Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn says that a positive report on the Iraq “surge” from General Petraeus would be “a problem for us.”
Not “good news for the country”— a “problem.”
>>
"Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said."
I am no expert tactition, but Petraeus has been on GMA this week and the guy sounds like a stud. Better a stable, democratic Iraq than any other outcome.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
fighting words
God-Fearing People
Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 30, 2007, at 12:33 PM ET
During the greater part of last week, Slate's sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for "moderate" versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most "offensive" part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation?
Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy. The existence of djinns, or devils, is hard to disavow because it was affirmed by the prophet. An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned, and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.
Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.
Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."
Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/
God-Fearing People
Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 30, 2007, at 12:33 PM ET
During the greater part of last week, Slate's sister site On Faith (it is jointly produced by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, both owned by the Washington Post Co., which also owns Slate) gave itself over to a discussion about the religion of Islam. As usual in such cases, the search for "moderate" versions of this faith was under way before the true argument had even begun. If I were a Muslim myself, I think that this search would be the most "offensive" part of the business. Why must I prove that my deepest belief is compatible with moderation?
Unless I am wrong, a sincere Muslim need only affirm that there is one god, and only one, and that the Prophet Mohammed was his messenger, bringing thereby the final words of God to humanity. Certain practices are supposed to follow this affirmation, including a commitment to pray five times a day, a promise to pay a visit to Mecca if such a trip should be possible, fasting during Ramadan, and a pious vow to give alms to the needy. The existence of djinns, or devils, is hard to disavow because it was affirmed by the prophet. An obligation of jihad is sometimes mentioned, and some quite intelligent people argue about whether "holy war" is meant to mean a personal struggle or a political one. No real Islamic authority exists to decide this question, and those for whom the personal is highly political have recently become rather notorious.
Thus, Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. No human being can possibly claim to know that there is a God at all, or that there are, or were, any other gods to be repudiated. And when these ontological claims have collided, as they must, with their logical limits, it is even further beyond the cognitive capacity of any person to claim without embarrassment that the lord of creation spoke his ultimate words to an unlettered merchant in seventh-century Arabia. Those who utter such fantastic braggings, however many times a day they do so, can by definition have no idea what they are talking about. (I hasten to add that those who boast of knowing about Moses parting the Red Sea, or about a virgin with a huge tummy, are in exactly the same position.) Finally, it turns out to be impossible to determine whether jihad means more alms-giving or yet more zealous massacre of, say, Shiite Muslims.
Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."
Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation. Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
The Pace University incident becomes even more ludicrous and sinister when it is recalled that Islamists are the current leaders in the global book-burning competition. After the rumor of a Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo was irresponsibly spread, a mob in Afghanistan burned down an ancient library that (as President Hamid Karzai pointed out dryly) contained several ancient copies of the same book. Not content with igniting copies of The Satanic Verses, Islamist lynch parties demanded the burning of its author as well. Many distinguished authors, Muslim and non-Muslim, are dead or in hiding because of the words they have put on pages concerning the unbelievable claims of Islam. And it is to appease such a spirit of persecution and intolerance that a student in New York City has been arrested for an expression, however vulgar, of an opinion.
This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.
It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/
Santini Eulogy
We have gathered here today to celebrate the amazing and storied life of Col. Donald Conroy who modestly called himself by his nomdeguerre, The Great Santini.
There should be no sorrow at this funeral because The Great Santini lived life at full throttle, moved always in the fast lanes, gunned every engine, teetered on every edge, seized every moment and shook it like a terrier shaking a rat.
He did not know what moderation was or where you'd go to look for it. Donald Conroy is the only person I have ever known whose self-esteem was absolutely unassailable. There was not one thing about himself that my father did not like, nor was there one thing about himself that he would change. He simply adored the man he was and walked with perfect confidence through every encounter in his life. Dad wished everyone could be just like him...
After Happy Hour my father would drive his car home at a hundred miles an hour to see his wife and seven children. He would get out of his car, a strapping flight jacketed matinee idol, and walk toward his house, his knuckles dragging along the ground, his shoes stepping on and killing small animals in his slouching amble toward the home place.
My sister, Carol, stationed at the door, would call out, "Godzilla's home!" and we seven children would scamper toward the door to watch his entry.
The door would be flung open and the strongest Marine aviator on earth would shout, "Stand by for a fighter pilot!"
He would then line his seven kids up against the wall and say,
"Who's the greatest of them all?"
"You are, O Great Santini, you are."
"Who knows all, sees all, and hears all?"
"You do, O Great Santini, you do."
We were not in the middle of a normal childhood, yet none of us were sure since it was the only childhood we would ever have.
For all we knew other men were coming home and shouting to their families, "Stand by for a pharmacist," or "Stand by for a chiropractor"...
When he flew back toward the carrier that day, he received a call from an Army Colonel on the ground who had witnessed the route of the North Koreans across the river. "Could you go pass over the troops fifty miles south of here? They've been catching hell for a week or more. It'd do them good to know you flyboys are around."
He flew those fifty miles and came over a mountain and saw a thousand troops lumbered down in foxholes. He and Bill Lundin went in low so these troops could read the insignias and know the American aviators had entered the fray.
My father said, "Thousands of guys came screaming out of their foxholes, son. It sounded like a world series game. I got goose pimples in the cockpit. Get goose pimples telling it forty-eight years later. I dipped my wings, waved to the guys. The roar they let out. I hear it now. I hear it now."
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, my mother took me out to the air station where we watched Dad's squadron scramble on the runway on their bases at Roosevelt Road and Guantanamo.
In the car as we watched the A-4's take off, my mother began to say the rosary.
"You praying for Dad and his men, Mom?" I asked her.
"No, son. I'm praying for the repose of the souls of the Cuban pilots they're going to kill."
http://www.skygod.com/quotes/greatsantini.html
There should be no sorrow at this funeral because The Great Santini lived life at full throttle, moved always in the fast lanes, gunned every engine, teetered on every edge, seized every moment and shook it like a terrier shaking a rat.
