When Israel attacked Saddam Hussein's Osiraq reactor, it set back by twenty years his nuclear plans, a service to the whole West. When Israel attacked a Syrian nuclear installation - an installation in which both North Korea and Iran were likely involved - this was also a service to the Lebanese, who are opposed to the power of Syria and its Hizballah ally, and Iran, and to the countries of NATO that surely would have been alarmed by Iran and North Korea establishing a nuclear-tipped succursale in Syria.

But circumstances now are different. Iran's nuclear project does not consist of one reactor or one plant. The many different plants that constitute that project are spread out, widely. And some of them have been built underground, protected by very thick walls themselves deep-delved. While Israel has asked for, it has apparently not received, those bombs called bunker busters that are in the American, but not the Israeli, armory.

There can be little doubt that pound for pound, the Israeli military may be the best in the world. But it is a military that is fielded by a country that is so tiny it is scarcely discernible on a world map. It has only a very few airfields. It has a handful of submarines. It has nothing like the long-range missiles or the thousands of aircraft, dispersed all over the world, that can come from every direction - and can certainly fly over Iraqi air space without asking for a by-your-leave. The Americans have airbases everywhere, and aircraft on ships right in the Gulf. They have bases too far away for the Iranians to retaliate against. In fact, whether Israel or the United States bombed the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear plants, retaliation would be directed almost certainly at Israel. And therefore the Israelis have to worry, and have to hold back, cannot attack as they might otherwise, because they do not know what Hizballah, with its tens of thousands of rockets now hidden all over Lebanon, even far from the border with Israel, will do. And the Israelis cannot know exactly what Hamas or for that matter Fatah will do, in case of Israeli preoccupation with Iran. Israel will be attacking Iran under worrisome conditions that surely must affect the thinking of the Israeli military.

Furthermore, while Israel is rightly alarmed, it is also clear that the Iranian nuclear project threatens the Arab states of the Gulf or, more exactly, threatens their ability to pump oil. That is why, right now, the Americans are sending missile batteries and other defensive equipment to those sheiklets, as well as to Saudi Arabia - not because these are our "allies" but because right now, for the moment, we do not wish to see the oil wells of the Gulf damaged. No doubt these oil states would love to have Iran and Israel damage each other. But the Western world has a stake, the American government has a stake, in there not being permanent damage done to how Iranians -- not those who support the Islamic Republic of Iran, but those who are Iranian nationalists, those who have always hated, or who have come to hate, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and furthermore, are more and more receptive to the idea that Islam itself - the "gift of the Arabs" - explains the political despotism, and the moral and intellectual collapse, that Iranians have had to endure. This doesn't mean that Iran will cease to be Muslim, but the more Iranians can come to view Islam - and many things in Iranian cultural history will support this idea - as a vehicle for Arab supremacism, and lose their taste for Islam, the better for Iranians, and for the entire non-Muslim world.

Under the Shah, there was some cooperation with Israel. Attention has been given to military cooperation, because they shared the same enemies. But there is another sort of cooperation, a civilisational cooperation. The most advanced Iranians, even those of Muslim background, often demonstrate their independence from Islam through their stance toward Israel, or rather, toward the Jews. They are keenly aware that in the pre-Islamic past of Iran, Jews were part of the national narrative, and the memories of certain connections between Persian kings and "the Jews" are not irrelevant today, in a part of the world that is history-haunted and where national narratives are important.

I don't think it accidental that Aziz Nafisi, when she was in Iran, chose to write her thesis on a topic that most Americans would find unusual: the American Michael Gold, who in the 1930s wrote "Without Money." Nor does it any longer surprise me to find Iranians abroad, who left when the Shah fell, or who have managed to get out subsequently, who seem interested in Israel, even exhibit a sympathetic understanding of it, in a way that no Arab Muslims - I'm not including apostates such as Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan or undeclared apostates such as Fouad Ajami - have. In a way, Israel is a token, a token of their break with the mind-forged manacles of Islam. Israel, then, is not only itself, but also a symbol - a symbol, among other things, that the Middle East does not belong to Islam, that there are peoples other than Muslims who were, and are, still here. I have sometimes wondered aloud at this site that, since the peoples of the Middle East appear to need, more than we in the West do, some identity, some name, to affix to themselves, then if they wish in Iran to jettison Islam, they are likely to do so not for the unclassifiable non-belief that is the choice of many of those who leave whatever religion they were born into in the non-Muslim West, but for another identity. And the obvious choice, in Iran, is Zoroastrianism. This doesn't mean people really have to believe it, but only that they have to decide to call themselves, out of an impulse not to be distinguished from Iranian nationalism, "Zoroastrians." Whenever I allude to this, I get emails of two distinctly different kinds from Iranians in Europe and America. Some say that I am off, that this could never happen, though they indicate that they wish it could. And others say that I am, in fact, on to something, and that they have heard of a renewed interest in Iran, among those disaffected, and unlikely to re-embrace Islam, with Zoroastrianism.

Where does Israel, or "the Jews" (seen as a Middle Eastern people, who once lived, in great numbers, in Persia, before those interlopers the Arabs arrived, and are part of the Persian pre-Islamic national narrative) fit in? Israel could be, for a resurrected Iran, an ally, not only in military matters, but more importantly, in cultural matters, in the matter of re-defining the Iranian national identity so that it no longer is overwhelmed by, or at least made coterminous with, Islam, as Khomeini and his epigones desired when they re-fashioned the country to their own dismal and soul-killing commandments. Just as in Egypt where Taha Hussein (Husain) in the 1920s envisioned what he called "Pharaonism" - that is, an emphasis on Egypt's pre-Islamic past and on Egypt as a country apart, one that did not consider Egyptians to be Arabs or part of the Arab world, but should emphasize its separate, Egyptian, and by implication not completely Islamic, identity. Whether Taha Hussein, the most impressive Egyptian thinker of the last century, will ultimately prevail, is unclear, though he deserves to be republished and his line of thought revived and made fashionable. But in Iran, the elements are there, and Israel is part of that pre-Islamic narrative.

It would be a pity if the Americans, by signaling that they will not themselves act against the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic, force Israel to conclude, reluctantly, that it must do so. Great powers should assume their responsibilities. The United States, for all of its follies and the incompetence of so many in public life, remains the leader of what, in the Cold War days, used to be called the Free World. In the age of permanent Jihad, the Free World should be called merely the Non-Muslim world, the world of all polities and peoples threatened by Islam and its adherents, conducting Jihad in many different ways. And as that leader, it should think about the future of Iran. That future, possibly involving a move away from Islam among at least its elite (and it is the elite who have to move first, and then to enact measures that will bring more of the primitive masses along with them), should usefully include a sympathetic understanding of Israel (and even nurture the belief in pre-Islamic Iran's help to ancient Israel).

There is a chance, in puncturing the nuclear balloon of the Islamic Republic of Iran, of so weakening it that it will fall -- to be replaced, one hopes, by those immunized against the siren-song of Islam. And there is a further chance (much greater if Israel is not the one who will have to do the imperfect puncturing) that, after all the dust settles and the Islamic Republic is gone for good, that the most farseeing Iranians (in exile and in Iran) can encourage friendship with Israel, as part of a long-term effort to move Iran away from the Camp of Islam and back to something like what those Iranians who composed the 1906 Constitution had in mind.

In deciding whether or not to act itself, the American government should think carefully about where, ideally, it would like Iran to be -- not next year, but ten years or twenty years from now (as we work furiously to diminish the value of Middle Eastern oil, and thus to deprive the worldwide Jihad of the Money Weapon. The American government should consider how, ideally, it wishes to pursue what it now must pursue: the weakening, everywhere, of the Camp of Islam. Israel could perform the immediate service to the entire West of attacking the Iranian nuclear project. But if it does so, it may not be as effective as an American effort would certainly be. And what is still more important, Israel might lose the chance, and the most advanced Iranians too might lose the chance, to re-establish some sort of connection between Israel and Iran that, in the end, would be of enormous benefit not only to both countries immediately involved, but also to the United States and to the entire non-Islamic world.

Something to think about.

11/02/2010 09:11 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

To all Muslims

To all Muslims who have even an ounce of sense left in you, will you just give up the ghost? Islam is awful. Its founder was a brutal, psychopathic and sexually disturbed individual. He has fraud written all over him. No gettin' around this. Islam's conception of the afterlife is so primitive and childlike that it invites contempt whenever it is revealed. It has no Golden Rule for all for which eternal shame should be leveled upon it. It's the ultimate in fostering Us v. Them discord. It has stupidities all through it, like the requirement in Sharia that at least four male witnesses must substantiate a woman's charge of rape or in the Koran that Alexander the Great lived to an old age (he died at 33). Muslims of the world, I say to you that you've been had. Big time. Still time to realize this. So, realize this.

01/02/2010 13:51 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Why Islam must be criticized

Why Islam must be criticized

What the West Needs to Understand About Islam
by Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with an axe and knife, entered Westergaard's house and tried to kill him.

This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here.


He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It's interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it's not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and 'inflammatory actions' when it's already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such 'transgressions,' i.e. what good will come out of it?


1. Firstly: Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It's a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly: A great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad's life, are very disturbing and worrying. It's not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

a. Al-Quran:

This supposedly 'holy' book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

- O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

- Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

b. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

- He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So it's nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.


Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn't it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just 'respect' everything than?

Secondly: It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly: One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma. The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.


Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a minor yet subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these 'westernized and liberal' Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, formerly the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to "propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law."

Islam4UK; the caption in itself explains the agenda. The UK government recently banned the organization for its vitriolic rhetoric. This is indeed a 'great set back' for Anjem (pun intended). All he has to do is change the name of Islam 4 UK and come back to the forefront of Islamist propaganda machine to forward its message.

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain)." In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population; that will amount to ~ 20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So how can we meet this challenge?

Well, one strategy to confront such people and fanatics is the strategy of Political correctness (PC) , 'opening a constructive dialogue', 'better understanding of their problems', 'addressing underlying socio-economic issues' that fuel such feelings.
But such a strategy of PC and appeasement is utterly flawed, short sighted and doomed to fail. I will say a few things as to why it is so:


This is perhaps the most important point of this whole article:

1. What the West must realize is that Islamists and Muslim fanatics are actually practicing and pious Muslims who follow the Quran and Sunnah and Muhammad. They have not hijacked Islam. They are simply following it to the letter. The above mentioned Quranic Surahs and a few tidbits of Muhammadan life is just a glimpse as to what Islam actually says about infidels and war. Thus, the strategy of PC, a 'constructive dialogue' etc; which assumes that there is something wrong with such people and their interpretation of Islam; in itself is illogical and fallacious.

The problem is Islam, Quran and Muhammad. People like Anjem Chaudary are but good Muslims. Tackle Islam and through that, tackle such Islamists.

2. These Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam and Quran. Nothing the west may do to appease these Islamists will work. Absolutely and literally nothing.

3. Dialogue is possible only where there is something to discuss. The West doesn't realize that there is absolutely nothing to discuss with Islamists and those who indulge in religious rhetoric. Such people follow Quran and Sunnah and according to those sources it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim to forward the message the Islam in what ever way and manner.

4. Also, what the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Although people like Anjem Chaudary are a fringe minority, to underestimate them will be disastrous. Even one good Islamic preacher and Islamist can sway, arguably, hundreds of moderate and westernized Muslims towards his/her Islamic ideology. It is an ideological war that such people are waging and they need to be taken very very seriously. The concept of tableegh or preaching Islam is central to Islamic dogma and such people have historically been very successful in swaying large number of westernized Muslims.


The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos. There is no other alternative. Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analyzed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

Ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system and in true democracy; criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

2. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

3. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

4. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done. Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

Comments and feedback is welcome at: arslanshaukat706@yahoo.com

Arslan Shaukat is an ex-Muslim residing in Britain.

30/01/2010 17:06 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The media

One needs to view the media like one views things in a mirror. Everything is in reverse. Over time one gets used to it. Like many, one learns early on how to function in front of it. you accept it as a reality and go about your business. It’s like shaving. You learn. and continue to do it in front of it. Tomorrow. get rid of the Mirror and experience the disconnect. It is a small example where the reality of what one is doing matches the reality of what is being done. the physical act of shaving doesn’t change but the way your mind views it does.

hopefully you won’t cut yourself learning the lesson



20/01/2010 14:11 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Muslims and Muhammad: The Impossible Task

Saturday, December 5, 2009
Muslims and Muhammad: The Impossible Task

I've reached the conclusion that Muslims face an impossible task. Simply put, their entire faith rests upon defending a man - Muhammad - who is indefensible.

Wafa Sultan expressed it best when she said, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."

It is impossible that a man in his mid-50's could engage in sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old child, possibly damaging her physically so that she never became pregnant, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could finance his religious and political community by robbing the trade caravans that passed through his area on their annual trips between Arabia and Syria, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could encourage his own son to divorce his wife so that he, the father, could marry her, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could lie to his wife to get her out of the house so that he could sleep with the slave girl he had given her as a gift, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could call other men to follow him, and then watch them die one after the other in the battles he instigated to build his empire while giving them promises of the sensual Paradise that awaited them, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could behead 800 Jewish men who had lived in his city for centuries for the simple reason they refused to accept him as their leader, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could trade the Jewish wives and daughters of the men he had just beheaded for weapons and horses, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could be so fearful of criticism that he would send a man at night to kill the mother of a nursing child because of the poems she had written against him, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could sentence a woman to death by having her limbs attached to camels that moved in opposite direction pulling her apart, then behead her and parade her severed head throuth Medina, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could torture a young Jewish tribal leader to death to obtain his money, and then "marry" his 17-year old widow the same night, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could allow his followers to have sex with their female slaves as well as their prisoners of war, whether or not they were married, and be a prophet of God.

For the past several months on Al-Hayat TV, Father Zakariya Boutros has been discussing the dozens of stories Muhammad "stole" from the Old and New Testaments, as well as from the Midrash and other ancient Jewish documents, and inserted into the Qur'an as revelations from Allah. Zakariya makes a clear distinction between "plagarism", which is the Arabic word "iqtibas", and "theft". He points out that Muhammad did not merely copy and paste stories from these documents into the Qur'an, but essentially changed their meanings in the Qur'an to indicate that he, Muhammad, was not merely similar to but essentially superior than the individuals such as Adam, Moses, and Abraham whose stories he stole.

For the first part of his 90-minute program Zakariya presents his evidence, and then opens the lines for people to call in. His live programs do not contain the 10-second delay to block out explicit language found in American programs such as the Larry King Show, which means the listener gets to hear exactly what the caller says. More than one call has a sequence similar to this:

Moderator: Our next caller is Abdul Rahman from Bahrain. Hello, Abdul Rahman.

Caller: You bastard, you son-of-a-bitch, you son of a whore, you MF'ing infidel...

Zakariya Boutros: Thank you, may God bless you and forgive you...

Very rarely do the callers actually challenge the information presented by Zakariya, because they cannot. No-one can.

16/12/2009 07:24 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

a comment

I have heard all these arguments before and while they are realistic given the nature of the U.S. government at this time, they are not valid.

Viet Nam was lost solely to two things, first, a terrible strategy on war prosecution that cost 50,000 U.S. lives. Secondly, the left ran an all out propaganda war.

At the end, the U.S. had won the fight, and won the war but failed to solidify the victory.

wars are ultimately won by making the enemy despair. That's it, (or wiping out every man, woman and child of the opposition, which is total despair) Hanoi didn't despair, they just waited for Cronkite to kill the will.

Viet Nam could have been far lest costly if the U.S. wasn't so squeamish about leveling N. Vietnam. You can't care about borders, you can't care about niceties and politics, you have to care about making the enemy despair. When all their hope is gone, you win.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are classic cases in point.

Afghanistan is no different, if you catch bad guys being aided by a village, you wipe out the village. You don't worry about borders and you certainly don't worry about waterboarding KSM.

War is evil, cruel, impersonal, and final. If you play it like a game you are going to lose. Nobody, but countries that have "progressives" worry about beating the crap out of the enemy to help your side. Treating people that want to kill you like
bad children is the definition of stupidity. It has nothing to do with "American values". "We are better than that" You are stupider than that. Niceties are for your guys, not the others. Ten minutes before you just shot 15 of his buddies in the back without blinking an eye and now you want to had him a Koran.

Had he had the honor of being in a Uniform, and fighting by rules, then by all means treat them with in the bounds. (Which still may include leaving him in a very cold room for a few hours while listening to a loud Springsteen. (Now that's torture)

This doesn't mean you don't make friends, you just can't be squeamish about your enemies. Germans who had been bombed into submission did not give the invading WWII troops much trouble even though those armies just killed their sons, fathers and families. In fact, many Germans had already despaired and wanted an end.

We cannot win in Afghanistan with wimpy, half-baked, half-assed policies. We need to go in there like we mean it.
So, the Mr. Miller's thoughts are realistic, just not valid.


Posted by: Redhawk  
Dec 14, 12:16 AM

Sadly, the author is correct – there is no way to win this war short of a total war that would inflict massive casualties on the civilian population in Taliban-controlled areas that could carry over into the tribal areas in Pakistan where the Taliban find refuge. But the stakes, such as our national survival, have never been at the level where this would ever be considered. As far as our national interest, maintaining a presence in that backward country does not seem like it should be high on our list of priorities. The non-Taliban Afghans do not have much will to fight their brethren; far less than did the south Vietnamese population against the north, so there is little hope that the non-Taliban Afghans could ever be an effective deterrent. One thing Vietnam taught us is that in a long, drawn-out war of attrition which this war will become, fought with PC-rules of engagement and with an administration whose heart is not really in it and only stays engaged for political reasons, we cannot win.

Posted by: Respublica  
Dec 14, 12:44 AM

I agree with Mr. Millers assessment on most points. However I must point out that Osama had been given official aid and coverage by the Taliban in charge of the Afghan government (the half baked theocratic mess that it was). That is enough to justify a Just War to smash the government to pieces and send the Taliban scurrying like the rats they are. However when we undertake the Utopian idea of Nation building it is pure folly. America is great and good because our Nation is great and good. Montesquieu said it best when he stated that a people get the government they deserve (not exact quote). The Afghani people at large do not understand concepts of Liberalism (using the classical sense of the word) and Freedom. Sure there are outstanding examples of individuals, but the average Afghani doesn't prize individualism and justice, it is still a very much tribal society. Nations shape their governments, not the other way around. The Germans and Japanese took to Liberal Democracy easily because they had known it for a whole century. It was ingrained, but at the time stifled, in their culture.

The most effective way to keep Afghanistan safe is to buck the constantly rumblings of the UN and pledge to knock down any government the Afghanis are forced to put up with if it threatens the safety and liberty of the people of these United States. Let the Taliban know that anytime they try and erect a state in Afghanistan, they will get have themselves get obliterated. The sheer effect of a siege every time will give Afghani's a reason to resist any encroachments upon them by Theocratic fundamentalists, if not for the sake of their survival. However, the willingness to do this rests in good minds prompted by good hearts, and sadly both are lacking in our congressmen and President. Our Republic will only survive with Statesmen, not the political, bureaucratic faceless mess we have now.

Posted by: azcIII  
Dec 14, 01:59 AM

You certainly have valid points, but the whole point of Mr. Miller's article is that we aren't fighting the war like "we mean it". We haven't been for some time (due to internal politics, etc) and we won't in the future. So why sacrifice the lives of our finest and money we don't have to fight a war our "leaders" have no will to win?

I supported going into Afghanistan, and Iraq at the time, to neutralize any threat from the radical regimes. I don't support this notion of nation building we've taken up since WWII. As Mr. Miller points out, we bombed Germany and Japan into oblivion, then rebuilt on our terms. But in neither nation were we faced with a fanatical ideology like islam. Islam is a whole other ball-game and one we cannot reform. Only muslims can and they don't want to. Even reforming Afghanistan won't do much to solve the problem of islam. But destroying our already-fragile economy will certainly go a long way towards aiding their cause. In fact, several muslim leaders have talked about destroying America by dragging us into endless wars. I don't remember where I read it...maybe Robert Spencer's site?

Occupying Afghanistan for 20 years is a large part of the reason the USSR collapsed, and our finances are in worse shape right now than theirs were. We are in very serious danger of an economic collapse, and must immediately stop spending money we don't have and wasting scarce resources. I, for one, am not willing to see our economy collapse, citizens starving en masse, children/grandchildren consigned to de facto debtor's prison for life, possible civil war and possibly even worse to continue occupying a medieval country that cannot be reformed into a viable, stable modernized nation.

Posted by: Ron44  
Dec 14, 01:59 AM

I am not a military expert, but I would prefer to win this conflict and then get the heck out of there. However, this article by Mr. Miller makes a lot of sense.

I would be real curious to find out Mr. Miller's sentiments on the result of the Korean War. It seems to me that the people of South Korea have taken hold of many of the freedoms and benefits that a free Republic can offer. Is it at all possible that the people of Afghanistan can do the same... if opposing forces are dealt a mortal blow... acknowledging that the collateral damage will be horrific? Like all wars?

Posted by: epaminondas  
Dec 14, 02:43 AM

It was the Taliban which made the force projection of Al Qaeda POSSIBLE via the shield they afforded them. It was the Taliban who working with the ISI created the wahhabi lunatic asylum. And it is the Taliban and the Pushtun on both sides of the border who have a religious mission not with the american govt but with those who make that govt what it is. We make up our own laws, and therefore usurp god's rightful authority.

Like it or not the reality is that we do not have the 'luxury' of a Viet Cong and NVA which had no interest outside it's nation state's borders. Withdrawal CANNOT increase the security of our interests or the safety of our people.

We either KILL the Taliban, and create a situation in which the populace abandons them, or we lose THE GREATER WAR until the moment we grow tired of it all, and we employ the 20 minute solution. Or we fail to do even that and go the way of all other civilizations. I see no sign, certainly in the present govt of ANY ability to be FDR in that vein.

It's that simple. Mr. Miller while making some obvious points fails at the end to comprehend what has been percolating for 1500 years to one degree or another, and was made obvious to me when Barbara Walters interviewed Zia ul Haq and she questioned him about what he was going to do about democracy and human rights in Pakistan...and he asked her what in the world made her imagine that democracy was either the best or final form of govt the world would see.

Posted by: otisg1  
Dec 14, 03:17 AM

It is the real estate! ……….
The Taliban gave Al-Qaeda unfettered access for their training bases.
Sadam gave them the carcass of a Boeing jetliner to practice their moves on for 9/11 and subsequent operations.
Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, the Palestinians and A.Q. were allied enough in their wish to destroy America and Israel. I doubt that even they thought that they would have so much help from the inside.
The genius of the Rumsfeld/Bush Iraq strategy was to force Al-Qaeda into fighting a war on a battlefield of OUR choosing.
Flat, open and where we could use our considerable technological advantages (night vision etc) to kill off the A.Q. leadership. Isn’t it obvious the mountainous regions simply bring armies back to the Stone Age?
This also created the advantage of being geographically positioned to create a double envelopment for dealing with Iran. Look at a map. The strategy was simple and working: Drive A.Q. out of the mountains and the KILL them. The message to Iran was also simple: We can hammer you from two directions……..
The real tragedy is that the Democrats through their politicalization of our post 9/11 actions have destroyed most of the hard work our military accomplished.
The DNC’s creation of faux scandals (“torture” etc.) have simply advertised our weaknesses.
We will pay an enormous price for this in the very near future.
I can find nowhere in Sun Tzu or Clausewitz any mention of advertizing your plans to your opponents as being a wining strategy.
But, Of course Sun Tzu and Clausewitz never faced the military genius of a Messiah!

