TERROR suspect Abu Qatada arrived home to protestors chanting 'out, out,out', after he was released from jail today. The radical cleric was released from maximum security prison HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire after winning the latest round in his battle against extradition.
Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, later arrived home in London, where a group of protesters gathered outside.
They held a "Get rid of Abu Qatada" banner and shouted "Get him out!" as he walked into his house flanked by officials.
Jackie Chaunt, 50, who works in the area, said: "He shouldn't be here. He was supposed to be deported to Jordan. It's a disgrace."
Aaron Baker, 30, who lives nearby, added: "We're all paying for this as taxpayers. It's ridiculous."
Qatada, who is said to be planning to move house, made no comment but smiled as he arrived.
When I was a young doctor, which is now a long time ago, patients who were close to death were often denied drugs like morphine for fear of turning them into addicts during their last weeks of earthly existence. This was both absurd and cruel; but nowadays we have gone to the opposite extreme. We dish out addictive painkillers as if we were doling out candy at a children’s party, with the result that there are now hundreds of thousands if not millions of iatrogenic — that is to say, medically created — addicts.
An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine asks why this change happened, and provides at least two possible answers.
The first is that there has been a sea change in medical and social sensibility. Nowadays, doctors feel constrained to take patients at their word: a patient is in pain if he says he is because he is supposedly the best authority on his own state of mind and the sensations that he feels. This certainly meant that at the hospital where I worked you could see patients, allegedly with severe and incapacitating back pain, skipping up the stairs and returning with their prescriptions for the strongest analgesics to treat their supposed pain. In the new dispensation, doctors were professionally bound to believe what the patients said, not what they observed them doing.
The automatic credence placed in what a patient says — or credulity, if you prefer — is deemed inherently more sympathetic than a certain critical or questioning attitude towards it. And since it is now possible, indeed normal, for patients to report on doctors adversely and very publicly via the internet and other electronic media, doctors find themselves in a situation in which they must do what patients want or have their reputations publicly ruined. When in doubt, then, prescribe.
The second reason proposed in the editorial for the liberal prescription of addictive analgesics, even to those patients whom the doctor knows or suspects to be abusing them, is economic. Prescription is quick and lucrative, while encouraging the patient to forego his drugs is difficult, time-consuming, and ill-paid. The doctor cannot afford, at least if he wants to preserve his income, to spend a lot of time with any one patient, and addicts denied their drugs can easily use up hours of the doctor’s time.
Practically all doctors (apart from pathologists) must now take courses in pain management, but not in the addiction to which the proliferation of these courses seem to have led. The author of the editorial, who is from Stanford, believes that not until doctors accept addiction as a disease, chronic and relapsing like, say, asthma, and are duly rewarded for treating it, will the problem be solved. The trouble is that addiction is not a disease like any other, any more than is burglary or driving too fast. Medical consequences do not make a disease.
Nevertheless, the editorial draws attention to the pressures on doctors to prescribe what they know in their hearts they ought not to prescribe. It omits, however, three factors: the unprecedented commercial promotion of strong painkillers by drug companies, the doctor’s physical fear of his patients (assaults by the disgruntled are not uncommon), and a strong dislike of scenes in his office. I remember very well that when I refused to prescribe either strong painkillers or other addictive drugs such as benzodiazepines (for example, valium), some of the patients would start to shout that I was not a doctor but a murderer. This was idiotic, of course, but such scenes are wearing on the nerves. Many doctors just give in prophylactically, as it were.
What You May Wish To Know About Nutella (In French)
Nutella : les ingrédients d'une success story
Le Monde.fr |
Par Alexandre Pouchard
Le Nutella, un produit pas comme les autres. La commission des affaires sociales du Sénat a adopté, mercredi 7 novembre, un amendement au projet de loi de financement de la Sécurité sociale (PLFSS) qui vise à augmenter de 300 % la taxe sur l'huile de palme, un des composants majeurs de cette célèbre pâte à tartiner au chocolat et aux noisettes. Prise au nom de la protection de la santé et de la lutte contre l'obésité, cette décision a suscité d'innombrables commentaires, signe que le Nutella ne laisse personne indifférent. Revue de tous ces petits faits qui alimentent les conversations.