He did not know what moderation was or where you'd go to look for it. Donald Conroy is the only person I have ever known whose self-esteem was absolutely unassailable. There was not one thing about himself that my father did not like, nor was there one thing about himself that he would change. He simply adored the man he was and walked with perfect confidence through every encounter in his life. Dad wished everyone could be just like him...
After Happy Hour my father would drive his car home at a hundred miles an hour to see his wife and seven children. He would get out of his car, a strapping flight jacketed matinee idol, and walk toward his house, his knuckles dragging along the ground, his shoes stepping on and killing small animals in his slouching amble toward the home place.
My sister, Carol, stationed at the door, would call out, "Godzilla's home!" and we seven children would scamper toward the door to watch his entry.
The door would be flung open and the strongest Marine aviator on earth would shout, "Stand by for a fighter pilot!"
He would then line his seven kids up against the wall and say,
"Who's the greatest of them all?"
"You are, O Great Santini, you are."
"Who knows all, sees all, and hears all?"
"You do, O Great Santini, you do."
We were not in the middle of a normal childhood, yet none of us were sure since it was the only childhood we would ever have.
For all we knew other men were coming home and shouting to their families, "Stand by for a pharmacist," or "Stand by for a chiropractor"...
When he flew back toward the carrier that day, he received a call from an Army Colonel on the ground who had witnessed the route of the North Koreans across the river. "Could you go pass over the troops fifty miles south of here? They've been catching hell for a week or more. It'd do them good to know you flyboys are around."
He flew those fifty miles and came over a mountain and saw a thousand troops lumbered down in foxholes. He and Bill Lundin went in low so these troops could read the insignias and know the American aviators had entered the fray.
My father said, "Thousands of guys came screaming out of their foxholes, son. It sounded like a world series game. I got goose pimples in the cockpit. Get goose pimples telling it forty-eight years later. I dipped my wings, waved to the guys. The roar they let out. I hear it now. I hear it now."
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, my mother took me out to the air station where we watched Dad's squadron scramble on the runway on their bases at Roosevelt Road and Guantanamo.
In the car as we watched the A-4's take off, my mother began to say the rosary.
"You praying for Dad and his men, Mom?" I asked her.
"No, son. I'm praying for the repose of the souls of the Cuban pilots they're going to kill."
http://www.skygod.com/quotes/greatsantini.html
Friday, July 27, 2007
James K. Polk
By: They Might Be Giants
Copyright: 1996
In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Lewis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed:
"He's just the man we need
To bring about victory,
Fulfill our manifest destiny,
And annex the land the Mexicans command"
And when the poll was cast, the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump
By: They Might Be Giants
Copyright: 1996
In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Lewis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed:
"He's just the man we need
To bring about victory,
Fulfill our manifest destiny,
And annex the land the Mexicans command"
And when the poll was cast, the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tariffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Johnny Lechner, 29, is a legendary student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. He's been attending college for --- and I am not making this up --- 12 years. He was supposed to graduate in May 2006, but withdrew his application a week before the ceremony because he wants to do the one thing he hasn't yet done in college: study abroad. So he's going for No. 13, apparently.A lot of people are calling Lechner a loser, but man, the guy is semi-brilliant, no?Among the things you need to know about Lechner:
--- He could graduate with degrees in Communications, Health, Education, Women's Studies, and Theater.... if he wanted to.
--- He started college in 1994, when his current girlfriend was in the fourth grade.
--- Lechner ran for student body president last spring and lost to a political science major by a vote of 511 to 281.
--- He was reportedly offered a job by National Lampoon and turned it down, saying, "If I wanted a job, I would have graduated."
--- He has a website, http://www.johnnylechner.com/
--- He has appeared on "Late Show" with David Letterman, "Good Morning America" and other shows, describing a boisterous campus lifestyle of beer and merrymaking.
--- He has signed with the William Morris Agency, which is marketing a reality television series based on his life.
--- He'll pay $9,800 in tuition this year... but only because the Wisconsin Board of Regents imposed a surcharge last year virtually doubling tuition for students who exceed 165 credits. (Mr. Lechner has 242.) Wisconsinites call it the Johnny Lechner rule.
--- This from his website, "...it's not all toga parties and keg stands, but don't get me wrong, those things are happening."
--- Said Michelle Eigenberger, an editor at the campus newspaper: "It's getting old. For the sanity of the rest of the campus, we want him to get out of here."
Old story, great title
Tourist Kills Mugger With Bare Hands
By MARIANELA JIMENEZ, Associate Press Writer
Friday, February 23, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article
(02-23) 19:40 PST SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (AP) --
An American tourist who watched as a U.S. military veteran in his 70s used his bare hands to kill an armed assailant in Costa Rica said she thought the attempted robbery was a joke — until the masked attacker held a gun to her head.
"I thought it was a skit. But then he pointed the gun at my head and grabbed me by the throat and I thought I was going to die," Clova Adams, 54, told The Associated Press by telephone Friday from the Carnival Liberty cruise ship.
The assault occurred during a ship stopover Wednesday in Limon, 80 miles east of San Jose, Costa Rica's capital.
Adams was with 12 American tourists who hired a driver to explore Costa Rica for a few hours. They were climbing out of the van to visit a Caribbean beach when three men wearing ski masks ran toward them, she said. One held a gun to her head, while the other two pulled out knives.
Suddenly, one of the tourists, a U.S. military veteran trained in self defense, jumped out of the van and put the gunman in a headlock, according to Limon police chief Luis Hernandez.
Hernandez said the American, whom he refused to identify, struggled with the robber, breaking his collarbone and eventually killing him. Police identified the dead man as Warner Segura, 20. The other two assailants fled.
"I was very scared at the moment," Costa Rican bus driver Roberto Frances Allen said in an interview in Limon.
"The bus was shaking and women were screaming," he recalled. "There were two shots and I heard him (Segura) try to fire more, but the gun didn't fire. Luckily, the tourists had forced his hand up and the shots hit the roof of the bus."
Afterward, the tourists drove Segura to a hospital, where he was declared dead. Sergio Lopez, a Red Cross auxiliary, examined Segura's body and said he died from asphyxiation.
Lopez also treated Adams for a panic attack.
"She was very nervous after the assault, but she had not been physically hurt," Lopez said.
