More content to come in the near future, of a more informational variety, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy this short video clip from across the pond. Sarcasm that also makes sense.
I want to be clear - I find this amusing, and do not intend for readers to assume that this individual represents my views or opinions. Some parts of his rant do make sense, specifically the comments about many in the free world being cowed and intimidated into relative silence by the actions of radical Muslims (notably the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the harassment of Ayan Hirsi Ali, and the violent overreaction to the Danish cartoons (for which, by the way, some countries have agreed to make some modest restitution). In any event, if you are offended, lighten up, and feel free not to return to these pages in the future - it's your right not to read my words.
Cheers.
~JDS
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the video clip above do not in any way represent the opinions or beliefs of the author and operator of this blog. the video clip is embedded using HTML code from another website, and so the operator of this blog assumes absolutely no responsibility for any harm that may or may not come to a reader's computer should one choose to view this clip.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
A Historic Convergence:
It often seems as though the right thing to do and the practical or politically savvy thing to do are rarely one and the same. However, there is one issue that can see a convergence of such interests - from national security, to environmental awareness and concern, to fighting the war on terror - the issue of energy independence.
As concerned citizens from a variety of walks of life, energy independence is an issue that has the ability to appeal to Americans from all different political persuasions. Those concerned about environmental issues now have a means of making "green" alternative energy solutions appealing to national security-types, and those whose primary preoccupation is national security have the ability to achieve their goals of securing America by appealing to environmental types. Isolationists now have a compelling issue to withdraw America from one element of globalization. Those who believe that Middle East woes are at partly (or mostly) due to American involvement in oil interests now have a means of encouraging significant, monumental changes to these foreign policies. Those feeling the pinch of higher energy costs now have a chance to help bring stability, and therefore lower prices, to energy products.
The list could go on, but what matters is that this is an issue nearly every citizen can get behind. I encourage everyone to write their Congressional representation to make this issue a national priority. I have done so, and below the article that follows provide links to find your Senator and Representative so that you can write them today.
Let's all make this issue one of America's top priorities - by doing so we can achieve an unprecedented number of policy goals often at odds with each other. Let's take advantage of this historic convergence of doing the right thing, and doing the practical, politically convenient thing.
~JDS
The big lesson Iran can teach the U.S.
Original here
The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 14, 2006
What do you call a world leader who faces a strategic threat stemming from his country's energy dependence and introduces a crash program for energy independence that taps into his country's domestic resources?
Ahmadinejad.
With 43 percent of Iran's gasoline imported, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause social unrest that could undermine his regime. In response, he recently announced a three-part crash program for energy independence.
One tenet of the plan is massive expansion of the country's refining capacity. While no refinery has been built in the United States in decades, Iran's refinery infrastructure is undergoing one of the world's fastest expansions, including the construction of two large new refineries.
A second pillar is to secure imports of refined products from Venezuela, one of Iran's staunchest allies against the West.
The third, and most innovative, part of the plan is to convert Iran's vehicles to run on natural gas rather than gasoline within five years. Iran has the world's second-largest natural-gas reserve after Russia - 16 percent of the world's total - which guarantees an uninterrupted supply of cheap transportation fuel for decades. The cost of conversion of both the cars and refueling stations is heavily subsidized by the government.
The conversion of cars is simple, particularly in a country where unemployment surpasses 10 percent and labor is cheap. All that is needed is a minor engine adaptation and the installation of a gas cylinder in the trunk of the car. More than 105 conversion centers have already been built.
A shift from petroleum to natural gas will save Iran between $3 billion and $8 billion per year on gasoline imports. It will also leave refineries free to produce a greater proportion of essential non-gasoline petroleum products like jet fuel, which will keep Iran's air force and commercial airlines intact, and diesel to power its army and navy.
Ahmadinejad's gas revolution is a clear sign that Iran is preparing itself for the possibility of war and is developing a comprehensive economic warfare strategy to supplement its military and diplomatic initiatives.
Yet, while Iran is taking meaningful steps to reduce its strategic vulnerability, the United States is doing the exact opposite when it comes to energy security. Despite President Bush's statement in January that "America is addicted to oil," neither Congress nor the administration has done much to address this vulnerability. We still impose a stiff, 54-cent punitive tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol; our fuel-efficiency standards have been stagnant; and severe limits on domestic exploration of oil and gas are still in place. This year, imports account for more than 60 percent of U.S. oil supply. Barring policy changes, U.S. dependence five years from now will have swelled further, with profound implications for its national security. At that point, economic sanctions against Iran would likely hurt the United States far more than Iran.
With the sanctions option waning, we must begin to answer Iran's economic warfare strategy with one of our own. Therefore, the United States should:
Require that every new car sold here be a flex-fuel vehicle capable of running on any combination of gasoline and alcohol fuels, such as ethanol and methanol, that can be generated from vast domestic resources of biomass, wastes and coal. The extra cost to the automaker to make a car fuel flexible is less than $150, about a quarter the cost of converting an Iranian gasoline-powered car to run on natural gas. Requiring fuel flexibility will provide investors in alternative fuel plants the confidence that there will be a growing market for such fuels.
Tap into domestic resources by encouraging the use of electricity as a transportation fuel. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can shift our transportation sector from oil to made-in-America electricity generated from coal, nuclear power, and renewable sources.
Remove the ridiculous 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, and encourage friendly Latin American countries to ramp up ethanol production from sugar cane. Nothing would improve America's posture in Latin America more than dollars invested in the region's farming communities.
Energy dependence presents a serious and urgent national security problem. This is something America's staunchest enemy clearly understands and is sparing no effort to address. Will we be smart enough to do the same?
Gal Luft: is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (www.iags.org) in Washington
Anne Korin: is chair of the Set America Free Coalition (www.setamericafree.org) and co-director of IAGS
Write your Rep
Find your Senator
As concerned citizens from a variety of walks of life, energy independence is an issue that has the ability to appeal to Americans from all different political persuasions. Those concerned about environmental issues now have a means of making "green" alternative energy solutions appealing to national security-types, and those whose primary preoccupation is national security have the ability to achieve their goals of securing America by appealing to environmental types. Isolationists now have a compelling issue to withdraw America from one element of globalization. Those who believe that Middle East woes are at partly (or mostly) due to American involvement in oil interests now have a means of encouraging significant, monumental changes to these foreign policies. Those feeling the pinch of higher energy costs now have a chance to help bring stability, and therefore lower prices, to energy products.
The list could go on, but what matters is that this is an issue nearly every citizen can get behind. I encourage everyone to write their Congressional representation to make this issue a national priority. I have done so, and below the article that follows provide links to find your Senator and Representative so that you can write them today.
Let's all make this issue one of America's top priorities - by doing so we can achieve an unprecedented number of policy goals often at odds with each other. Let's take advantage of this historic convergence of doing the right thing, and doing the practical, politically convenient thing.
~JDS
The big lesson Iran can teach the U.S.
Original here
The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 14, 2006
What do you call a world leader who faces a strategic threat stemming from his country's energy dependence and introduces a crash program for energy independence that taps into his country's domestic resources?
Ahmadinejad.
With 43 percent of Iran's gasoline imported, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause social unrest that could undermine his regime. In response, he recently announced a three-part crash program for energy independence.
One tenet of the plan is massive expansion of the country's refining capacity. While no refinery has been built in the United States in decades, Iran's refinery infrastructure is undergoing one of the world's fastest expansions, including the construction of two large new refineries.