La France, championne du monde de la consommation du Nutella
Quelque 0,86 % de la population mondiale, mais 26 % de la consommation mondiale de Nutella : bien que la marque soit italienne, les Français adorent la pâte à tartiner. Quelque 75 000 tonnes de Nutella sont consommées chaque année dans l'Hexagone. Suivent ensuite les Allemands avec environ 70 000 tonnes par an, puis les Italiens avec plus de 50 000 tonnes.
Une canicule à l'origine du Nutella
Le Nutella était à l'origine un bloc de chocolat, le Giandujot, concocté depuis les années 1920 par Pietro Ferrero, un pâtissier d'Alba, une petite ville du nord de l'Italie – où est toujours situé le siège du groupe Ferrero aujourd'hui. En 1946, les pénuries post-seconde guerre mondiale obligent Pietro Ferrero et son frère Giovanni à remplacer la plupart du cacao par des noisettes, très présentes dans la région. Mais cela reste alors une pâte dure, à couper.
Tout change en 1949. Selon la légende, une canicule aurait fait fondre le pain de chocolat. Qu'importe pour les enfants albesi : ils étalent la pâte ramollie sur du pain et dégustent le tout pour leur goûter. Les frères Ferrero adoptent alors l'idée et transforment leur pain de chocolat en pâte à tartiner, qui rencontre rapidement un immense succès. Le Giandujot sera rebaptisé "Supercrema" en 1951.
"La Tartinoise", premier nom français du Nutella
C'est en 1959 que le groupe Ferrero installe une usine à Villers-Ecalles, près de Rouen (Seine-Maritime). Pourquoi ce lieu ? Parce que l'emplacement choisi est une ancienne filature, et que "les ouvriers du textile disposaient d'un savoir-faire transposable à la chocolaterie", selon Jean Watin-Augouard, historien des marques et auteur de "Nutella, 3 syllabes pour un mythe" dans La Revue des marques.
L'usine produit tout d'abord des chocolats Mon Chéri, mais se lance en 1961 dans la fabrication de l'équivalent français de la Supercrema, baptisé "La Tartinoise".
En 1964, le groupe Ferrero estime insatisfaisant le nom "Supercrema". La nouvelle appellation devra rappeler les noisettes, "nuss" en allemand, "nut" en anglais. "On pense alors à des noms tels que Nutsy, Nutina, Nussina et Nusscrem", raconte Jean Watin-Augouard. Ce sera finalement Nutella.
Une histoire de famille
Le groupe Ferrero, qui a bâti sa fortune et sa notoriété sur le Nutella, est encore aujourd'hui dirigé par un membre de la famille éponyme. A la mort de Pietro Ferrero d'un infarctus en 1949, son frère Giovanni dirige l'entreprise et est assisté, au début des années 1950, par son fils Michele. Ce dernier reprend les rênes du groupe en 1957, à la mort de Giovanni Ferrero, lui aussi d'un infarctus.
Michele Ferrero dirige la société jusqu'en 1997, année où il confie l'entreprise à ses fils... Pietro et Giovanni. Avec la mort accidentelle de Pietro en Afrique du Sud en 2011, Giovanni Ferrero dirige désormais seul le groupe.
Le sucre et l'huile de palme, ingrédients majeurs
Le complexe processus de fabrication reste secret, mais les ingrédients du Nutella sont tous connus, contrairement à une idée largement répandue. Dans un article publié en août 2011, Le Point la détaille :
"D'abord les noisettes, broyées jusqu'à obtenir une pâte, le manteca. Ajoutez huile de palme, cacao, lait écrémé en poudre, lactosérum, sucre, vanille, et mixez le tout pour obtenir de la 'farine de Nutella'. Encore de l'huile de palme et une pincée de lécithine de soja. Laissez reposer trois jours. Servez à température ambiante sur du pain."