The U.S. Embassy confirmed the account, but refused to release the name of the American who defended the group, citing his right to privacy.
Costa Rican officials interviewed the Americans, and said they wouldn't charge the U.S. tourist with any crime because he acted in self defense.
"They were in their right to defend themselves after being held up," Hernandez said. He said Segura had previous charges against him for assaults.
But Ligia Herrera Mendez, the mother of the dead assailant, claimed the tourists of took the law into their own hands.
"We want justice, this can't go unpunished, because they could have saved him," she said in an interview in Limon. "If this had happened in the United States, the suspect would have been detained and wouldn't have left the country."
She also acknowledged past problems. "I know my boy wasn't staying out of trouble, I knew that any moment I would get bad news."
Segura was buried Friday in the town of Liverpool, about 10 miles outside Limon.
The cruise ship delayed its departure until the group boarded the ship, The Carnival Liberty, which was set to return Sunday to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Adams spoke freely with the AP until a man who identified himself as her fiancee said they didn't want to talk to the media. He said the group might release a joint statement later and hung up the telephone.
Officials on the ship refused to pass an AP reporter on to other members of the tourist group, and several attempts to reach Adams' room again failed.
Costa Rica has struggled with growing violence and crime in recent years. University of Kansas student Shannon Martin, 23, was stabbed to death in 2001 after she left a nightclub in Golfito, 105 miles south of San Jose.
Carnival Cruise Lines confirmed in a statement that one of the ship's guests had killed the Costa Rican assailant, but refused to name those involved.
"All of the guests involved, who had booked the cruise together as a group, have opted to continue with their vacation plans. Carnival is providing full support and assistance to the guests," the statement said.
___
Associated Press writer Ioan Grillo contributed to this report from Mexico City.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Queen Guitarist to Complete Doctorate
Brian May is completing his doctorate in astrophysics, more than 30 years after he abandoned his studies to form the rock group Queen.
The 60-year-old guitarist and songwriter said he plans to submit his thesis, "Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud," to supervisors at Imperial College London within the next two weeks.
May was an astrophysics student at Imperial College when Queen, which included Freddie Mercury and Roger Taylor, was formed in 1970. He dropped his doctorate as the glam rock band became successful.
He was due to finish carrying out astronomical observations at an observatory on the island of La Palma, in Spain's Canary Islands, on Tuesday, the observatory said.
May told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he had always wanted to complete his degree.
"It was unfinished business," he said. "I didn't want an honorary Ph.D. I wanted the real thing that I worked for."
Anti-Freud Albert Ellis
http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0534,interview,67068,24.html
When did you decide that Freudian analysis was a waste of time?
Freud was full of horseshit. He invented people's problems and what to do about them. Tell me one thing about the past. I'll prove it's not what upset you. It's how you philosophized about it that made you disturbed.
If Freud is horseshit, why are so many people still spending hours on the couch, talking about their dreams?
Because people are crazy and stupid! And especially psychologists and therapists are stupid! That's the main reason.
Albert Ellis, in his Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) identified eleven dysfunctional beliefs that people often hold.
Irrational beliefs
1. It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community.
2. One absolutely must be competent, adequate and achieving in all important respects or else one is an inadequate, worthless person.
3. People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not. They are their bad acts.
4. It is awful and terrible when things are not the way one would very much like them to be.
5. Emotional disturbance is mainly externally caused and people have little or no ability to increase or decrease their dysfunctional feelings and behaviors.
6. If something is or may be dangerous or fearsome, then one should be constantly and excessively concerned about it and should keep dwelling on the possibility of it occurring.
7. One cannot and must not face life's responsibilities and difficulties and it is easier to avoid them.
8. One must be quite dependent on others and need them and you cannot mainly run one's own life.
9. One's past history is an all-important determiner of one's present behavior and because something once strongly affected one's life, it should indefinitely have a similar effect.
10. Other people's disturbances are horrible and one must feel upset about them.
11. There is invariably a right, precise and perfect solution to human problems and it is awful if this perfect solution is not found.
When did you decide that Freudian analysis was a waste of time?
Freud was full of horseshit. He invented people's problems and what to do about them. Tell me one thing about the past. I'll prove it's not what upset you. It's how you philosophized about it that made you disturbed.
If Freud is horseshit, why are so many people still spending hours on the couch, talking about their dreams?
Because people are crazy and stupid! And especially psychologists and therapists are stupid! That's the main reason.
Albert Ellis, in his Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) identified eleven dysfunctional beliefs that people often hold.
Irrational beliefs
1. It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community.
2. One absolutely must be competent, adequate and achieving in all important respects or else one is an inadequate, worthless person.
3. People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not. They are their bad acts.
4. It is awful and terrible when things are not the way one would very much like them to be.
5. Emotional disturbance is mainly externally caused and people have little or no ability to increase or decrease their dysfunctional feelings and behaviors.
6. If something is or may be dangerous or fearsome, then one should be constantly and excessively concerned about it and should keep dwelling on the possibility of it occurring.
7. One cannot and must not face life's responsibilities and difficulties and it is easier to avoid them.
8. One must be quite dependent on others and need them and you cannot mainly run one's own life.
9. One's past history is an all-important determiner of one's present behavior and because something once strongly affected one's life, it should indefinitely have a similar effect.
10. Other people's disturbances are horrible and one must feel upset about them.
11. There is invariably a right, precise and perfect solution to human problems and it is awful if this perfect solution is not found.
Some good news for a change; the ‘John Doe’ amendment to protect Americans against lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior has been saved.
>>
(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy is gratified that its efforts, those of innumerable bloggers, radio talk show hosts and other public-minded citizens translated into an important legislative victory late last night. Thanks to the leadership of Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and especially that of Rep. Pete King, Sen. Collins’ counterpart on the House Homeland Security Committee, legislation along the lines of that adopted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives last May at Rep. King’s initiative will shortly become law.
The language will provide protection against the sorts of harassment lawsuits filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after several unidentified individuals reported six Muslim imams engaged in suspicious – and frightening – behavior prior to boarding a USAir flight in November 2006. CAIR has been identified as a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and is an un-indicted co-conspirator in an alleged terrorism-financing plot.
