Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky



















These are all the Blogs posted on Sunday, 13, 2010.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
The Mavi Marmara And The Erdogan Regime

June 13, 2010

From CAMERA:

Turkish Denial About Official Ties to Flotilla Sinks

On CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu insisted:

And, again, let me underline, this freedom flotilla was absolutely an NGO activity. As the Turkish government, we didn't encourage them, but it was a civilian activity. We are a democratic society. We cannot stop any protester, even in the streets of Istanbul.

So, it is absolutely an NGO activity. It was a civilian and international activity. Therefore, we cannot say anything against them.

Yet, as the Jerusalem Post reports:

"[The] IHH acquired the Mavi Marmara ship from the AKP-run municipality of Istanbul. It is not conceivable that the IHH’s Gaza operation could have been carried out absent high-level government sanction," wrote Svante Cornell, a Swedish security expert who specializes in Eurasia, in an article published on Monday.

A journalist on-board the Mavi Marmara, described as having good links with the heads of the Turkish government and Bulent Yildirim, head of the IHH, had stated, "The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination," according to the report.

For more on Turkish governmental links to the IHH, see

here

.

Posted on 06/13/2010 5:56 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Muslim militants behead 3 Filipino loggers

From The Associated Press

MANILA, Philippines — Al-Qaida-linked militants beheaded three loggers in the Philippines in apparent retaliation for government offensives in the country's south, security officials said Sunday. The killings were carried out as the country celebrated its 112th Independence Day, the latest in a series of terror acts by the Abu Sayyaf insurgency to mark the holiday.

About 30 Abu Sayyaf gunmen ran into the three Christian men hauling timber in a rain forest near Maluso town on Basilan island Saturday. Relatives found their remains hours later, Basilan provincial police chief Antonio Mendoza said. The latest killings apparently were a retaliation for the ongoing military and police operations, which have killed a number of militants, Mendoza said. "When they are hurt by our offensives, they resort to these atrocities," (he) told The Associated Press . . .A ruthless commander, Puruji Indama, led the group behind Saturday's beheadings, Mendoza said.  A search for Indama and his men was under way in the jungles near Maluso, which is near Sumisip township — scene of most military and police operations against the Abu Sayyaf in recent weeks,

Posted on 06/13/2010 6:35 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 13 June 2010
A Cinematic Musical Interlude: Accentuate The Positive (from "The Singing Detective")

Watch, and listen, here.

Posted on 06/13/2010 6:45 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Emmanuel Navon On How The Economist Covers Erdogan -- And Israel

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Tu Quoque, The Economist

 

“Can the whole world be wrong?” asked Koffi Annan in April 2002. His was a rhetorical question meant to make a sophistic point: If the UN says black and Israel says white, do the math and guess who’s right. Coming from a man under whose watch (whether as Head of the Peacekeeping Operations Department, as Under-Secretary General, or as Secretary General) the UN was passive at best and accomplice at worst during the Rwanda Genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, the Darfur ethnic cleansing and the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, asking such a question required no small amount of sang froid.

 

What Annan meant by “the whole world” was the UN, an organization numerically dominated by human rights violators. Similarly, what

The Economist

means by “the world” (“How Israel plays into Hamas’s hands,” June 5th 2010) are those European

dhimmis

who refuse to face what Islam is up to. So, yes, “the world” of Koffi Annan and of

The Economist

can indeed be wrong.

 

If you were still wondering why Europe is expressing outrage at Israel’s act of self-defense while excusing Turkey’s provocations, then read the op-ed published in

The New York Times

on June 10th by Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini, and Miguel Moratinos. Those three European foreign ministers provide a crystal-clear explanation for their hypocrisy: they need to appease Europe’s Muslim citizens (here’s the quote: “[the flotilla incident] must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused”).



The Economist’s

articles on the flotilla incident are so hypocritical that one wonders if this otherwise insightful newspaper shares the concerns of Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. True,

The Economist

is not a European politician running for office or trying to appease the car-burning mobs of Paris or Malmö. But its editorial line on Islam-related issues is baffling: It supports Turkey’s membership in the EU, systematically uses the adjective “mildly Islamist” to describe Erdogan’s “Justice and Development” (AK) party, opposes the ban of the

burqa

in Europe, claims there is no contradiction between Islam and democracy, and that Muslims did (and do) a great job integrating in Europe.