A second pillar is to secure imports of refined products from Venezuela, one of Iran's staunchest allies against the West.
The third, and most innovative, part of the plan is to convert Iran's vehicles to run on natural gas rather than gasoline within five years. Iran has the world's second-largest natural-gas reserve after Russia - 16 percent of the world's total - which guarantees an uninterrupted supply of cheap transportation fuel for decades. The cost of conversion of both the cars and refueling stations is heavily subsidized by the government.
The conversion of cars is simple, particularly in a country where unemployment surpasses 10 percent and labor is cheap. All that is needed is a minor engine adaptation and the installation of a gas cylinder in the trunk of the car. More than 105 conversion centers have already been built.
A shift from petroleum to natural gas will save Iran between $3 billion and $8 billion per year on gasoline imports. It will also leave refineries free to produce a greater proportion of essential non-gasoline petroleum products like jet fuel, which will keep Iran's air force and commercial airlines intact, and diesel to power its army and navy.
Ahmadinejad's gas revolution is a clear sign that Iran is preparing itself for the possibility of war and is developing a comprehensive economic warfare strategy to supplement its military and diplomatic initiatives.
Yet, while Iran is taking meaningful steps to reduce its strategic vulnerability, the United States is doing the exact opposite when it comes to energy security. Despite President Bush's statement in January that "America is addicted to oil," neither Congress nor the administration has done much to address this vulnerability. We still impose a stiff, 54-cent punitive tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol; our fuel-efficiency standards have been stagnant; and severe limits on domestic exploration of oil and gas are still in place. This year, imports account for more than 60 percent of U.S. oil supply. Barring policy changes, U.S. dependence five years from now will have swelled further, with profound implications for its national security. At that point, economic sanctions against Iran would likely hurt the United States far more than Iran.
With the sanctions option waning, we must begin to answer Iran's economic warfare strategy with one of our own. Therefore, the United States should:
Require that every new car sold here be a flex-fuel vehicle capable of running on any combination of gasoline and alcohol fuels, such as ethanol and methanol, that can be generated from vast domestic resources of biomass, wastes and coal. The extra cost to the automaker to make a car fuel flexible is less than $150, about a quarter the cost of converting an Iranian gasoline-powered car to run on natural gas. Requiring fuel flexibility will provide investors in alternative fuel plants the confidence that there will be a growing market for such fuels.
Tap into domestic resources by encouraging the use of electricity as a transportation fuel. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can shift our transportation sector from oil to made-in-America electricity generated from coal, nuclear power, and renewable sources.
Remove the ridiculous 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, and encourage friendly Latin American countries to ramp up ethanol production from sugar cane. Nothing would improve America's posture in Latin America more than dollars invested in the region's farming communities.
Energy dependence presents a serious and urgent national security problem. This is something America's staunchest enemy clearly understands and is sparing no effort to address. Will we be smart enough to do the same?
Gal Luft: is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (www.iags.org) in Washington
Anne Korin: is chair of the Set America Free Coalition (www.setamericafree.org) and co-director of IAGS
Write your Rep
Find your Senator
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Radio Free Iran?
Brilliant suggestion, though it remains to be seen whether or not Iranians remain capable of being inspired to act by information and analysis outside the regime's control. I remain skeptical as to whether or not the Administration will make any attempt to implement such a strategy.
Radio Free Iran
Down with music. Up with ideas
by S. Enders Wimbush
The Weekly Standard
12/18/2006, Volume 012, Issue 14
Iran looms intractable on America's radar, while the Bush administration casts about for nonmilitary weapons to use against it. Although President Bush insists that we are in a war of ideas with Iran, he has yet to unlimber some of America's most potent instruments to fight it. Chief among these should be the Persian-language broadcasts of Radio Farda. But, like most of America's international broadcasters, the station has fallen into the public diplomacy trap of advocating for America rather than stimulating debate within the targeted society.
Originally intended by Congress to operate as Radio Free Iran, the station was abruptly morphed into Radio Farda ("Tomorrow" in Persian) in 2002. It now broadcasts chiefly music and American popular culture aimed at Iran's kids. Mostly gone is the "ideas" menu--history, culture, religion, economics, law, human rights, labor, business, critical thinking--employed to great effect during the Cold War by its parent organization, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, whose intended listeners were critical elites and the populations that supported them.
To become an effective instrument in the war of ideas, Radio Farda should be completely overhauled, not just tinkered with. Six strategies are required, all of them based on proven RFE/RL choices and methods.
Strategy One: Question the regime's legitimacy. Iran's noxious regime will survive so long as it retains legitimacy among those most likely to seek to change it. America's communications strategy should chip away at this legitimacy by describing and analyzing the nature of the regime from many angles.
It would contest the regime's claim to Islamic legitimacy. Direct involvement in politics by Islamic clerics has traditionally been frowned upon in Iran, a point made frequently by many Iranian theologians and ayatollahs.
It would discredit the clerics as sources of moral authority. Pervasive corruption at all levels of government is public knowledge, and it is increasingly associated with the ruling clerical establishment in the mind of the public.
And a sound strategy would rebut the regime's anti-Westernism, which is intensifying as a source of its legitimacy. It would emphasize the great historical attachments of Iran to the West and, particularly, the mutual, and mutually beneficial, interpenetration of Persian and Western culture. The aim must be to deny traction to anti-Westernizing influences.
Strategy Two: Highlight the leadership's disunity. Iran's regime is at its strongest when its leaders are united. A targeted communications strategy would highlight disagreements among leaders that we know to exist, underlining divisions, straining friendships, and endangering alliances. It would give special attention to those who break ranks. (Boris Yeltsin acknowledged that his rise to power in the crumbling Soviet Union was due in large part to Radio Liberty's intensive reporting of his activities.) The strategy would focus on revealing controversies that may not exist openly but that are endemic to the regime's view of the world and the policies by which it articulates its vision.
Strategy Three: Highlight threats to Iran's culture. For Iranians of most stripes, the sanctity and salience of their historic culture, and its preeminence among world cultures, is of high importance. A successful communications strategy would describe how this preeminence is endangered and in decline. Examples of mediocre cultural products (in literature, music, poetry, art, films), made more mediocre by Iran's isolation from the rest of the world and the intellectual straitjacket enforced by the regime, could be discussed to make a powerful point: Iran's historic culture is deteriorating in Iran itself, with the only advances taking place outside the mother country.
During the Cold War, Radio Liberty's strategy of stressing the gains of Russian culture outside Russia--for example through movie reviews and readings by noted authors in exile--had a sobering impact on its listeners. Iran, where virtually everything is viewed through the prism of culture, is an even more resonant milieu for such a strategy.
Strategy Four: Describe Iran's isolation, economic decline, and growing lack of competitiveness. A targeted communications strategy should draw attention constantly to the economic and social costs of Iran's isolation from the world. It would emphasize that Iran is embarking on a catastrophe in science and technology, partly because of isolation but also because the educational system no longer supports such pursuits. It would make the case that Iran is missing out on globalization. Take away Iran's oil (which accounts for 90 percent of exports) and you have a failed state. As much as 50 percent of the rural population and 20 percent of the urban population live below the poverty line. This places Iran in competition with Pakistan (34 percent poverty rate) for the distinction of being the poorest country in Asia.