L'huile de palme est très décriée pour son impact environnemental désastreux et parce qu'elle contient 50 % d'acides gras saturés, ce qui augmente drastiquement les risques de cholestérol et cardio-vasculaires. Ce taux d'acides gras saturés est important, mais toutefois moins que dans le beurre, par exemple, qui "en contient 65 %", tempère Jean-Michel Lecerf, chef du service nutrition de l'Institut Pasteur de Lille, interrogé par Libération. "On ne peut pas dire que l'huile de palme soit dangereuse en tant que telle pour la santé, mais comme tout aliment, il ne faut pas en abuser", ajoute-t-il. Ce qui est également le message de Ferrero. Le Nutella représente 530 kilocalories pour 100 grammes, contre 300 kilocalories pour la même quantité d'un cheeseburger de McDonald's, par exemple.
Une recette spécifique en Allemagne
Le Nutella a une consistance plus solide et plus riche en cacao en Allemagne, où il est en général consommé sur du pain plus dur. La pâte à tartiner Ferrero est en revanche plus onctueuse en France, en Italie et dans le reste du monde.
Si le Nutella est largement une marque mondiale, avec une présence dans 200 pays, quelques marchés lui résistent encore. Les Etats-Unis, où le Nutella est arrivé tardivement (1983), sont encore le royaume du peanut butter, le sacro-saint beurre de cacahuètes. Les ventes sont quasi-inexistantes en Chine pour une raison simple : "Les Chinois consomment très peu de pain", rappelle Jean Watin-Augouard.
"Le Nutella est plus qu'une tartine de noisette chocolatée, c'est un mode de vie." Slogan du groupe Ferrero ? Non, affirmation de consommateurs fanatiques de la pâte à tartiner, qui ont lancé en 2007 la Journée mondiale du Nutella. La date a été fixée au 5 février. Selon Le Point, les communicants de Ferrero, eux, auraient préféré le 2 février, jour de la Chandeleur...
"Le" ou "la" Nutella ?
Un vieux et essentiel débat entre fanatiques de la célèbre pâte à tartiner. "On dit LE Nutella en France, LA Nutella en Italie", assure Jean Watin-Augouard, tandis que d'autres prônent l'utilisation du féminin pour "LA pâte à tartiner", bien que l'usage masculin soit plus répandu.
Si, sur son site Internet, Ferrero se garde bien de prendre position et n'utilise aucun article ("Produit mythique à la recette inégalée, Nutella accompagne les petits déjeuners et goûters"), les publicités télévisées mentionnent régulièrement "du Nutella" et non "de la Nutella". Dont acte.
Ahmed Jabari, head of Hamas' military wing, was killed Wednesday in a targeted strike by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.
The Palestinian Islamist group said an Israeli airstrike hit a car in the Gaza Strip, killing both Jabari, who ran the organization's armed wing, the Izz el-Deen Al-Qassam, and a passenger.
Israel's Shin Bet domestic intelligence service confirmed it had carried out the attack, saying it had killed Jabari because of his "decade-long terrorist activity."
IDF Spokesperson said the purpose of the strikes was to deal a heavy blow to the Hamas command and control apparatus and to the organization's terrorist infrastructure.
The incident appeared to end a 24-hour lull in cross-border violence that surged this week.
Jabari is the most senior Hamas official to be killed since Operation Cast Lead in Gaza four years ago. He has long topped Israel's most-wanted list.
Jabari, a relative of one of the founders of Hamas, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, was responsible for the attack on Kerem Shalom, when IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and two other soldiers killed. Jabari was in charge of negotiations during Shalit's five years in captivity.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told mayors of southern Israeli cities under rocket attack that it was his responsibility to choose the right time to "exact the heaviest price" for the continual rocket fire from Gaza.
Since the flare-up with Gaza began, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have promised a sharp Israeli response to the rocket fire.