 

Those claims defy logics. So does the fact that

The Economist

is surprisingly tolerant of Recep Erdogan. For a newspaper that has no qualms about exposing the buffoonery, incompetence, or brutality of heads of states and governments (its favorite and regular picks are Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe), one wonders why

The Economist

has nothing caustic to say about Turkey’s erratic Prime Minister. About the fact, for example, that Erdogan lectures Israel while he himself refuses to apologize for the Armenian genocide, to end the occupation of Cyprus, to accept the establishment of a Kurdish state, or to return the Alexandretta province it grabbed from Syria. Or that Ergogan “demands” that the 3% Turkish minority in Germany be granted the type of cultural autonomy he adamantly denies to Turkey’s 15% Kurdish minority.

The Economist

never expressed outrage at Erdogan’s public embrace of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, of Omar Bashir, and of Haled Mashal.

 

Like most European newspapers,

The Economist

condemns the Gaza blockade, though it only blames Israel for a policy that is also implemented by Egypt. It also fails to provide a credible alternative to the prevention of the massive armament of Gaza (its suggestion that the UN should “oversee the flow of goods and people going in and out of Gaza” doesn’t even pass the laughing test: The UN has been “overseeing” the massive rearmament of Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel).

The Economist

keeps insisting that “The contours of a two-state solution remain crystal-clear” though this solution has been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestinian Authority three times (at Camp David in July 2000; with the “Clinton Parameters” in December 2000; and with Ehud Olmert’s offer in September 2008).

 

In spite of the historical record,

The Economist

insists that the Palestinians are sincere about peace, but that Israel is not. While Benjamin Netanyahu “does not give the impression of being willing to give ground in the interests of peace,” Mahmoud Abbas definitely does.

The Economist

“understands” why the Palestinians voted for Hamas (it’s because Israel prevents peace), but it won’t “forgive” Israelis for electing a conservative government (why, indeed, should Israelis have second thoughts about the wisdom of the Oslo process?). If only Israelis would be wise enough to replace their “right-wing” government (actually, a coalition with the Labor Party) for Tzipi Livni (wasn’t she Foreign Minister when Abbas said no to the “crystal clear solution” and when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead?), peace will finally ensue.

 

As for the United States, Barack Obama did see the light but Congress is still the hostage of AIPAC (which won’t let J-Street speak out, because J-Street does want peace and does see the light). Indeed, why would anyone in his right mind support Israel if it wasn’t for the Jewish lobby? Look at Stephen Harper. He dares to be supportive of Israel. According to

The Economist

, Harper owes the world an explanation for his effrontery (“Mr. Harper himself has never fully explained his partiality,”

The Economist

, May 29th 2010), though

The Economist

has an explanation: Harper “is pandering to Jewish voters” (after all, there is no Canadian J-Street).

 

At the turn of the new millennium,

The Economist

“predicted” that oil would remain cheap and abundant in the coming decades. After oil prices went from $20 a barrel in 2001 to $145 a barrel in 2008,

The Economist

had to admit that its theory was wrong. But when it comes to the Middle-East,

The Economist

will never admit its mistakes. You don’t even have to blame the facts. Blaming Israel does the trick better, and it even pleases those Muslim readers who are doing a great job integrating in Europe.

Posted on 06/13/2010 7:59 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Women’s Rights: Inspired by Muhammad?

Edmund Standing has written a comprehensive rebuttal to the assertion that women's rights were inspired by Mohammed, as a recent propaganda campaign would have it:

[T]he idea that Muhammad ‘believed in women’s rights’ in the sense in which we in the 21st Century understand that concept is utterly absurd, as anyone who has taken an honest look at the Qur’an should be aware.

The readership of the Qur’an is clearly presupposed to be male, and this is a book for men, by men. We find numerous examples of the audience being given information and instructions about women, in texts that speak of women in the third person.[3] Women are not directly addressed, but rather men are directed as to what they should tell their wives (plural).

Edmund Standing goes on to give numerous examples - inheritance, polygamy, the afterlife - of ways in which women are considered inferior in Islam. He also attacks the argument, often made, that Mohammed's attitude to women was enlightened for its time and place:

Looking at the history of ideas regarding the status and rights of women, to fetishise the views of a seventh century man as opposed to looking at more recent icons of women’s rights for inspiration seems arbitrary and bizarre. The only reason Muslim women insist on claiming that Muhammad has some relevance to the debate is because of their a priori belief in his status as the final messenger of the creator of the universe. Otherwise – if we’re delving way back into history for inspiration – why pick Muhammad, instead of, for example, Musonius Rufus?