Center President Frank Gaffney said on learning of this extraordinary development:
“Thanks to courageous, principled and tenacious efforts by key legislators like Rep. King and Sens. Lieberman and Collins, the American people are going to be free to do their part in the War for the Free World – serving as indispensable eyes and ears for those trying to protect us against terrorism – without fear that the likes of CAIR will be suing them for doing so.”
“We are extremely grateful to these lawmakers and also to members of the Democratic leadership who opposed such efforts, but eventually relented in the face of an outpouring of public demands that the King amendment be enacted into law. We are even more appreciative of the efforts made by all those who helped alert the public to the need to engage so directly and, ultimately, so decisively.”
>>
(Washington, D.C.): The Center for Security Policy is gratified that its efforts, those of innumerable bloggers, radio talk show hosts and other public-minded citizens translated into an important legislative victory late last night. Thanks to the leadership of Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and especially that of Rep. Pete King, Sen. Collins’ counterpart on the House Homeland Security Committee, legislation along the lines of that adopted by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives last May at Rep. King’s initiative will shortly become law.
The language will provide protection against the sorts of harassment lawsuits filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after several unidentified individuals reported six Muslim imams engaged in suspicious – and frightening – behavior prior to boarding a USAir flight in November 2006. CAIR has been identified as a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and is an un-indicted co-conspirator in an alleged terrorism-financing plot.
Center President Frank Gaffney said on learning of this extraordinary development:
“Thanks to courageous, principled and tenacious efforts by key legislators like Rep. King and Sens. Lieberman and Collins, the American people are going to be free to do their part in the War for the Free World – serving as indispensable eyes and ears for those trying to protect us against terrorism – without fear that the likes of CAIR will be suing them for doing so.”
“We are extremely grateful to these lawmakers and also to members of the Democratic leadership who opposed such efforts, but eventually relented in the face of an outpouring of public demands that the King amendment be enacted into law. We are even more appreciative of the efforts made by all those who helped alert the public to the need to engage so directly and, ultimately, so decisively.”
Another apologist
Better be nice to muslims- or else!
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/158718.aspx?ArticleID=2171071
Can't they just give us a list of demands?
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/158718.aspx?ArticleID=2171071
Can't they just give us a list of demands?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Hitchins on Galloway
"Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam's sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the "European" school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing."
Friday, July 20, 2007
Well, had he?
RICHARD Milhous Nixon, the socially awkward 37th president, tried being jocular with David Frost as they prepared for their famous 1977 TV interviews, which inspired the smash Broadway show.
"Mr. Nixon turned to me and quite casually asked, 'Well, did you do any fornicating this weekend?'
For a moment I could not believe the evidence of my own ears. Richard Nixon didn't say that, did he? He couldn't have," Frost writes in "Frost/Nixon - Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews," out this October. "I had indeed heard right . . . I suppose Nixon liked to fancy himself one of the boys."
"Mr. Nixon turned to me and quite casually asked, 'Well, did you do any fornicating this weekend?'
For a moment I could not believe the evidence of my own ears. Richard Nixon didn't say that, did he? He couldn't have," Frost writes in "Frost/Nixon - Behind the Scenes of the Nixon Interviews," out this October. "I had indeed heard right . . . I suppose Nixon liked to fancy himself one of the boys."
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Suck a dick
They Might as Well Have Added, 'Despite Our Best Efforts' http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070718/us_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc_2
"Several years of headlines about possible torture of U.S. detainees, treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and international anger over the Iraq war has not dented the pride of Americans."--Reuters, July 18
"Several years of headlines about possible torture of U.S. detainees, treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and international anger over the Iraq war has not dented the pride of Americans."--Reuters, July 18
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Mr. Mephistopheles Please!
Judge Wopner: Alright. Thank you. I will take that under advisement. Now, Miss Braithwaite, in your deposition you state that, shortly after you started your business and went into agreement with the Devil, your business actually began to lose money. Now, is this your idea of success in business, Mr. Mephistopheles?
Mephistopheles: [ with a smirk ] Well, your Honor, that was kind of a trick. You see, as I promised Miss Braithwaite, I made her a great hairdresser. Her coifs were magical. Once you got one, you never needed another.
Judge Wopner: So there was no repeat business?
Mephistopheles: Exactly! But it's more or less customary for me to cheat mortals in this way. By observing only the letter of the agreement. For example, I'll give someone eternal youth, then have them sentenced to life imprisonment. That sort of thing. It's pretty standard. I'm the Devil!
Mephistopheles: [ with a smirk ] Well, your Honor, that was kind of a trick. You see, as I promised Miss Braithwaite, I made her a great hairdresser. Her coifs were magical. Once you got one, you never needed another.
Judge Wopner: So there was no repeat business?
Mephistopheles: Exactly! But it's more or less customary for me to cheat mortals in this way. By observing only the letter of the agreement. For example, I'll give someone eternal youth, then have them sentenced to life imprisonment. That sort of thing. It's pretty standard. I'm the Devil!
Monday, July 16, 2007
opinionjournal.com
Political Tall Tales http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AMERICA_FALLS_SHORT?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Is this another example of " accountability journalism http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010205 "?
The Associated Press reports on a mildly interesting new statistic--the average citizen in some European countries is now taller than the average American--and vests it with great political significance:
*** QUOTE ***
America used to be the tallest country in the world.
From the days of the founding fathers right on through the industrial revolution and two world wars, Americans towered over other nations. In a land of boundless open spaces and limitless natural abundance, the young nation transformed its increasing wealth into human growth.
But just as it has in so many other arenas, America's predominance in height has faded.
*** END QUOTE ***
What are the "so many other areas" in which "America's predominance . . . has faded"? AP reporter Matt Crenson never gets around to telling us. Instead, he tries to explain why the shift in relative heights is significant:
*** QUOTE ***
Many economists would argue that it does matter, because height is correlated with numerous measures of a population's well-being. Tall people are healthier, wealthier and live longer than short people. Some researchers have even suggested that tall people are more intelligent.