Posted by: cg  
Dec 14, 04:55 AM

Sad but true. However I would say that even if Congress stopped the war tomorrow and took the money to apply to the economy, it would be squandered. Instead of actually solving the economic crisis, which Congress has yet to do with the billions already spent, the money would go to some pet project like monitoring a duck pond out in the middle of nowhere. Also, when did Biden become a military expert? Did I miss his time as a General? Why do "politicians" feel the need to dictate how a war should be fought? Do they not pay military leaders for this? As Comander in Chief, Obama should rely on the expertise of the military leaders HE appointed to do their job without interference from novice Congressmen. Yet again our government is putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

Another sad fact is that Afghanistan is severely backwards. While many Afghanis would love the notion of real democracy, not the corrupt type practiced by Karzai, they are ruled by the whims of the Taliban and/or the tribal leaders. Leaders who still practice the arrangement of child brides. You can tell a lot about a society when young women would rather set themselves on fire than to be in an arranged marriage to their uncle who is 40 years older than them. Rampant inbreeding aside, there is no infrastructure to speak of. How do you enforce democracy in such a place? There is no industry besides the drug trade. The past attempts to introduce other crops into the economy has failed miserably. Of course Karzai's government refuses to crack down on drug trafficking especially since his brother has been running his own cartel.

These are just a few of the problems in Afghanistan that our Comander in Chief has to consider. While the military cannot combat all of these problems, it makes their job that much harder. Maybe it would be better to withdraw a large part of the military and let special operations do their thing. Then they could decimate the Taliban and al-Qa'ida enough that the remaining fighters would run away, like in Iraq. The American public would forget about the war in two seconds without a major force stationed there. If it weren't for Congress or the media bashing the military, the objection to the war would be relegated to San Francisco.

Maybe the American public should practice the land for time doctrine so commonly used by insurgents, wait until the next election in hope of electing a real Comander in Chief.

Posted by: cedarhill  
Dec 14, 05:21 AM

War is war. You either go for a win or you lose or you draw. The best with this Administration is a draw. What we're getting is just a long drawn out draw with a high likelihood of lose. That would be OK except for the lives lost. How does one morally justify the killing of our soldiers in this manner?

14/12/2009 14:39 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Afghanistan: The Senseless War

Afghanistan: The Senseless War
By Abraham H. Miller

With the impending escalation in Afghanistan, we have finally arrived, after decades, at a bipartisan foreign policy. Regrettably, it is the wrong consensus for the wrong policy.

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. There is no way to win in Afghanistan without a massive commitment of troops, a willingness to stay there nearly indefinitely, and the ability to pursue insurgents across Afghanistan's porous borders.

We have neither the military capacity nor the political will to do any of that. Indeed, we probably do not have the financial capability to do it.

What we can do is prolong the war and increase the misery of the Afghan people. As in Vietnam, this is now a war where domestic politics strongly influence military decisions. The president waits for months to make a decision on troop reinforcements. He sends fewer troops than the number requested. The escalation offends his base, so the president attempts to placate them with an arbitrary withdrawal date.

Caught in the escalating crossfire, Afghan civilians are going to have one motivation: survival. In Vietnam, villages often divided in two, one side going to the Viet Cong, one to the government, both sides looking out for the interests of the village and each other.

A withdrawal date tells the civilian population that the Taliban will be there long after we are gone. All the Taliban has to do is to follow the grand strategy of all insurgencies, buy time. The Taliban disappears into the sea of the civilian population. The Taliban hides and waits. It yields land for time. It fights selectively. It evaporates when outnumbered. It reduces its operations. It lingers to fight another day, when the Americans will be gone, when the poorly trained, corrupt, and easily infiltrated Afghan army will be the primary enemy.

Afghanistan's army needs nearly a quarter of a million troops to fight the insurgency, and by most estimates, it will be lucky to produce 140,000. The fighting age population in third world countries is not sufficiently healthy to produce as high a proportion of troops as first world countries take for granted. And because insurgents generally choose the time and place of engagements, they need fewer troops and require a lower support to combat ratio. By traditional gauges, a traditional army must outnumber an insurgency by twelve to fifteen to one.

Certainly, we will have military victories. In Vietnam, we never lost a major military engagement. During the Tet Offensive, we wiped out the fighting capacity of the Viet Cong, inflicting one of the worst military defeats on an enemy in the history of combat. The Viet Cong was replaced by the regular army of North Vietnam, and the war shifted to a conventional war. But we were incapable of creating a legitimate, widely- supported government. So, even Tet was a pyrrhic victory, and then, of course, our media turned it into a defeat, a turning point in the war created by definition.

Our very presence as foreigners, in Vietnam, propping up a regime, raised questions of the regime's legitimacy, as it now does in Afghanistan. We make much of elections in Afghanistan, but the proportion voting in many provinces was negligible, as was the integrity of the election process itself.

The reality of Afghanistan is that it is not a necessary war. The Taliban did not orchestrate the events of 09/11. Osama bin Laden did, and he is most likely in Pakistan, moving back and forth across the border, safely hidden in the tribal areas. If we seriously want to defeat the Taliban, we must escalate the war, commit to staying there, and change the rules of engagement regarding civilian casualties. And then what? We will have so alienated the population that they will produce another insurgency, one sustained by Islamists across the world who cannot countenance the presence of infidels on Muslim soil.

If we are concerned about our own security, then we might want to look at the Islamist training bases on American soil, the probes by terrorists of our air safety, and the vulnerabilities this administration has created by redefining terrorism as a criminal justice issue.

American security doctrine has always used World War II as the paradigm to justify the projection of power. What we have forgotten is that in World War II we bombed our enemies into oblivion and then rebuilt their societies on our terms. We do not have the legitimacy or the moral justification to follow that model in Afghanistan. We certainly do not have the political will.

There is nothing patriotic about sending our young men and women to die in a war that will be fought in the absence of compelling military considerations, a war without resolution, a war where success eludes definition, and a war where the enemy and civilian population already know when we will be gone.

Bring the troops home. There is much to do here to promote our own security, beginning with not further debasing our economic strength by spending money on needless wars.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.

14/12/2009 14:22 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part III

We are all waiting for someone, a sensible Republican or a sensible Democrat, who recognizes that the best argument for staunching the flow in Afghanistan depends on recognizing the threat of Islam. Obama put himself into a box of his own making. When he gave his Cairo speech, he uttered such untruths about Islam that he could not get out. He saw Bush, and raised him. Raised him, in fact, that the argument that might have been available to Obama, who is clearly so terrified of appearing to be weak in the "war on terror" that he is wiling to go along, despite his long-standing but confused reservations, with those who want to send more troops.

He is willing, that is, to sacrifice another few thousand lives, and another one or two hundred billion dollars, because he cannot go back on what he has said. He cannot begin to recognize that throughout the American government, and among those whom those in the government claim to protect and instruct, there has been an effort to obscure the truth about Islam and the history of Islamic conquests over the past 1350 years. What, after all, could one learn from John Esposito or his "Al-Waleed Center"? What, for that matter, could one learn at Columbia, from Joseph Massad or Rashid Khalidi or Hamid Dabashi? What could one learn from a few dozen other major universities, where the teaching of Islam is firmly in the hands of Muslims or of non-Muslims who have shown themselves eager to act not as scholars and teachers, but as apologists of Islam? (For a little more, google "MESA Nostra").

By being easy on Islam, Obama now must be extra "tough" in the misleadingly-named " war on terror." And the so-called "conservatives," who back in 2003 locked themselves into a policy of unthinking loyalty to the Bush Administration's naïve campaign to "bring freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, and then to do something of the sort in Afghanistan as well, are also in a box of their own making. And the only people who are not in some kind of box are those of us - you, dear reader, and I - who began by ignoring the repetition of pieties about Islam and instead chose to find out something about the ideology of Islam and the history of Islamic conquest, and to see if the observable behavior of Muslims around the world today appeared to reflect that ideology of Islam, and that history, or if it did not.

And tiens, it turned out that a knowledge of the texts, tenets, history of Islam gave one the ability to make sense of events around the world, and not merely to make sense of what had occurred, but to accurately predict what would happen. As we have, here, with Iraq, ever since calling for a withdrawal from that country at the end of February 2004, and with Afghanistan - where it seems we are to go in deeper because Obama doesn't want to reconsider what he said at Cairo, doesn't want to think too clearly, or to prepare himself too well, on the subject of Islam. And his opponents on the other side think Iraq is a "success" and that somehow our goals improve our position, when our position could only be improved, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, if the end result is a dividing and demoralizing of the Camp of Islam, by ceasing to prevent those countries from going to their natural hell.

What could be done with 1% of what is going to be wasted in Afghanistan? I don't mean what could be done for medical care, road repairs, teacher training, and so on. No, I mean what could be done to more cleverly defend the interests of the imperiled West, and of all Infidels, everywhere?

Well, here's just one thing. We could recognize the need for propaganda. Not the Bush Administration "propaganda" where Karen Hughes was talking non-stop about how wonderful it was for Muslims in America, what success stories they were, and how we had no problems with Islam at all. No, we get quite enough of that, and we certainly don't need more. It does nothing to protect our interests, and instead of weakening the hold of Islam on Muslims, makes them think that they are on the side that will inevitably grow stronger, and win.

11/12/2009 23:27 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part II

People of sense are dismayed. It is one thing to have someone in public life, anyone at all, at least present, sensibly and soberly, the facts about the ideology of Islam, and about the major theatre of the Jihad, which is not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, but in the countries of Western Europe. We’ve all been so busy creating a new America. That new America is now run by people who did not, as did an older political elite, travel to Europe and learn - really learn, not merely take a few courses in - the languages of Europe. They were at home with, if not everyone in Europe, at least with some in England or in France, who might have made a kind of grand tour of the Italian museums, who might be aware that whatever happened, America remained -- in its language, its literature, its art, its science, its political theory -- a child of Europe. And that did not change, could not change, no matter what changes in demography occurred because, say, of the changes in immigration laws passed too unthinkingly back in 1965.

The war in Afghanistan is based on a notion that because Al Qaeda was located there when the attacks of 9/11/2001 took place, that somehow Afghanistan retains pride of place, that without it Al Qaeda cannot exist, that it is the main refuge of "violent extremists" who apparently "just happen" to be Muslim.

The other day I heard Andrew Bacevich make a telling remark. He noted that this fixation on Afghanistan was akin to Americans thinking that in order to prevent assassination attempts on American presidents, that the School Book Depository in Dallas would till the end of time have to be massively guarded. It makes no sense. Where, after all, have the terrorists been who attacked the London Underground and busses, or the metro station at Atocha in Madrid, or who have been responsible for thousands of terrorist attacks (see Fort Hood, just a few weeks ago) all over the Western world? It’s absurd that Afghanistan should be made so much of. Let it slip back into the tribal society it was, where people enjoy making war on one another. If the Three-Cups-of-Tea Mortensen, if Sarah Chayes and her projects for women, can somehow continue, let them, but don’t make the mistake of holding onto Afghanistan at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, to make sure that Mortensen and Chayes and others feel good about "giving hope" to the people of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan are held back by Islam. If one were sincerely interested in their welfare, one would be cruel only to be kind, and realize that the best way to decrease the fatal hold of Islam on the minds of men is to allow things to degenerate, to longer try to improve things, no longer to try to prevent internecine warfare, no longer to try to rescue this or that Muslim society from the violence and aggression that are natural to peoples raised on the texts and tenets of Islam (some more so, and some less).

Afghanistan had a kind of brief period, under the Afghan King in the 1930s who so admired Ataturk, and as long as everyone stayed away, and Afghanistan remained a state in name only, with the writ of the King hardly extending beyond a few cities, things were semi-okay. The disruptions brought about by the Soviets, and by the Arabs who came in to fight the Soviets, have unsettled Afghanistan. We can’t and shouldn’t try to settle it. We are Infidels, and are incapable of doing so.

Those who now will tell us "but the surge worked in Iraq" don’t realize that it did not work, or rather, it worked only in the sense that Sunni Arab tribesmen in Anbar Province, who for good reasons of their own wanted to settle scores first (before moving on to the Shi’a in Bahgdad and the south) with members of Al-Qaeda, were happy to receive American money and American weapons, and to fight Al Qaeda. But that had nothing to do with being willing to accept the new dispensation in Iraq, nothing to do with accepting rule by the Shi’a Arabs, or domination, in northern Iraq, by the non-Arab Kurds (even if most of them are Sunni).

The constant repetition of this phrase "the surge worked" misreads that situation. Iraq will inevitably relapse into some kind of hostilities, based on ethnic and sectarian tensions that will not go away, that were not created by the Americans but have a long history. It is not the Americans who made the Sunnis despise the Shi’a, and also now to fear them, as possibly being successful in efforts to convert Sunnis (this at least is a fear expressed by Sunni political and media figures in Egypt and Jordan). It is not the Americans who caused Arab Muslims to treat with contumely the non-Arab Kurds, and to acquiesce or even support the mass-murdering of Kurds by Saddam Hussein - and the Kurds are not going to give up the autonomy, in the north, that they have enjoyed for almost twenty years, ever since 1991, when the Americans kept the skies over Kurdistan free from Saddam’s Arab air force.

11/12/2009 23:21 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part I

Fitzgerald: Obama Still Locked Into Folly In Afghanistan, Part I

I’ve been listening to various discussions, on the radio, or rather not discussions but exchanges of firmly held non-negotiable views, about Obama and his speech on Afghanistan. No one seems fully satisfied. Those who support Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops mostly dislike the announced pull-out of all American troops from Afghanistan after eighteen months, though since the speech was delivered, that promise has been glossed by Secretary Gates and others. Admiral Mullen, for example, on CBS News, said this: "It’s very clear that the president has given us guidance that in July of 2011, we’ll start to transition security responsibility to the Afghan national security forces," Mullen told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith. "There’s no determination of how long that will take... There’s no specific guidance with respect to how many. It could be very few, it could be a large number."

So all those worries about a definite date when the American troops absolutely, positively have to be out, that "date certain" (lots of people love saying that phrase - to them it sounds so Covington-and-Burlingish), are perhaps not necessary. For those who think the Afghan game worth the American candle, and judging by Mullen, Gates and others, the gloss to be put on Obama’s phrases admits of such flexibility about the phrase that not even W. C. Fields should bother his pretty little head and spend time "looking for loopholes." The "loopholes," Gates and Mullen assure us, are already there.

And then there are those who have had the opposite reaction, who are made furious by Obama’s decision. Many of these are his original, true-blue supporters. What do they talk about? They talk mainly about money. They are horrified - rightly - that another one or two hundred billion dollars is going to be spent in Afghanistan. They are well aware of what that money could do. Why, just $400 million of it would restore the cuts in Medicare that the Senate approved the other day. There would be no debate, there would not have to be any debate, about health care if the sums squandered in Afghanistan and Iraq had been kept at home. Nor would there be a problem with paying for road and bridge repairs all over the country, for tuition assistance for practically everyone, for energy projects. Oh, they have a point all right, those who talk about the money.

But they would be in a stronger position if one did not suspect that many of them also, at the same time, have no great interest in resisting, or even in recognizing, the Jihad. No one I have listened to who is against continuing the effort in Afghanistan has suggested all the other, much less expensive, more effective ways, to divide and demoralize the enemy, and to weaken the hold that the ideology of Islam has on its adherents. No one, in fact, mentions Islam at all, mentions the ways in which both the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant to the instruments of Jihad that really count, above all in the historic heart of the West, Europe. No one mentions the Money Weapon, and how it makes no sense to keep spending money - any money at all -- on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. No one mentions the need, if indeed one were to believe (no one should) that "jobs" would lessen the recruitment rate for the Taliban - for Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., and other fabulously rich Arab sheikdoms to be contributing billions and tens of billions to those states. For it was they who funded, they who diplomatically recognized, they who gave every assistance, through institutions and individuals, to the Taliban, and then the Taliban gave succor and refuge and aid to Al Qaeda.

So on the one hand, there are the Republican loyalists, the people who still implicitly must think (do they think?) that Muslims are essentially swell, that Islam itself is not a problem, that only some "violent extremists" are the problem -- though no one, ever, has come up with a single text, a single passage, that those "violent extremists" rely on that is not from the Qur’an, Hadith, or from the example furnished by Muhammad in the Sira. No one has dared to define the ideology of "violent extremists" that somehow is supposed to set them apart from the ideology of Islam itself. And of course they can’t. What they could do is instead ask themselves another question: in what ways do those who are not "violent extremists" manage to pursue the same goal, using slyer methods, especially in the Western world? And what are those instruments of Jihad - the very same Jihad, with the very same goals, but pursued through qitaal, or combat, and terrorism, by those "violent extremists" whom we all agree are very bad? If the ultimate goals are the same, shouldn’t we look to see not only how to diminish terrorism, but to deal with all the other weapons of Jihad - the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa, demographic conquest? This is something about which the Republican Senators and Congressmen are silent. They think they can continue to claim to be "tough-minded" by supporting troops, and more troops - that is, by supporting the squandering of men, money, materiel, and morale, both civilian and political. And they are opposed by people who won’t discuss Islam, as an ideology, at all, but will only talk about all the money that could be spent on other things.

11/12/2009 23:17 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Regarding the subject of moderate Muslims

Regarding the subject of moderate Muslims:

We have some mistaken ideas about these terms 'moderate' and 'extremist'. I think that most of the J.W readership know by now that it is entirely inaccurate to think of the extremists as being extremist or radical. They are not extreme, they are following the pure core teachings of islam and its commandment to jihad. So-called 'radical' or 'extremist' Islam is more correctly nothing more than traditional Islam, a return to the doctrine of jihad documented in Islamic scripture and history.

The jihadis claim to be more devout in their faith than the so-called moderates and, indeed, regard the moderates as non-practising Muslims. Anjem Chaudry, our vey own Islamic supremacist par excellence, tells us there are three types of Muslim - those in jail, those on their way to jail and those who are not practising. So to the jihadis, the great mass of peaceful muslims are relevant only as a source of recruits for warfare. From this large population, all of whom have received their basic Islamic indoctrination in the mosques and madrassas, the jihadis can identify those men and women who are more religiously minded. All it takes is for them to feed an extra dose of Islamic doctrine to these individuals in order to create more jihadis. In other words, it doesn't matter that the large Muslim communities in our countries are peaceful, it is the very presence of these docile masses that threatens our lives and our way of life, because it is from this pool of humanity that the jihadis draw their soldiers.

I have no doubt that most Muslims are indeed peaceful, but I wouldn't be the first to point out that the populations of communist Russia and China also lived perfectly peacefully, yet these states were responsible for the deaths of many millions. The peaceful majority were irrelevant and in no way deflected or restrained the evils carried out in their name. In the same way, the Muslim so-called moderates also render themselves irrelevant because of their silence.

We must not make the mistake of taking the so-called moderates as being politically moderate, as we would understand that to mean, in terms of holding politically moderate views. In Muslim terms these moderates are merely quiescent, passive followers of the same hostile political/religious doctrine which drives their more militant co-religionists. Surveys show that the vast majority of these moderates would still like to convert our countries to Islam and enact Sharia law.

Things are actually much simpler than they may seem, if we just sharpen up our way of thinking. It is more accurate to think of 'extremists' as 'active' and 'moderates' as merely 'inactive' but we must be mindful that we have no way of knowing, or reliably predicting when an inactive may choose to become active. Because of this dynamic, we have no choice but to view all Muslims as potentially dangerous. Indeed, not to do so would be irresponsible and dangerous. This is not our choice, it is not our doing, the responsibility lies with them. We are merely looking at the problem objectively and defending ourselves appropriately.

Rather than regard Islam as a religion, we should see it for what it really is, a hostile political movement dedicated to the overthrow of our society and Muslims are either active or inactive within that political movement. If they are active, they must be neutralised and destroyed. If they are inactive, they are simply irrelevant. But the assertion that most muslims are peaceful does nothing to safeguard our security and is certainly no reassurance that we are in any way safe.

In support of your argument it should be noted that the Muslim female who proclaimed herself so insulted and offended by hearing a few home truths rationally stated by those Christian hotel-keepers in the UK, was not a born-and-bred-in-the-sandbox Muslim of Arab or Indian or Persian or north/ northeast African or Malay ethnicity, not a Fatima or an Aisha, but...*Ericka* Tazi, an ethnically-European, formerly-Catholic recent *convert* to Islam.

She is referred to in the article Mrs J linked, as "Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim 18 months ago".

More details about Mrs Tazi's conversion/ cult initiation:

"The former Roman Catholic from Warrington, who converted to Islam last year, gave evidence after swearing an oath to Allah and kissing the Koran.
She wore a hijab and ankle-length gown in court similar to the outfit she was wearing on the day of the alleged confrontation.
She told the court she had worn Western clothes until the final day of her course {presumably, 'course' = 'indoctrination into Islam' - dda}."

So: what does this newly-minted Muslimah do? Goes right off and starts picking quarrels, playing the victim, acting offended and waging lawfare; in other words, behaving like...a pious Muslim. Her Mohammedan programming is installed and operating.

(We had a similar case in Australia: a woman of Maltese Catholic birth and upbringing, having converted to Islam, produced a quintessentially Muslim howl of discrimination and spew of exaggerated accusations - including the hysterical claim that she felt 'raped' - when a bus driver very properly, as a matter of public security policy, asked her to remove her yashmak before getting on board his bus). And for others, google 'Jihad Sheilas'.

Since new converts to any ideology are often its most enthusiastic exponents - and have often taken more trouble to find out about its basic tenets than those merely born into it - then the antisocial behaviour of so many new converts to Islam, whether it involves plotting jihad or engaging in false/ exaggerated claims of victimhood for purposes of lawfare, is very, very telling.

New converts to Judaism, Buddhism or Christianity don't normally become violent.

New converts to Islam, on the other hand...


Thanks for the reply. Your points regarding new converts are well taken.

As Jihad warfare proceeds against us at all levels within society, including lawfare (Ha! A lovely term) in the case of Mrs Tazi, and press propaganda in the case of your Australian yashmak-martyr, the poor dear, then by my own categorisation both these ladies have gone straight onto the active list.

I have no doubt the ideologists of the jihad would heartily approve of their actions too, because as we know, even if Mrs Tazi's case is laughed out of court and even if all rational Aussies view the de-yashmaked bus passenger's behaviour as hypersensitive borderline nutjob, the real agenda is to foster a fear of, and therefore unwillingness to challenge Muslim behaviours. It's a mind game, but it's by these tiny increments that the jihad against us is advanced.