Rufus (30-101 CE) was a First Century Roman Stoic philosopher who argued that ‘Women have received from the gods the same ability to reason that men have’ and believed that both men and women should engage in the practice of philosophy.

[...]

How does this rational philosophical outlook, which is based on reason and argument, as opposed to supposed divine revelation, compare with the writings on women found in the Qur’an, a book written 500 years later? Clearly, in terms of holding enlightened views on male-female relations, Rufus was far more progressive and was a far better thinker and writer than Muhammad, despite the fact he lived centuries before Muhammad.
Rufus is interesting as a figure to study as part of the history of philosophical ideas regarding men and women. He is not, however, a man whose writings are of any practical importance to the issues facing men and women today. And if Rufus is not in any way essential to modern conceptualisations and actualisations of women’s rights, then the ‘argument’ that Muhammad is is patently absurd.

I believe in women’s rights. Muhammad is irrelevant.

He ought to be. Sadly, with increasing influence of and pandering to Islam in the West, Mohammed's view of women's rights is all too relevant - as something to be fought against. Still, despite this minor quibble, I give the piece a Standing ovation.

Posted on 06/13/2010 8:21 AM by Mary Jackson
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Conning the World. Veiling the Truth with Bedazzling Burkas

From The Australian Islamist Monitor, with thanks to Dumbledores Army

As I (a Wendy Larkson) was driving today I happened to listen to Jason Morrison’s ‘Drive’ show at around 3 pm. He mentioned the story of the Sydney policeman who happened to stop a veiled lady recently because he had a well founded suspicion that she was not driving well and that her ‘P’ plate sign was not affixed properly to the car. This policeman asked to see the lady’s license. Of course to check her license the policeman had to see the lady’s face and you know what that means for a Muslim feminista. Instant outrage. This lady did what any oppressed victim who has been asked to show her diriver’s license would do. She went straight to the media and complained that the policeman was a racist, shouted at her, grabbed her veil and wanted to pull it off. Not a shy little hyacinth, this lass went to Channel 7 and told her tearful story aided and abetted by her Muslim handlers.

Thing is, she forgot she is in a western country and that not all the media have lost their marbles. As Jason Morrison related, Channel 7 contacted the policeman in question after she gave her tearful opera buffa version of events. And guess what? The policeman had filmed the entire proceedings with the lachrimose lady. And then guess what the filming revealed? THE TRUTH. And the truth differed significantly from what the dodgy Muslim lady driver said.

First – it appears the policeman spoke very politely to the lady from beginning to end.

Second – it seems the would be abused victim had not been abused at all. The policeman did not touch or grab her veil. He simply asked her politely to show her face so he could do his job and identify her with the "driver'’ photo on her "driver's'’ license.

Third. The lady has told untruths on a Statutory Declaration she made about the whole incident in her official complaint about this officer to the NSW Police Force.

Channel 7, having got hold of the ‘other side of the story’ from the policeman and having seen the footage, invited the lady to come back and ‘please explain’ what the footage showed. The Muslima prima donna, who thought she had it all sewn up with her first bellicose Ayatolla-like hissy fit, on realising such footage existed, suddenly declined to come in to be interviewed again. . . Technology saved the day for this policeman. Imagine if he had NOT filmed the interview with the would be veiled victim? What would the story be out there in the media? And good on Channel 7 for getting the other side of the story. If only other media outlets did the same. . . the whole story has died in Sydney and it is hard to find any links which tell anything about it.

If not for Jason Morrison’s radio report, I would not have heard of it. Not only that, but as Jason has noted, there has been no public apology or public exoneration of the policeman in question who after all, was just doing his job. Several organisations including the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the NSW Police Force declined to comment on radio about the incident and there is hasty burying of the story going on.

Thankfully the sorry tale of Noor Ramjanally's non kidnap is in every English paper although the BNP insist that the trial was delayed until June, ie after the election on May 6th, so that they remained under suspicion during the run up to the election.  

Posted on 06/13/2010 8:53 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Another niqabette fined for poor driving

This story is from France. As Dumbledore's Army points out, the fact that the story is deemed newsworthy in Australia suggests that the infidel is keeping a close eye on French progress towards a burqa ban.

Interesting, too, that like the woman in the story from Australia linked by Esmerelda, this niqabette was pulled over for bad driving, not because of the niqab, although of course one leads to the other. From ABC News:

French police have fined a woman driver for erratic driving caused by her Islamic headscarf, just weeks after a similar incident sparked a major political row.