An effective communications strategy would take aim at failing "Islamic economics" that is dragging Iranians away from the globalization sweeping the rest of the world. It would point out that for Iranians poverty and demography are converging. Unemployment among the young averages 35 percent. Things are especially dire for Iran's young women, who suffer an unemployment rate of 50 percent, despite being easily the best educated in the Middle East. The prospects of the massive youth cohort are not bright, and they know it. Moreover, with half a million college graduates joining the ranks of the unemployed each year, things are getting worse, even without the palpable political alienation of this key demographic. These people don't need popular music. They need, and want, powerful ideas for change.
Strategy Five: Build critical/pragmatic thinking. Islamic education is inflicting a knockout punch on critical thinking skills. This is happening in most parts of the Islamic world, including Iran, where Islamic precepts permeate every level of the educational system, including the hard sciences. A communications strategy would focus on generating and strengthening pragmatic thinking and decision-making throughout the population, but especially among young people. To this end, the strategy would emphasize programs and topics that instill listeners with ways of thinking about problems that the regime currently proscribes or for which it insists on "Islamic solutions."
Strategy Six: Empower alternative power centers with new ideas. Like all complex states, Iran has a number of real and potential power centers--regional, labor, ethnic, professional, institutional, military, even religious. A focused communications strategy would aim to challenge the regime's ability to suffocate these centers in its ideological embrace. A successful strategy would provide the ideas to encourage potential power centers and leaders to develop stronger profiles, advance unique demands, and compete for power. The Eastern European and Soviet cases are instructive in this regard--think of the free trade union, Solidarity. None of the Soviet-bloc regimes proved able to survive even modestly persistent challenges from alternative power centers.
President Bush has incessantly asserted that fighting the war of ideas is his top priority, but he seems not to understand that public diplomacy, which aims to make people like America, is not the solution. It's time he got serious about the war of ideas and unleashed Radio Farda.
S. Enders Wimbush is senior fellow and director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute. He was director of Radio Liberty from 1987 to 1992.
Radio Free Iran
Down with music. Up with ideas
by S. Enders Wimbush
The Weekly Standard
12/18/2006, Volume 012, Issue 14
Iran looms intractable on America's radar, while the Bush administration casts about for nonmilitary weapons to use against it. Although President Bush insists that we are in a war of ideas with Iran, he has yet to unlimber some of America's most potent instruments to fight it. Chief among these should be the Persian-language broadcasts of Radio Farda. But, like most of America's international broadcasters, the station has fallen into the public diplomacy trap of advocating for America rather than stimulating debate within the targeted society.
Originally intended by Congress to operate as Radio Free Iran, the station was abruptly morphed into Radio Farda ("Tomorrow" in Persian) in 2002. It now broadcasts chiefly music and American popular culture aimed at Iran's kids. Mostly gone is the "ideas" menu--history, culture, religion, economics, law, human rights, labor, business, critical thinking--employed to great effect during the Cold War by its parent organization, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, whose intended listeners were critical elites and the populations that supported them.
To become an effective instrument in the war of ideas, Radio Farda should be completely overhauled, not just tinkered with. Six strategies are required, all of them based on proven RFE/RL choices and methods.
Strategy One: Question the regime's legitimacy. Iran's noxious regime will survive so long as it retains legitimacy among those most likely to seek to change it. America's communications strategy should chip away at this legitimacy by describing and analyzing the nature of the regime from many angles.
It would contest the regime's claim to Islamic legitimacy. Direct involvement in politics by Islamic clerics has traditionally been frowned upon in Iran, a point made frequently by many Iranian theologians and ayatollahs.
It would discredit the clerics as sources of moral authority. Pervasive corruption at all levels of government is public knowledge, and it is increasingly associated with the ruling clerical establishment in the mind of the public.
And a sound strategy would rebut the regime's anti-Westernism, which is intensifying as a source of its legitimacy. It would emphasize the great historical attachments of Iran to the West and, particularly, the mutual, and mutually beneficial, interpenetration of Persian and Western culture. The aim must be to deny traction to anti-Westernizing influences.
Strategy Two: Highlight the leadership's disunity. Iran's regime is at its strongest when its leaders are united. A targeted communications strategy would highlight disagreements among leaders that we know to exist, underlining divisions, straining friendships, and endangering alliances. It would give special attention to those who break ranks. (Boris Yeltsin acknowledged that his rise to power in the crumbling Soviet Union was due in large part to Radio Liberty's intensive reporting of his activities.) The strategy would focus on revealing controversies that may not exist openly but that are endemic to the regime's view of the world and the policies by which it articulates its vision.
Strategy Three: Highlight threats to Iran's culture. For Iranians of most stripes, the sanctity and salience of their historic culture, and its preeminence among world cultures, is of high importance. A successful communications strategy would describe how this preeminence is endangered and in decline. Examples of mediocre cultural products (in literature, music, poetry, art, films), made more mediocre by Iran's isolation from the rest of the world and the intellectual straitjacket enforced by the regime, could be discussed to make a powerful point: Iran's historic culture is deteriorating in Iran itself, with the only advances taking place outside the mother country.
During the Cold War, Radio Liberty's strategy of stressing the gains of Russian culture outside Russia--for example through movie reviews and readings by noted authors in exile--had a sobering impact on its listeners. Iran, where virtually everything is viewed through the prism of culture, is an even more resonant milieu for such a strategy.
Strategy Four: Describe Iran's isolation, economic decline, and growing lack of competitiveness. A targeted communications strategy should draw attention constantly to the economic and social costs of Iran's isolation from the world. It would emphasize that Iran is embarking on a catastrophe in science and technology, partly because of isolation but also because the educational system no longer supports such pursuits. It would make the case that Iran is missing out on globalization. Take away Iran's oil (which accounts for 90 percent of exports) and you have a failed state. As much as 50 percent of the rural population and 20 percent of the urban population live below the poverty line. This places Iran in competition with Pakistan (34 percent poverty rate) for the distinction of being the poorest country in Asia.
An effective communications strategy would take aim at failing "Islamic economics" that is dragging Iranians away from the globalization sweeping the rest of the world. It would point out that for Iranians poverty and demography are converging. Unemployment among the young averages 35 percent. Things are especially dire for Iran's young women, who suffer an unemployment rate of 50 percent, despite being easily the best educated in the Middle East. The prospects of the massive youth cohort are not bright, and they know it. Moreover, with half a million college graduates joining the ranks of the unemployed each year, things are getting worse, even without the palpable political alienation of this key demographic. These people don't need popular music. They need, and want, powerful ideas for change.
Strategy Five: Build critical/pragmatic thinking. Islamic education is inflicting a knockout punch on critical thinking skills. This is happening in most parts of the Islamic world, including Iran, where Islamic precepts permeate every level of the educational system, including the hard sciences. A communications strategy would focus on generating and strengthening pragmatic thinking and decision-making throughout the population, but especially among young people. To this end, the strategy would emphasize programs and topics that instill listeners with ways of thinking about problems that the regime currently proscribes or for which it insists on "Islamic solutions."
Strategy Six: Empower alternative power centers with new ideas. Like all complex states, Iran has a number of real and potential power centers--regional, labor, ethnic, professional, institutional, military, even religious. A focused communications strategy would aim to challenge the regime's ability to suffocate these centers in its ideological embrace. A successful strategy would provide the ideas to encourage potential power centers and leaders to develop stronger profiles, advance unique demands, and compete for power. The Eastern European and Soviet cases are instructive in this regard--think of the free trade union, Solidarity. None of the Soviet-bloc regimes proved able to survive even modestly persistent challenges from alternative power centers.
President Bush has incessantly asserted that fighting the war of ideas is his top priority, but he seems not to understand that public diplomacy, which aims to make people like America, is not the solution. It's time he got serious about the war of ideas and unleashed Radio Farda.