*** END QUOTE ***
So are Americans sicker, poorer, shorter-lived and less intelligent than countries with taller populations? Definitely not poorer:
*** QUOTE ***
In the Czech Republic, per capita income is barely half of what it is in the United States. Even so, Czechs are taller than Americans. So are Belgians, who collect 84 percent as much income as Americans.
*** END QUOTE ***
Shorter-lived, perhaps--but only slightly:
*** QUOTE ***
Life expectancy in the Netherlands is 79.11 years; in Sweden it's 80.63. America's life expectancy of 78.00 years puts it in somewhat shorter company, just above Cyprus and a few notches below Bosnia-Herzegovina.
*** END QUOTE ***
Crenson presents no evidence that Americans are sicker, though he does dwell on the fact that some do not have health insurance. And he never addresses the question of intelligence. He does, however, quote John Komlos, an economic historian at the University of Munich, who offers this explanation for America's vertically challenged state:
*** QUOTE ***
"In some ways it gets to the fundamentals of the American society, namely what is the ideology of the American society and what are the shortcomings of that ideology," Komlos said. "I would argue that to take good care of its children is not part of that ideology."
*** END QUOTE ***
American's don't care about their children, the Associated Press reports!
Is this another example of " accountability journalism http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010205 "?
The Associated Press reports on a mildly interesting new statistic--the average citizen in some European countries is now taller than the average American--and vests it with great political significance:
*** QUOTE ***
America used to be the tallest country in the world.
From the days of the founding fathers right on through the industrial revolution and two world wars, Americans towered over other nations. In a land of boundless open spaces and limitless natural abundance, the young nation transformed its increasing wealth into human growth.
But just as it has in so many other arenas, America's predominance in height has faded.
*** END QUOTE ***
What are the "so many other areas" in which "America's predominance . . . has faded"? AP reporter Matt Crenson never gets around to telling us. Instead, he tries to explain why the shift in relative heights is significant:
*** QUOTE ***
Many economists would argue that it does matter, because height is correlated with numerous measures of a population's well-being. Tall people are healthier, wealthier and live longer than short people. Some researchers have even suggested that tall people are more intelligent.
*** END QUOTE ***
So are Americans sicker, poorer, shorter-lived and less intelligent than countries with taller populations? Definitely not poorer:
*** QUOTE ***
In the Czech Republic, per capita income is barely half of what it is in the United States. Even so, Czechs are taller than Americans. So are Belgians, who collect 84 percent as much income as Americans.
*** END QUOTE ***
Shorter-lived, perhaps--but only slightly:
*** QUOTE ***
Life expectancy in the Netherlands is 79.11 years; in Sweden it's 80.63. America's life expectancy of 78.00 years puts it in somewhat shorter company, just above Cyprus and a few notches below Bosnia-Herzegovina.
*** END QUOTE ***
Crenson presents no evidence that Americans are sicker, though he does dwell on the fact that some do not have health insurance. And he never addresses the question of intelligence. He does, however, quote John Komlos, an economic historian at the University of Munich, who offers this explanation for America's vertically challenged state:
*** QUOTE ***
"In some ways it gets to the fundamentals of the American society, namely what is the ideology of the American society and what are the shortcomings of that ideology," Komlos said. "I would argue that to take good care of its children is not part of that ideology."
*** END QUOTE ***
American's don't care about their children, the Associated Press reports!
Friday, July 13, 2007
Claim: Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. Status: True. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003]
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Now, did the WMD or the threat of Hussein evaporate between 1998 and the invasion? Was this long list of liberals misled by Bush, even before Bush took the White House, or was there a large consensus that
a: Hussein had WMD;
and b: Hussein was a nutcase and
c: The national and international interests are best served by not allowing aggressive nutcases to have WMD?
There was plenty of reason for a reasonable observer to reach the same conclusions reached by the Bush adminsitration as justification for war. The fact that they were all misled or wrong doesn't mean the effort was wrong, especially given the fact that at least some western nations were calling for an end to the sanctions against Hussein's regime, meaning he could have brought his weapons programs back on line.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Now, did the WMD or the threat of Hussein evaporate between 1998 and the invasion? Was this long list of liberals misled by Bush, even before Bush took the White House, or was there a large consensus that
a: Hussein had WMD;
and b: Hussein was a nutcase and
c: The national and international interests are best served by not allowing aggressive nutcases to have WMD?
There was plenty of reason for a reasonable observer to reach the same conclusions reached by the Bush adminsitration as justification for war. The fact that they were all misled or wrong doesn't mean the effort was wrong, especially given the fact that at least some western nations were calling for an end to the sanctions against Hussein's regime, meaning he could have brought his weapons programs back on line.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Michael Scheuer, CIA
Michael Scheuer Interview For years he headed up the CIA unit that hunted the worlds most notorious fugitive Osama bin Laden. After a career that spanned a couple of decades spooking the US enemies he wrote two best sellers including one about bin Laden entitled ‘Radical Islam and the future of America.’ Back then as a former CIA operative Michael Scheuer couldn't hut his name to his own books. These days however he's well and truly out from behind his pot plant and his message is brutally frank, the West is losing the war on terror. George Negus talked to him earlier this evening here in the studio.
GEORGE NEGUS: Michael, it's hard not to describe you having quit the CIA in 2004 as the spy who came in from the cold and boy, have you really come in. People could now suggest you've become an apologist almost for the opponents of the war against terror.
MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: That's the simple way to look at it sir, but I think what's happening is that we in the West are being beaten by an enemy because we refuse to understand what his motivation is. And the reluctance of politicians to accept the enemy at his word is something similar to their failure in the 30s to have read 'Mein Kampf'
GEORGE NEGUS: Was there anything in particular that caused you to shift ground. You could be also described as a bin Laden hunter. You were the head of the unit that was after bin Laden?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, he's a man that richly deserves to be dead.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is he dead by the way?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: He's not dead.
GEORGE NEGUS: He’s definitely not dead?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I can't guarantee it but if he was dead they would have told us, because he would have embraced martyrdom, it was his goal. He's a man who is extraordinarily talented, has put together an organisation that's absolutely unique in the Islamic world and if we don't understand that and if we don't understand what motivates them, we're going to believe the politicians when they say there's only a few of them out there, they're fanatics, they're impoverished, they're illiterate, they're unemployed, what we're facing is a movement that is calling on the talents of the best and brightness in the Islamic world.