I feel there's an important lesson for us here. Warfare being waged against us on a cultural level, such as through images and words or through the courts or by demands for preferential treatment is a war of nerves, but being aware of the various different tactics being used against us can only strengthen us. They may mount their attacks at every level of our society, but if we are aware of their true goals, and the methods they employ to achieve them, then the task of opposing them becomes far, far easier.

10/12/2009 12:07 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

"Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff,"

Free Speech Death Watch Alert: "Interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff," by S.M. Steinitz for profil (Austria's equivalent to "Time" magazine and "Der Spiegel"):

"I Am Against Dialogue"

A criminal complaint is being filed against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for "hate speech" under Austrian law, essentially the same thing that Susanne Winter was convicted of early this year.

Elisabeth gave a presentation about Islam at an FPÖ-organized seminar, and said some of the usual things that anti-jihad advocates say when they talk about Islam. A left-wing magazine, which had planted someone in the audience, caused charges to be brought against her at the same time as they publicized it in their magazine.

Elisabeth held the controversial Islam Seminar at the FPÖ-political academy. Charges of defamation of a religious group have been filed against the daughter of a diplomat. This is her only interview in which she explains her views.

Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, are you afraid of Muslims?

No, I am afraid of political Islam, which is massively gaining influence in Europe. That is what I am against.

What is your goal?

I want to preserve Europe and its democratic and secular values.

What bothers you about the Islamic way of life?

Islamic doctrine discriminates against women and non-Muslims. Islamic law, or shariah, cannot be reconciled with democratic principles and universal human rights.

Do you see the need for that?

There are powerful groups who are working towards the Islamization of Europe. That is a fact. What can we gain from closing our eyes and ignoring this? Even Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." A head of state confirms what our politicians deny. What else has to happen until we finally get it?

There are people who see the growth of Islam in Europe as an opportunity for a completely re-engineered pluralistic society.

The vision of a pluralistic society does not withstand a reality check. Show me one example where this has been a success. Wherever Muslims have been given the opportunity for self-organization they have established parallel societies. See Berlin-Kreuzberg, see Lyon. See also Great Britain, where parts of shariah have been implemented.

Do you really think that Austrian culture is endangered?

I see signs of an erosion of our way of life. In large cities massive changes are evident in the streets. There are discussions about a ban on teaching the Turkish sieges of Vienna; St. Nicholas is banned from visiting children in [public] kindergartens.

And you want to change that.

Yes, very much. But why is that so bad? In Bhutan, the king is applauded because he allows only a certain number of foreigners into the country. He prescribes a certain dress code and mandatory cultural events. Bhutan is a small country that wants to retain its cultural identity in a globalized world. Austria is also a small country with similar challenges. Why is the one country commended and the other berated?

According to NEWS, you defamed Islam. That is why NEWS has filed charges citing defamation of religion. Your reply?

One can report anyone to the authorities. I am not guilty of defamation. And even if some consider my words harsh, I definitely did not make them in a public forum since the seminars were held before a group of people who registered beforehand.

You are accused of making the following statements, among others: "Muslims rape children because of their religion", or "Mohammed enjoyed contact with children." Why the polemics?

This is a clever strategy. You and all the others who are now crying wolf are locked in a choice of words. As a result you are able to maneuver yourselves away from the main point. It is a fact that Mohammed married a six-year-old at the age of 56. To this day men in Islamic countries view this as legitimizing marriage to a minor, thereby causing rape and life-long trauma. This is the problem we need to address, and not how circumscribe this bitter reality.

Are you afraid that these customs will become part of Europe?

There are groups who have this goal. In every Islamic system you find that human rights of young girls are in grave danger. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at the former socialist South Yemen. When Khomeini came to power he lowered the minimum age for girls to get married to nine years.

You are being accused of Islamophobia. Does this bother you?

A phobia is an irrational fear. My worries are not irrational, but justified. One of these days our politicians will have to recognize this fact. People like me are not right-wing xenophobes.

But what are you?

We are people defending the principles of freedom and equality in a secular society. I criticize political Islam and its political manifestations. No democratic country can take this right away from anyone.

Why do critics of Islam nearly always use polemics?

And what [if not polemics] did the article in NEWS use? There are comments about my body, there is ridicule about how I eat. Sexist attacks below the belt against women making unpopular statements are a manifestation of a male-dominated system. There are many critics of Islam. However, it's always women like Brigitte Bardot or Oriana Fallaci who are attacked below the belt.

Leading politicians have sharply criticized your seminars. Are they all members of a male-dominated system?

These politicians do not know the contents of my seminars. All they know are out-of-context quotes from an article in a glossy magazine. I also find the reaction of these politicians strange. They get away with much worse.

For instance?

SPÖ secretary general Laura Rudas, who calls for a public ban of the headscarf. I would not do something like that.

On the other hand, you are being compared to Susanne Winter (FPÖ). She was convicted of defamation because she accused the prophet Mohammed of pedophilia.

I do not want to be compared to Susanne Winter. There are no similarities between us. She is an active politician, she acts in a public forum. I do not.

You hold your seminars for the FPÖ-Political Academy.

But I am not politically active. I am also not a member of FPÖ. What I do is offer seminars on the topic of Islam and I can be booked. The FPÖ academy did just that. I do not want to comment on Susanne Winter's statements. But in my opinion she does not know much about Islam.

In what way are you qualified to hold these seminars?

I have an M.A. in Diplomatic and Strategic Studies. I spent part of my childhood in Islamic countries, worked and lived there. I have personally experienced life in Islamic societies and I see evidence of a trend towards the Islamization of Europe.

How do you view yourself?

I am a mother and a feminist. I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.

In your seminar you do not distinguish between Muslims and Islamists.

Oh yes, I do. I do that because I know how much Muslims worldwide are suffering under the Islamic yoke. I say that in all my seminars, only NEWS did not bother to quote that. Why do think so many Muslims try to escape from Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan? Because life there is unbearable.

So you want to liberate Muslims from Islam?

Muslims have to liberate themselves; from this static and tenacious Islam that is hellbent on following norms from the seventh century. The result is that wherever there are Islamic societies there is no progress, but steps backwards, especially in the realm of human rights and democracy.

But isn't the referendum on the minaret ban in Switzerland also a step backwards?

The result of the referendum is the best proof that politicians should finally take the Islamization of Europe seriously.

What do you think about the reaction from the Islamic world regarding the referendum?

The Islamic world leads in discrimination against religious minorities. Christians are persecuted and discriminated against in all Islamic countries. You have to remember that the Christian culture is not one that immigrated or is foreign; it is indigenous. There is a complete ban on building churches in Turkey. And now Erdogan speaks of discrimination against Muslims in Switzerland? Where are Muslims being discriminated against in Switzerland? The European elite allows the Islamic countries to walk all over themselves while bowing down to them.

Are you in favor of a ban on minarets in Austria?

I will not answer that. Instead, I will quote the now so agitated Turkish prime minister who once said, "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

Do you feel misunderstood?

Above all, I believe that my rights are being curtailed. Currently I do not notice that I have freedom of speech or opinion.

Haven't you yourself strained this right?

No, I don't believe I did. Above all, I did not speak publicly. What is all the commotion about?

But now it has become public.

I only say out loud what others are thinking. But these concerns are not taken seriously.

Are you against a dialogue with the Islamic world?

I am against a dialogue with political Islam. I am, however, in favor of a broad discussion about human rights and personal freedoms.

You criticize Islam as discriminating. What do mean by that?

Just one example: In Islam non-Muslims are called kuffar, non-believers. These infidels are all defamed and not considered equal. This is offensive. Where are the protests?

What are your negative experiences in Islamic countries?

People in these countries are continuously restricted. This leads to aggressions and reporting people to the authorities and other absurd situations. For example, a (Coptic) member of the Austrian embassy in Kuwait was verbally abused at the post office because he was mailing Christmas letters. It was Ramadan and he must not eat or drink publicly. He said, surprised, "But I am not eating!" "Oh yes, you are. You are licking off the adhesive part of the stamp." This is daily routine in an Islamic society.

Can you really use a single occurrence as an example?

I can tell you hundreds of similar single occurrences. This story is not a single case, but a social program.

Will you continue with your seminars?

Yes. There are requests coming in from all over Austria. I will continue to defend my right to freedom of speech. I will not be gagged.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, 38, is the daughter of a retired diplomat. She spent parts of her childhood during the Khomeini Revolution in Iran. She later spent time in Iraq and Kuwait. In 1990, she and other Austrians were held hostage during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. She was employed at the Austrian embassies in Kuwait and Libya. From 1995-7 she was a member of the then-vice-chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel. Sabaditsch-Wolff represents the Citizens' Movement Pax Europa on an international level.

05/12/2009 22:23 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Left's love affair with Islam

I was at High school when the Iranian revolution happened.
I do remember the look on the faces of the leftists as they were led away to their deaths, the look of shock & surprise.
Once the ayotollahs had power the left was finished, they had served their purpose.

What was it that Stalin was reported to have said " I love to look at the faces of people who thought they could trust me, when they were led away to their execution, the look of surprise" or something like that.

All the lefties I have known are also anti American/British & western in general. Some of them regard islam as an ally against capitalism, they think that once the west is defeated it will usher in some kind of utopia.
Alot of them are genuinly in thrall to islam, they may even take the view that its victory is inevitable so maybe they should side with it now.

Either way they have a very unpleasant surprise coming to them.
As cruel as it may seem, we need in the west, acid thrown in the faces of women, stoning to death, crucifiction,more honour killings, gays being killed, we need sharia for moslems only. Then when the left see's the horror that will come in the event of a full islamist takeover, they may change their views.

The worst has to come before the tide will turn. islam is it's own worst enemy.

02/12/2009 12:51 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The Left's love affair with Islam

The Left’s love affair with Islam
By Chuck Hustmyre

The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell.

The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life. Through the legal machinations of its lapdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Left has banned Christmas from public schools, nativity scenes from City Hall, and the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

In liberal newspeak, "Happy holidays" has replaced "Merry Christmas." Holiday trees have replaced Christmas trees, and Christmas break has become "fall break."

Yet a few years ago, seventh-grade students in California were required to participate in a religious studies program during which they were told to wear Muslim clothing, memorize passages from the Quran, and choose an Islamic name for themselves.

Interestingly enough, the ACLU did not file a lawsuit.

The American Left champions causes such as gay rights (including gay marriage), equality for women (suffrage, the right to work, etc.), and religious freedom (usually in the form of freedom from religion). Yet, fundamentalist Islam opposes nearly everything the American Left stands for.

In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Iran, a top government official recently said that torture followed by death is the appropriate punishment for being gay.

In Saudi Arabia, women can’t vote, run for public office, or drive cars. Women are routinely jailed and beaten for merely being in the presence of a man not related to them. The Saudi version of Dr. Phil provides televised lessons to men on how to properly beat their wives.

In many Islamic countries, women are forced into arranged marriages and held as property by their husbands, something not exactly in line with progressive Western thinking. In some Muslim countries, women aren’t even allowed to decide what clothes to wear. To reveal even the smallest patch of skin is a crime.

Religious freedom is often nonexistent under Islamic rule. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, people who convert from Islam to another religion face public execution.

So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?

In this country, a shadow army of apologists works tirelessly to provide alternative explanations for faith-based Islamic violence--shootings, bombings, stabbings, and beheadings. These shadow soldiers work in government, media, and on college campuses. Most are members of the American Left. The rest are bureaucrats who have been cowed by the omnipresent specter of political correctness. You hear these apologists every time a Muslim goes berserk and murders people in the name of Islam.

That’s an important distinction I’d like to be clear about. Every week someone goes nuts in this country and commits a sensational crime that captures the attention of the media for a few days. Last weekend, a convicted felon from Arkansas murdered four Seattle-area cops at a coffee shop. Before that, some nut shot up an Orlando office building.

Truly impulsive and insane acts of violence are unpredictable. But when horrific violence is based on a theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and global conquest, there are usually plenty of warning signs. According to the FBI, imams preach jihad in at least 10 percent of the United States’ 2,000 mosques.

Certainly Army Major Nidal Hasan signaled his intent when he told fellow Army doctors that infidels (those who don’t accept Allah as the one true God) should have their heads cut off and have burning oil poured down their throats. After telling everyone around him that non-Muslims should be killed and that the U.S. Army was engaged in a war against Islam, Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Practically before the sounds of the last gunshots had faded, professional apologists in government and the media were saying Hasan was not a terrorist and that the shootings had nothing to do with his belief in Islam. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nidal Hasan is a jihadist and he committed mass murder because of his belief in Islam.

Nearly a month after the shootings, the American Left is blaming the Ft. Hood murders on everything but Islam. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley took the opportunity of announcing the expansion of the city’s Arabic language program in public schools to blame the killings on America’s love affair with guns.

Other apologists blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming Hasan, a psychiatrist, suffered from "secondary trauma" after hearing of the horrors of war from the soldiers he was counseling. Still others invented a new psychological malady, pre-traumatic stress disorder, meaning the mere thought of going into a combat zone so traumatized Hasan that he snapped.

The proof that all of these excuses are just so much hot air is that Hasan himself told us why he shot more than 40 people before he did it.

Major Hasan’s business card identified him as a "Soldier of Allah." He was in email contact with a militant Muslim imam who fled the United States and now operates in Yemen. He tried several times to contact al Qaeda.

To anyone but an American Left apologist, Hasan’s motive for murdering 13 fellow soldiers and wounding another 30 is quite clear: He did it because he was fighting for Islam. As Hasan repeatedly told fellow Army doctors, he is a Muslim first, an American second.

In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too.

Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals.

The mistake the Left is making is that its so-called progressive goals have nothing in common with the medieval tenants of fundamentalist Islam. Militant Muslims have no respect for American progressives, any more than they respect the very existence of Israel.

Fundamentalist Islam is using the American Left to advance its own agenda. Militant Muslims want Islam and sharia law to dominate the West. Their goal is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and our way of life to the will of Allah. The word Islam means submission.

What members of the American Left seem blind to is the fact that in countries where Islam dominates, their progressive ideas would be crushed and many of them would be thrown in jail simply because of their lifestyle choices.

Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam.


Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists.

Last year, publishing giant Random House canceled the publication of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina because it might be offensive to some Muslims. According to its own press release, the publisher feared Muslim violence against its offices and employees. Apparently, Random House’s fears were well founded.

In September 2008, three Muslim terrorists firebombed the home and office of the British publisher who bought the rights to the novel.

In 2006, the Apple computer company drew howls of rage from Muslims who claimed the glass cube the company built outside its midtown Manhattan store was modeled on the Kaaba, the Muslim shrine in the Saudi city of Mecca, and was meant as an insult to Islam.

The American Left’s affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam’s hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends.

So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won’t bite the hand that feeds them their excuses.


Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. For more information visit www.chuckhustmyre.com.

01/12/2009 20:49 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

The war, the world-wide war

The war, the world-wide war, is primarily one of ideologies. The hold of Islam on the minds of its adherents is extaordinary. Usually that hold is obvious, is visible. But Islam also teaches, and Muslims are well-versed in, the craft and art of deception. "War is deception" Muhammad famouslly said. They can smile, and indeed the Qur'an and Hadith teach them to smile, when necessary, even when there is murder in their hearts. And the hold of Islam, at times intermittently seemingly relaxed, can suddenly or gradually take hold again of the minds of those who might, temporarily, appear to have become relaxed or unobservant or lapsed Muslims. It has happened so many times, to so many people mentioned at JihadWatch, that one wonders how any non-Muslim security services, or armies, or police forces, dare any longer to believe that they can trust, in any real sense, any of those who are Muslims. From the imam who supposedly was a useful police informant, but who tipped off Najibullah Zazi, to the many Muslims who took part in rally-round-the-American-flag or Interfaith-Healing rallies after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and then were discovered to have said before, and also after, bloodcurdling things about America and about non-Muslims, leading not a few to suddenly flee abroad (for example, one of the prime movers of the Boston Mosque), all of this should be carefully written up, with example after example, and distributed to the military, to the police, to the security services. A good knowledge not only of the texts and tenets of Islam, but perhaps even more importantly, of the attitudes, and the atmospherics, of Islam -- that affect even the most worldlly, even those who seem so much, outwardly, like us -- see Ambassador haqqani, for example, now attacked by others in Pakistan for being too "pro-American" by cleverly having extracted another 7.5 billion in American aid, will now be thought by some in Washington (perhaps by Senator Kerry, who no doubt has entertained, or been entertained, by Husain Haqqani and his winsome Ispahani wife, such a useful helpmeet in times like this). Haqqani is a deep defender of Islam, and a clever mis-representer, in his own charming and smooth self, of Islam to the naive. Being naive is one thing. Being naive because one is almost wilfully ignorant of Islam, and the varieties of deception that Muslims are capable of, and even the varieties of self-deceptiion (how many of those "liberals" -- from Ayman Nour in Egypt, to Pinky Bhutto in Pakistan -- exhibit surprising attitudes explicable only by reference to the deep unshakeable effect of Islam?) that Muslims practice. When even a self-declared non-believer as Kanan Makiya bristles when the matter of Islam is raised, or writes about the Arab massacre of Kurds and puzzles over the silence of Arab "intellectuals" on these massacres, failing to recognize the nature of Islam, and the Arab supremacism of which Islam has always been, and always will be the vehicle, one realizes just how remarkable is the hold of Islam, the residual hold, even on many of those who, outwardly, now seem to be our sort, people wh think and act like Westerners. Don't be fooled, even when they fool themselves.

The Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim may still relapse, or may still, in choosing to call himself a Muslim, be open to such relapse. And in any case, the existence of such people, especially the practiced cheats and charmers among them, such as Husain Haqqani, helps to deceive unwary Infidels about the nature of Islam. Why, attacks on such people, by other Muslims still more extreme, sets up the mental equivalent of those optical illusions, where a box that is smaller than another can actually appear to be larger, depending on the surrounding visual context.

The unwillingness of a Muslim to declare himself, even to himself, an apostate, one who comes to recognize that "reform" is not possible (as the truth-telling Magdi Allam finally realized) in Islam, and to recognize its effects on minds (taught not to question, but to acquire the habit of mental submission), and hearts (taught to hate all non-Muslims, and to see the world as divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, and a state of permanent war -- though not necessarily of open warfare -- to exist between the two camps)means that he must always be considered as, potentially, someone who will turn. Given the fashion, in policy-making circles, to have at least one Muslim on the staff to advise -- Vali Nasr for Holbrooke, Daria Mogahed for Obama, and who knows who is on staff for Hillary Clinton -- or the dangerous reliance on venal and sinister apologists for Islam. Think of John Esposito, think of Raymond Close, think of Eugene Bird and Mrs. Bird, think of James Akins, think of all those outwardly-respectable former diplomats to Arab countries, who now, well-ensconced in sinecures at those foreign policy groups that ostentatiously wrap themselves in the mantle of "American national interest" (as opposed, you see, to those "pro-Israel groups" that cannot possibly be promoting the "American national interest") and who are supported, directly or indirectly, by Arab money who for years have misrepresented Arab and Muslim attitudes and intentions, and have essentially been, and remain, shills for the Arabs not only in the obvious case, that of sweetly promoting the "Palestinians" -- that is, the shock troops of the still-unreocgnized Jihad against Israel, but also in such matters as energy policy, where without a recognition of the use, by the Saudis and others, of the Money Weapon, in funding the world-wide Jihad, there is unlikely to be the kind of support for taxes on oil and gasoline that, for other reasons, are needed).

Deception may be obvious in the case of this policeman in Afghanistan, or in the many other such examples of Afghan or Iraqi police and army who turned on their Infidel trainers and supposed comrades-in-arms, or for that matter, the examples of Muslims in the American military who killed fellow, but non-Muslim, soldiers, or deserted to the other side, or offered to provide intelligence so that attacks could be made on their units or their ships.

But Deception, Muslim deception, about the nature of Islam, and therefore about the permanent and immutable threat of Muslim populations to the non-Muslims among whom they have been allowed, so naively and so dangerously, to settle -- that is not yet recognized, that is not yet obvious to more than a few. But it will be.

04/11/2009 19:04 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

"Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."

The chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, provoked ridicule when he said last week that "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar."




Give Obama his due. He wrote two books, about himself. They show someone fascinating by his own "improbable" history. They do not show someone whose mind is a well-stocked library, who is deeply familiar with history, that is with men and events in the past, a familiarity that was the hallmark of the memoirs of political figures who wrote in the past. When Clemenceau, or Lord Grey of Falloden, or Viscount Morley, wrote about their lives and times, they also showed a keen awareness of, a knowledge of, other places, other times, and those who particpated in the events of the past, and those who wrote about them.

In Obama's works, we see -- Barack Obama. He is the hero, at times winningly self-deprecating, but still the hero, of his tale. I doubt if he mentions Herodotus or Thucydides, or Pericles or Plato, or Aristotle or Aristophanes, or Cicero or Livy, or Caesar or Caesar Augustus. That's okay. But he also fails to mention all those who, beyond classical antiquity, have been read and understood by, Lord Grey,,and Viscount Morley, and other writers of celebrated memorials. Not Hobbes or Locke or Hume, not Montesquieu, not Bentham or Mill, not Bagehot or Oakeshott, nothing to indicate that he is more than an ordinarly-educated American kid who came out of the colleges and law schools of the last two to three decades, after the collapse, that is, in so many places, of the teaching of both history and literature. He's just a little too self-made for my taste. Would that he had studied history, would that his two memoirs, so lacking in depth, gave some sense that he was not born yesterday, did not believe that his three years as a kid in a most unrepresentive (Muslim) school in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) city at a most unrepresentative (Muslim) time in a most unrepresentative (Muslim) country made him knowledgeable about Islam, would that his acceptance of the Idols of the Age (his books reek with rhetorical incense to those Idols) were not subject, at this point, to deep re-examination, so that they might no longer be objects of accepted worship or burnt offerings or genuflection but, rather, determinedly overturned.

03/11/2009 00:01 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

British immigration policies an attempt "to make the UK truly multicultural'"

The man suffering from Adult-Onset Islam above missed my point, missed all kinds of points, in his animated reply. He speaks of "colonialism" and "imperialism," those old standbys, but in doing so, he fails to recognize that Islam itself, or rather the Arab supremacism of which Islam is a vehicle, has been the most successful imperialism, for the Arabs, in history, above all, and most damaging for those who were first islamized and then arabized (some peoples managed to resist the second -- see Iran, for example), led to a forgetting, by the conquered countries, of their own pre-Islamic past. Christian missionaries translated the Bible into many local languages, and in many cases, that preserved those languages for they had never been written down before. But the Arabs were different. They had no interest in the preservation of local languages; indeed, as recently as a few years ago the Arabs in Algeria were still attempting to stamp out, by forbidding the use outside the home of, Tamazight, the Berber language. Christianity has a universal message, but it is not one that turns everyone into a little Englishman or Frenchman or Italian. But with Islam it is different. Ideally one should take an Arab name, read the Qur'an only in Arabic, turn Meccawards five times a day, and sedulously ape the morals and manners of seventh-century Arabs living in the Hijaz. The late Anwar Sheik, who left Islam, wrote a number of piercing studies, and one was entitled "Islam: The Arab National Religion." 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arabs. They do not possess the easy oil wealth of the rich Arabs of the Gulf. They may, as they learn more about Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism (and why has the C.I.A. not had Anwar Sheikh's book translated into three dozen languages, and subsidized its publication and distribution in those languages, the way it once did for certain books in Russian, and so successfully?). Imperialism? Colonialism? The most successful of all imperialisms, of all colonialisms, is that of the Arabs, and it is going strong.