S. Enders Wimbush is senior fellow and director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute. He was director of Radio Liberty from 1987 to 1992.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Kick him out:
Kick him out
By ELIE WIESEL
Saturday, November 25th, 2006
Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive. What remains in human memory as the most cruel of conflicts changed neither human nature nor peoples' ambition. Religious wars, political dictatorships, ethnic clashes, sectarian, cultural and economic crises: Their impact affects us all pretty much everywhere on the planet. Our world is still the target of more than one threat. Such is life, that everything comes full circle to start over again.
Yet even in the domain of evil, differences and degrees exist. Certain dictators are worse than others, and their hateful actions have consequences more dangerous.
For the reader who has not yet guessed, I am speaking of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: More than so many others who abuse their position if not their power, this one represents the darkest of political action.
Ridiculing historical truths, offending the memory of survivors still alive, he glorifies the act of lying: As the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world, an anti-Semite with a disturbed mind, he claims that Hitler's "Final Solution" never happened. He even had a large international exhibition of anti-Holocaust cartoons mounted in Tehran. Several hundred cartoonists participated. When asked about the future, the exhibition organizer states that the project will continue as long as the Jewish state has not been destroyed.
And who will destroy it? On this point, President Ahmadinejad is not afraid to clarify his view: Iran will take the lead. As soon as this Muslim country has acquired a nuclear weapon, the first bombs will be launched on Israel. And he has not ceased to repeat this threat.
Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.
And lest we forget, who is behind the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Iran. Iran sends them the most modern weapons and officers to train their soldiers. But what does Hezbollah want? Territorial concessions? No. The creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state? No. The sole objective of this movement - and of the Iranian president - is the destruction of Israel.
This is why I maintain that such a figure does not have a place within the community of international leaders. Persona non grata, an undesirable individual, this is what he should become, because of what he is doing to his country, to his people, to all of humanity. This is why he deserves to be turned away everywhere. I'll go even further: The country he leads and embodies should be excluded from the United Nations as long as he is its ruler and symbol. On what grounds? It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.
Is something like this possible? I am not naive enough to believe that this could really happen. What state would introduce such a UN resolution? And how many delegates would vote to adopt it? I know all too well: very few. But at least they won't feel so comfortable in their fear. At least they'll learn from lessons of the not-so-distant past: We know with whom a dictator will begin; but he will not stop there. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, do we really think that Israel would remain its only target?
Some will say: What about North Korea? Why aren't we doing something about them? Don't they have the same atomic ambitions? Yes, they do. But there is still quite a difference. North Korea has never threatened to wipe away another state. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, is author of "Night" and winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. This article, written for the Daily News, was translated from the French by Jamie Moore.
By ELIE WIESEL
Saturday, November 25th, 2006
Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive. What remains in human memory as the most cruel of conflicts changed neither human nature nor peoples' ambition. Religious wars, political dictatorships, ethnic clashes, sectarian, cultural and economic crises: Their impact affects us all pretty much everywhere on the planet. Our world is still the target of more than one threat. Such is life, that everything comes full circle to start over again.
Yet even in the domain of evil, differences and degrees exist. Certain dictators are worse than others, and their hateful actions have consequences more dangerous.
For the reader who has not yet guessed, I am speaking of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: More than so many others who abuse their position if not their power, this one represents the darkest of political action.
Ridiculing historical truths, offending the memory of survivors still alive, he glorifies the act of lying: As the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world, an anti-Semite with a disturbed mind, he claims that Hitler's "Final Solution" never happened. He even had a large international exhibition of anti-Holocaust cartoons mounted in Tehran. Several hundred cartoonists participated. When asked about the future, the exhibition organizer states that the project will continue as long as the Jewish state has not been destroyed.
And who will destroy it? On this point, President Ahmadinejad is not afraid to clarify his view: Iran will take the lead. As soon as this Muslim country has acquired a nuclear weapon, the first bombs will be launched on Israel. And he has not ceased to repeat this threat.
Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.
And lest we forget, who is behind the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Iran. Iran sends them the most modern weapons and officers to train their soldiers. But what does Hezbollah want? Territorial concessions? No. The creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state? No. The sole objective of this movement - and of the Iranian president - is the destruction of Israel.
This is why I maintain that such a figure does not have a place within the community of international leaders. Persona non grata, an undesirable individual, this is what he should become, because of what he is doing to his country, to his people, to all of humanity. This is why he deserves to be turned away everywhere. I'll go even further: The country he leads and embodies should be excluded from the United Nations as long as he is its ruler and symbol. On what grounds? It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.
Is something like this possible? I am not naive enough to believe that this could really happen. What state would introduce such a UN resolution? And how many delegates would vote to adopt it? I know all too well: very few. But at least they won't feel so comfortable in their fear. At least they'll learn from lessons of the not-so-distant past: We know with whom a dictator will begin; but he will not stop there. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, do we really think that Israel would remain its only target?
Some will say: What about North Korea? Why aren't we doing something about them? Don't they have the same atomic ambitions? Yes, they do. But there is still quite a difference. North Korea has never threatened to wipe away another state. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, is author of "Night" and winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. This article, written for the Daily News, was translated from the French by Jamie Moore.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Terror on the Airlines redux?:
This is a fine example of attempts to manipulate the media to serve Islamist ends by promoting the fiction that Muslims are singled out for no other reason than their obvious religious connections. There is no climate of hostility towards Muslims pervading American society, only a suspicion of odd behavior in situations where fears of repeat Islamist terrorism make the public more aware of abnormal behavior.
This isn't a case of racism, its a case of these religious leaders acting in a manner illsuited for their surroundings. According to pilots, crew, and security officials, the imams switched seats so as to fit a seating formation (2 in front, middle and rear of aircraft) used in suspected terror dry-runs, requested seat belt extensions - typically reserved for oversized passengers, which these men were not - and promptly deposited the belt extensions on the floor near their seats, and apparently at least one of the men made two trips to one of the imams seated in the rear of the plane. I for one am willing to suffer the indignity of investigation should I begin acting suspiciously on an airliner after my co-religionists have demonstrated a propensity for hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings.
How the imams terrorized an airliner
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.
"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.
The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.
The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.
The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.
"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.
A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
This isn't a case of racism, its a case of these religious leaders acting in a manner illsuited for their surroundings. According to pilots, crew, and security officials, the imams switched seats so as to fit a seating formation (2 in front, middle and rear of aircraft) used in suspected terror dry-runs, requested seat belt extensions - typically reserved for oversized passengers, which these men were not - and promptly deposited the belt extensions on the floor near their seats, and apparently at least one of the men made two trips to one of the imams seated in the rear of the plane. I for one am willing to suffer the indignity of investigation should I begin acting suspiciously on an airliner after my co-religionists have demonstrated a propensity for hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings.
How the imams terrorized an airliner
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, November 28, 2006
Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.
Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.
"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."
But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.
"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.
The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.
Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.
"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.
"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.
"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."
One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.
The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.
The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.
"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."
"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.
A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Doubting a Grand Bargain:
If we had any doubts as to the extent to which Syria and Iran will go to protect their interests viz-a-viz Hezbollah and their influence in Lebanon and the Middle East, they are demolished now. What is scary is that the "realist" school of thought that continues to dominate Foggy Bottom can't seem to see the forest through all the trees.