GEORGE NEGUS: Let’s talk about that, because you describe it as a movement.. Is it possible these days to describe al-Qa'ida as on organisation or is it now an ideology where all sorts of independent operatives if you like, cells, individuals, are doing things, acts of terrorism because they agree with the al-Qa'ida goal, objective?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think it's both. Bin Laden has always been very outspoken in saying that he's just one Muslim and al-Qa'ida is a very limited sized organisation. We can't do it by ourselves. He's always looked at his role in this Jihad as being the insider and the instigator of other people to take action off their own hook and what we're seeing now is not one replacing the other but we're seeing a second tier of threat, al-Qa'ida itself remains the core al-Qa'ida, remains a dangerous threat to the United States.
GEORGE NEGUS: But not calling the shots per se..
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Not at all.
GEORGE NEGUS: Providing the inspiration and the motivation.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: They are being, they are inspiring people to act on their own without any kind of command and control back to al-Qa'ida in wherever they are in south Asia, but what it does is it creates a whole new tier of threat for our law enforcement and intelligence services to keep track of.
GEORGE NEGUS: Your declarations have been pretty bleak, we in the West are fighting an enemy. ‘We are woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down on an every front. You say to do Afghanistan on the cheap is what we're trying to do and defeat there was just around the corner.’ That's about as bleak a declaration I've heard about how badly things are apparently going?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think part of it is because the media doesn't pay a lot of attention to Afghanistan and at least our President, both parties in our country really identified the fall of the cities in Afghanistan as victory. Well, whoever invades Afghanistan always takes the city, whether Alexander the Great, the Russians or the British. What follows is the war. We have 40,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's bigger than Texas. It has the highest mountains on the earth and we've given then five Herculean tasks, defeat al-Qa'ida, defeat the Taliban, keep Karzai's Government in power, create a secular democracy and eradicate the world's largest heroin distributor.
GEORGE NEGUS: You say we're going to be defeated the West, the coalition if the willing.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, it's too late in Afghanistan. As you know, Sir. Afghans are not the most friendly people towards foreigners and we're there now into our sixth year almost. Absence, I mean familiarity certainly breeds contempt in that country.
GEORGE NEGUS: Australia is involved in both of those theatres of war. What is your advice, gratuitous or otherwise for this country. The PM is absolutely determined that in both cases particularly Iraq as he puts it, we're there until the job is cone done and the rest of us are a bit unsure about what that means, but you're an expert in the area, on the whole war on terror, what's your advice?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: My advise is to first realise it's not a war on terror, we're fighting insurgent organisations, we are not fighting terrorists. If we were fighting terrorists we would have won already because of the damage we inflicted on them. We are fighting a very durable insurgent who we have not deployed enough fire power against and we certainly have not used enough fire power against. We also have a set of goals that are unobtainable. The idea that we're going to establish a secular democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan is a madness. And if that's the goal we should leave tomorrow.
GEORGE NEGUS: How do you turn that around, how do you turn what you say is an inevitable defeat into a possible victory? Just by ploughing in more and more troops at a time when people are calling for them to be pulled out?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, if you don't want to win don't go to war. If you go to war use enough force to win and get it over with.
GEORGE NEGUS: Why didn't as you contend, didn't they, Washington, Canberra, London, etc, want to win?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We are as a western, as a set of western Governments and especially in the United States we are dreadfully afraid of international opinion. We have talked ourselves in the latest generation of students into the belief that wars can be fought with inflicting very few casualties on the enemy, none on civilians and few among our own forces. And we're facing in an insurgency one of the bloodiest kind of warfare, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, he lives among civilians. If you're not going to fight that war, and it's going to be very bloody, then you shouldn't go all.
GEORGE NEGUS: Will they pull out? There's talk now of some exit occurring early next year?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think they will pull out because they can't win. They're facing an eroding position. They take little successes like they've had in Anbar province and extrapolate that to a nation wide success and it's not the case.
GEORGE NEGUS: The PM again says he's never heard of you.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I believe that, I'm not well known at all or perhaps...
GEORGE NEGUS: But you have probably heard some of his utterance. He says that the pulling out would be tantamount to admitting defeat and that would tarnish America's image in the world even further and would be handing the whole thing over to the terrorists as he says?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: All of that is correct sir but we're going to be defeated if we don't vastly increase the number of people we have on the ground and fight with a great more bloody mindedness. I think the PM is absolutely right in that.
GEORGE NEGUS: How can we fight with more bloody mindedness as you put it, at the same time get out of there with any sort of honour?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We have to do one or the other. There's no way to get out with any honour now. If we leave now, it's going to be very clear to the Islamic world that Islamists, bin Laden and his allies beats the Americans. There's no way around that. For - that's just a fact of life. Do you want to stay there and bleed young lives and money for a war you can't win? I think that's the question. Not a war you can't win but a war you refuse to win.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is it also possible that after all this time that so-called Coalition of the willing, and its leaders is still missing the point about what this is about, that's it's ultimately about the fact that the situation in the Middle East, Israel and the occupied territories has not been resolved?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: It's more than that. It's the willing, the decision to deliberately mislead voters into believing that this war has nothing to do with what the West has done in the Middle East for the last 50 years. It is perhaps most damagingly nor the United States and the West is our support for tyrannies and police states in the Islamic world for the last half-century because we need oil. Oil is a national security interest, as opposed to having some Mrs Mohamed voting in an Iraqi election which is unimportant in term of our national security. I am not sure what part oil played in the decision to go to war. I think it probably played some part, but more importantly, then that, as long as we're dependent on Middle East oil we have to support the police states that rule the Middle East and therefore we anger the Islamists and we earn their military activity.
GEORGE NEGUS: Gone too far for these differences to be resolved?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We cannot resolve these differences. The answer to this is almost a policy of deflection. We're not the main enemies of the Islamists, we're in their way. America, it's probably a blow to our ego but we are not the main enemy. They want us out of the Middle East because according to their game plan they think if we're gone the support for Israel and the support for the Saudis and the Egyptians that goes with us will allow them finally to settle affairs in their own homeland.