During the Be'er Sheva meeting with the southern Israeli mayors, Netanyahu said that Israel is not expected to undertake significant military action in Gaza at this stage, or to renew assassinations of Gaza militants.
"I am responsible for us choosing the right time to exact the heaviest price, and so be it," Netanyahu said. "Whoever thinks that they can damage the daily lives of residents of the south, and that they won't pay a heavy price for this – they are mistaken."
Not as in the perfectly acceptable "16 is a multiple of 2."
No, the new use of "multiple" as a careless synonym for "many."
As in today's New York Times, in a story about Steven Sinofsky, late of Microsoft:
"He answered questions from the audience and then left the resort, according to multiple people who were present."
This is not permissible.
The writer was careless. And more careless were the copy-editors who are supposed to catch barbarisms. But how can they, given the kind of education, the kind of attitude toward language, that those who now do those jobs. by their laxness or indifference, exhibit?
Today Maureen Dowd begins her column with this about the last name of David Petraeus:
"Now another charismatic general has shattered his life and career over sex. When you've got a name like a Greek hero, and a nickname like a luscious fruit, isn't hubris ripe to follow?
It's been a steep fall for Peaches Petraeus, once the darling of Congress and journalists, Republicans and Democrats...."
Apparently she has been fooled by the "eus" ending of "Petraeus" which has led her to think of "Odysseus" and the false Achaean scent.
If she had a better sense of things, she would have recognized the name as an example of the fashion, some centuries ago, in countries of Europe -- especially but not only in Sweden -- to latinize one's name, especially in the case of scholars who lived at a a time when Latin was still the universal language of scholarship and academic life (Leibniz published his works on the calculus, in the proceedings of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, in Latin) that a Latin name bespoke scholarship. And it was not always the celebrated scholars themselves, but ancestors of those scholars, who had latinized the name for professional reasons. Think of Scaliger, once "Della Scala." Think of the chemist Berzelius. Think, above all, of the celebrated taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus. Amusingly, Linnaeus, once ennobled for his work in Uppsala, shed the wonted latinity of his academical village and became Carl von Linne.
This is not something Maureen Dowd knew about. Why be a surprised? . She's a child of her age, a representative practitioner of her profession. The past in another country, and Europe even more so, and for the maureen-dowds of this world, there's no need to know much about, as Humbert Humbert calls it, "the Old and rotting World." . But at least Maureen Dowd is much more intelligent, and more lively, than the impossibly dull Kristof, the hopelessly stupid Friedman. That's in her favor. Look on the bright side.
In the note I just posted on Petraeus and latinized last names -- Scaliger, Berzelius, Linnaeus -- I put "Can Grande Della Scala" and "Vladimir Nabokov" in among the tags.
Why? you ask.
Oh, because in an interview with Bayerischer Rundfunk about forty years ago Vladimir Nabokov noted that among his ancestors was Can Grande Dellla Scala, to whom Dante owed so much:
"My grandmother's paternal ancestors, the von Korffs, are
traceable to the fourteenth century, while on their distaff
side there is a long line of von Tiesenhausens, one of whose
ancestors was Engelbrecht von Tiesenhausen of Liviand who took
part, around 1200, in the Third and Fourth Crusades. Another
direct ancestor of mine was Can Grande della Scala, Prince of
Verona, who sheltered the exiled Dante Alighieri, and whose
blazon (two big dogs holding a ladder) adorns Boccaccio's
Decameron (1353). Della Scala's granddaughter Beatrice
married, in 1370, Wilhelm Count Oettingen, grandson of fat
Bolko the Third, Duke of Silesia. Their daughter married a
von Waldburg, and three Waldburgs, one Kittlitz, two Polenzes
and ten Osten-Sackens later, Wilhelm Carl von Korff and Eleonor
von der Osten-Sacken engendered my paternal grandmother's
grandfather, Nicolaus, killed in battleon June 12, 1812.