As for the "violent confrontational paths" -- my point was that the less we have to do with Muslim peoples, the less troops we send to them, in the vain hope of changing their ways without somehow changing their belief in Islam (which we pretend is just fine, means nothing, when it is the very thing that looms largest in the lives, and explains the behavior and attitudes, of Muslims), is nonsense. The less aid they send them -- none should be sent, for it makes no sense to support those who are not only your mortal civilisational enemmies, but who should be forced to confront, by enduring, the consequences of Islam that result in economic backwardness that is only temporarily hidden by the vast unmerited oil (and natural gas) wealth, a wealth that through taxation by the oil-consuming countries, and great, necessary, changes in energy policy, can and will be diminished.

My entire strategy, the one I have harped on for the last five years, is to do everything not to increase but to limit contacts with Muslims. Do not give them access to Western education and Western technology, with which to hasrm us. Do not allow them into our countries. Do not make our countries Islam-friendly but, either through private initiative, or through government action, make sure that no comprommises are made, no yieldings, no surrenders, to Muslim demands for changes in anything. Do not allow Muslims to dictate, and even to rewrite, our textbooks and our history. Do not allow Muslims to silence discussion of Islam, especially by apostates from Islam, such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam. Do not allow, at any level, silencing of intelligent discussion of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Do not allow foreign governments and individuals to transfer vast sums to support such groups as CAIR, to buy up influence at colleges and universities, to pay for a small army of Western hirelings -- academics, journalists, businessmen, former diplomats and intelligence agents -- as has been allowed, in the capitals of the West, for too long.

There is much more. But Islam, the threat of Islam, the instruements of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest -- can be recognized, anlayzed, and checked or checkmated. This does not require what the Adult-Onset Muslim poster calls "violent confrontation." Remove troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and more importantly, end all aid. Then watch the spectacle in those countries, and in Somalia, and in Yemen, and everywhere -- and as the Arabs begin to realize, with a panic, that they will no longer be bailed out, in a thousand ways, by the West, that panic will lead to still more divisions, ethnic and sectarian and economic, and more demoralization, and more strife.

And we can watch, and so can the world's Muslims, as we show them not only that we now, in sufficient numbers, grasp the nature of Islam and its effects on the minds of men, but that we understand, and what's more can explain, just how the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states, societies, even families or individuals, suffused with Islam, are explained by Islam itself, its teachings, and the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally arise from those teachings. It will be fun. It will be bracing. And it will minimize the need for military or "violent" confrontation.

I am amazed at how long it has taken, by dint of constant repetition, to win over readers to this site. And I am amazed at how long it will take, apparently, to convince those who are slip-sliding on banana peels still along the corridors of power where, for example, all the wrong reasons, or vague reasons, or no coherent reasons at all, were given for the folly in Iraq, and are now being given for the Af-Pak folly, when there are much cheaper, easier, and not at all less ruthless ways, of dealing with the world-wide threat that the adherents of the ideology of Islam pose to the well-being of the West, and indeed to the well-being of All the Rest.

28/10/2009 14:33 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Hugh Fitzgerald's classic essay Douce France,

Imagine that you are a cosseted member of the French elite. One child is doing the khâgne, aiming for rue d'Ulm. Another is now a politechnicien. You are very comfortable, working for the state. You and your spouse are journalists, or writers, or one of that vast tribe of people conducting "recherches" and life is comfortable, good, the way it should be. Yes, you do notice more and more Muslims about you as you walk, no longer in the banlieues, but in the center of Paris, or Toulouse, or Lyon. And you remember how uneasy you felt, four years ago, when you happened to be walking on the Cannebière in Marseille. You decided, then and there, that you would not return.

And you have friends who live in the south. And they tell you that the beurs - some call them maghrébins -- make life hell for everyone. They attack French children on the way to school. They vandalize cars. They threaten, and do more than threaten, anyone who is still foolish enough to walk out wearing a kippah or a cross. Whole areas of cities in the south, as in the north, and east, and west, have become off-limits to non-Muslims. In the schools, the teachers have lost authority. They cannot even cover the subjects of World War II, the Resistance, and the murders of the Jews as the state prescribes; they fear, with reason, the violent reaction of the Muslim students.

And as the schools become more and more dangerous for non-Muslim students and teachers, with more time and resources devoted to discipline rather than to learning, French parents and would-be parents are now silently factoring into their childbearing plans the present value of the future cost of what, they see, will now have to be added: private school tuition. And that means, of course, that those French people will plan on smaller families. And they will also be factoring in the growing cost, paid by them, those French taxpayers, for the whole expanding edifice of security, the guards in the schools, the guards at the train stations and métro stations and airports and at government buildings everywhere, the costs of keeping the gravestones from being vandalized, the costs of protecting the synagogues and the churches, the costs for all those tapped phones and agents in mosques, and subsidies to lawyers and judges to hear charges and try cases against Muslims, and the costs of monitoring da'wa in the prisons (more than 50% Muslim).

But the Muslims are indifferent to expenses incurred by the French state. France is part of the world; the world belongs to Allah, and to his Believers. That doctrine has remained immutable for 1400 years. Imam Bouziane, the one they keep trying to deport, had 16 children by two wives, all living on the French state: a representative Muslim man. Over time, the difference between average family size of Muslims and non-Muslims steadily increases. And, over time, the education system continues to disintegrate. Right now, perhaps, you cannot see it. Your children go to the best schools, followed by the best lycées. You vacation in Normandy, or Brittany, or the Ile de Ré. And you do not take the metro often enough, or walk in the right districts, or work in the right factories or offices, to understand what tens of millions of your fellow Frenchmen now have to endure. You, for the moment, are still immune, still willfully unaware. You have spent the last few decades learning about the Muslim world from Eric Rouleau, and his epigones (after they silenced Peroncel-Hugoz, the one journalist who reported the truth) in Le Monde. You are deeply-versed in the constantly reported-upon, endlessly dilated-upon, perfidy of the mighty empire of Israel. You know what we have all had dinned into us: that the Arab Muslims are reasonable people, with clearly-justified grievances, grievances so reasonable and so limited in scope, that justice demands they be satisfied. Everyone agrees on the "solution." It is called a "two-state solution" and of course it is a "solution" for otherwise, of course, it would not have been called a "solution."

And everything looks the way it always has looked: the linden trees, the river, the bridges, the réverbères, the étalage in the neighborhood boulangerie. Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance. At the end of the school day, chic mothers still congregate in little towns, or small cities, outside the school - this or that Ecole Jules Ferry -- waiting to pick up their children. Here come the littlest ones, from Maternelle, running up now -- just look at how small they are. And here are the CE1 group, with those huge cartables on their tiny backs. Run, run, run, to Mommy. Oop-la. And then the years of study, study, study marked by ever-larger cahiers -- "cahier" and "cartable" are the words that identify French DNA better than Piaf or gauloises, isn't that true? And now we will read the books, and study the subjects, set down so completely and precisely by the Ministry of Education. And now we are up to the final year, preparing for the Bac, with copies of blue-backed BALISES, guides to Les Châtiments and La Peau de Chagrin. And just look at the results listed in the newspaper: Claire-Alix has a mention très bien. Fantastic. Everything is fine, everything will always stay the same, whole countries cannot change. It's not possible.

But it is changing, coming apart, quietly, slowly -- let's not look too closely, we mustn't pay too much attention -- the streets, the schools, the hospitals, the ability to speak the truth about things, about life as it is lived, la vita vissuta as they like to say in a neighboring country. Dominique de Villepin always knew there was nothing to worry about; he was born, after all, in Salé, next to Rabat, even spent a few years of his infancy there; of course he knows his Arabs, his Muslims. And surely Eric Rouleau, who for decades in Le Monde was the resident expert on the Middle East (he was so knowledgeable that he never had to so much as mention the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunna), surely he knew everything, didn't he? And those French translations of Edward Said that denounced with such passion the Islamophobia, and those vicious cliches with which the blind and rotting West has always caricatured the Arab Muslim world. Oh, we have been so terrible to the Arabs, we colonialists, we French, we Westerners. And then there is the never-ending outrage of Israel, that running colonial sore. Of course, they have every right, those Muslims, to come here to France. We went to their countries once, now they come to ours. And they have every right to hate us, don't they?

So now we have decided not to understand, and to cut all ties of sympathy to, Israel -- and how did we ever have any sympathy for it in the first place, the way some of our parents did back in 1948 or 1956 or 1967? How could they not have seen what the "Palestinian people" had to endure? Hanan, Yasser, Said, Saeb, Aziz, Walid, Rashid, Mohammed -- you have won our hearts and minds. Take us, do with us what you will.

No one will mention what is happening or what kinds of things we must begin to think about doing to save ourselves. No one of any decency. And whatever Le Pen and Megret say, we must say the opposite (except, of course, when they show their hostility to "the Jews"). Do not say those things, do not think them. Free thought is all very well in theory, but really -- consider the consequences. Don't dare to think outside that box brimming with idées reçues. Défense de penser au dehors du box.

No, everything will be all right as you stroll down the Avenue Paule-Anne. Those Muslims will never be a match for us. Why, just look at those legionnaires marching à pas lent down the Champs-Elysées, think of that string of desert victories. Inside our heads, it is 1930 and over here is the Exposition coloniale. You remember, tu t'en souviens, that painting by le Douanier Rousseau, don't you, with the burnoosed Arab standing next to the black Senegalese? I have it right, don't I? France will always be France. Nothing will ever change.

At a certain point, and despite everything that causes you not to see what is staring you in the face, you realize that something has gone irreparably wrong with your country, and you, and your children, are in danger of losing that country, down to every village and house, qui m'est une province et beaucoup davantage. And you do not know what to do, or how to explain this feeling to others, or in whom to confide your secret fears, or what can be done. It is so confusing, and so upsetting. You cannot vote for Le Pen. You cannot endorse "cowboy" Bush or those ridiculous Americans. You have no place to go.

And then you learn what Jacques Chirac -- who now has a Muslim grandchild himself -- and Dominique de Villepin, do not wish you to learn. For if you did, you might be very angry. You discover that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France today is a Muslim baby. And that means, in 20 years, one of every three 20-year-olds in France will be a Muslim twenty-year-old. And that means, twenty years after that, at present rates of reproduction, France will have a majority Muslim population. Where shall we hide the statues from Marly-le-roi? And the Venus de Milo? And what about all those paintings of animated life -- all those portraits in the Louvre, and the Grand Palais, and the Musée Guimet down there in linden-lined Aix, and everywhere else in art-filled artful France, mère des arts, des armes, et des loix -- that are absolutely forbidden according to the immutable strictures of the Qur'an. Should they be sent for safekeeping to those Americans across the seas? By then most of the Jews in France will have left, gone across the oceans for their own safekeeping, to Israel or to English-speaking Canada (they were worried about the Muslim population of Quebec, you see, which had been allowed to grow under the Province of Quebec's policy of encouraging francophone immigrants, preferring North Africans to potential immigrants from Italy, Greece, Spain), and above all, to America. What luck those Americans have had. No more bequests to France by the likes of the Rothschilds, or Nissim Camondo. No more Donations from another Pierre Lévy. Enjoy the Kufic calligraphy; some find it endlessly fascinating.

For the moment, you allow yourself to believe that something will come up. Most likely, all those Muslims will simply convert. I mean, they do that, don't they, quite easily I'm told. Of course, why didn't I think of it, that is exactly what will happen. The situation is always saved in time. Just like during the war. Nothing to worry about. Nothing.

25/10/2009 23:34 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Obama Nobel Peace Prize winner?

The formidable Paris-based writer Nidra Poller explains why the President is a perfect recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize -- notably for his betrayal of Israel and aid to the global jihad:

Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? Not me. I'm delighted to see that the Nobel-Peace-Prize has been awarded to the person who most richly deserves it. Not only has he made gigantic efforts to promote Nobel-Peace in his nine short months in office but as president of the residually powerful United States of America he has the superforce to impose Nobel-style peace.

President and Nobel Prince of Peace Obama is not naïve, inept, inexperienced, or wet behind the ears. He is practicing what he preached. He has already fulfilled more promises than most voters ever suspected were being made. And the way things are going, only a miracle will keep him from delivering on the rest.

Bat Ye'or teaches us the meaning of peace in our times, the peace of dhimmitude, the peace that Nobel Norwegians have dutifully honored. It is the peace of convert or die...or hang in by the skin of your teeth. When the heads have been severed from the stiff necks that refuse Islam, when the converted have been folded into the prostrate masses of the ummah, the dhimmis hand over the keys to their granges, their wives and children, their hearts and minds, their lands and dwellings in exchange for a fragile peace requiring endless sacrifice and constant restraint.

This is the peace of dhimmitude, this is the peace Nobelly rewarded in...uhhh...Oslo, right? And B Hussein O is the most deserving laureate. On the very day the prize was announced, forty people were killed in a jihad attack in Peshawar Pakistan. Do you remember, way back when, during the campaign, he narrowed his eyes and said Iraq's a distraction, let me get my hands on the trigger and I'll take care of Pakistan. There you have it. A promise keeper of the first order. Iraq was also a distraction from Afghanistan. So mister Taliban tally your bananas, we've got other fish to fry, do your jihad thing and we'll lower our eyes, peace be upon you.

President Obama's Cairo speech alone earned him enough points to get this prize hands down. His bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. His consistent snubbing of European leaders. His betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic. His outstretched hand that reaches all the way to Iran's nuclear sites and protects them from rain, hail, and Israel. His betrayal of Persians yearning for democracy. His reluctance to look into McChrystal's ball and find some kind of half way plausible strategy for the overseas contingency whatchamegig in Afghanistan.

Am I being coy? Why haven't I mentioned his master plan for the nuclear disarmament of...


Leaving the best for last. Even if he had not done all of the above, dayenu, he would be worthy of being hoisted on high in the Nobel firmament because he has declared war on Jewish construction in choice neighborhoods of al Quds and wannabe Palestine. Donche know, if you want peace be prepared to make war. And if you want the peace of jihad, make war on the Jews. Point your finger at them like a smoking gun. Sock it to 'em like a latter day koranic saint. Grab them by the scruff of the neck and scold them for all the world to see. Sic 'em with Goldstone, saddle them with Abbas, and send them to bed without dinner and ammunition. They wanted planes to fight to win? Stop the program, cancel the contracts, and if they holler strangle them with peace. Play footsy with Hamas, set up a mahjong date with Ahmadinejad, make cuddly eyes at Assad, and secretly decorate the private quarters of the White House with shahid posters, who would dare to protest?

Did you hear the latest? Anonymous sources have leaked to the press a flood of indignation from the peaceful Obama to you know who in the holy land. Aha! You thought he was fed up because his moderate ally Abu Mazen has reverted to PLO same o same o? Stirring up trouble on the Temple Mount because a bunch of French tourists got in the way of some irate Palestinian rocks? Which naturally led the Palestinians to go on a rampage in the narrow lanes of the Old City. How can President Obama call for the creation of a Palestinian state the day after tomorrow when his protégés are rousing a billion and a half Muslims to protect al Aqsa...from French tourists?

No. That's not why the Nobelly anointed young man is indignant. He is pissed off because Israelis are badmouthing him. Big shots and little guys in the street and on the beach, officials and cab drivers and housewives and left wing columnists are criticizing him.

Watch out. Even a Nobel-Peace-Prizer can lose his temper and explode. But then, who would blame him? What's more dangerous for world peace, a flock of Taliban or a gaggle of chuzpadike Israelis?

Hail to the Chief for reaching out to the Taliban and forgiving them for he knows not what they do, reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in all its forms and machinations, reaching out to the democratically elected Ahmadinejad and drawing a veil over the rape of the innocents, reaching out to Putin over the half dead body of Georgia...and trying to close Gitmo if only the jack-in-the-box would sit down and shut up.

And if he manages to push his health care revolution bill down US throats, they'll give him the Nobel Prize for Medicine next year. On the other hand, if he can maintain double digit unemployment and bring the dollar down to parity with the yuan he could outdistance Mugabe for the Nobel Prize for Economics.

A Nobel Prize to the wise is sufficient: when you hear the word "peace" praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

10/10/2009 10:39 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Al-Arabiya network hopes Israel will fall within five years

now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S."

The "costs in blood and treasure" of paying directly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , in order to "win [unwinnable Muslim] hearts and minds," by all sorts of reconstruction, and to keep these countries together despite their ever-present internecine hostilities, and to pay for all sorts of Muslim regimes in order that their populations might be protected from the Lords of Misrule, and the economic and political and social failures of their societies [directly attributable to Islam itself], to such countries as Egypt and Jordan and even to the "Palestinian" "Authority" that would not exist for one minute without foreign, Infidel aid that keeps pouring in, and if on top of that one adds the twelve trillion dollars that has gone to the Muslim members of OPEC (11 of the 12 members, if one counts Muslim-dominated Nigeria, where the oil revenues never reaches the Christian south), amounts that had the Saudi lobby not throttled all attempts at taxes on oil and gasoline and other measures that could long ago have diminished OPEC oil revenues, had we in our calculations noted the tens of billions of dollars we now spend (and our allies in NATO hundreds of billions) to monitor, for obvious security reasons, the Muslims in our midst, and had we compared all that cost of dealing with, most ineffectively, the Jihad (the struggle by Muslims to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam)? Now compare those trillions spent, in the case of the aid and the military interventions quite unnecessarily, and ineffectively, because we are no better off with those expenditures, have won no hearts and no minds (and never could), and now compare what we get for giving Israel a few pitiful billion a year, and what we receive for that.

Israel is, with or without aid, a firm ally of the West, because it is part of the West, and will always be on the side of the West, will always work to fight the Jihad because Israel itself is the victim of a permanent Jihad. Stop for one minute American aid to the Sunnis of Anbar, or to Iraq itself, or to Pakistan, and see how the former recipients of such aid, who always whined for more, turn on us. See how even with the receipt of such aid, the recipients of it in Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestinian" "Authority" are full of anti-American venom and ingratitude -- for the aid is to them merely Jizyah. It is their right, it is their due. See how that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia, has worked to use its wealth to undercut the Infidels everywhere, in West Africa and East Africa (where the money goes farthest, and apparently unknown to the State Department but not to the terrified black African Christians, Islam is on the march -- see Togo, see Nigeria, see Niger), in Asia and Europe and North America, paying for mosques and madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and Islamic propaganda, some of it aided by Western hirelings in universities, the press, business, and of course the centers of political power.

Think of what Israel has done for the military security of the Western world, merely by working for its own security. What country destroyed the ambitions of that wretched Soviet ally Nasser, and upended him forever, caused his disappearance and with him, Nasserism? What country -- despite the predictable and predicted condemnation (not least from the administration of George Bush and James Baker) destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, and in so doing, derailed for 21 years his nuclear ambitions, which is to say until he himself was removed, so that those ambitions were never realized? What country recently destroyed the nuclear installation in Syria that Iran and the North Koreans had built? whose pressure now is really the cause of whatever measures at this point the so-far dilatory and delaying Americans and others may take against Iran? And what country, do you suppose will in the end deal most effectively with the chiliastic madmen of the Islamic Republic of Iran? What country today supplies all kinds of technological advances that are then taken advantage of by the United States? [See drones] What country is best able to penetrate, and to make sense of, intelligence derived from the Muslim Arab states and from Iran?

And there is one more thing. Given all that has happened, the Western world could not survive, or rather Western morale -- among all those who think and feel -- could not survive a second destruction of Israel. Israel represents the Jews and the Jewish contribution to Western civilisation. Its survival is part of what makes the West able to survive, and its disappearanc, or its pitiful existence as a rump state dependent on the Muslim Arabs being willing not to come in to deliver a final death blow, would otself deal a blow to the West, to the idea of the West, from which that West would not recover. And the demoralization of the West from such a dimidiated Israel, unable to fend for itself, constantly under threat of easy annihilation, or in fact so annihilated, would at the same time feed Muslim triumphalism and lead to more and more Muslim demands, and aggression, all over the Western -- all over the entire -- world. That few, as yet, understand this, because most, as yet, remain so remarkably ignorant, does not mean that what has been written here is not completely, perfectly, terribly true.

07/10/2009 00:10 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

Things to Do.
1. Establish an operational base in IRAQ. This will leverage Iran. Why strategically we would undertake a war at great cost and then throw away the chance to set up a base at the door of our sworn enemies, Iran, was stupidity at its height. There is all the leverage we would need to stop the Mullahs and their thug. Start building up men and material on the Iran border and see the Mullahs change their tune. If we only have a year to do this, now is the time.
2. Quit the medical isotope dance with Russia. Like Clinton said (it is the economy stupid) It was Russia, N Korea, and Germany that got the world in this hole. Make our so called allies, that have been benefiting for decades, by not having to spend on defense.. step up to the plate and put it on the line. Sarkozy and the French talk tough, but that is all it is,, is a bunch of blabber. The Germans should be made accountable for their sales of restricted products like the centrifuges to Iran. They and the Russians have put the world in this situation for the pursuit of a Mark (Germany) and an attempt to turn back the clock (Russia). When and if the time comes to invade, put their troops in the first wave. They are the ones that deserve that honor.
3. Like they said in Pulp Fiction, "Go Medieval on their Ass". Think Siege, put real sanctions in place and execute a naval and air blockade of all trade. No weak kneed humane exceptions. If you are getting the bomb, you will starve. Make your choice. That is, "Remember the Maine" big stick foreign policy. This is where slapping around a bunch of our so called allies will help also.

05/10/2009 13:09 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

The world's oil supply is globally endangered, thanks to Iran's brinkmanship and the West's craven, feckless so-called leaders who have failed to act meaningfully in the wake of Iran's going nuclear. The following must, somehow, be engineered, and very soon, for the Doomsday clock is ticking:
1. Military strikes must be used to cripple the network of Iranian nuclear facilities. If this occurs, then it should be expected that Iran will retaliate by attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz to oil trafficking, and by bombing oilfields in the Persian Gulf. Therefore,
2. A strategy must be formulated to keep the Straits of Hormuz open to allow the uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf states.
3. In conjunction with #2, oilfields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region must be protected somehow against Iranian attacks, perhaps with antiaircraft and antimissile technology.
4. Using satellite surveillance or other means to tell us when the Iranian parliament is in full session, it should then be bombed, killing all the mullahs, including Supreme Ayatollah Khameini, as well as Ahmadinijad. Their personal residences should also be obliterated.
5. An Iranian government-in-exile should, in advance of all of this, be put together and be prepared to take immediate control of that country once its millenialist, fanatical government has been destroyed, or at least seriously weakened.