In their narrow, in many ways blind perspective of world events, it does not appear taht US diplomats "get it", meaning that they simply do not understand that this is a situation where talk and dialogue will not secure American interests - unless that talk and dialogue is supported by an understanding that NOT talking would mean certain doom.
Put simply, we cannot achieve diplomatic victories while we criticize the possibility of a military confrontation, while we deplore the use of force, or while we condemn our Commander in Chief as a second-rate Hitler. We can't win a diplomatic concession without a credible military option on the table any more than we can get a snack from a vending machine without
money. That is just how it works.
I hope State wakes up before they push us over the brink.
Anti-Syrian Minister Assassinated in Lebanon-Christine Hauser
Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister and prominent anti-Syrian Christian leader, was shot and killed Tuesday in Beirut in the latest in a series of killings of prominent Lebanese figures who were critical of Syria. Gemayel's father is Amin Gemayel, a former president. Witnesses said at least three gunmen rammed a car into Gemayel's vehicle, then leapt out and
riddled his vehicle with bullets, firing at him with silencer-equipped automatic weapons at point-blank range. (New York Times)
See also Assassination Increases Tensions with Syria, Iran - Robin Wright
President Bush blasted Syria and Iran Tuesday after the assassination of Christian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel for trying to destabilize Lebanon. Bush said the U.S. remains "fully committed" to supporting Lebanon's democracy despite attempts by Damascus, Tehran, and their allies in Lebanon "to foment instability and violence." He also charged that the regime of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is in violation of two UN resolutions for its ongoing meddling in Lebanon. (Washington Post)
See also Syrian Link to Murder Threatens Blair's Policy of Engagement with Syria - Rosemary Bennett and Philip Webster
Tony Blair's policy of engagement with Syria came under immediate threat Tuesday as the assassination of a Lebanese government minister was blamed on Damascus. The murder brings the Lebanese government perilously close to collapse. The government will fall if it loses one more cabinet member. (Times-UK)
See also Syria Denies Involvement in Gemayel Assassination, Accuses Israel (Kuwait News Agency)
In their narrow, in many ways blind perspective of world events, it does not appear taht US diplomats "get it", meaning that they simply do not understand that this is a situation where talk and dialogue will not secure American interests - unless that talk and dialogue is supported by an understanding that NOT talking would mean certain doom.
Put simply, we cannot achieve diplomatic victories while we criticize the possibility of a military confrontation, while we deplore the use of force, or while we condemn our Commander in Chief as a second-rate Hitler. We can't win a diplomatic concession without a credible military option on the table any more than we can get a snack from a vending machine without
money. That is just how it works.
I hope State wakes up before they push us over the brink.
Anti-Syrian Minister Assassinated in Lebanon-Christine Hauser
Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister and prominent anti-Syrian Christian leader, was shot and killed Tuesday in Beirut in the latest in a series of killings of prominent Lebanese figures who were critical of Syria. Gemayel's father is Amin Gemayel, a former president. Witnesses said at least three gunmen rammed a car into Gemayel's vehicle, then leapt out and
riddled his vehicle with bullets, firing at him with silencer-equipped automatic weapons at point-blank range. (New York Times)
See also Assassination Increases Tensions with Syria, Iran - Robin Wright
President Bush blasted Syria and Iran Tuesday after the assassination of Christian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel for trying to destabilize Lebanon. Bush said the U.S. remains "fully committed" to supporting Lebanon's democracy despite attempts by Damascus, Tehran, and their allies in Lebanon "to foment instability and violence." He also charged that the regime of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is in violation of two UN resolutions for its ongoing meddling in Lebanon. (Washington Post)
See also Syrian Link to Murder Threatens Blair's Policy of Engagement with Syria - Rosemary Bennett and Philip Webster
Tony Blair's policy of engagement with Syria came under immediate threat Tuesday as the assassination of a Lebanese government minister was blamed on Damascus. The murder brings the Lebanese government perilously close to collapse. The government will fall if it loses one more cabinet member. (Times-UK)
See also Syria Denies Involvement in Gemayel Assassination, Accuses Israel (Kuwait News Agency)
"Realist" picture of the Middle East:
A rather accurate graphical depiction of the "realist" school's plans for the Middle East.
~JDS
~JDS
Liberal Disgrace:
Another example of Western disgrace. I reiterate that I believe a sensitivity to the feelings of religious and ethnic communities is an essential component of a true liberal (not lefty-loo liberal, but liberal in the way America's forefathers were liberals) society.
That being said, however, the sort of behavior exemplified by the following article is an absolute shame, and represents an inability to distinguish between respect and pandering; between honoring a group's sensitivities and tip-toeing around them so as not to permit even the perception of slight.
Were this attitude directed at all groups, one could make a case for its usefullness. But the sad truth is that this restrictive, excessive level of political correctness is corroding Western society from within, and we don't seem to be willing to stop it.
~JDS
Australian Publisher Nixes Book Over Muslim Sensitivities
By Hillel Fendel
Scholastic Australia, a publisher of books for children and youth, has refused to publish a book it commissioned - because the villains are Muslim terrorists.
Australia's national daily The Australian reports that Scholastic pulled the plug on a book by award-winning novelist John Dale after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the adventure thriller.
Andrew Berkhut, a Scholastic general manager, said the company had canvassed "a broad range of booksellers and library suppliers," who expressed concern that the book featured a Muslim terrorist. "They all said they would not stock it," he said.
Scholastic Australia is part of Scholastic Inc., the largest publisher and distributor of books, magazines, educational and multimedia materials for children in the world. Scholastic Australia's website says it "has a strong commitment to children and education" and that it "believes that children and educators deserve the best - access to the highest-quality literature and learning materials from Australia and throughout the world."
Yet Dale's book, "Army of the Pure," was canceled because of its content - despite its fulfillment of all other Scholastic criteria. "There are no guns, no bad language, no sex, no drugs, no violence that is seen or on the page," Dale said, but "because two characters are Arabic-speaking and the plot involves a mujaheedin extremist group," Scholastic's decision is based "100 per cent [on] the Muslim issue."
Dale said the decision was "disturbing because it's the book's content they are censoring."
In March 2004, The Australian reported, Scholastic commissioned Dale to deliver "a tough, snappy thriller" that would cause young readers to "break out in sweats and their eyes to bulge without giving them actual nightmares." Scholastic later described Dale's writing as "almost flawless." Dale is the director of the Centre for New Writing at the University of Technology.
Scholastic also said that the story about four children chased by Afghan terrorists after discovering a plot to blow up Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was a "gripping page-turner."
Dale's agent, Lyn Tranter, branded the move to withdraw the book a "gutless" publishing decision.
The Australian notes that the decision clashes with the recent publication in Australia of two books that attack the struggle against Muslim terrorism: Richard Flanagan's bestselling "The Unknown Terrorist," which is dedicated to David Hicks, a Westerner who was imprisoned after fighting side-by-side with the Taliban, and Andrew McGahan's "Underground," in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the West's extreme struggle against Muslim terror.
The WesternResistance.com site opines, "It seems that despite the world in which today's children are growing up, where Muslim terrorists seem hell-bent on causing widespread publicity through acts of terror, politically-correct libraries and booksellers would rather delude everyone with the lie that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism."
That being said, however, the sort of behavior exemplified by the following article is an absolute shame, and represents an inability to distinguish between respect and pandering; between honoring a group's sensitivities and tip-toeing around them so as not to permit even the perception of slight.
Were this attitude directed at all groups, one could make a case for its usefullness. But the sad truth is that this restrictive, excessive level of political correctness is corroding Western society from within, and we don't seem to be willing to stop it.