GEORGE NEGUS: Good to talk to you. If I see the PM I'll give him your regards?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: My best regards, thank you.
GEORGE NEGUS: Thank you Michael.
GEORGE NEGUS: Michael, it's hard not to describe you having quit the CIA in 2004 as the spy who came in from the cold and boy, have you really come in. People could now suggest you've become an apologist almost for the opponents of the war against terror.
MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: That's the simple way to look at it sir, but I think what's happening is that we in the West are being beaten by an enemy because we refuse to understand what his motivation is. And the reluctance of politicians to accept the enemy at his word is something similar to their failure in the 30s to have read 'Mein Kampf'
GEORGE NEGUS: Was there anything in particular that caused you to shift ground. You could be also described as a bin Laden hunter. You were the head of the unit that was after bin Laden?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, he's a man that richly deserves to be dead.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is he dead by the way?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: He's not dead.
GEORGE NEGUS: He’s definitely not dead?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I can't guarantee it but if he was dead they would have told us, because he would have embraced martyrdom, it was his goal. He's a man who is extraordinarily talented, has put together an organisation that's absolutely unique in the Islamic world and if we don't understand that and if we don't understand what motivates them, we're going to believe the politicians when they say there's only a few of them out there, they're fanatics, they're impoverished, they're illiterate, they're unemployed, what we're facing is a movement that is calling on the talents of the best and brightness in the Islamic world.
GEORGE NEGUS: Let’s talk about that, because you describe it as a movement.. Is it possible these days to describe al-Qa'ida as on organisation or is it now an ideology where all sorts of independent operatives if you like, cells, individuals, are doing things, acts of terrorism because they agree with the al-Qa'ida goal, objective?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think it's both. Bin Laden has always been very outspoken in saying that he's just one Muslim and al-Qa'ida is a very limited sized organisation. We can't do it by ourselves. He's always looked at his role in this Jihad as being the insider and the instigator of other people to take action off their own hook and what we're seeing now is not one replacing the other but we're seeing a second tier of threat, al-Qa'ida itself remains the core al-Qa'ida, remains a dangerous threat to the United States.
GEORGE NEGUS: But not calling the shots per se..
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Not at all.
GEORGE NEGUS: Providing the inspiration and the motivation.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: They are being, they are inspiring people to act on their own without any kind of command and control back to al-Qa'ida in wherever they are in south Asia, but what it does is it creates a whole new tier of threat for our law enforcement and intelligence services to keep track of.
GEORGE NEGUS: Your declarations have been pretty bleak, we in the West are fighting an enemy. ‘We are woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down on an every front. You say to do Afghanistan on the cheap is what we're trying to do and defeat there was just around the corner.’ That's about as bleak a declaration I've heard about how badly things are apparently going?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think part of it is because the media doesn't pay a lot of attention to Afghanistan and at least our President, both parties in our country really identified the fall of the cities in Afghanistan as victory. Well, whoever invades Afghanistan always takes the city, whether Alexander the Great, the Russians or the British. What follows is the war. We have 40,000 troops in Afghanistan. It's bigger than Texas. It has the highest mountains on the earth and we've given then five Herculean tasks, defeat al-Qa'ida, defeat the Taliban, keep Karzai's Government in power, create a secular democracy and eradicate the world's largest heroin distributor.
GEORGE NEGUS: You say we're going to be defeated the West, the coalition if the willing.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, it's too late in Afghanistan. As you know, Sir. Afghans are not the most friendly people towards foreigners and we're there now into our sixth year almost. Absence, I mean familiarity certainly breeds contempt in that country.
GEORGE NEGUS: Australia is involved in both of those theatres of war. What is your advice, gratuitous or otherwise for this country. The PM is absolutely determined that in both cases particularly Iraq as he puts it, we're there until the job is cone done and the rest of us are a bit unsure about what that means, but you're an expert in the area, on the whole war on terror, what's your advice?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: My advise is to first realise it's not a war on terror, we're fighting insurgent organisations, we are not fighting terrorists. If we were fighting terrorists we would have won already because of the damage we inflicted on them. We are fighting a very durable insurgent who we have not deployed enough fire power against and we certainly have not used enough fire power against. We also have a set of goals that are unobtainable. The idea that we're going to establish a secular democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan is a madness. And if that's the goal we should leave tomorrow.
GEORGE NEGUS: How do you turn that around, how do you turn what you say is an inevitable defeat into a possible victory? Just by ploughing in more and more troops at a time when people are calling for them to be pulled out?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: Absolutely, if you don't want to win don't go to war. If you go to war use enough force to win and get it over with.
GEORGE NEGUS: Why didn't as you contend, didn't they, Washington, Canberra, London, etc, want to win?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We are as a western, as a set of western Governments and especially in the United States we are dreadfully afraid of international opinion. We have talked ourselves in the latest generation of students into the belief that wars can be fought with inflicting very few casualties on the enemy, none on civilians and few among our own forces. And we're facing in an insurgency one of the bloodiest kind of warfare, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, he lives among civilians. If you're not going to fight that war, and it's going to be very bloody, then you shouldn't go all.
GEORGE NEGUS: Will they pull out? There's talk now of some exit occurring early next year?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I think they will pull out because they can't win. They're facing an eroding position. They take little successes like they've had in Anbar province and extrapolate that to a nation wide success and it's not the case.
GEORGE NEGUS: The PM again says he's never heard of you.
MICHAEL SCHEUER: I believe that, I'm not well known at all or perhaps...
GEORGE NEGUS: But you have probably heard some of his utterance. He says that the pulling out would be tantamount to admitting defeat and that would tarnish America's image in the world even further and would be handing the whole thing over to the terrorists as he says?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: All of that is correct sir but we're going to be defeated if we don't vastly increase the number of people we have on the ground and fight with a great more bloody mindedness. I think the PM is absolutely right in that.