Can this be done? I don't know. Will it be? Doubtful. Who, ultimately, is to blame for all of this? Firstly, Jimmy Carter, who welcomed Khomeini's ascendancy to power. Secondly, France, who gave this monster safe haven for years. And let us not forget to thank the uncounted millions of primitive True Believers, slaves of Allah all, who regarded the Shah as an abomination in view of his attempts to restrict the toxic, retrograde influence of Islam and bring Iran, kicking and screaming, into modernity.
In a just world, however, it would be clear that the nightmare we face now redounds directly back to Carter. May history judge him accordingly.

27/09/2009 21:45 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

La creciente bomba de la deuda

Richard Rahn: La creciente bomba de la deuda.
Una cuenta atrás de entre uno y tres años
Martes, 22 de septiembre 2009 9:24 AM

Suponga que usted había puesto gran parte de sus ahorros en bonos del gobierno de los EE.UU. y que ha sabido lo siguiente. Sólo en los últimos ocho meses, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso hace una estimación de que el monto de la deuda federal adicional en manos del público creció en unos asombrosos 4 billones (millones de millones) de dólares para el periodo 2010-19, y que el importe de la deuda federal en manos del público creció de 5.9 billones de dólares a 7.5 billones de dólares sólo en los últimos 12 meses.

Además, se ha sabido que el gobierno federal (es decir, los contribuyentes) posee en la actualidad (principalmente a través de Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac) o asegura (a través de la Administración Federal de la Vivienda y otros programas gubernamentales) el 80 por ciento de los 14.6 billones de dólares de hipotecas pendientes de pago en los Estados Unidos. La semana pasada, el Congreso aprobó una ley que exige que todos los préstamos a los estudiantes sean hechos por el gobierno federal en lugar de los bancos, lo que significa que los contribuyentes serán 100% responsables de los impagos de préstamos estudiantiles.

También hemos sabido que la Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. está considerando aprovechar su línea de crédito del Tesoro por hasta 500.000 millones de dólares. Es necesario hacer esto por el elevado número de quiebras bancarias y porque cada cuenta bancaria está asegurada por el gobierno (es decir, los contribuyentes) hasta por 250.000 dólares. El presidente y muchos en el Congreso están pidiendo un proyecto de ley de atención de a la salud por aproximadamente 1 billón de dólares  - pagados por la deuda adicional y / o más impuestos, lo que desacelerará el crecimiento económico, conduciendo eventualmente a una deuda aún mayor.

Por último, también hemos sabido los hechos siguientes: los gastos del gobierno federal están creciendo mucho más rápido que la economía, y por lo tanto el gobierno se está convirtiendo en una parte cada vez mayor del producto interno bruto. Obviamente, esto no puede continuar para siempre, porque finalmente el gobierno expulsaría totalmente al sector privado.

Los programas de asistencia social (es decir, el Seguro Social, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) siguen creciendo más rápido que la economía, y sumarán más de un 100% de todos los ingresos por impuestos federales de este año, lo que requiere que casi todos los otros programas de gasto público, incluyendo la defensa y los pagos de intereses sobre la deuda, sean financiados con más endeudamiento.

Usted también es consciente de que el gobierno no puede salir de la situación de déficit a base de impuestos, porque si aumentan los impuestos a la población con ingresos más altos, desacelerará la economía a la vez que esos contribuyentes encuentran la manera legal o ilegal de evitar el aumento de impuestos, y los políticos se han comprometido a no aumentar los impuestos a los que ganan menos de 250.000 dólares, que incluye a la inmensa mayoría de norteamericanos.

Incluso si los políticos rompen sus promesas de no aumentar los impuestos, todavía no se puede resolver el problema del déficit, mientras se nieguen a recortar el crecimiento de la Seguridad Social, Medicare y Medicaid porque los ingresos de impuestos serán rápidamente absorbidos por el el crecimiento en el gasto. Lo mejor que cualquier aumento de impuestos podría hacer es retrasar la explosión de la bomba de la deuda durante, quizás, un par de años, mientras que debilita aún más la economía y el crecimiento del empleo.

Ahora supongamos que usted no es un tenedor de bonos individuales, sino el funcionario del gobierno chino responsable de la economía china, y usted sabe que su gobierno mantiene cerca de 1 billón (millón de millones) de dólares en títulos del gobierno de los EE.UU. Usted ha visto al Congreso y la administración ser cada vez menos responsables fiscalmente - más gasto, más impuestos y más deuda.

De repente, la administración pone aranceles punitivos a sus fabricantes de neumáticos, mientras que al mismo tiempo se niega a aprobar los tratados de libre comercio con Colombia, Panamá y Corea del Sur que han sido negociados.

Usted entiende que estas acciones absurdas y destructivas de los funcionarios del gobierno de EE.UU. indican que no entienden la importancia del libre comercio en el crecimiento económico, y parecen tener la
intención de repetir los errores de la década de 1930.

Los chinos no son estúpidos, y han sido claros al decir que les preocupa que las políticas de EE.UU. darán lugar a una nueva caída del dólar y mayores tasas de inflación, las cuales socavan el valor de su inversión en valores de gobierno de los EE.UU..

Los chinos están tratando de diversificar sus carteras - y su reciente actividad en la compra de grandes cantidades de materias primas comerciables es, probablemente, en parte, una protección contra un dólar de EE.UU. que cae. Así, al mismo tiempo, el gobierno de EE.UU. tiene que vender billones de dólares en nuevos bonos. Está ahuyentando con sus propias acciones

a los compradores extranjeros de bonos, lo que sólo puede resultar en mayores tasas de interés en los Estados Unidos, que  desacelerarán aún más el crecimiento económico.

Lo que es particularmente terrorífico es que ningún partido político ha ofrecido un plan serio para desactivar
la bomba de la deuda. Los demócratas sólo han acumulando más deuda como si no hubiera ningún límite, y los republicanos, hasta la fecha, sólo  proponen medidas para reducir el aumento, en lugar de revertirlo. Cuando la bomba de la deuda explote - en los próximos uno a tres años - espere ver récords de tasas de interés reales y/o inflación, junto con el colapso de muchos "derechos". Será como la bomba de neutrones, los edificios quedarán en pie, pero la gente no.

Richard W. Rahn es un alto miembro del Cato Institute y presidente del Institute for Global Economic Growth.

23/09/2009 12:27 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.




        El Islam no es una religión, ni un culto. En su forma más amplia, es una forma de vida 100% completa, total.

        El Islam tiene componentes religiosos, legales, políticos, económicos, sociales y militares. El componente religioso es una tapadera de todos los demás componentes.

        La islamización comienza cuando se alcanza en un país un número suficiente de musulmanes como para poder comenzar campañas en favor de privilegios religiosos.

        Cuando en las sociedades políticamente correctas, tolerantes y culturalmente diversas, se aceptan las demandas de los musulmanes en favor de sus privilegios religiosos, algunos de los restantes componentes tienden también a infiltrarse en el resto de los aspectos de la vida ciudadana.

He aquí cómo funciona todo esto

        En tanto la población musulmana permanezca alrededor, o por debajo del 2% de la de cualquier país, ésta será vista, por la población local, como una minoría amante de la paz, y no como una amenaza hacia los demás ciudadanos. Éste es el caso de lo que ocurre en:

Estados Unidos:                                0,6% de musulmanes
Australia:                                1,5% de musulmanes
Canadá:                                1,9% de musulmanes
China:                                        1,8% de musulmanes
Italia:                                        1,5% de musulmanes
Noruega:                                1,8% de musulmanes

        Con una población que alcance entre el 2% y el 5%, los musulmanes comienzan con el proselitismo entre otras minorías étnicas y grupos descontentos del lugar, a menudo con reclutamientos considerables en cárceles y entre las bandas callejeras. Esto está ocurriendo en:

Dinamarca:                                2,0% de musulmanes
Alemania:                                3,7% de musulmanes
Reino Unido:                                2,7% de musulmanes
España:                                        4,0% de musulmanes
Tailandia:                                4,6% de musulmanes

        A partir del 5% de población musulmana, estos ejercen una influencia desorbitada con respecto al porcentaje de población que representan. Por ejemplo, insistirán en la introducción de los alimentos halal (limpios de acuerdo a los preceptos islámicos), asegurándose, de esta manera, empleos de manipuladores de alimentos reservados a los musulmanes. Empezarán las presiones sobre las cadenas de supermercados para que muestren alimentos halal en sus estanterías - junto con las correspondientes amenazas si no se cumplen estos requisitos. Esto está ocurriendo en:

Francia:                                        8,0% de musulmanes
Filipinas:                                        5,0% de musulmanes
Suecia:                                                5,0% de musulmanes
Suiza:                                        4,3% de musulmanes
Holanda:                                5,5% de musulmanes
Trinidad y Tobago:                        5,8% de musulmanes

        Llegados a este punto, trabajarán para que, la autoridad gubernamental, les permita que ellos mismos se regulen bajo la Sharia, la Ley Islámica (dentro de sus ghettos). El objetivo último de los islamistas es establecer la Sharia en todo el mundo.

        Cuando los musulmanes se aproximan al 10% de la población, tienden a aumentar la anarquía como un medio de quejarse sobre sus condiciones de vida en el país. En París ya hemos visto –hace algún tiempo-, las revueltas imparables con quema de coches y de mobiliario urbano. En esta situación, cualquier acción no musulmana ofende al Islam, y resulta en insurrecciones y amenazas, como las de Amsterdam tras la oposición a las viñetas de Mahoma y películas sobre el Islam. Estas tensiones se ven a diario, particularmente en los sectores musulmanes de:

Guyana:                                10,0% de musulmanes
India:                                        13,4% de musulmanes
Israel:                                        16,0% de musulmanes
Kenia:                                        10,0% de musulmanes
Rusia:                                        15,0% de musulmanes

        Tras alcanzar el 20%, las naciones pueden esperar disturbios espeluznantes, formación de milicias jihadistas, asesinatos esporádicos, y la quema de iglesias    

Etiopía:                                        32,8% de musulmanes

        Con un 40% de musulmanes, las naciones experimentan masacres generalizadas, ataques terroristas crónicos, y guerra ininterrumpida de milicias, como las de:

Bosnia:                                        40,0% de musulmanes
Chad:                                        53,1% de musulmanes
Líbano:                                        59,7%                                                    de                                                      musulmanes

        Los países que alcanzan un 60% de población musulmana, experimentan persecuciones sin límite de los no-creyentes de todas las demás religiones (incluyendo a los musulmanes no ortodoxos), limpiezas étnicas esporádicas (genocidios), el uso de la Ley de la Sharia como arma, y el establecimiento de la Jizya, el impuesto sobre todos los infieles, como está ocurriendo en:

Albania:                                            70,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Malasia:                                            60,4%                 de                  musulmanes
Qatar:                                        77,5% de musulmanes
Sudan:                                        70,0% de musulmanes

        A partir del 80% deben esperarse intimidaciones y jihad violenta sobre la población no islámica, algún tipo de limpieza étnica dirigida por el Estado, e incluso algún genocidio, a medida que estas naciones expulsan a los pocos infieles que van quedando, y se dirigen hacia el objetivo de un Estado 100% musulmán, tal y como se ha experimentado ya, o está en vías de consecución en:

Bangla Desh:                                83,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Egipto:                                        90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Gaza:                                        98,7%                 de                  musulmanes
Indonesia:                                86,1%                 de                  musulmanes
Irán:                                        98,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Irak:                                        97,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Jordania:                                92,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Marruecos:                                98,7%                 de                  musulmanes
Pakistán:                                97,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Palestina                                99,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Siria:                                        90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Tajikistan:                                90,0%                 de                  musulmanes
Turquía:                                99,8%                 de                  musulmanes
Emiratos Árabes:                        96,0%                 de                  musulmanes

        Alcanzar el 100% marcará el comienzo de la Paz de "Dar-es-Salaam" (el Paraíso de la Paz Islámico). Aquí, se da por supuesta la existencia de la paz, porque todo el mundo es islámico, las Madrás son las únicas escuelas, y el Corán la única palabra, como ocurre en:

Afganistán:                                100%            de          musulmanes
Arabia Saudita                                100%            de          musulmanes
Somalia                                            100%                  de         musulmanes
Yemen:                                        100%             de         musulmanes

        Desgraciadamente, la paz nunca se alcanza, puesto que en estos estados con el 100% de musulmanes, aquellos más radicales intimidan y vomitan odio, y satisfacen sus ansias asesinando a los musulmanes menos radicales, por una variedad de razones.

        "Antes de cumplir los nueve años, ya había aprendido la doctrina básica de la vida árabe: Era yo contra mi hermano; yo y mi hermano contra nuestro padre; mi familia contra mis primos y el clan; el clan contra la tribu; la tribu contra el mundo, y todos juntos contra los infieles" ( Leon Uris "El Peregrinaje / The Haj" )

        Es importante entender que en algunos países, con bastante menos que el 100% de población musulmana, como en Francia, la minoría musulmana vive en ghettos, dentro de los cuales constituyen el 100%, y en los que viven bajo la Ley de la Sharia. La Policía Nacional no osa entrar en esos ghettos. No hay Tribunales, ni escuelas nacionales, ni establecimientos religiosos no musulmanes. En estas situaciones, los musulmanes no se integran en la comunidad en general. Los niños asisten a las Madrás (escuelas musulmanas), y sólo estudian el Corán. Incluso relacionarse con un infiel es un crimen punible con la muerte. Por lo tanto, en algunas áreas de ciertas naciones, los imanes y los extremistas musulmanes ejercen más poder que el que la media nacional de penetración de la población podría indicar.

        Mil quinientos millones de musulmanes representan hoy el 22% de la población mundial. Pero su tasa de nacimientos eclipsa a la de los cristianos, hinduistas, budistas, judíos y todos los demás creyentes. Los musulmanes superarán el 50% de la población del mundo al final de este siglo.


Adaptado y extraído del libro del Dr. Meter Hammond: "Esclavitud, Terrorismo e Islam: Raíces históricas y Amenaza Contemporánea" Christian Liberty Books (April 2005)

22/09/2009 22:59 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Ground Zero: A Journal Sep 11, 2009

Ground Zero: A Journal

September 11 was to be my first day of work at a new job in downtown Manhattan. Though New York was still very new to me, it was immediately obvious that something was terribly wrong. As I climbed the stairs of the subway just a few blocks from the World Trade Center, there was a palpable feeling of panic in the air as people stared, horrified, into the sky. I followed their gaze upward and I instantly understood. Smoke and fire were gushing from a gaping hole in the smooth, silvery surface of the right-hand tower.

I asked someone nearby if he knew what had happened, and he said it was a bomb. Another man walked over and declared, “No, it was a plane, a plane flew right into building. . . .” Then an enormous explosion drowned out his words. Above our heads, an orange fireball swallowed the top of the second tower, as clouds of paper filled the sky above us. Hundreds of people began scattering. I ran across the street to the Municipal Building and up to a shrieking woman who stammered through her sobs that she had seen a large blue and white plane slam into the building. We stared slack-jawed as sections of the building’s metallic facade fell in chunks to the ground. It took a few moments until we realized that some of those falling pieces were not metal at all, but rather human beings leaping eighty or more stories to their deaths-right before our eyes. All I could think to do was make the sign of the cross.

As I stood there in disbelief, a man next to me with a messaging pager said that the Pentagon had just been hit. I grabbed at his pager to read it for myself. Then came the confusion and rumors on the street: “The Capitol’s been attacked!” “The State Department has been bombed!” “The Supreme Court is in flames!” “Camp David is burning!” “A plane is on its way to the White House!”

During all this, the fire trucks had been racing past on their way to the Towers. I must have seen twelve of them rush past our corner. In the coming hours and days, I often wondered how many of the men on those trucks died just minutes later.

Soon the NYPD asked us to evacuate the area. It was only a minute after we began to walk uptown and away from the Towers that the sound of several claps of thunder began to rip through the air just over my shoulder. I turned around and saw with my own eyes a sight of pure horror, as the left-hand tower began to collapse into a massive white cloud. Our walk quickly became a run, and then a stampede.

Eventually, as we got farther away from the cataclysm, our pace slowed back down. I caught my breath, trying to absorb what I had just witnessed, when an olive-skinned man with a mustache and briefcase walking to my right began to intone: “You see what happens! All the Palestinians want is a place to call home, a small piece of land. We continue to fund the Israelis, we supply them with money and weapons, we support the persecution of a people for decades, and you see what happens! It should not have come to this. It didn’t have to come to this! They have had enough, and you see how they respond—they’ve got our attention now.”

Letting him push on without me, I paused with several hundred others at the Manhattan Bridge to watch the lone burning tower. We had outrun the smoke and dust unscathed, but now thousands of others followed behind us. They were in groups of three or four, marching toward midtown, some sprinkled with ash, many others caked with a dust that had hardened on their skin as it mixed with sweat and traces of blood. They passed by like ghosts—grayish-white figures carrying bags, suitcases, and purses. Extras from the set of a horror film, quietly walking home.

As I followed them uptown, a businessman from Atlanta who was in New York on business told me that he couldn’t get through to his wife on his cell phone; he knew she’d be scared as hell. “I was on the eighty-first floor, and we were probably the last to get out, but the firefighters kept coming in, heading up as we headed down. They just kept filing up the stairs.”

Then, a sudden gasp from a group of Chinese men and women on the corner, and we turned to watch the second tower follow the fate of the first. After a few seconds, I continued my dazed trek to my apartment on Nineteenth Street.

I’m not sure why I went back. The morning of the twelfth I heard a homily at Mass imploring Christians not to yield to the pain and evil but to overcome adversity with faith. That message stuck with me.

The van of volunteers drove us through the smoking and dusty streets of lower Manhattan, cluttered with countless thousands of sheets of paper; all around us, cars and emergency vehicles looked like they were made of papier-mâché. Fruit and bagel stands stood abandoned on empty sidewalks, the apples and bananas sitting in undisturbed rows, coated with a layer of pulverized concrete half an inch thick.

For someone raised in peaceful and prosperous America, Ground Zero itself was simply astonishing to behold. In the center, a crater 60 feet deep and 120 feet across. On each side, the mangled remains of the towers themselves. They say that each floor of each massive 110-story building was an acre in size. Spread before me was 220 acres of pure destruction crammed into a 16-acre plaza.

Stringy steel rods cut like irregular staircase steps—the skeleton of the building facade—surrounded two six-story piles of debris. Twisted red steel. Windows. Carpets. Toilets. Bits of copy machines, computers, file cabinets, desks. And of course, hidden somewhere within the mountainous piles, the mutilated remains of over five thousand human beings. And then there was the noxious smoke, streaming from a thousand cracks and fissures in the piles from hundreds of hidden fires beneath them. It was a smoldering mound of hell on earth.

No one seemed to be in charge. Hundreds of firefighters crawled around on the piles in small groups. Several pockets of twenty or thirty of them labored with torches, shovels, wire cutters, jackhammers, electric saws, oxygen canisters, hoses, dogs, and their bare hands. At the fringe of the pile—near the Brooks Brothers store that had been transformed into a makeshift morgue—stood several long lines of emergency workers who handed off buckets of debris, one by one. Spontaneous order emerged from the chaos.

So, for example, a New York City fire captain in the pit who needed forty welding tips phoned a friend in New Jersey who has a boat. His friend calls the local union, and in an hour a couple boxes of welding tips are loaded onto a ship, along with several boxes of food, clothes, medical supplies, and fifteen guys looking to lend a hand. An hour later the captain docks the boat at the Cove, east of the American Express building directly adjacent to the site. Ten minutes later, a motley group of construction workers, police officers, volunteers, FBI agents, and National Guardsmen arrive to unload the boxes and pass them down a 150-man work line. Linda and Jackie, two nurses, organize the unloading at the end of the supply line: “Medical supplies, here! Clothes, there! Construction supplies, here!” The captain radios that the welding tips are off the boat. Twenty minutes later, a retired veteran named Rich makes his way into the makeshift supply store on the second floor of the AMEX building, finds the welding tips, and hauls them in a golf cart across the plaza to an equally makeshift transfer station. Half an hour later, the captain who “ordered” the welding tips from his friend in New Jersey not more than two hours ago walks over to pick up his supplies.

Much of my time was spent directing materials around the site. The supply triangle between the dock, the AMEX building, and the piles ran nonstop for several days and nights. In the days following September 11, similar operations were repeated throughout lower Manhattan, as thousands of people spontaneously found and contributed to the supply chain.

There was much goodness and bravery at the site, but there was also fear, as frayed nerves frequently conspired to induce instantaneous panic. When something shifted unexpectedly on one of the piles, for instance, a firefighter would run, sending the team around him leaping from the huge mound, thereby inspiring hundreds of workers in that quadrant of Ground Zero to scatter. Within seconds several hundred workers would be “running for their lives” down the nearest street, tossing their tools, kicking up dust behind them, tripping over live fire hoses.

Then, as people began to realize that it had been a false alarm, the explanations would begin. “The Millennium Building was gonna come down.” “I smelled natural gas.” “There was a fire on the pile.” After twenty minutes or so, people would slowly creep back toward the site. This cycle repeated itself several times in the first few days, until a system of bells and bullhorns replaced leaping bodies as the official evacuation call.

I would never have predicted it beforehand, but one of the most helpful and generous groups on site were the Scientologists, who, as I learned, take great pride in being the first to respond to the scene of disasters and crises. When you state your need to a member of the Church of Scientology, the entire group enters what they call the “cycle of action.” Anyone who answers a request must do everything in his power to satisfy it and return directly to the person who issued the request to report the results. Ask a Scientologist for a respirator, for example, and your request immediately echoes out from your location in concentric circles. “You need a respirator?” “Respirator!” “We need a respirator up here!” “OK, who’s got the respirators?” “Bring out the respirators!” It was extremely efficient, if also slightly comic.

The Scientologists were not always so helpful, however. They also provided what they called an “assist”—an odd procedure during which a worker runs his hands over your arms and legs in order to “center your energy.” It didn’t so much resemble a massage as a child petting a small dog before he has acquired complete motor coordination.

At a time when so many people seemed to be at their best, it was sad, although hardly surprising, to learn that a few took advantage of the breakdown of law and order in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Some of the looters did their damage in the shadows, late at night, while others were bolder, dressing up as construction or utility workers. They pilfered through the AMEX supply area, filling up bags and buckets with donated jeans, shoes, sweatshirts, socks, and underwear. They made their way into people’s homes and businesses, taking advantage of the mass evacuations in lower Manhattan to take what they wished.

One day an off-duty officer from the Department of Justice took me on a golf cart tour of the businesses that had been looted shortly after being boarded up by the authorities. He was particularly incensed that a nearby National Guardsman had been so ineffective in preventing the damage. Moreover, a number of apartments in Battery Park City—the high-rise residential buildings that abut the Trade Center—had been broken into, and a number of supplies down at the dock had been stolen, both while supposedly under watch by the National Guard officers. A few days later, the military police and the NYPD stepped in to clamp down on the crime.