~JDS
Australian Publisher Nixes Book Over Muslim Sensitivities
By Hillel Fendel
Scholastic Australia, a publisher of books for children and youth, has refused to publish a book it commissioned - because the villains are Muslim terrorists.
Australia's national daily The Australian reports that Scholastic pulled the plug on a book by award-winning novelist John Dale after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the adventure thriller.
Andrew Berkhut, a Scholastic general manager, said the company had canvassed "a broad range of booksellers and library suppliers," who expressed concern that the book featured a Muslim terrorist. "They all said they would not stock it," he said.
Scholastic Australia is part of Scholastic Inc., the largest publisher and distributor of books, magazines, educational and multimedia materials for children in the world. Scholastic Australia's website says it "has a strong commitment to children and education" and that it "believes that children and educators deserve the best - access to the highest-quality literature and learning materials from Australia and throughout the world."
Yet Dale's book, "Army of the Pure," was canceled because of its content - despite its fulfillment of all other Scholastic criteria. "There are no guns, no bad language, no sex, no drugs, no violence that is seen or on the page," Dale said, but "because two characters are Arabic-speaking and the plot involves a mujaheedin extremist group," Scholastic's decision is based "100 per cent [on] the Muslim issue."
Dale said the decision was "disturbing because it's the book's content they are censoring."
In March 2004, The Australian reported, Scholastic commissioned Dale to deliver "a tough, snappy thriller" that would cause young readers to "break out in sweats and their eyes to bulge without giving them actual nightmares." Scholastic later described Dale's writing as "almost flawless." Dale is the director of the Centre for New Writing at the University of Technology.
Scholastic also said that the story about four children chased by Afghan terrorists after discovering a plot to blow up Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was a "gripping page-turner."
Dale's agent, Lyn Tranter, branded the move to withdraw the book a "gutless" publishing decision.
The Australian notes that the decision clashes with the recent publication in Australia of two books that attack the struggle against Muslim terrorism: Richard Flanagan's bestselling "The Unknown Terrorist," which is dedicated to David Hicks, a Westerner who was imprisoned after fighting side-by-side with the Taliban, and Andrew McGahan's "Underground," in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the West's extreme struggle against Muslim terror.
The WesternResistance.com site opines, "It seems that despite the world in which today's children are growing up, where Muslim terrorists seem hell-bent on causing widespread publicity through acts of terror, politically-correct libraries and booksellers would rather delude everyone with the lie that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism."
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
On Rivalries:
A lot has been made of sports rivalries this week - at least, a lot has been made if you have been living anywhere near a radio, TV, or computer connected to a sports news portal.
There are two or three large scale rivalries in US college athletics - Duke v. UNC; Notre Dame v. USC; and of course, the mother of them all, Michigan v. Ohio State.
Of these, however, none has the nationwide intensity and appeal of Michigan v. Ohio State. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Using Google search results was an indicator of the amount of attention each rivalry gets, Michigan v. Ohio State tops them all by a significant margin.
Disclaimer - I recently discovered Google's Elmer Fudd language setting, hence the bizzare English for the above Google links.
Still don't think so? Then consider that an Ohio jail has provided inmates with a pizza party for the big game (story here). I would be surprised to find out that a similar situation occurred in relation to another college rivalry.
And if that does not convince you, well, you had probably get back under that rock you have been living under for all these years... (Sorry Dick Vitale - this means you, too).
Bo, rest in peace.
There are two or three large scale rivalries in US college athletics - Duke v. UNC; Notre Dame v. USC; and of course, the mother of them all, Michigan v. Ohio State.
Of these, however, none has the nationwide intensity and appeal of Michigan v. Ohio State. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Using Google search results was an indicator of the amount of attention each rivalry gets, Michigan v. Ohio State tops them all by a significant margin.
- Duke v. UNC: 1.5 million hits
- Notre Dame v. USC: 2.2 million
- Michigan v. Ohio State: 36.8 million
Disclaimer - I recently discovered Google's Elmer Fudd language setting, hence the bizzare English for the above Google links.
Still don't think so? Then consider that an Ohio jail has provided inmates with a pizza party for the big game (story here). I would be surprised to find out that a similar situation occurred in relation to another college rivalry.
And if that does not convince you, well, you had probably get back under that rock you have been living under for all these years... (Sorry Dick Vitale - this means you, too).
Bo, rest in peace.
Friday, November 10, 2006
To lighten the mood:
Every once in a while, it helps to take time to laugh at the roses. Or something to that effect.
See below, and enjoy (pardon the quality, newsprint doesn't scan like it used to).
~JDS
See below, and enjoy (pardon the quality, newsprint doesn't scan like it used to).
~JDS
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Articles of Interest - November 9:
Articles of interest for November 9, 2006:
Since there are so many articles this post, I have noted two of the more important articles in the list above. If you don't know where to start, or have limited time, start with these.
More substantive posts to come. For now, you have some reading to do.
~JDS
- Don't Mention The War
- Prepare For War In Gaza - Excellent article
- Confessed Al-Qaeda Operative Gets Life
- Gunmen May Have Dressed As Women in Mosque Raid
- Are We the Mongols of the Information Age?
- Outwitting Ahmadinejad
- Hizballah in Venezuela
- Hamas in the New York Times - Excellent article
- Bolton: Lebanon Covering Up Arms Smuggling
Since there are so many articles this post, I have noted two of the more important articles in the list above. If you don't know where to start, or have limited time, start with these.
More substantive posts to come. For now, you have some reading to do.
~JDS
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Middle East Empires:
The following is a very interesting web animation of the various empires that have dominated areas of what we today call the Middle East (sans audio that I noticed). Found out "in the wild" here, I have attempted to include it below. The website, MapsOfWay.com has several other interesting maps, though none as pertinent to the overwhelming focus of this blog.
To view the animation, please click here. It is worth the click, and loads with a short, few seconds wait.
Note: because this was designed for a web site of different dimensions, and because my knowledge of HTML is limited, the animation is wider than Blogger's alloted space, and so overlaps with links to the right. There is no problem with your window.
To view the animation, please click here. It is worth the click, and loads with a short, few seconds wait.
Note: because this was designed for a web site of different dimensions, and because my knowledge of HTML is limited, the animation is wider than Blogger's alloted space, and so overlaps with links to the right. There is no problem with your window.
Is this the beginning of the end?
Begginning of the end for the UN? I hope so...
More to come on this topic, rest assured. Stay tuned to this space.
~JDS
U.S. Sets Ambitious 'Global' NATO Summit Agenda
By PAUL TAYLOR, REUTERS, BRUSSELS
The United States set out an ambitious agenda on Oct. 30 for transforming NATO into a global security organization at a summit next month but acknowledged that some European allies have misgivings.
U.S. NATO ambassador Victoria Nuland said the 26-nation alliance had gone beyond debates about whether to act outside its Euro-Atlantic area, deploying forces on four continents in the last 18 months, most importantly in Afghanistan.
NATO is already performing missions in practice for which it has yet to adapt its theory, she said, forecasting tough drafting debates before the Nov. 28-29 summit in Riga, Latvia.
"We want NATO to be able to demonstrate when our heads meet four weeks from now that we have an alliance that is taking on global responsibilities, that it increasingly has the global capabilities to meet those responsibilities, and that it is doing it with global partners," Nuland said in a speech to the Centre for European Policy Studies think-tank.
The alliance is fighting Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan, supporting African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, patrolling former Yugoslav battlefields in Kosovo and has flown relief supplies to earthquake victims in Pakistan.