His wife, my grandmother's grandmother Antoinette Graun, was
the granddaughter ofthe composer Carl Heinrich Graun (1701-1759).
The still-unraveling scandal that has forced the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus has already touched on vital matters of U.S. national security. For starters: Did the spymaster pass information about the CIA’s secret work in Benghazi onto his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell? As the scandal continues to widen, there will surely be other pertinent, and likely more disturbing, questions raised.
But perhaps the most significant question we’ll be left asking once the tawdry details stop leaking is: What happens to U.S. foreign policy when it loses a man of Petraeus’ experience, perspective, and institutional memory? For all of his peerless expertise regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, the question is especially relevant regarding Iran.
According to former Petraeus aides, leading military officials, policymakers, and analysts close to the four-star general that I spoke to this week, Petraeus understood, more than anyone else in our national-security apparatus, that the Islamic Republic is at war with the United States. By Petraeus’ reckoning, they said, it’s not possible to strike a grand bargain with Iran over its nuclear weapons program because the larger problem is the regime itself, whose endgame is to drive the United States from the region. And no arm of the regime is more dangerous than its external operations unit, the Qods Force, whose mastermind, Qassem Suleimani, is considered by Petraeus to be a personal enemy.
In seeing Iran as a threat to vital U.S. interests, Petraeus bucked the mainstream of more than 30 years of U.S. foreign policy. Presidents and legislators from both parties, as well as military and civilian officials, have tended to downplay the Iranian threat, seeking engagement with Tehran in the vague hopes of reaching a deal that might lead the regime to finally call off its dogs and leave us in peace. Petraeus, on the other hand, fought the Iranians.
As commander of American forces in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008 and in Afghanistan from July 2010 to July 2011, Petraeus fought Iranians’ local proxies and frequently the Iranians themselves, often drawn from the Qods Force. As head of Central Command from October 2008 to June 2010, the general had a large area of responsibility that afforded him an overview of Iranian activities throughout the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, the Persian Gulf states as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. During the course of almost a decade, Petraeus became Washington’s institutional memory of all of Iran’s activities directed against the United States and its allies.
“He understood the Iranians’ modus operandi, and their mentality,” said one intelligence analyst who worked in Iraq and saw Petraeus’ work up close. “No one has dealt directly with the Iranian threat the way he has. We’re losing someone at the highest levels of government with the historical knowledge and ability to counter the Iranians.”
Before the adultery scandal that forced his resignation on Friday, Petraeus was most famous as the commander who implemented the “surge” in Iraq, which is often credited for changing the course of the war. Petraeus’ campaign employed a large escalation of combat troops and a controversial counterinsurgency, or COIN, doctrine. Both the man and the idea were subjected to sharp criticism inside and outside military circles (including by this writer, whose understanding was faulty), which is hardly surprising given the acclaim heaped on Petraeus—or King David, as some rivals sarcastically referred to the general.
COIN’s basic premise is to the win the “hearts and minds” of a local population by providing it with protection and thereby cutting off an insurgency’s base of local support. COIN advocates explain that this account is too simplistic. “There’s this idea that COIN is about showing up in a village with a bag of money,” Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, an Army intelligence officer who worked with Petraeus from 2007 to 2010, told me. “But from the start, the idea was to interdict lines of external support, politically and militarily.”
While the surge is usually believed to have focused all its energies against al-Qaida and Sunni militants, there was also a significant campaign against Iraqi Shia groups like Moqtada al-Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi. Targeting their external lines of support—including money, weapons, and advisers—meant going after Iran. “When Petraeus came back to Iraq and took command in February 2007, my impression was that one of the things that struck him most was the level of Iranian involvement and its influence over the Iraqi government,” said Rayburn. “He clearly had a sense the Iranians were sponsoring killing our soldiers in Iraq and conducting operations against some of our allies.”