President Bush arrived at Ground Zero on Friday, September 14—the first day in my twenty-four years of living that I experienced genuine patriotism. When word got out that the president might pay us a visit, eyebrows lifted and smiles cracked on faces. Twenty minutes before he arrived, the NYPD cleared the area at the northern edge of the site, and several work crews that had been on their way to work began to congregate around the area where Bush would arrive. As soon as he stepped out of his black Suburban, the workers dropped their shovels and scurried around to welcome him. Many of us stood on overturned buckets behind a few rows of people to catch a glimpse, and those behind us stood on two or three buckets. Scores of guys climbed on top of the trucks, cranes, and emergency vehicles in the area to watch and listen. Some just climbed higher on the rubble, or stood on an overturned I-beam to catch a glimpse.

I thought to myself that this scene must be reminiscent of some bygone time in America’s political history when a White House staff did not plan every presidential visit weeks in advance. I thought of Lincoln at Gettysburg, stepping out of a train to make a speech, and spontaneous crowds of people, some climbing into trees or on walls, gathering around to watch and listen. Here was our commander-in-chief, faced with unprecedented destruction on American soil, to rally men in hard hats at the center of a wounded city, at the center of a stunned nation.

As he passed in front of our section, his hand met mine, and he looked me in the eye for more than a moment to hear me stammer what I believe was something like, “God bless, Mr. President, we’re behind you.” He was in no hurry to speak to us as a group, but rather took his time meeting us individually. The crowd around the rubble was growing fast, reaching at least 1000. There was clearly an enthusiasm in the air for the first time since September 11.

When the President finally grabbed a bullhorn and began to speak, it was hard to hear him at first. When someone in the crowd shouted, “We can’t hear you!” the president proclaimed loudly, “But I can hear you! And the rest of the country hears you! And soon, the people who did this . . . are going to hear from all of us!” At that moment, a shot of electricity surged through the crowd. Cheers erupted and echoed off the surrounding buildings, each draped with a tattered American flag. “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” It went on and on.

Then—at the corner of West and Vesey streets in New York City, on the edge of a mass grave, at the feet of the commander-in-chief of the world’s mightiest nation—I was overwhelmed with an unexpected sense of fraternity and love of country. Not fifty feet away lay the remains of five thousand innocent people, and here, at their side, a band of their brothers stood before their leader, united in an unconditional love of justice. I really do think that is what it was.

One night at 2 a.m. I was on my way through the rain to pick up supplies in the AMEX building, which, among other things, was being used as a transfer station for the bodies and parts of bodies we had recovered from the site. From there, they were packed onto trucks to be taken to the morgue at Bellevue Hospital. As I entered the atrium of the building I saw scores of workers holding their hard hats over their chests. Fifty yards away a dozen firefighters proceeded slowly in my direction carrying a body bag. I removed my hard hat and stepped to the side. As they approached, I could read their red, swollen eyes. Their uniforms were dark with mud and soot. Raindrops dripped from everyone’s gear. A priest wearing a raincoat, a hard hat, goggles, a respirator, and a headlamp came forward with a book and oils. The men carrying their fallen friend cried quietly as the priest rolled back the bag and anointed the body, administering Last Rites. In the atrium, heads bowed and no one moved. I don’t remember how long we stood there, but time seemed to stop as profane space became as sacred as a shrine. Eventually, the priest stepped away, and the firemen walked slowly forward, out the doors and into the truck waiting outside. Without a word, we went back out into the dark rain to work.

Before the rainstorm, nearly everything at Ground Zero was covered with a layer of dust, which became the parchment for the messages of rescue workers. On windows or walls, you could find short compositions: “God Bless America,” “Engine company 6,” “Give us Justice,” “Revenge is a bitch,” “We miss you Johnny,” and the like. But one message stood out. Written with a black marker on a flier posted on a pillar of the AMEX building, “RIP Fr. Mike.” Father Mike Judge, a Franciscan priest and chaplain of the FDNY, died when he was struck by a falling body on September 11 as he administered Last Rites to a deceased firefighter. In the days since September 11, working around the clock with little-to-no rest, I lost track of time. But this message reminded me that it was Sunday.

Sunday was my fifth day working at Ground Zero. I was exhausted. After making my rounds at the supply area, I walked up North End Avenue to the support center at Stuyvesant High School. I had heard earlier in the day that St. Patrick’s Cathedral was going to hold a 5:30 Mass, and I felt the need to attend it. As I entered the building, I saw a man dressed in a white habit walking slowly but deliberately down the hall. The tip of his Roman collar peaked out of the robe. He looked and spoke like James Earl Jones and his face was very serious. It occurred to me later that he was probably a Franciscan and had likely just come from attending to the dead at Ground Zero.

All around us, the Scientologists and volunteers buzzed back and forth, and police officers and workers passed by. I asked the priest whether there would be an evening Mass around the site, and he told me that the only one had been held at 9:00 that morning. I told him that I was hoping to attend the memorial Mass at St. Patrick’s, which I instantly realized had started six minutes earlier. He then said very deliberately, “I can offer you the Holy Eucharist. Would you like that?” And then, with five days of chaos in my head and fatigue consuming my body, a nameless priest in a white robe, almost invisible in the white hallway were it not for his dark complexion, put his hand on my head, said a blessing, and placed the Body of Christ in my mouth. My eyes remained closed for a long time.

Here, amid the nonstop movement and clutter of bodies and buildings, amid the constant acrid smell of smoke and smog, amid the signs reading “Warning, high levels of asbestos here!”, amid the dozens of workers who seemed always on the verge of breaking down in tears, amid the steady flow of sobbing civilians who toured the place where their loved one lay entombed, amid the constant sounds of machines, crashing metal, and sirens, amid all of the destruction and death—here was a pocket of peace. Here, Christ was present, not only among us, but now, again, inside me. And then this angel in the whirlwind sent me on my way and resumed his slow but deliberate walk through the horror, looking to dispense solace to any and all who would accept it, passing through the tumult, almost as though he were from another world.

Vincent Druding, a former editorial assistant for First Things, was recently ordained into the priesthood for the diocese of New York. This essay was originally published in the December 2001 issue of First Things.

21/09/2009 21:18 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Dominick Dunne on death, love, revenge and sexuality


27/08/2009 19:54 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today

creo que este año hemos tenido bastantes noticias desmontando eso de calentamiento global. Una de ellas informaba de unas pruebas técnicas que demostraban que había aumentado la masa de hielo de uno de los polos.
Respecto a que la Humanidad se está cargando la capa de ozono, los animales rumiantes producen mayor cantidad de gas con efecto invernadero -en este caso metano- que todos nosotros. ¿Vais a exterminar el problema de búfalos, ciervos, caballos, vacas, ñus, etc.?

Cambiando al tema del petróleo, ¿Quienes saben los datos?. Las empresas extractoras y explotadoras, junto con sus ingenieros y responsables políticos. ¿Nos lo van a decir?. Claro que no. Siempre dicen que se van a acabar pronto, aunque nosotros no lo veremos.
¡Claro, para subir los precios!.
Estamos hablando de una materia prima que no se ve, como la madera, alimentos o agua. Está oculta, bajo tierra. Ellos pueden decir misa.
¿Quienes poseen el mayor número de patentes -algunas conseguidas a base de talonario- en energía y maquinaria (motores)?. Las mismas empresas explotadoras.

Cuando sube el petroleo suben los combustibles, y por arte de magia en verano y Navidad, al día siguiente.
En cambio, cuando ha bajado de más de 100 dólares a 60 dólares, nunca bajan el precio y menos un 40 por ciento, ya que la gran mayoría del pago que hacemos al llenar el depósito son impuestos, como en el tabaco y alcohol.

04/08/2009 14:10 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central America


Los valientes hondureños que tuvieron el coraje de hacer fracasar el plan de la izquierda contra su patria están siendo victimas de una indecente y descarada presión internacional para que se sometan al estafador pro-marxista que abusó del poder presidencial para empezar a cometer un golpe de Estado.

En nombre de la democracia la OEA, con Chavez, los Kirchner y Lula a la cabeza y la desfachatada actuación del Secretario de la OEA Insulza (un chileno marxista que no tiene ningún empacho en actuar contra todas las leyes de Honduras y contra la propia razón de ser de esa Institución), ha resuelto casi por unanimidad, con los EEUU de Obama y de Clinton incluidos, exigir el retorno de Zelaya al poder sin condiciones y no deja de tratar al actual gobierno de Honduras como si fueran unos forajidos, cuando es evidente que no han hecho otra cosa que cumplir con la Constitución de ese país.

Esto es tan evidente que ni intentan discutirlo. El Cardenal Primado de Honduras, Mons. Rodriguez Maradiaga hizo importantes declaraciones hace pocos días reiterando lo que ya había dicho la Conferencia Episcopal en pleno tres días después del desalojo del usurpador Zelaya y en ellas explica con lujo de detalle la inconstitucionalidad manifiesta de las maniobras de Zelaya. Puede leerlas en la Sección "Correo del Lecor" de este periódico,  nro. 2678 del 16 de Julio ppdo.

A eso cabe agregar la muy fundada resolución de la Corte Suprema y lo decidido por el Congreso de Honduras. Todos coinciden en denunciar el intento de golpe de Estado de Zelaya y la traición a la patria cometida por él al ponerse a las órdenes de Chavez, el tirano de Venezuela, con cuya intervención militar, dinero y otros auxilios contaba para someter a los hondureños a un régimen despótico de inspiración marxista.

Ninguno de los gobiernos de América se ha molestado en refutar las razones de los hondureños para desalojar al usurpador Zelaya. Saben perfectamente que no tienen ningún argumento. Entonces recurren a la fuerza y a las presiones económicas. ¿Por qué se atreven a tanto? Porque Honduras es un país pequeño, sin gobiernos aliados en el mundo y que no podría resistir mucho tiempo a una invasión militar ni tampoco a un bloqueo económico prolongado.

La "mediación" del Presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, impuesta por los EEUU y la OEA al gobierno legítimo de Honduras presidido por el Sr. Micheletti, ha tomado un cariz absurdo. El Presidente Arias, en vez de "mediar" se ha convertido en vocero de las amenazas de Zelaya y exige su reposición en la presidencia de Honduras como condición indispensable de cualquier negociación. O sea, toma partido totalmente por la posición del usurpador y exige que Honduras continúe sometida al proceso de sumisión al marxismo. Y para presionar a los valientes hondureños agrega: "la alternativa es que se va a derramar sangre en Honduras" ("La Nación", 20/7/2009, pag.1).

¿Eso es un "mediador"? ¿Es ese un "premio Nobel de la paz? En las más modesta de las hipótesis es un "idiota útil" del marxismo colaborando con éste para que un país más se agregue a la lista de los que tiene sometidos en América. ¿Por qué se presta Arias a semejante brutalidad?  Es difícil saber pero sí se puede colegir: porque el liberalismo no es realmente enemigo de la izquierda sino su antesala y su secreto admirador.  Además, sospecho vehementemente que Arias está juramentado para obedecer la decisión tomada en el antro en que deliberan y resuelven los enemigos de la civilización cristiana su completa destrucción.

Lo mismo dígase de la repugnante posición adoptada por la Unión Europea. Además de que los países de la Unión han retirado sus Embajadores ahora han resuelto suspender -hasta el retorno de Zelaya- la ayuda económica ya acordada a Honduras y dejarán de mandar lo u$s70.000.000 que debían girar este año ("La Nación", 21/7/2009, pag. 2). O sea, es mentira que quieren el bien del pueblo hondureño. Esa ayuda es al pueblo que se le quita.

Felizmente parecería que en el Congreso de los EEUU hay varios legisladores que no estár de acuerdo con que se use la potencia de ese país para extorsionar a una pequeña nación que se defiende legítimamente contra los intentos del marxismo internacional.  Pido a Dios que ilumine a esas personas para que sepan cómo oponerse con éxito y lo hagan sin cejar.

Lo grave del caso es que también temo que lo que ocurre en y con Honduras sea parte de un plan para escarmentar a cualquier nación que pretenda escapar a la triste suerte en que ya se encuentran Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua y la Argentina. Creo que hay que rezar para pedir un milagro, para que Dios envíe al Arcángel San Miguel Príncipe de las milicias celestiales a defender Honduras y hacer fracasar el siniestro plan de sus poderosos enemigos.

Si Honduras es vencida, las esperanzas de América y del mundo en detener la nueva ola marxista se verán notablemente disminuidas.

Los argentinos deberíamos avergonzarnos de que nuestro país parezca representado por la usurpadora Cristina Kirchner.  Deberíamos protestar enérgicamente y demostrar que ese mujer no nos representa, que asumió el poder en forma ilegal, que sus ideas no son las de la mayoría de los argentinos y que todos quienes nos preocupamos por la situación de Honduras estamos totalmente del lado del actual gobierno en la medida en que mantenga su posición basada en la Justicia y en el amor a la Patria.

Espero que este artículo llegue a conocimiento del Sr. Micheletti, de los diputados, de los Jueces y de los militares de Honduras. Para eso lo enviaré a todas las direcciones de ese país que tengo para que se sientanr econfortados, en alguna medida, aunque sea pequeña,  al saber que desde el lejano Sur los admiramos y apoyamos.

Lamentablemente nosotros ya estamos insertos en el proceso de sometimiento al marxismo y no tenemos medios materiales para ayudarlos. Pero si los tuviéramos, no les quepa la menor duda, hermanos hondureños, que los usaríamos. Si tuviéramos el gobierno de la Argentina hubiéramos votado contra las canallescas sanciones que la OEA les impone y hubiéramos mandado una advertencia a todos los países que los oprimen para que se abstengan de intervenir en vuestra heroica defensa de la Justicia. No valdría mucho esa ayuda argentina, pero les sería más difícil aplastar a Honduras y a la Argentina.  

Todo está en manos de Dios y de la clarividencia y el coraje de vuestros gobernantes y soldados.

Cosme Beccar Varela


26/07/2009 23:16 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central and South America

también es el momento de que la OEA revise:

1.- Chávez: Ha pisoteado la carta democrática más que un bailaor zapateando. Ha despojado a sus opositores de sus competencias, ha perseguido y persigue a los líderes estudiantiles, políticos y comunicadores sociales. Ha financiado la injerencia cubana en media américa y ha instaurado un regimen de miedo. Fomenta revoluciones armadas en todos los paises que pisa y las financia. Ha violado la soberanía de países americanos de norte a Sur. Ha destruido el poder electoral, ha prohibido medios de comunicación y amenaza a diario con guerra o muerte a quien se oponga a su voluntad.

2.- Evo Morales: Ha destituido por decreto a un gobernador de región electo. En su lugar ha puesto a un militar sin elección y sin apego a otra ley que su voluntad. Eso si, después de eliminar convenientemente a unos cuantos opositores.

3.- Correa: El ecuatoriano se ha encargado de proteger a las FARC, grupo terrorista reconocido por la UE y la OEA. Les da cobijo, ayuda, logistica y demás facilidades para permitirles atentar en colombia y después refugiarse en su lado de la frontera.

4.- Uribe: Está coqueteando con la reelección indefinida, algo que su constitución prohibe. No obstante, ha sido bastante hábil para apaciguar a su vecino y ha reducido a los terroristas de las FARC a escombros. A pesar de la pinza Chavez-Correa.

5.- Lula: Reventó la huelga general de venezuela contra el déspota Hugo Chávez e intervino de manera ilegal en la soberanía de Venezuela para apuntalar el poder de Chávez. Es cuando menos sospechoso de intervenir políticamente en un país vecino y violando su soberanía para favorecer una parcialidad política que en aquél momento estaba causando muertes y violaciones de DDHH.

6.- Kirchner: La sucesión dinástica más oscura de América después de la de los Castro. Corrupción al mejor estilo sureño.

7.- Ortega: Acusado de violador de menores, exguerrillero, terrorista y sandinista no convertido. Ha reducido la oposición de su país a una caricatura.

8.- Alan García: reprimió a los indigenas,pagados por Hugo Chávez, para darle un golpe de Estado con excesiva fuerza, algo poco aceptable en democracia. En vez de balas, valdrían pelotas de goma.

9.- Honduras: Ultimo capítulo de la injerencia Chavista. Zelaya, pisotea la constitución y prepara un golpe de Estado reformando la constitución a su antojo siguiendo el modelo de Chávez. Los tribunales le niegan la oportunidad. Chávez le prepara la logística militar y electoral violando la soberanía hondureña. Los militares deponen al esbirro de Chávez antes de que perpetre su trampa.

El resto lleva demasiado poco tiempo para saber de ellos, pero pronto tendrémos noticias de Lugo y demás presidentes satélites de Chávez.

El escenario es sencillo. Chávez está en todos lados y es el epicentro de todas las distorsiones que ocurren en américa. La OEA, EEUU y demás países han hecho la vista gorda con Chávez y eso ha causado que se desprestigien tanto esas instituciones que muchos se han lanzado en una carrera megalómana en sus respectivos paises. América se ha convertido en un polvorín y Chávez no solo es el culpable sino que además se ha armado hasta los dientes con armamento rusol, el cual PIENSA USAR algún día. Muy probablemente sea contra Colombia, o contra cualquier otro que se ponga a tiro.

Mientras tanto un inoperante EEUU, dependiente del crudo bolivariano y una OEA cuyo presidente está en nómina bolivariana está convirtiendo al continente del futuro en el mismo continente sin futuro de siempre, pero con violencia.

07/07/2009 10:26 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

On the situation today in Central and South America

Invito a los lectores a leer el Comunicado Especial de la Corte Suprema de Justica de Honduras, dirigido a la Comunidad Nacional e Internacional en donde se fundamenta (por unanimidad) la acusación contra Zelaya, como autor, de delitos de Contra la Forma de Gobierno, Traición a la Patria, Abuso de Autoridad y Usurpación de Funciones en perjuicio de la Administración Pública y el Estado de Honduras. Le pueden condenar hasta a 20 años. Pueden encontrarlo en internet.
Las Fuerzas Armadas hondureñas han cumplido con su deber en defensa de la Patria, algo que es impensable en España ya que nuestros Altos Mandos son unos dóciles, sumisos y estómagos agradecidos.
Pregunta: ¿Sería posible esto en España? Respuesta: No. El Poder Judicial está politizado y vendido al Poder Político. Corolario: Honduras dispone de un sistema democrático superior en garantías al español.
¿De qué presumes ZetaP? ¿A quién quieres dar lecciones?
¡¡¡Viva Honduras y su democracia!!!
06/07/2009 00:25 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.


Barack Hussein Obama, se ha leído la enciclopedia: Historia de España, de la editorial Prisoe. Donde colaboran, entre otros, Leire Pajín (antropóloga especializada en simios parlamentarios), Manuel Cháves (experto en árboles genealógicos andaluces de Andasulía), Viviana Aído (miembra de los seres vivos, pero no humanos), Pepiño Blanco (corrector de concetos a alta velocidad); ilustrado con viñetas canarionas de López Aguilar y traducido al Lingala por Moratinos y al inglés americano por Rodríguez Zapatero. Se incluye un Dvd de La Guerra de las Galaxias, episodio La Alianza de Al-Andalus, el retorno de Torquemada y un libro de bolsillo Cómo ser del Ku Kus Klan con kufiyya en la iglesia de San Carlos Borromeo. Se envía gratuitamente a través de un avión Azor, sin virus A H1N1, de las fuerzas aéreas españolas, pilotado por Carma Chacón. Su precio es de menos 0,01 euros y un canon digital de tropecientos millones de euros por la Sgae, aunque González Sinde lo ampliará a terabytes millones de euros para subvencionar la película hispanoamericana La rosa tatuada, en el culo de Obama con el símbolo Zp.
Pero ¿Se sorprenden?
¿Quien es este mulato? Un tio de extrema izquierda, sectario que, eso si, sabe mentir y sabe manejar la propaganda, que son los elementos diferenciales, siempre, de los de la extrema izquierda.

Este tio es como zETAp, sectario y vacio. No ha hecho nada en su vida, y no tiene ni zorra de historia ni de nada salvo de montarse en el carro de la pasta.

Porque este va a dejar crudos a los yankis. Pero ellos lo han votado, asi que a san xoderse.

Como nosotros con el tio este del 11M
04/06/2009 23:24 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Swine Influenza


Swine influenza (illness in pigs) is caused by influenza A viruses. Influenza A viruses of swine origin can cause influenza in humans. General information about influenza A viruses is presented in the bullet points below.

  • Descriptive information
    • Influenza A viruses are negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses and belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae and the genus Influenzavirus A. 
    • Enveloped virions are 80 to 120 nm in diameter, are 200 to 300 nm long, and may be filamentous. They consist of spike-shaped surface proteins, a partially host-derived lipid-rich envelope, and matrix (M) proteins surrounding a helical segmented nucleocapsid (6 to 8 segments).
    • The virus envelope glycoproteins (hemagglutinin [HA] and neuraminidase [NA]) are distributed evenly over the virion surface, forming characteristic spike-shaped structures; antigenic variations in these proteins form the basis of the classification system for influenza A virus subtypes.
  • Influenza A virus subtypes
    • There are 16 different HA antigens (H1 to H16) and nine different NA antigens (N1 to N9) for influenza A.
    • Human disease historically has been caused by three subtypes of HA (H1, H2, and H3) and two subtypes of NA (N1 and N2). More recently, human disease has been recognized to be caused by additional HA subtypes, including H5, H7, and H9 (all from avian origin).
    • All of these subtypes have been found in birds, and birds are the primordial reservoir for influenza A viruses.
    • Several subtypes have been found in pigs
13/05/2009 08:29 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

EEUU se enfrenta a la "hiperdeflación" y al "colapso económico

¿Por qué el Plan de Estímulo de Obama está Condenado al Fracaso?. La fábrica de papel del Potomac está generando nuevo dinero frenéticamente. Esto debería evitar que los precios bajaran y que la economía se contrajera, según la Teoría Cuantitativa del Dinero. En este artículo presento un argumento que explica por qué esta conclusión no es válida. Por el contrario, expondré que el nuevo dinero creado sobre la base de una inundación de deuda es equivalente a echar gasolina a un fuego, haciendo que los precios caigan y la economía se contraiga todavía más.

La administración Obama ha perdido su oportunidad histórica de evitar la deflación y depresión que ha heredado de la administración Bush, porque ha encomendado la tarea de rescatar a la economía a la misma gente que ha causado este desastre: los doctores monetarios, tanto Keynesianos como Friedmanitas, de la Fed y el Tesoro.

Mirando al ratio erróneo

La clave para entender el problema es la productividad marginal de deuda, un concepto curiosamente desaparecido de la jerga de la economía convencional. Los Keynesianos se consuelan con el hecho de que la deuda total como porcentaje del PIB está bien por debajo del 100% en los Estados Unidos, mientras que en otros países se supera esta cifra.

Sin embargo, el ratio significativo y que hay que observar es la relación entre deuda adicional y PIB adicional, o la cantidad del PIB que se ha generado con la creación de 1 dólar de nueva deuda. Es este ratio el que determina la calidad de la deuda. Cuanto mayor sea este ratio (PIB adicional / Deuda adicional) más éxito están cosechando los empresarios en aumentar la productividad, que realmente es la única justificación válida para el endeudamiento.