Police in Vaucluse in southern France had not stopped the driver for wearing the niqab, a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed, but for "erratic" driving, commanding officer Charles Bourillon said.

Mr Bourillon says officers decided to check the vehicle after it showed erratic behaviour on the road and it was only when they signalled for the driver to stop that they saw she was wearing a niqab.

"[The headscarf] was bothering the driver in her manoeuvres ... It was obvious she could not see a thing," he said.

Police gave the driver a ticket for 22 euros ($31) for driving with a reduced field of vision.

Officers then suggested that the woman remove her niqab to improve her sight, which she did.

The Islamic veil has become a political hot potato in France.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's government is pushing ahead with a legal ban on wearing full-face veils such as the niqab or burqa in public, despite a warning from state judicial experts that such a law could be unconstitutional.

In April, a woman in the French city of Nantes was fined for wearing a veil while driving.

The incident spiralled after a minister threatened to punish her Muslim husband for offences including polygamy.

We should, as Dumbledore's Army suggests, "run a check on her and on any and all of her male associates (father, husband etc.) re immigration/ citizenship status, welfare receipts, etc."

Posted on 06/13/2010 9:17 AM by Mary Jackson
Sunday, 13 June 2010
A Benchley Interlude: That Inferior Feeling

Watch, and listen, here.

Note that the director is Basil Wrangell, born in Italy, the child of well-off Russian parents, who arrived in the United States, in 1925, declaring himself to be "from Russia." . Was Basil Wrangell Vassily Vrangel? Of course he was.

Was he perhaps a child of General Vrangel, who with Denikin was one of the two main White generals (Kolchak was an admiral) during the Civil War? Or if not a child, at least a traceable relative? 

From General Wrangel, to Robert Benchley, within little more than a decade.

Think of Vernon Duke, ne Vladimir Dukelsky, or of hundreds of other White Russians, who made it out in Hollywood, under easy-to-penetrate disguises.

Russian cinema in America? There always was a Russian cinema in America. Hurray for Hollywood.

Posted on 06/13/2010 11:42 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Who knew?

From The Times:

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

That's easy for him to say.

Posted on 06/13/2010 2:29 PM by Mary Jackson
Sunday, 13 June 2010
On the nature of Islamophobia: Jacobs vs. the “liberal” Rabbis on the Boston Megamosque

Richard Landes has a very good post on Charles Jacobs' entirely reasonable and well documented questions about the leadership of the megamosque in Boston and a whole host of liberal Rabbis who have signed a letter denouncing him.

Read it here. (hat tip: Kendra Adams)

Posted on 06/13/2010 3:08 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Sunday, 13 June 2010
The Times has a Freudian Slip

Michael Finch writes at Right Side News (with thanks to The Law):

Even the Times, however, can trip on itself; interesting nuggets can slip through the sensors that allow for amazing candidness and clear thought, even if by happenstance.

The Times calls on a Dutch academic to enlighten us to one of the secrets of Wilder's success:

Dick Houtman, a professor of political sociology at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, said that Mr. Wilders had built on Mr. Fortuyn's legacy, successfully avoiding the overtly racist language of far-right politicians in other countries by highlighting issues like freedom of speech, female equality and gay rights.  "That serves to exclude Muslims from the Dutch political consensus," he said. (emphasis mine)

Maybe this statement is too obvious for the Times to pick up on.  But read it again. By being in favor of freedom of speech, female equality, and gay rights, Wilders serves to exclude Muslims from the Dutch political consensus!  How dare he?  Extreme indeed!  Apparently to be part of the postmodern Western "political consensus", too be inclusive of Muslims, we need to be against freedom of speech, gay rights and female equality?

Houtman, aware of it or not, has made a brilliant, if obvious, observation.  In order for many Muslim immigrants to feel culturally and politically included in the West, most clearly in Holland, they need to exist in an environment that is not open to the pluralistic, open and free West of the Enlightenment of the past 300 years.

So when a Western politician like Wilders openly embraces the values of liberty, he is called an extremist, hate monger and radical with ties to neo Nazis.  The elite class, currently in Washington and throughout the halls of Western academia and the media, feel it more important to be inclusive of Muslims then holding true to the values that created the most open and free society the world has ever seen.  And to oppose this new orthodoxy makes one a criminal, as the Left hopes to make of Wilders.