Others told me that the Iranians were always a factor in Iraq, but there was little political will to do anything about it before Petraeus took command. Many U.S. military and civilian leaders, in Washington and on the ground in Iraq, simply chose to ignore it. Gen. George W. Casey, who commanded the multinational forces in Iraq before Petraeus, was, according to one senior military official, in “denial” about Iranian involvement. “They downplayed it—and you can understand why,” he said. “If the strategy is to hand security over to the Iraqi government, then it is problematic to be told that it is infiltrated by Iranian agents. If that’s true then the fundamental assumption is wrong, and you need to change your strategy.”
When George W. Bush realized that he was in danger of presiding over an American defeat, he tasked Petraeus with the job of turning the Iraq war around. That meant looking at Iraq with fresh eyes and seeing Iran’s role clearly. “With the Iranians, there was a multipronged campaign to root out their operations in Iraq,” said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who observed Petraeus in Iraq and later in Afghanistan. “That went from gathering intelligence, to arresting Iranian operatives, and pushing back Iranian influence.”
The man in charge of Iran’s Iraq policy, and most of their foreign operations, was and remains Qassem Suleimani, the 55-year-old major general who commands the Qods Force. According to Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor’s new book The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama, Suleimani answers directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khameini. With the job of advancing the Islamic Republic’s interests through warfare and clandestine activities, Suleimani is perhaps the second-most important figure in the regime’s power structure. Recently he’s helped to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s besieged Syrian regime and participated in the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. In a 2008 letter to then-Defense Sec. Robert Gates, Petraeus called Suleimani a “truly evil figure.”
For the entirety of Petraeus’ tenure in Iraq, said Rayburn, “pushing back on Suleimani’s political and military influence was a key concern for him. He didn’t say it explicitly, but I believed he considered himself to be in war of wits against Suleimani.” The intelligence analyst agreed: “Petraeus saw Suleimani as his main adversary. We’d whack them, and then they regenerated because they had safe haven. But then he gave Suleimani an ultimatum, that he’d go after Qods Force.”
In January 2007, U.S. forces captured five Qods Force operatives in Erbil, which was Petraeus’ way of sending a message to Suleimani. “After that, they no longer sent in their senior guys, they sent in proxies,” said the analyst. The Erbil Five were eventually released, which is to say that Petraeus’ campaign against the Iranians hardly amounted to a rout, especially considering the amount of influence Iran today exercises in Iraq, including its relationship with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
And yet, Petraeus did considerable damage to Iran’s project in Iraq. “The Iranians tried to force us back down in 2006,” said the analyst. “But their militias were pushed out of Baghdad. By the end of 2008, all Iranian-backed militia leaders were dead or trying to take a taxi back to Iran. Ultimately they did not achieve their goals there. They want to project the image that they have more control than they actually do in Baghdad. It’s like when they photoshopped those ballistic weapons to make themselves look more powerful. It’s how they operate.”
According to the sources I spoke with, many of the programs that Petraeus implemented, and the tools he used to push back against Suleimani and the Qods Force, are going concerns. Those will continue. But as far as having someone at the top levels of government who understands the Iranian’s tactics, and has fought them up-close, Petraeus will likely be impossible to replace.
Paul Keating, Former Aussie PM Now Posing As Elder Statesman, Who Has Not, Seemingly, Read Quran, Sira or Hadith, nor V S Naipaul nor C S Hurgronje, Urges Australia to Become Muslim Indonesia's Dhimmi Client
If he was merely warning us to keep a wary weather eye on what we are so often told is 'the world's most populous Muslim country' and to deploy a long spoon and a taqiyya-tuned ear when engaging in unavoidable dealings with same, that would be one thing. But he is not. - CM
'Former prime minister Paul Keating says Australia needs to dramatically improve its relationship with Indonesia and stop being subservient to the United States'.
Really? So we should distance ourselves from our largest non-Muslim ally, and instead start being subservient to a dangerous, corrupt, majority-Muslim, Muslim-dominated and steadily-sharia-izing entity within which Christians, Hindus and Buddhists have been and are being relentlessly marginalized and persecuted and (in terrifying pogroms in various parts during the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s) mass-murdered? - CM
'Mr Keating delivered the Keith Murdoch Oration in Melbourne last night, with a speech titled "Asia in the new order: Australia's diminishing sphere of influence'.