"For the next four weeks, allies are going to spend a lot of time arm-wrestling and mud-wrestling about the words that we use in our NATO documents ... to reflect today's reality. "It's going to be a tense conversation as we head towards Riga," she said without identifying which allies objected to stating such global ambitions in the summit documents. "But today, I would argue that the reality of what's going on in NATO is outstripping our ability to encapsulate it in NATO doctrine in theory here in NATO headquarters," Nuland added.
FRANCE MOST RETICENT
Diplomats said France was most reticent about accepting a global role for the U.S.-led alliance, of which it has been a prickly, semi-detached member since General Charles de Gaulle pulled French forces out of allied military command in 1966. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain also had reservations about appearing to rebrand NATO as a world policeman, they said. Nuland said European allies were coming to realize in Afghanistan that they needed to spend more on defense and develop long-range airlift and more special commando forces to cope with 21st century security challenges. Many European allies were spending less than NATO's unofficial minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product. The NATO Reaction Force, designed for rapid deployment to high-intensity combat situations, will not be fully operational in time for the Riga summit because of the strain on national defense resources, Nuland acknowledged.
"We are not all the way yet but we are making progress," she said.
But the summit will see progress on strategic airlift, with 14 allies and non-NATO Sweden signing a joint deal to acquire long-range C-17 heavy lift aircraft, and on joint training and communications for special forces. Politically, Nuland said the NATO council was now discussing global issues far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area, such as the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
More to come on this topic, rest assured. Stay tuned to this space.
~JDS
U.S. Sets Ambitious 'Global' NATO Summit Agenda
By PAUL TAYLOR, REUTERS, BRUSSELS
The United States set out an ambitious agenda on Oct. 30 for transforming NATO into a global security organization at a summit next month but acknowledged that some European allies have misgivings.
U.S. NATO ambassador Victoria Nuland said the 26-nation alliance had gone beyond debates about whether to act outside its Euro-Atlantic area, deploying forces on four continents in the last 18 months, most importantly in Afghanistan.
NATO is already performing missions in practice for which it has yet to adapt its theory, she said, forecasting tough drafting debates before the Nov. 28-29 summit in Riga, Latvia.
"We want NATO to be able to demonstrate when our heads meet four weeks from now that we have an alliance that is taking on global responsibilities, that it increasingly has the global capabilities to meet those responsibilities, and that it is doing it with global partners," Nuland said in a speech to the Centre for European Policy Studies think-tank.
The alliance is fighting Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan, supporting African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, patrolling former Yugoslav battlefields in Kosovo and has flown relief supplies to earthquake victims in Pakistan.
"For the next four weeks, allies are going to spend a lot of time arm-wrestling and mud-wrestling about the words that we use in our NATO documents ... to reflect today's reality. "It's going to be a tense conversation as we head towards Riga," she said without identifying which allies objected to stating such global ambitions in the summit documents. "But today, I would argue that the reality of what's going on in NATO is outstripping our ability to encapsulate it in NATO doctrine in theory here in NATO headquarters," Nuland added.
FRANCE MOST RETICENT
Diplomats said France was most reticent about accepting a global role for the U.S.-led alliance, of which it has been a prickly, semi-detached member since General Charles de Gaulle pulled French forces out of allied military command in 1966. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain also had reservations about appearing to rebrand NATO as a world policeman, they said. Nuland said European allies were coming to realize in Afghanistan that they needed to spend more on defense and develop long-range airlift and more special commando forces to cope with 21st century security challenges. Many European allies were spending less than NATO's unofficial minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product. The NATO Reaction Force, designed for rapid deployment to high-intensity combat situations, will not be fully operational in time for the Riga summit because of the strain on national defense resources, Nuland acknowledged.
"We are not all the way yet but we are making progress," she said.
But the summit will see progress on strategic airlift, with 14 allies and non-NATO Sweden signing a joint deal to acquire long-range C-17 heavy lift aircraft, and on joint training and communications for special forces. Politically, Nuland said the NATO council was now discussing global issues far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area, such as the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
The U.N. is a Farce:
This is the price we pay for trusting in the multilateralism of the United Nations. From sex scandals (especially in Africa), to failed endeavors (PDF) in the Middle East, to UNRWA, to this most recent debacle, the UN has proven again and again that it cannot be relied upon to tie its own shoes without someone getting a kickback, or someone being hurt.
It is time we had a change. The UN has got to go.
Bolton: Lebanon Covered Up Arms Smuggling
BY BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
New York Sun, October 31, 2006
http://www.nysun.com/article/42549
UNITED NATIONS — Fearing Syrian retaliation, Lebanese politicians have failed to disclose information about the illegal flow of arms to Hezbollah, the American ambassador to the United Nations said.
John Bolton spoke to reporters yesterday after a closed-door U.N. Security Council briefing on the implementation of U.N. resolutions on Lebanon, which call for an arms embargo on all Lebanese militias. Lebanese politicians, as well as the new European-led U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, have been hesitant to confront Hezbollah and prevent from being rearmed.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz of Israel said last week that the flow of arms to the Islamist terrorist group has intensified recently, but Secretary-General Annan's special envoy to oversee the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, told the council yesterday that he could not say whether more weapons have been smuggled to Hezbollah.
"In order to have an effective arms embargo," Mr. Roed-Larsen told The New York Sun, "there has to be cooperation from all regional partners," specifically Iran and Syria.
The government of Lebanon has informed the United Nations "that there are indeed arms which are coming over the border," Mr. Roed-Larsen said. However, he added, "They cannot give us any specifics in the form of information on volumes and types of weapons."
Lebanese politicians may be afraid of angering Syria, Mr. Bolton said. In yesterday's closed-door session, Mr. Roed-Larsen told the council that "he had received info from the government of Lebanon about the resupply of Hezbollah, in violation of the arms embargo," Mr. Bolton said."But the government was afraid to be specific about these arms coming across the Syrian-Lebanese border because of fear of retaliation."
Mr. Bolton added, "The absence of complete cooperation by the government of Syria remains very troubling in that respect. And I think it's very courageous for any of the democratic politicians in Lebanon to go on about their business under that kind of threat."
The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, denied that weapons have been passing across his country's border with Lebanon. He told reporters that Syria has given information to the Lebanese defense and foreign ministers that disprove reports of weapons smuggling.
Mr. Jaafari also said he had "no information" on threats that would make Lebanese officials afraid to report weapons violations. "Those who spread these lies are the ones threatening the peace and stability in Lebanon," Mr. Jaafari told Al-Arabiya TV.
The arms debate surrounding Hezbollah and other armed militias in Lebanon — over how, or even whether, to collect illegal weapons — has been contentious since the Security Council passed resolution 1559 in 2004, and that debate only intensified after the council passed resolution 1701 this summer.
The French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said his country is convinced that disarmament should be done as part of a "national dialogue." He added yesterday that he has no information that anyone is breaking the arms embargo.
Israel, which was recently accused of violating the U.N. resolutions by flying over Lebanon, has said it will continue the flights as long as Hezbollah remains armed and the flow of weapons into southern Lebanon is not stopped. Jerusalem has accused Syria and Iran of being Hezbollah's main arms suppliers.
Lebanon so far has declined to ask the new, larger UNIFIL for help in closing off its border with Syria to enforce the arms embargo. For its part, Syria has promised Mr. Annan that it will guard its border to prevent arms smuggling. Yesterday, Mr. Jaafari said Europe had declined a Syrian request for help in putting a stop to the flow of arms.