We can thank the Times for offering some clarity on this issue. 

Posted on 06/13/2010 5:30 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Mullah Krekar meets the press

News and views from Norway

Norway’s least welcome refugee, who’s been formally declared a threat to national security, sat down with reporters in Oslo on Thursday but only those from foreign media. Mullah Krekar said at the outset that he doesn’t want any contact with Norwegian media because he “has found no sympathy” in the local press for his cause.

It proved difficult to determine exactly what his “cause” is, because he’s a man full of contradictions. 

Asked where he really wants to live, he answered “my village back in Northern Iraq,” yet he’s been fighting any attempt to send him back where he came from. Even though he voluntarily traveled back and forth to the area to run the guerrilla group Ansar al-Islam in the 1990s, while holding refugee status in Norway, he now believes he’ll probably be killed there.

Krekar said he fled Saddam Hussein’s government, yet he feels no gratitude to the US for toppling Hussein’s regime. To the contrary, he still claims that “anyone” has a right to kill occupying forces in Iraq, especially Americans. “All who have occupied Iraq can be killed,” he said on Thursday, repeating his support for suicide bombers that earlier has set off a storm of controversy in Norway.

While Norwegian authorities would dearly love to deport Krekar, they won’t send him back to Iraq for fear he’d be sentenced to death there.

“I think that Norway has been forced to have me here,” said Krekar, speaking in Arabic. He came to Norway 19 years ago but wanted all questions posed in Norwegian and translated into Arabic by an interpreter, who then translated Krekar’s answers back into Norwegian for the foreign press corps that mostly needed to write in either English or French.

In the wide-ranging, two-hour-session, Krekar claimed he has not given any support to terror group Al-Qaeda and only speaks of Osama bin Laden “because he is bin Laden.” Krekar continues to reject charges he’s a terrorist himself, despite some admiration he’s expressed for bin Laden. “I talk about Ronaldo as well,” he said. “That doesn’t make me a football player.” He claimed he has had no contact “whatsoever” with his old guerrilla group Ansar al Islam since May 17, 2002.The session drew to a close, though, with Krekar suddenly repeating explosive remarks made a few years ago. After claiming that it’s “Norway’s responsibility” to find him a secure country in which to live, he said that if he dies, whoever is responsible for his death will suffer the same fate.

“Norway will pay a price,” he told the foreign journalists assembled. “My death will cost the Norwegian society. If a leader like Erna Solberg (a former government minister now in opposition as leader of the Conservative Party) sends me out, and I die, she will suffer the same fate.”Remarks like that led to police protection around Solberg a few years ago. Krekar stated firmly that he hasn’t “laid a plan” to carry out any assassination, “but my followers will.” Asked whether he views his current situation as hopeless, Krekar said no. “I haven’t come to that,” he said. “I have a lot of hope, otherwise I would have committed suicide.”

Posted on 06/13/2010 5:32 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Yet Another "Ethnic" Conflict

From The Guardian:

Mobs of Kyrgyz men rampaged through southern Kyrgyzstan today, slaughtering ethnic Uzbeks and burning down houses in a third day of ethnic bloodshed.

The country's interim government granted its security forces shoot-to-kill powers and promised to send a volunteer force to the region – but the violence continued to rage, taking the death toll since Thursday night to more than 100.

At least 1,100 have been wounded in what are the country's worst ethnic clashes in 20 years.

More than 75,000 terrified ethnic Uzbeks, mostly women and children, flooded across the nearby border with Uzbekistan today. Many of the refugees had gunshot wounds, according to the Uzbek emergencies ministry.

Gunfire could still be heard in the southern city of Osh, Kyrgyzstan's second city, and witnesses described scenes of horror and panic.

"God help us … they are killing Uzbeks like animals. Almost the whole city is in flames," Dilmurad Ishanov, an Uzbek human rights worker, told Reuters by telephone.

Much of the city was left in ruins after fires set by rioters swept through Uzbek areas, while the few remaining members of the city's large Uzbek minority barricaded themselves in against Kyrgyz gangs...

 
Of course we find that according to the CIA Factbook, Muslims are the majority - see below - so presumably Muslims are doing the killing or rather defending themselves against people who resist submitting or dying.   --The Law
 
Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
Muslim 75%, Russian Orthodox 20%, other 5%
Posted on 06/13/2010 7:32 PM by The Law

Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30    

Subscribe
Via: email  RSS