We never had much of a sphere of influence, because we are and will remain - being the driest inhabited continent - a small to middle rank country in terms of population. And: I would like to know precisely what he means by 'new order'. - CM
'Before making the speech, he spoke to Lateline, and said Indonesia should become Australia's most important strategic relationship.
They are dominated by Islam. Any 'relationship' with them should be conducted at arm's length, watchful for the knife under the cloak; for we are kuffar and they are Muslim.
Read the Quran, Mr Keating; read the Sira, and take a look at some of the Hadiths, and at Al-Tabari. And then read Bassam Tibi, and Majid Khadduri, 'War and Peace in the Law of Islam'.
Then, Mr Keating, read C S Hurgronje, 'The Acehnese', especially the discussion of Jihad. And read Mark Durie, 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom'; for it is either de facto dhimmitude that you, Mr Keating, appear to be urging upon us or, if not dhimmitude, the assumption de facto of a role approximating dar al sulh, 'house of treaty', which can describe a non-Muslim-populated area 'ruled and administered by its local political structure, but [that] acknowledged itself as a subject [of Muslims/ some Muslim entity - CM] through the payment of tribute', or else can describe 'non-Muslim territory that had concluded an armistice with Muslims and had agreed to protect Muslims and their interest within its borders' (these definitions provided, respectively, by Bernard Lewis in 'The political language of Islam' and by sly apologist for Islam John Esposito in an entry in ' The Oxford Dictionary of Islam').
Personally, I think Julia Gillard is showing more sense, by making strong overtures to Mother India...who still has a terrible problem with a massive Muslim Fifth Column, and needs to lose a dangerously dhimmified frame of mind, but is infinitely preferable as a friend and ally and trading partner - being a relatively-free majority non-Muslim secular state and sister Commonwealth country - to either sinister Muslim Indonesia, or to deeply-unfree post-Mao China. And I would like to see our good friend the USA freed of its dangerous all-too-dhimmi-like entanglements with Muslim Pakistan, and Muslim Indonesia, and developing a better relationship with majority non-Muslim India, as well. - CM
'He said the current relationship had no structure or coherence and was full of transactional issues like live cattle exports and refugee management.
Muslim Indonesia will never seriously lift a finger to prevent the hegira of Muslim 'refugees', mostly males of military age, passing on by into Infidel Australia. Any more than Muslim Turkey has any interest in preventing floods of fellow Muslims - mostly males of military age - from entering, or more correctly, invading and colonising, Greece, and so, Europe. That's why there is a problem with refugee management . As for the viciously cruel treatment meted out to the live cattle we foolishly and greedily sell them: obscene cruelty, both to animals and to humans, especially non-Muslim humans, is one of the constants and defining marks of dar al Islam, and we should stop selling the live cattle, because there is no way that the Indonesian Muslims, or any other Muslims whom we currently allow to buy our livestock, will stop doing what they do to them.- CM
"Our natural stamping ground is South East Asia", he told Latelilne.
Really? One might just as easily look east to the Christian island nations of the Pacific - and to our old friend the USA. Or west / northwest, across the Indian Ocean, to non-Muslim Sri Lanka and India, or to the majority-Christian nations of East Africa, three of them our Commonwealth sisters. But as for south-east Asia: discernment is necessary. There are the relatively-free and non-Muslim (Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, and tiny East Timor, but lately freed from Muslim domination and ruination, to whom we owe a debt of honour for their sheltering of our servicemen during World War II) and the non-Muslim and unfree (Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar); there is fragile little Cambodia; and then there are the sinister Muslim entities - Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia. The Muslim entities should never be viewed as potential friends or allies, for - from their own side, from the ideology that suffuses them - they cannot and will not be any sort of friend or ally to a non-Muslim nation. - CM
"The effort we should be making is with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). In fact, I'm suggesting in the speech we should be a member of ASEAN."