En cambio, una caída importante en ese ratio es una señal peligrosa de que la calidad de la deuda se está deteriorando, y de que incurrir en deuda adicional no tiene ninguna justificación económica. El volumen de deuda está creciendo más rápido que la renta nacional, y el capital que apoya la producción se está erosionando rápidamente. Si, como en el escenario más pesimista, el ratio cae en zona negativa, el mensaje es que la economía está en curso de colisionar y que un crash es inminente.

Es decir, no sólo es que la deuda no aporte nada al PIB sino que, de hecho, genera una mayor contracción económica, incluyendo un mayor desempleo. El país se está comiendo las semillas de maíz, y el resultado es que el capital acumulado puede esfumarse antes de que te des cuenta. La acción inmediata es absolutamente necesaria para parar la hemorragia, o el paciente se desangrará hasta morir.

Los Keynesianos están atentos del ratio incorrecto, el de la deuda sobre el PIB. No es extraño, pues, que constantemente se extravíen, de ahí que no se percaten de las señales de peligro, una detrás de otra. Están navegando en la oscuridad con la ayuda del equipamiento náutico equivocado. Están administrando la medicina equivocada. Su ambulancia es incapaz de diagnosticar la hemorragia interna que debe pararse para evitar que el paciente llegue muerto.

La temprana advertencia de Melchior Palyi

En la década de 1950, cuando el dólar todavía era convertible -los gobiernos extranjeros y bancos centrales podían convertir sus saldos de corto plazo en dólares por oro a la tasa establecida por la ley de 35 dólares por onza- la productividad marginal de la deuda era 3 ó superior. Esto es, que 1 dólar adicional de nueva deuda causaba un aumento del PIB de al menos 3 dólares. En agosto de 1971, cuando Nixon impagó las obligaciones internacionales de oro de los Estados Unidos (siguiendo los pasos de Franklin Delano Roosevelt que había impagado las obligaciones domésticas de oro 35 años antes), la productividad marginal de la deuda cayó por debajo del nivel crucial de 1.

Cuando la productividad marginal cayó por debajo de 1 dólar, pero todavía se mantenía positiva, implicaba que la deuda total (siempre en términos netos) estaba aumentando más rápido que el PIB. Por ejemplo, si la productividad marginal de la deuda se sitúa en 0,5, ello significa que para incrementar la producción nacional de bienes y servicios en 1 dólar, habría que incurrir en 2 dólares de deuda. Un incremento de la deuda total en 1 dólar ya no podría generar siquiera un aumento equivalente del PIB. La deuda perdería así entonces cualquier justificación económica.

La caída de la productividad marginal de la deuda ha continuado sin interrupción desde entonces. Nadie tomó medidas. De hecho, los administradores Keynesianos del sistema monetario y de la economía pusieron trabas a esta información, manteniendo al público en la oscuridad. Ni tampoco los economistas Keynesianos y Friedmanitas en las universidades prestaron atención a la señal de peligro. Los agitadores siguieron gritando: “¡Dame más crédito!”

Yo me percaté de la importancia de la productividad marginal de la deuda a través del Boletín del economista húngaro de Chicago Melchior Palyi en 1969 –hay un total de 640 números de ese Boletín, disponibles en la Biblioteca de la Universidad de Chicago-. Palyi advirtió de que la tendencia de este crucial indicador era a la baja y que había que hacer algo al respecto antes de que el monstruo de la deuda devorara la economía. Palyi murió unos pocos años más tarde y no vivió para ver la devastación que tan astutamente predijo.

Otros también han llegado a la misma conclusión de diferentes formas. Peter Warburton, en su libro Debt and Delusion: Central Bank Follies That Threaten Economic Disaster -Deuda y Engaño: Las locuras del Banco Central que amenazan con el desastre económico-, también prevé el mismo resultado, aunque no utiliza el concepto de la productividad marginal de la deuda.

2006, el año de la inflexión

Mientras la deuda estuvo contenida por la presencia del oro en el sistema, por débil que fuera esta restricción, el deterioro de la calidad de la deuda era relativamente lento. La calidad se derrumbó, y la cantidad se disparó hasta la estratosfera cuando la presencia del oro, el único que puede extinguir la deuda en última instancia, desapareció del sistema monetario. Aún así, pasaron 35 años antes de que el capital de la sociedad fuera erosionado y consumido a través del deterioro ininterrumpido de la productividad marginal de la deuda.

El año 2006 fue el punto de inflexión. A finales de ese año la productividad marginal de la deuda cayó hasta cero y pasó a ser negativa por primera vez en la historia, encendiendo la alarma roja que advertía de una catástrofe económica inminente. Efectivamente, en febrero de 2007, el riesgo de impago de la deuda, medido por el coste desorbitado de los CDS (Credit Default Swaps), se disparó. Y como dice el dicho, el resto ya es historia.

Productividad marginal negativa

¿Por qué una productividad marginal de la deuda negativa es señal de un desastre económico inminente? Porque indica que cualquier posterior incremento en el endeudamiento necesariamente causará una contracción económica. El capital se ha esfumado; una mayor producción ya no se sostiene por la necesaria cantidad y calidad de las herramientas y el equipamiento. La economía está literalmente devorándose a sí misma a través de la deuda.

La creación desenfrenada de deuda a través de la reducción de los tipos de interés hasta el 0% está destruyendo el capital de la sociedad, pero este mensaje es ignorado. La crisis financiera actual ha sido explicada a través de un razonamiento ad hoc, culpando a los laxos estándares crediticios, las hipotecas subprime, y argumentos similares. Sin embargo, no se hizo nada para parar la causa real del desastre: la rápida generación de deuda. Por el contrario, la generación de la deuda fue acelerada mediante rescates públicos y planes de estímulo económico.

En vista del hecho de que la productividad marginal de la deuda es ahora negativa, podemos ver que las medidas de rescate de la administración Obama, que están financiadas mediante la creación de niveles de nueva deuda sin precedentes, son contraproducentes. Éstas son la causa directa de la creciente contracción económica, incluyendo el aumento del desempleo.

"Camino al infierno"

El presidente de la Unión Europea, y Primer Ministro Checo, Mirek Topolanek, calificó públicamente el plan de Obama, consistente en gastar casi 2 billones de dólares para sacar a la economía de la recesión, como el “camino al infierno”. No hay ninguna razón para castigar al Sr. Topolanek por tal calificativo. Cierto es que hubiera sido más educado y diplomático haber suavizado sus comentarios empleando términos del estilo de: “el plan de Obama ha sido aprobado ignorando que la productividad marginal de la deuda era negativa y sigue a la baja. En consecuencia, el aumento del gasto público mediante planes de estímulo sólo causará una mayor deflación y contracción económica”.

¿Hiperinflación o hiperdeflación?

La mayoría de críticos del plan de Obama sugieren que las consecuencias de los rescates y planes de estímulo provocarán una grave pérdida del poder adquisitivo del dólar y, en última instancia, una hiperinflación, tal y como evidenci la Teoría Cuantitativa del Dinero. Sin embargo, la teoría cuantitativa es un modelo lineal que puede ser válido como una primera aproximación, pero falla en la mayoría de casos, debido a que el mundo real es sobre todo no-lineal. Mi propia teoría, basada en el concepto de la productividad marginal de la deuda, predice que lo que se viene encima no es una hiperinflación sino un círculo vicioso de deflación. Éste es el argumento.

Mientras que los precios de los productos primarios, tales como el petróleo y los alimentos, pueden subir inicialmente, los consumidores apenas tienen poder adquisitivo, y tampoco pueden pedir prestado como solían para pagar esta subida de precios. El nuevo dinero creado ha ido a parar al rescate de bancos, y una parte importante se ha desviado para continuar pagando los inflados bonus de los banqueros. Muy poco de este dinero ha fluido hacia los consumidores ordinarios, que se ven con el agua al cuello debido a las deudas contraídas en el pasado.

De ahí que dichas subidas de precios sean insostenibles, ya que el consumidor es incapaz de afrontarlas. Como resultado, los comerciantes minoristas y mayoristas también están con el agua al cuello. Tienen que reducir precios. La presión de la caída de la demanda no se queda en los comerciantes, sino que también se transmite hacia los productores, que también tienen que reducir precios. Todos ellos están experimentando un descenso en sus flujos de caja derivados de las operaciones económicas ordinarias. Despiden a más gente, agravando la crisis aun más, dado que se reduce el efectivo en manos de los consumidores debido al mayor desempleo. La espiral viciosa está en marcha.

Pero, ¿qué está pasando con la ingente cantidad de nuevo dinero que está inundando la economía? Este dinero se está empleando para pagar la deuda de personas que están luchando desesperadamente por salirse de ella. Los hombres de negocios en general están aletargados; cada recorte en el tipo de interés les golpea, erosionando el valor de sus inversiones anteriores.

En mis trabajos he explicado cómo unos tipos de interés en continua caída hacen que el valor liquidativo de la deuda aumente. Es decir, se traduce en una partida contable negativa en la cuenta de pérdidas y ganancias, comiéndose al capital que, como consecuencia, tiene que ser repuesto. Aún peor. No hay manera de que los empresarios sean inducidos a llevar a cabo nuevas inversiones mientras haya expectativas de nuevas reducciones en el tipo de interés. Son conscientes de que sus inversiones se esfumarían a medida que el tipo de interés siguiera cayendo en pos de políticas monetarias agresivas como el quantitative easing -creación de dinero de forma discrecional-.

El círculo vicioso de la especulación en tipos de interés decrecientes

La única actividad que está prosperando en este ambiente deflacionario es la especulación en bonos. Los especuladores usan nuevo dinero, disponible a través de la Reserva Federal (Fed), para expandir sus actividades y empujar al alza el precio de los bonos. Dichos inversores se adelantan a la Fed: compran primero los bonos y luego los revenden por un precio inflado antes de que los recompre la Fed.

Tal actividad está libre de riesgos. Los especuladores se enteran por adelantado de las operaciones de la Fed a lo largo de la curva de rendimientos. La Fed comprará 300.000 millones de dólares de letras del Tesoro durante los próximos seis meses, y probablemente mucho más después de esa fecha. La especulación sobre unos tipos de interés decrecientes se convierte en autorrealizable, gracias a la demente idea de las operaciones de mercado abierto de la Fed, que hace que la especulación en bonos esté exenta de riesgo. Este proceso hace que la deflación sea auto-sostenible (para otra visión de la especulación en bonos libre de riesgos, ver el artículo de Carl Gutiérrez en Forbes, mencionado en las referencias).

Nótese también que el progresivo hundimiento del precio de las acciones, y el intento desesperado por parte de grupos privados de rescatar activos tóxicos, también ha disparado la demanda de dinero en efectivo. El dólar, al menos en la variedad del billete de la Reserva Federal, será cada vez más escaso. Antes de hundirse, tal y como sucedería en un escenario hiperinflacionario, el poder adquisitivo del dólar se va a incrementar notablemente.

¿Piensan que Ben Bernanke y sus máquinas de fabricar billetes se ocuparán de eso? Simplemente consideren lo siguiente. El mercado separará los billetes de la Fed antiguos de los nuevos, que tendrán impresa la firma de Bernanke. En una clásica aplicación de la Ley de Gresham, la gente atesorará el primero (los antiguos), otorgando una prima sobre él en relación con la segunda variedad (dólares de nueva creación), que se quedará por el camino.

Bernanke puede crear dinero, pero no puede hacerlo fluir

Ya hay algunas publicaciones que abiertamente aconsejan a la gente que atesore billetes de la Reserva Federal en cantidades importantes que lleguen a cubrir hasta 24 meses de gastos corrientes estimados, mientras cancela todas sus cuentas de depósito. Se advierte a los depositantes que se olviden del límite de 250.000 dólares del seguro de depósitos, que se ha convertido en algo prácticamente despreciable en la medida en que los recursos de la FDIC (Agencia Federal de Garantía de Depósitos) han sido secuestrados por Geithner (secretario del Tesoro de EUU) y desviados a garantizar las inversiones de grupos privados que fueron tan estúpidos como para comprar deuda tóxica a instancias de la administración Obama. Karl Denninger prevé una tasa de desempleo superior al 20%, con ciudades en una situación mucho peor que, por ejemplo, el centro de Detroit (ver referencias abajo).

¿Qué tiene todo esto que ver con la productividad marginal de la deuda? Una vez que se hace negativa, cualquier incremento adicional de nueva deuda hará que la economía se contraiga más, incrementando el desempleo y reduciendo los precios. Bernanke puede crear todo el dinero que quiera y más, pero no puede hacerlo fluir por toda la economía.

Bernanke se arriesga a algo peor que una depresión

El nuevo dinero creado seguirá las leyes de la gravedad y fluirá hacia el mercado de bonos, que es donde está la fiesta. La especulación libre de riesgos en bonos reforzará la espiral deflacionista hasta que llegue el agotamiento final: la economía colapsará como un globo al ser pinchado. En vez de hiperinflación y de la destrucción del dólar, lo que tenemos es deflación y la destrucción de la economía.

Denninger advierte de que la ‘espiral mortal’ llevará a que se disparen las ventas de activos en una loca carrera de liquidación de éstos, y en última instancia, al colapso del sistema monetario y político de EEUU a medida que se evaporan los ingresos impositivos. Señala que, probablemente, ni uno solo de los miembros del Congreso entiende la gravedad de la situación. Bernanke se está arriesgando a algo mucho peor que una depresión. Se está jugando literalmente el final de América como una potencia política, económica y militar.

Efectivamente, el colapso financiero y económico de los dos últimos años debe verse como parte de la progresiva desintegración de la civilización occidental, que empezó con el sabotaje gubernamental del patrón oro en la primera parte del siglo XX. Ben Bernanke, que debería haber sido despedido por el nuevo presidente el día después de su inauguración por haber causado un daño irreparable a la república norteamericana, puede, al final, tener el honor de administrar el golpe de gracia a nuestra civilización.

Artículo elaborado por Antal E. Fekete, professor  Money and Banking, en San Francisco School of Economics, publicado originalmente en Goldseek.


No Time for T-Bonds by Carl Gutierrez, March 28, 2009, www.forbes.com

Bernanke Inserts Gun in Mouth, by Carl Denninger, March 20, 2009, http://market-ticker.denninger.net

Debt and Delusion: Central Bank Follies That Threaten Economic Disaster, by Peter Warburton, first published in 1999; WorldMetaView Press (2005).

06/04/2009 11:03 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Muere la familia de un abortista

       (Según narración de Gingi Edmonds).



        Algunos habréis oído en las noticias la historia del jet privado que se estrelló en un cementerio en Montana, matando a todos los pasajeros (7 niños y 7 adultos). Pero lo que no han mencionado las agencias de información es que el Cementerio Católico de la Santa Cruz, propiedad de la Asociación de Cementerios “La Resurrección”, en Butte, Montana, contiene un pequeño monumento conmemorativo en torno al cual gente del lugar suele congregarse para rezar el rosario: “La Tumba del No-Nacido”, se llama. Esta lápida conmemorativa, situada cerca de la iglesia en cuyo jardín está el cementerio, fue erigida en memoria de todos los niños que han muerto a causa de un aborto provocado.


       (Nota del Traductor: Desde la legalización del aborto en los EEUU en 1973, los niños asesinados por un aborto provocado suman ya más de 55 millones).


       ¿Y qué más no nos están contando las agencias de noticias? Pues que la familia que murió en el accidente de aviación era la de Irving Feldkamp, dueño de la cadena de abortorios más grande de los Estados Unidos.


        La cadena “Planificación Familiar S.L.” fue adquirida hace cuatro años por Irving Feldkamp,  dueño, además, de la cadena de clínicas dentales “Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates” y Consejero delegado, también, del circuito de carreras “Glen Helen”, en San Bernardino, California. Las 17 “clínicas” de Planificación Familiar S.L. (Family Planning Associates) perpetran más abortos provocados que ningún otro “proveedor” (incluida Planned Parenthood) y realizan abortos en los primeros cinco meses de embarazo.


        Aunque Feldkamp no es uno de los abortistas que trabajan en sus clínicas, ha hecho fortuna con el dinero conseguido con las decenas de miles de niños asesinados en los abortos realizados en las “clínicas” de las que es dueño. Fueron los beneficios económicos (Nota del Traductor: “La economía lo es todo” ¿Recuerdan?) conseguidos con su negocio abortista los que le permitieron adquirir el jet privado que llevaba a su familia a pasar una semana de vacaciones en el exclusivo “Yellowtone Club”, una lujosa estación de esquí para millonarios.


        El avión se estrelló el domingo 22 de Marzo, matando a dos hijas de Feldkamp, a sus dos yernos, y a sus cinco nietos. El avión se estrelló en el cementerio contiguo a la pista de aterrizaje. No hubo supervivientes.


        La causa del accidente continúa siendo un misterio. El piloto, que había tripulado cazas militares anteriormente, no dio en ningún momento indicación alguna a la torre de control de tener problema o dificultad alguna cuando se le comenzaron a indicar las instrucciones para el aterrizaje en Butte, Montana. Los testigos afirman que el avión, ya cerca del suelo, cayó de pronto en picado sin que hubiera señales previas que indicasen problema alguno. No había, en el avión, aparato alguno de grabación delas conversaciones del piloto, ni tampoco caja negra. Tampoco hay grabación alguna del radar del aeropuerto, ya que el pequeño aeropuerto local de Butte carece de radar. Aunque se especula que quizás el avión pudo precipitarse debido al un hipotético exceso de hielo en las alas, este modelo de avión en concreto ha sido probado en circunstancias extremas de acumulación de hielo en el fuselaje, por lo que los expertos han descartado ya esta posibilidad.


         Durante el tiempo en que he sido voluntaria de la asociación “Supervivientes del Holocausto del Aborto”, ayudé a coordinar y organizar actos semanales en los que los activistas próvida nos congregábamos en las afueras de la mansión de Feldkamp, con signos mostrando imágenes del desarrollo fetal, e intentando que el vecindario conociese qué tipo de “actividades” le proporcionaban tales beneficios económicos. Todos los jueves por la tarde le pedíamos a Feldkamp y a su mujer que se arrepintieran, que buscasen a Dios y que se apartaran de la práctica del asesinato de niños.


        Incluso le avisábamos, por el bien de sus hijos, que se lavase las manos de la sangre de los niños inocentes de cuyo derramamiento se beneficiaba económicamente, porque, como dicen las Escrituras, “...y como no aborreciste el derramamiento de sangre, la sangre te perseguirá” (Ezequiel 35:6), y “Porque hoy he puesto ante ti la vida y la muerte....Escoge la vida, para que VIVÁIS TÚ Y TU DESCENDENCIA”. (Deuteronomio 30:19).


        Una agencia de noticias informó de que Feldkamp, acompañado por su mujer y sus otros dos hijos, se desplazó hasta el lugar del accidente el lunes. Las imágenes le mostraban de pie, hablando con los investigadores entre los restos del avión, mientras una suave nevada caía sobre las cubiertas que tapaban los cadáveres de sus hijas y de sus nietos.


        Mi intención no es convertir esta tragedia en una especie de macabra moraleja espiritual en plan “Ya-te-lo-advertí”. Pero ahora me acuerdo de todas las horas que pasamos ante la mansión de Feldkamp. De cómo Pam Feldkamp (su mujer) se reía de los carteles con imágenes del desarrollo fetal que llevábamos, y de cómo Irving Feldkamp apartaba la vista para meterse en su coche, llevando casi siempre un niño pequeño en brazos o de la mano. Y recuerdo especialmente las palabras que le decíamos para intentar ablandar su corazón: “Piensa en tus nietos”. Me pregunto si Feldkamp estará recordando ahora estas palabras mientras permanecía de pie entre los restos de sus hijos y de sus nietos, justo al lado de la “Tumba del No-nacido”.


        Sólo espero y rezo para que, a la luz de esta tragedia, Feldkamp se dé cuenta de su necesidad de arrepentimiento y que cambie su vida. Rezo para que Dios pueda usar esta trágica catástrofe para ablandar los corazones de Irving y Pam Feldkamp, para que busquen al Señor y laven sus manos de la sangre de los miles de niños inocentes asesinados en sus “clínicas”, cada uno de ellos tan valioso e irreemplazable como sus nietos.









29/03/2009 18:39 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.


Venezuela va rumbo a la PUTA MIERDA...no les va a quedar ni las pieles de mos Macacos para comer.
Pero no cabe duda que la mayoría se lo merece,porque Chávez no está en el poder por un golpe militar,sino porque alguien lo ha votado,y ésos "alguien" no deben ser objeto de pena ni lástima alguna.
Espero que no huyan como ratas,llevándose sus miserias "socialistas del s.XXI"., a otros paises.
16/03/2009 15:59 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.



On August 9, 1995 -- at precisely 11:02 a.m. -- wailing sirens will resonate throughout the Urakami Valley until their cries break up in the distance and precipitate a moment of silence on the part of the people of Nagasaki. Those old enough to remember the death and destruction visited on the city fifty years ago by a single atomic bomb, will once again relate their tales of survival and mourn the loss of their friends and loved ones who perished that sultry August morning. Those too young to have witnessed the horror of the occasion will pause from their busy schedules and offer a collective silent prayer that the tragedy never be repeated.

For the residents of Nagasaki the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on the city is a simple, solemn occasion marked by testimony, mourning and prayer. For much of the rest of the world, however, the commemoration evokes a complicated series of memories. While August 6th and Hiroshima are associated with the beginning of the atomic age, and August 15th and VJ Day with the war’s end, August 9th and Nagasaki fall schizophrenically in between. It is difficult for most people outside of Japan to conceptualize the atomic bombing of Nagasaki without envisioning overlapping images of the war’s conclusion and the beginning of the nuclear age. For many, the term "Nagasaki" elicits the kind of mixed reaction that World War II commemorations are presently evoking around the world.

This is not an article that attempts to examine the larger political and moral issues surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, but rather one that explores the personal story of a young American who helped pilot the B-29 that delivered the bomb which killed tens of thousands in the city fifty years ago. Fred Olivi hopes that mankind will never again use atomic weapons, but he has also long ago come to terms with his role in the dropping of the atomic bomb. He has lived his life in relative anonymity, retiring nine years ago as Manager of Bridge Operations and Maintenance with the City of Chicago. While finally getting around to putting his thoughts down in a self-published book, Olivi has somehow managed to avoid the media -- both American and Japanese. His thoughts on various aspects related to the bombing thus prove to be honest and unrehearsed.

On August 9, 1945 Lt. Fred Olivi, the 23-year-old Chicago-born son of Italian immigrants, flew over Nagasaki as third pilot in the aircraft Bockscar. At 11:02 local time, the plane dropped a 10,000 pound plutonium bomb known as the "Fat Man" over the city, killing more than 70,000 people in what, at this point in time, is the last instance of man using atomic weapons against his fellow human beings. This was the only time that Olivi has ever been to Nagasaki, and even then he saw almost nothing of the bustling seaport town below because of cloud cover -- both natural and bomb-induced. While his view may have been obscured, his memory and subsequent perspective of the day’s events remain quite clear.