GEORGE NEGUS: How can we fight with more bloody mindedness as you put it, at the same time get out of there with any sort of honour?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We have to do one or the other. There's no way to get out with any honour now. If we leave now, it's going to be very clear to the Islamic world that Islamists, bin Laden and his allies beats the Americans. There's no way around that. For - that's just a fact of life. Do you want to stay there and bleed young lives and money for a war you can't win? I think that's the question. Not a war you can't win but a war you refuse to win.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is it also possible that after all this time that so-called Coalition of the willing, and its leaders is still missing the point about what this is about, that's it's ultimately about the fact that the situation in the Middle East, Israel and the occupied territories has not been resolved?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: It's more than that. It's the willing, the decision to deliberately mislead voters into believing that this war has nothing to do with what the West has done in the Middle East for the last 50 years. It is perhaps most damagingly nor the United States and the West is our support for tyrannies and police states in the Islamic world for the last half-century because we need oil. Oil is a national security interest, as opposed to having some Mrs Mohamed voting in an Iraqi election which is unimportant in term of our national security. I am not sure what part oil played in the decision to go to war. I think it probably played some part, but more importantly, then that, as long as we're dependent on Middle East oil we have to support the police states that rule the Middle East and therefore we anger the Islamists and we earn their military activity.
GEORGE NEGUS: Gone too far for these differences to be resolved?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: We cannot resolve these differences. The answer to this is almost a policy of deflection. We're not the main enemies of the Islamists, we're in their way. America, it's probably a blow to our ego but we are not the main enemy. They want us out of the Middle East because according to their game plan they think if we're gone the support for Israel and the support for the Saudis and the Egyptians that goes with us will allow them finally to settle affairs in their own homeland.
GEORGE NEGUS: Good to talk to you. If I see the PM I'll give him your regards?
MICHAEL SCHEUER: My best regards, thank you.
GEORGE NEGUS: Thank you Michael.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Gordon Brown’s ludicrous refusal to speak the truth about Britain’s enemies is a direct result of the European Union’s craven policy of preemptive appeasement: Terror-spooked EU: ‘Don’t say Muslims’.
Gordon Brown’s ban on the word “Muslim” in relation to terrorism can be blamed on the EU.
The prime minister has told Cabinet members not to mention “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same breath.
It comes after the European Commission issued a guide for government spokesmen to avoid offence by ruling out the words such as “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist” in statements about terrorist attacks.
It has been working with governments to make sure “non-offensive” phrases are used when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time the EU has tackled the issue of language - last year its guidelines suggested that the phrase “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam” should be used rather than “Islamic terrorism”.
Gordon Brown’s ban on the word “Muslim” in relation to terrorism can be blamed on the EU.
The prime minister has told Cabinet members not to mention “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same breath.
It comes after the European Commission issued a guide for government spokesmen to avoid offence by ruling out the words such as “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist” in statements about terrorist attacks.
It has been working with governments to make sure “non-offensive” phrases are used when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
It is not the first time the EU has tackled the issue of language - last year its guidelines suggested that the phrase “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam” should be used rather than “Islamic terrorism”.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Media Puzzled By UK Terror Plot
The Toronto Star is completely unable to identify a common thread among the broad strata of the UK terror suspects: U.K. doctor plot thickens.
Subtitled: “All 8 detainess [sic] have ties to health service, but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators.”
LONDON–Were they sent to Britain with malicious intent, or did the will to wreak havoc come later? That is now the central question for Britain’s counter-terror command as it works to unravel the botched weekend car bomb attempts in London and Scotland.
With six foreign doctors, one medical student and a former lab technician in custody after a four-day manhunt, investigators are quietly satisfied the “major suspects” in the case are in hand.
The probe now is shifting focus, as Scotland Yard works to pinpoint the genesis of the plot that fell apart bloodlessly in a surreal series of events that began early Friday.
All eight detainees have ties to Britain’s National Health Service, overlapping in their duties at two hospitals in England and Scotland. Most also have roots elsewhere, but investigators have thus far found scant few common threads in their respective backgrounds in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, India and Saudi Arabia.
What could possibly tie this incredibly diverse group of non-Buddhists together?
It’s a real head-scratcher.
The Toronto Star is completely unable to identify a common thread among the broad strata of the UK terror suspects: U.K. doctor plot thickens.
Subtitled: “All 8 detainess [sic] have ties to health service, but genesis of terror scheme still eludes investigators.”
LONDON–Were they sent to Britain with malicious intent, or did the will to wreak havoc come later? That is now the central question for Britain’s counter-terror command as it works to unravel the botched weekend car bomb attempts in London and Scotland.
With six foreign doctors, one medical student and a former lab technician in custody after a four-day manhunt, investigators are quietly satisfied the “major suspects” in the case are in hand.
The probe now is shifting focus, as Scotland Yard works to pinpoint the genesis of the plot that fell apart bloodlessly in a surreal series of events that began early Friday.
All eight detainees have ties to Britain’s National Health Service, overlapping in their duties at two hospitals in England and Scotland. Most also have roots elsewhere, but investigators have thus far found scant few common threads in their respective backgrounds in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, India and Saudi Arabia.
What could possibly tie this incredibly diverse group of non-Buddhists together?
It’s a real head-scratcher.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
http://progressive.org/media_mpzinn070106
The Progressive features an Independence Day essay by far-left historian Howard Zinn:
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism--that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder--one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking--cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on--have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours--huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction--what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Finally, someone whose patriotism we can question!
The Progressive features an Independence Day essay by far-left historian Howard Zinn:
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism--that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder--one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking--cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on--have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours--huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction--what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Finally, someone whose patriotism we can question!
"I have always lived violently, drunk hugely, eaten too much or not at all, slept around the clock or missed two nights of sleeping, worked too hard and too long in glory, or slobbed for a time in utter laziness.
I've lifted, pulled, chopped, climbed, made love with joy and taken my hangovers as a consequence, not as a punishment."
-John Steinbeck
I've lifted, pulled, chopped, climbed, made love with joy and taken my hangovers as a consequence, not as a punishment."
-John Steinbeck
Monday, July 02, 2007
Wow
My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Hassanbutt1@gmail.com
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Hassanbutt1@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...