It is time we had a change. The UN has got to go.
Bolton: Lebanon Covered Up Arms Smuggling
BY BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
New York Sun, October 31, 2006
http://www.nysun.com/article/42549
UNITED NATIONS — Fearing Syrian retaliation, Lebanese politicians have failed to disclose information about the illegal flow of arms to Hezbollah, the American ambassador to the United Nations said.
John Bolton spoke to reporters yesterday after a closed-door U.N. Security Council briefing on the implementation of U.N. resolutions on Lebanon, which call for an arms embargo on all Lebanese militias. Lebanese politicians, as well as the new European-led U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, have been hesitant to confront Hezbollah and prevent from being rearmed.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz of Israel said last week that the flow of arms to the Islamist terrorist group has intensified recently, but Secretary-General Annan's special envoy to oversee the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, told the council yesterday that he could not say whether more weapons have been smuggled to Hezbollah.
"In order to have an effective arms embargo," Mr. Roed-Larsen told The New York Sun, "there has to be cooperation from all regional partners," specifically Iran and Syria.
The government of Lebanon has informed the United Nations "that there are indeed arms which are coming over the border," Mr. Roed-Larsen said. However, he added, "They cannot give us any specifics in the form of information on volumes and types of weapons."
Lebanese politicians may be afraid of angering Syria, Mr. Bolton said. In yesterday's closed-door session, Mr. Roed-Larsen told the council that "he had received info from the government of Lebanon about the resupply of Hezbollah, in violation of the arms embargo," Mr. Bolton said."But the government was afraid to be specific about these arms coming across the Syrian-Lebanese border because of fear of retaliation."
Mr. Bolton added, "The absence of complete cooperation by the government of Syria remains very troubling in that respect. And I think it's very courageous for any of the democratic politicians in Lebanon to go on about their business under that kind of threat."
The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, denied that weapons have been passing across his country's border with Lebanon. He told reporters that Syria has given information to the Lebanese defense and foreign ministers that disprove reports of weapons smuggling.
Mr. Jaafari also said he had "no information" on threats that would make Lebanese officials afraid to report weapons violations. "Those who spread these lies are the ones threatening the peace and stability in Lebanon," Mr. Jaafari told Al-Arabiya TV.
The arms debate surrounding Hezbollah and other armed militias in Lebanon — over how, or even whether, to collect illegal weapons — has been contentious since the Security Council passed resolution 1559 in 2004, and that debate only intensified after the council passed resolution 1701 this summer.
The French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said his country is convinced that disarmament should be done as part of a "national dialogue." He added yesterday that he has no information that anyone is breaking the arms embargo.
Israel, which was recently accused of violating the U.N. resolutions by flying over Lebanon, has said it will continue the flights as long as Hezbollah remains armed and the flow of weapons into southern Lebanon is not stopped. Jerusalem has accused Syria and Iran of being Hezbollah's main arms suppliers.
Lebanon so far has declined to ask the new, larger UNIFIL for help in closing off its border with Syria to enforce the arms embargo. For its part, Syria has promised Mr. Annan that it will guard its border to prevent arms smuggling. Yesterday, Mr. Jaafari said Europe had declined a Syrian request for help in putting a stop to the flow of arms.
Update on Gullibility:
This clip from the indispensable MEMRI speaks volumes. How many children are quoted on mainstream or state sponsored TV in the West calling for the death of foreign diplomats? I will answer: none.
Click on if you prefer to simply read the transcript.
My previous posts on this topic can be found below:
•Gullibility
•More on Gullibility
Click on if you prefer to simply read the transcript.
My previous posts on this topic can be found below:
•Gullibility
•More on Gullibility
Monday, October 30, 2006
Articles of Interest - October 30:
Articles of interest for October 30, 2006:
Note: One of my reasons for posting articles in this manner is to provide a useful bibliography to readers of this space. If you have suggestions for articles of interest, please feel free to post them as comments, or send them to me via e-mail. As some have pointed out, my choice for these articles may appear to be one sided, and so if provided with links, I would consider posting a counter point to the perspective I post here.
~JDS
- The Dark Ages -- Live From the Middle East!
- Hamas Must-See TV
- POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR
- Articles of interest focusing on space
Note: One of my reasons for posting articles in this manner is to provide a useful bibliography to readers of this space. If you have suggestions for articles of interest, please feel free to post them as comments, or send them to me via e-mail. As some have pointed out, my choice for these articles may appear to be one sided, and so if provided with links, I would consider posting a counter point to the perspective I post here.
~JDS
Friday, October 27, 2006
Space Policy and Threat:
Here are some articles of interest focusing on space issues. Note that while the JINSA article is old, it remains relevant and insightful.
(Space) Articles of interest for October 27, 2006:
And here is something funny, but likely true:
(Space) Articles of interest for October 27, 2006:
- Foes See U.S. Satellite Dependence as Vulnerable Asymmetric Target
- A Dangerous Step toward Space Warfare
- China's GPS: Military Threat?
And here is something funny, but likely true:
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Nuclear Umbrella:
Get out that nuclear umbrella, we are going to need it. This article just about speaks for itself. I simply add to it the note that a truly nightmare scenario is unfolding - and we must rededicate ourselves and our nation's resources - political and otherwise - to halting the spread of nuclear weapons.
Arabs have no choice but to possess nuclear arms
Dr Ibrahim Al-Bahrawi, Al-Ittihad (UAE, Oct. 19)
Amid a flurry of recent reports about North Korea's nuclear test, Egypt was
mentioned as the sole Arab country with the potential to make a substantial
nuclear development because Cairo declared the resumption of its peaceful
nuclear program several months ago. In addition, Egypt has previous
experience in this domain - operating the "Inshas" nuclear reactor.
Moreover, Arab Gulf countries can help Egypt financially to develop its
nuclear capacity.
The Arabs (read Egyptians) should take into consideration the following
facts in this regard: Signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
does not constitute a hindrance in the face of planning a peaceful nuclear
program that can eventually be transformed into a military program.
Washington's global influence is fading and smaller countries such as North
Korea and Iran can circumvent international curbs and the US appears unable
to launch military strikes on these countries.
The Arabs face the threat of Israeli nuclear arms, with the approval of the
United States, and identical weapons in Iran's possession without approval.
Analysts believe that the Arabs have no choice but to seek to possess these
arms to repel the enemies.
Arabs have no choice but to possess nuclear arms
Dr Ibrahim Al-Bahrawi, Al-Ittihad (UAE, Oct. 19)
Amid a flurry of recent reports about North Korea's nuclear test, Egypt was
mentioned as the sole Arab country with the potential to make a substantial
nuclear development because Cairo declared the resumption of its peaceful
nuclear program several months ago. In addition, Egypt has previous
experience in this domain - operating the "Inshas" nuclear reactor.
Moreover, Arab Gulf countries can help Egypt financially to develop its
nuclear capacity.
The Arabs (read Egyptians) should take into consideration the following
facts in this regard: Signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
does not constitute a hindrance in the face of planning a peaceful nuclear
program that can eventually be transformed into a military program.
Washington's global influence is fading and smaller countries such as North
Korea and Iran can circumvent international curbs and the US appears unable
to launch military strikes on these countries.
The Arabs face the threat of Israeli nuclear arms, with the approval of the
United States, and identical weapons in Iran's possession without approval.
Analysts believe that the Arabs have no choice but to seek to possess these
arms to repel the enemies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