Frederick J. Olivi was born January 16, 1922 in the Pullman section of Chicago. When war with Japan broke out, he did not immediately join the service, because he was the sole male provider of his mother and sister. But ten months later in October 1942, the 19-year-old enlisted in the Air Corps against his mother’s wishes; four months later he was called to duty. Olivi then underwent officer’s training, in hopes of becoming a pilot. In August 1944 he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant.

By the fall of 1944, over 1500 military specialists from bases around the world had been brought together at Wendover Field in the Utah desert and divided into squadrons to prepare in secret for what would eventually become the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "On December 17, the five squadrons at Wendover became formally unified under [Colonel Paul] Tibbets as the 509th Composite Group...." Within the 509th, the 393rd Bomb Squadron was entrusted with delivering the bombs.

One of the first people brought in by Tibbets to train crews for the 393rd was Major Charles Sweeney, who at the time was training B-29 pilots at Grand Island, Nebraska. Sweeney was assigned to train Crew C15, piloted by Captain Don Albury. Crew C15 eventually consisted of four officers (Albury, Kermit Beahan, James Van Pelt and Olivi) and five enlisted men (Ed Buckley, John Kuharek, Ray Gallagher, Albert "Pappy" Dehart and Abe Spitzer). It trained at Wendover until January 1945, when it was sent on a two-month training mission to Batista Field outside of Havana to practice long-range flying over water. Co-pilot Olivi, who was the final member added to the crew by Tibbets, arrived at Wendover in January after the others had already left for Cuba. He joined them upon their return to the Utah base.

Once back at Wendover, Crew C15 continued its training and came to be acknowledged by most as the best crew in the 509th. In May some personnel of the 509th began to depart the Utah base for their new home -- North Field on Tinian Island within the Marianas. The members of Crew C15 remained at Wendover until June 20, however, when Sweeney (now commander of the 393rd) flew them to Hamilton Field in Marin County, California in a new B-29 Superfortress with fuel injection and reverse propellers. This would be the first stage of their three-day flight to the South Pacific. In California the plane was blessed by a Catholic priest (Sweeney being an Irish Catholic), before proceeding to Rogers field at Honolulu. Another brief stop was made at Kwajelein before reaching Tinian on June 23.

While on Tinian, Crew C15 had little to do as it awaited orders for its highly secretive mission. What the crew did not understand was that it was waiting for the successful explosion of an experimental plutonium bomb (which occurred July 16 in the New Mexico desert) and delivery of plutonium to its island base. Olivi, a young Catholic lad who neither smoked nor drank when he arrived at Tinian, was talked into drinking one night by his companions and, as a result, experienced his one and only hangover.

The members of Crew C15 decided to christen their B-29 the Great Artiste, after the nickname of their highly skilled bombardier, Kermit Beahan. The plane participated in a few short-range runs and a successful long-range practice exercise over Kobe in late July to prepare for its upcoming mission. Both the plane and the crew appeared ready to perform the task at hand.

On August 6, 1945, in what was described in military terms as a perfect mission, Col. Paul Tibbets and the crew of the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, destroying most of the city and killing approximately 90,000 people. Accompanying the Enola Gay as the instrument carrying aircraft was the Great Artiste piloted by Major Sweeney. In addition to the crew, three scientists were on board. To make room for the scientists, one member of the crew was asked to remain behind on Tinian; the person selected was co-pilot Fred Olivi. Olivi had become expendable when Sweeney took over as pilot of the aircraft. This bumped the Great Artiste’s regular pilot, Captain Don Albury, down to second pilot and eliminated the necessity of Olivi, normally the plane’s co-pilot.

Three days later, Crew C15 prepared to drop a second, much larger, plutonium bomb on Japan. This mission (known as Special Mission No. 16) had difficulties from the start, leading Olivi to entitle his recent account Decision at Nagasaki: The Mission that Almost Failed. The Great Artiste had originally been scheduled for the mission, but since it had been fitted as an instrument plane for the Hiroshima run there was not time to reconfigure the bomb bay for the "Fat Man."< Instead, Fred Bock’s airplane, Bockscar, was substituted, with Sweeney as pilot, Albury as co-pilot, and Olivi as third pilot.

On the morning of August 9, it was discovered that there was a fuel transfer problem from the auxiliary tank to the main tank, thus limiting the amount of fuel available for the flight. The decision was made to go ahead immediately, however, since it was important to convince the Japanese that the United States had multiple atomic bombs and because bad weather was moving in over Japan. The plane would simply refuel at Okinawa before returning to Tinian.

At a little before 2:00 a.m. Japan time (4:00 Tinian time) Sweeney managed to lift the heavy bomb-laden Bockscar off the end of the runway at North Field. He was followed soon after by Capt. Fred Bock piloting the Great Artiste as the instrument plane and Major James Hopkins who flew the Victor 90, which carried movie cameras and scientific observers from England. Victor 90 left minus one of the observers when Hopkins forced Dr. Robert Serber to get out of the aircraft after it had already taxied on to the runway, because the scientist had forgotten his parachute. This presented a problem, since Serber was the only one who knew how to operate the high-speed camera. Officials on the ground were forced to break radio silence in order to instruct Hopkins on its use.

In addition to the regular members of Crew C15 aboard Bockscar, the flight included three outside personnel: Naval officers Commander Fred Ashworth and Lt. Philip Barnes, as well as the electronics specialist Lt. Jacob Beser. Ashworth was a weapons specialist who had helped to field test the bomb at Wendover and Barnes was his assistant. Beser’s job was to ensure that the Japanese "did not jam the bomb’s fuse frequencies and prematurely detonate the Fat Man."

Once in the air, Sweeney, Albury and Olivi took turns flying while rotating brief rest periods. Lt. Barnes was put to work alarmingly early when a red warning light on the black box monitoring the armed bomb began to flicker. For ten minutes an incredible tension gripped the two weapons specialists until Barnes corrected two switches which had been reversed. Ashworth informed Sweeney of the incident, and all three men breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Olivi’s thoughts concerning the impending bombing mission, as summarized almost twenty-five years after the fact by Frank Chinnock, were similar to the views expressed by the other crew members:

"[The members of Crew C15] had been chosen for this vital mission and it was up to them to carry it off to the best of their ability. [Olivi] was convinced that if the enemy had the bomb, they would not hesitate to use it. All he and the others could do was to accomplish their mission and hope it would finish things quickly."

The primary target for the mission was to be Kokura, an industrial city in northern Kyushu, with Nagasaki as the secondary site. The three planes were to rendezvous above the island of Yakushima off the southern coast of Kyushu. Sweeney arrived first a little before 8:00 a.m., and while waiting for the others monitored a message from the weather plane of Charles McKnight at Nagasaki which reported: "Hazy, clearing rapidly, two-tenths cloud coverage, wind 250 degrees at 50 knots. "An earlier weather report from Kokura had also noted good weather there.

Around 8:10 Bock and the Great Artiste joined Sweeney at the rendezvous site, but Hopkins did not show. They waited forty minutes, but finally decided to leave for Kokura since they were running low on fuel.

Based on earlier weather reports, the crew of Bockscar flew to Kokura fully expecting to drop its bomb on the city and return quickly to Okinawa. Upon arrival, however, the military arsenal at Kokura was obscured by industrial haze and smoke from a nearby fire. The bombardier had specific orders not to drop the bomb unless he could see the target. Three times Sweeney passed overhead, but without success. With the fuel supply now an even greater concern and enemy flak becoming a problem, Sweeney took Bockscar on the most direct route to Nagasaki.

Conditions at Nagasaki were even worse than they had been at Kokura, with cloud cover now as great as nine-tenths. With no possibility of reaching Okinawa with its heavy bomb aboard, a decision had to be made. Ashworth decided that rather than "waste" the multi-million dollar bomb by dumping it into the ocean, the "Fat Man" should be dropped by radar over the Nagasaki target. Less than thirty seconds before the bomb was due to be dropped by radar, an opening appeared in the clouds and Beahan shouted that he could make a visual drop. He spotted the Mitsubishi Sports Stadium below and used it as his reference point. This was a couple miles north of the original target near Mitsubishi Shipyards and the center of the city, but still not too far from the Mitsubishi ordinance and steel factories along the Urakami River. The bomb detonated about 1500 feet above ground, killing (by the end of 1945) approximately 74,000 people and injuring a similar number. In addition, 1,650 acres were leveled and 120,000 residents left homeless.

The explosion occurred over Urakami Valley, the heart of Catholicism in Japan, and the home of Christian believers who had kept their faith alive in spite of hundreds of years of government persecution. Urakami Cathedral was less than 2500 feet away from Ground Zero, and everyone praying there that morning died instantly. Also in the area and hard hit were Nagasaki University Medical Hospital, a prison, and various elementary schools.

Because of the local topography, much of the center of the historical city was spared the ravages of the atomic bomb. Fires did cause considerable damage to some parts of the downtown area, but a protective ring of low mountains helped to contain the destruction. Certainly, if there had not been cloud cover and the plane had not been low on fuel, the city of Nagasaki would have suffered significantly more damage and thousands more would have perished.

Olivi’s recollection of the bombing from high above was that a very bright light with a bluish cast, cloud cover, and debris from the explosion made it almost impossible to see any of the city below. In spite of the fact that Bockscar was low on fuel, Sweeney decided to take a second pass over Nagasaki, hoping for better visibility; the results of the second fly over were as disappointing as the first. Olivi remembers three shock waves -- the first being the worst --, a hard right banking of the plane, and a barely successful effort to outrun the radioactive cloud headed toward the plane.

Soon after leaving Nagasaki, Ashworth ordered Spitzer to transmit the following message to Tinian:

"Bombed Nagasaki 090158Z visually with no fighter opposition and no flak. Results ’technically successful’ but other factors involved make conference necessary before taking further steps. Visible effects about equal to Hiroshima. Trouble in airplane following delivery requires us to proceed to Okinawa. Fuel only to get to Okinawa."

This brief statement would be the only official transmission to Tinian until Bockscar touched down safely on Okinawa.

Practically flying on fumes, Sweeney did not have time to wait for traffic to clear at Yontan Field as he approached the runway. When planes refused to move to allow him to land, he ordered Olivi to fire the flares on board to get everyone’s attention. This finally achieved the desired results, and with the assistance of the plane’s new reverse propellers acting as an extra set of brakes, Sweeney was able to land the Bockscar safely, in what one crew member referred to as a "controlled crash." Reflecting back upon the landing years later, Beser commented that "You can’t come any closer to disaster than we had, and live to tell about it."

Once safely on the ground, Sweeney and Ashworth reported the results of their mission to General Jimmy Doolittle, the commander of the Eighth Air Force. Crew C15 stayed only about two hours on Okinawa, before it headed back up in the Bockscar for the return flight to Tinian, joined by the Great Artiste and the tardy Victor 90.

About five hours later all three planes landed safely at North Field, ending the harrowing mission of almost twenty hours in length. It was almost 10:30 at night Tinian time when they arrived, and as Beser notes,, "There were no crowds to greet these crews, no medal pinning ceremony, only those who would be concerned with our interrogation were there." After having their picture taken in front of the Bockscar, the crew members were debriefed, ate a late dinner, and shared a few drinks. They had completed their mission, glitches and all, and now waited to see the response of the Japanese government.

The answer was not long in coming, as on August 15 the Emperor made a radio address to the nation announcing the unconditional surrender of Japan and acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. For Crew C15 this meant that its mission had been a success and that no more American lives would have to be sacrificed in the name of bringing World War II to a close. For the residents of Nagasaki, on the other hand, the pain and suffering was just beginning.

The end of the war meant that there was no longer a need for Crew C15, or the 509th Composite for that matter, to remain on Tinian. Most were flown or shipped back to the United States soon thereafter to avoid security leaks concerning their up-to-then highly secretive work. The members of Crew C15 were flown to Roswell, New Mexico in November. The vast majority chose immediate discharge from the service, but Olivi decided to sign on as a reservist at Roswell for another two years.

When Olivi finally left the service in 1947, he tried to find employment as a civilian airline pilot, but discovered that those who had gotten out earlier had taken these jobs. The 23-year-old was even low on the waiting list, since he had logged considerably fewer flying hours than most of the returning veterans.

In 1950 Olivi landed work as an engineering draftsman with the City of Chicago in its Bridge Division. Over the years, he worked his way up the ladder, and from 1973 until his retirement in 1986 he was in charge of supervising bridges in Chicago.

Fred Olivi remained in the Air Force Reserves until his retirement at age fifty in 1972; by then he had achieved the rank of Lt. Colonel. During his last fourteen years in the Reserves, he served as a Liaison Officer for the Air Force Academy in the Chicago area, describing the Academy and its various programs to local high school students.

In October 1965, Olivi married Carole McVey, a woman he had known since high school. According to the Olivis, when one was ready for marriage, the other was not, and they wound up postponing the inevitable nuptials until they were both in their early forties. Today, they live happily together in south Chicago.

Although it has been twenty-three years since Olivi retired from the Reserves and nine since he left the City of Chicago, he remains an active individual. He has been especially busy over the course of the past year participating in events commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II. His activities include traveling to schools, colleges, air shows and civic groups to make presentations on the Nagasaki bombing mission.

Olivi and the surviving members of Crew C15 still meet on a regular basis for reunions. The gatherings began in Chicago in 1962; initially at five year intervals and later two. They met last year, but with 1995 marking the fiftieth anniversary, they have decided to gather once again at Albuquerque, New Mexico, near the Los Alamos Testing Center, between August 5th and 10th.

Six members of the Bockscar mission to Nagasaki have since passed away: Abe Spitzer, the radio operator from New York City, died more than a decade ago in a traffic accident near his home; Sgt. Ed Buckley, the radar operator, died of throat cancer in 1981; Sgt. Albert "Pappy" Dehart, the tailgunner (who did not talk of his role in the mission or attend reunions), died in Texas; Kermit Beahan died in 1990 of a heart attack; two years ago Lt. Jacob Beser, an outside electronics specialist who was the only member to fly on both the Enola Gay and the Bockscar missions, died of cancer; and in December 1994 Dr. James Van Pelt, the navigator and radar operator originally from West Virginia, died of a heart attack while recovering from an automobile accident near his home in Corona, California where he was a physician.

Of the seven surviving members of the Nagasaki mission, two -- Vice-Admiral (at the time Navy Commander) Fred Ashworth and Lt. Philip Barnes -- were outside Navy weapons specialists and not ordinarily part of Crew C15. Neither Ashworth nor Barnes have stayed in touch with the Nagasaki crew or attended the reunions. Besides Olivi, those who still gather for the reunions include: General (then Major) Charles Sweeney, the feisty Irish-American from Boston who piloted the plane; Captain Don Albury, the regular pilot and mission co-pilot from Miami who for thirty-five years flew for Eastern Airlines; Master Sgt. John Kuharek, an engineer with the regular Army who now resides in Florida; and Sgt. Raymond Gallagher, the gunner and assistant engineer from Chicago. Also joining them at times for the reunions are Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, and Frederick Bock, the original pilot of Bockscar.

While Olivi has chosen not to return to Nagasaki for fear of harassment by the Japanese media, others have not been as reluctant. As a matter of fact, Sweeney, Albury and Beahan went back to Nagasaki within weeks of the bombing, joining the first American medical team to the city in September 1945. Albury returned in 1977 incognito with his wife and brother-in-law, managing to slip in and out of town without media attention. In 1990 Albury also went with Sweeney and Bock on a BBC-sponsored trip to Hiroshima. Sweeney and Bock continued on to Nagasaki without him. Jacob Beser made a much-celebrated return visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1985, in conjunction with the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on the two cities. The PBS-supported journey drew heavy media attention and also produced a book by Beser.

In an interview with Fred Olivi in November 1994, the author was accompanied by his wife, Fumiko, a native of Nagasaki. While Olivi made it known that he had only been carrying out orders and that he was glad that the bomb had helped shorten the war, he was clearly uncomfortable when discussing the fact that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed in the bombing. Meeting someone born in post-war Nagasaki for the first time on a face-to-face basis was visibly difficult for him. By the end of the conversation a great weight seemed to have been lifted from his shoulders. It was as if he had undergone a catharsis with the realization that not everyone in Nagasaki held him personally accountable for the bombing. He offered a genuinely warm invitation to join him and his wife for dinner whenever we came to Chicago again. Like Beser on his return trip to Japan, Olivi discovered that most Japanese today are not looking to affix personal blame for actions performed by young men within the context of a war fought fifty years ago.

Unlike others of his generation in the United States, Fred Olivi does not still view the Japanese as his enemy, and he does not want to be perceived as such by them. When I first met Olivi, it was at a presentation he was giving on the Bockscar mission at the Experimental Aircraft Association in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. During the course of conversation after his talk, a local veteran proclaimed that he still did not consider the Japanese to be human beings; they were in his mind just insects. Upon hearing of the comment, Olivi showed clear disgust that people on either side should still feel that way about one another a half century after the cessation of hostilities.

In a later conversation, Olivi related another xenophobic example of misguided American patriotism. A few years ago, he read in a Chicago newspaper that local families had dropped out of a program to host visiting French school children, because the French government had not allowed American war planes to use its airfields in attacks on Libya. The Olivis immediately volunteered to host one of the students, and to this day they look back on it as one of their fondest memories.

On August 9, 1945 a young Italian-American co-pilot named Fred Olivi participated in a military action in which more than 70,000 (mostly civilian) residents of Nagasaki were killed. To this day, he feels that the bombing was necessary and that it helped shorten the war. Reinforcing this view have been the actions of literally thousands of American veterans who over the years have thanked him for saving their lives. Joining in the chorus of appreciation are the wives, children and grandchildren of these veterans.

This does not, however, mean that Fred Olivi is pleased that fifty years ago he helped kill and injure so many citizens of Nagasaki. He wishes that it had never had to happen in the first place. To him, it was not an act of racism or an act of revenge, but simply the last act of a long and brutal war. At this point in his life, the 73-year-old retiree asks only that the record of the mission be set straight, and that nuclear weapons never again be used. He is proud of the fifty-year friendship of Japan and America, and prays for continued good relations between the countries.




Lane R. Earns

06/03/2009 23:20 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Obama y los musulmanes

Cada nuevo presidente se cuelga sus propias medallas señalando que él es más bondadoso y pacífico que todos sus antecesores. Pero cuando Barack Obama se dirigía a los musulmanes en su discurso de investidura diciendo "con el mundo musulmán, buscamos construir una relación nueva basada en los intereses y el respeto mutuo", su formulación fue demasiado apologética.

¿Resulta "novedoso" reconocer los intereses de los musulmanes y manifestar el respeto que merecen? Obama no sólo lo piensa, sino que lo volvía a decir a millones de personas en su entrevista con al-Arabiya, insistiendo en la necesidad de "restaurar" el "mismo respeto que tenía América con el mundo musulmán hace tan sólo 20 ó 30 años".

Asombroso. Resulta que en estos últimos 20 años, el presunto invierno en nuestras relaciones con el mundo islámico, América no sólo no respetó a los musulmanes, sino que incluso derramó su sangre por ellos. Tomó parte en cinco campañas militares, cada una de las cuales supuso la liberación de un pueblo musulmán: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afganistán e Irak.

Las dos intervenciones en los Balcanes –así como la fallida intervención somalí de 1992-1993 encaminada a alimentar a los musulmanes africanos que morían de hambre– fueron ejercicios humanitarios de alto nivel en el que no había ningún interés estratégico norteamericano en juego. En estos 20 años, nuestra nación ha hecho más por los musulmanes que sufren y son oprimidos que ninguna otra nación del mundo, sea musulmana o no. ¿De qué nos estamos disculpando?

¿Y qué hay de la feliz relación norteamericano-musulmana que Obama imagina que existía "hace tan sólo 20 ó 30 años" y que ahora él va a restaurar? Hace 30 años, en 1979, se produjo la mayor ruptura de relaciones entre Estados Unidos y el mundo musulmán en nuestros 233 años de historia: la revolución islámica radical de Irán y el secuestro de la embajada de los Estados Unidos.

Lo que vino después fue el embargo árabe del petróleo, que sumió a Estados Unidos en una larga y profunda recesión. Lo cual, a su vez, fue precedido del secuestro y ejecución a sangre fría a menos de terroristas árabes del embajador estadounidense y de su agregado comercial en Sudán.

Esto por no hablar de la masacre del cuartel de marines de 1983 y de los innumerables atentados contra instalaciones y embajadas norteamericanas por todo el mundo durante lo que Obama define como los días felices de las relaciones islámico-estadounidenses.

Está muy bien que Barack Obama diga, como lo hizo en al-Arabiya, que tiene raíces y familiares musulmanes y que ha vivido en un país musulmán (insinuando una afinidad especial que le sitúa en una posición única para alcanzar unas buenas relaciones). Pero es falso e injurioso que la era Obama represente una línea que ponga fin a un pasado trasnochado en el que el islam había sido supuestamente satanizado.

Como ya advirtiera Obama: "No podemos meter en el mismo saco a toda una fe como consecuencia de la violencia que se practica en nombre de esa fe". ¿Acaso "hemos" hecho eso, esto es, difamar al Islam por culpa de una pequeña minoría? George Bush acudió al Centro Islámico de Washington seis días después del 11-S, cuando las llamas de la Zona Cero aún no se habían apagado, para anunciar que "Islam es paz", tratando de ampliar los lazos de amistad con los musulmanes y comunicándoles que los estadounidenses les tratarán con respeto y generosidad.

Y América escuchó. Durante los siete años que siguieron al 11-S –siete años en los que miles de musulmanes provocaron altercados en todo el mundo como venganza por unas viñetas– no hubo un solo ataque anti-musulmán en Estados Unidos para vengar la mayor masacre de su historia. Todo lo contrario. Poco después elegimos a nuestro primer miembro musulmán en el Congreso y a nuestro primer presidente con familia musulmana.

Según Obama: "Mi trabajo consiste en comunicar al pueblo estadounidense que el mundo musulmán está lleno de personas extraordinarias que simplemente quieren vivir sus vidas y ver prosperar a sus hijos". ¿Ése es su trabajo? ¿Piensa el pueblo estadounidense lo contrario? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice e incontables líderes más ofrecieron numerosas muestras de ese mismo sentimiento.

Cada presidente tiene derecho a retratarse como heraldo de una nueva era de este o aquel ideal. Obama quiere fomentar nuevos vínculos con las naciones musulmanas, utilizando como base su propia identidad y sus relaciones. Está bien, aceptémoslo. Pero si al echarse flores como redentor de las relaciones norteamericano-musulmanas afirma que la América pre-Obama era indiferente o insensible o poco caritativa con los musulmanes, no sólo está construyendo una ficción, sino que además está menospreciando de manera gratuita al país que ahora tiene el privilegio de liderar.
© The Washington Post Writers Group
01/03/2009 22:17 Autor: plotino. Enlace permanente. Tema: THIS WORLD No hay comentarios. Comentar.

Blog creado con Blogia. Esta web utiliza cookies para adaptarse a tus preferencias y analítica web.
Blogia apoya a la Fundación Josep Carreras.

Contrato Coloriuris