If we did join ASEAN, our policy should be to always side with the non-Muslim nations among them; to befriend and encourage those who are both (relatively) free and non-Muslim; and to avoid entanglements with the unfree, especially those that are Muslim. - CM
"We should be redoubling our efforts on the bilateral relationship with Indonesia. Where Indonesia goes strategically, so go we, in which case the rise of that great state is centrally important. Our strategic bread is entirely buttered on the Indonesian archipelago."
And if they Go Sharia and Go Jihad, as is entirely possible and probable, what then, Mr Keating?How much time has Mr Keating been spending, lately, with Indonesian Muslim taqiyya-masters? - CM
"This is at our neighbourhood, this is at our doorstep - rather than simply trying to second guess the Americans and the Chinese about the South China Sea or North Asia".
'Mr Keating says Australia will always be friends with the United States, but the strategic power of the west is diminishing.
Due largely to self-inflicted wounds. And so Mr Keating, rather Muslim-like, is looking about for the next 'strong horse' to back? One could always, of course, instead, seek rather to identify and activate the formidable powers of regeneration that can be discerned within the civilisational genetic code of 'the west', but that - it seems - would be too much like hard work. - CM
'He argues that Australian acquiescence to US foreign policy demands during the governments of former prime ministers John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard has damaged Australian independence and hurt relations with Asia.
Define 'Asia', Mr Keating. Who precisely do you mean by 'Asia'? For Buddhist and free Japan and South Korea and Taiwan are different from and deeply wary of communist and unfree and aggressive China and North Korea, and different from those other unfree communist states Vietnam and Laos; Buddhist Cambodia is different again, and then free and non-Muslim Singapore and the Philippines and Thailand are different again, and then there is the slightly-starting-to-unbend non-Muslim military dictatorship in Buddhist Myanmar within which a Muslim Jihad appears to be kicking off...And then there are the wholly-not-to-be-trusted-by-any-Infidel Muslim entities, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia. That is how I parse eastern and south-eastern 'Asia'. Our primary interest, being free and non-Muslim, is therefore or should be with those that are also free and non-Muslim. - CM
"I think that we are far too deferential to what we see as the proclivities of US foreign policy vis a vis our own", he said.
But ironically enough, our cozying up to our nearest large Muslim neighbour (within which, it so happens, the current US president spent his earliest childhood, and of which it seems his fondest memory is the sound of the muezzin's wail) is, at the moment, given Obama's record of fawning appeasement of the dar al Islam, just as unthinking a replication of US foreign policy as anything else we have ever engaged in..And because of the nature of Islam, deadly dangerous, more dangerous than anything else we have ever done. - CM
"Not knowing when to strike out on your own, not knowing when to map out your prerogatives and where the lines are all blurred with their own. Howard described himself as a deputy sheriff, remember this, in Asia.
"In the WikiLeaks cables, the Chinese discovered that Kevin Rudd was urging the Americans to keep the military option open against them. This is hardly a friendly gesture.
WikiLeaks seems to me to be a classic case of 'loose lips sink ships'. But knowing that Mr Rudd said that, gives me a higher, not a lower, estimation of him. It seems that Mr Rudd possesses a glimmering of commonsense and that, during his time of study under the scholar who wrote 'Chinese Shadows', he may actually have learned something. As for 'friendly gestures': what sort of friendly gesture to a large, totalitarian, corrupt and basically unfree society, that is still periodically putting its indigenous Christians in prison, will be interpreted as anything but craven appeasement? - CM
'And of course we had President Obama make an aggressive anti-Chinese speech fundamentally in our parliamentary chamber, the so-called pivot speech."
Mr Keating: one can suck up to China - which is barely keeping a lid on its 'restive' Muslim minority in Sinkiang/ Xinjiang - or to the local manifestation of the OIC in the person of Muslim Indonesia. But not both simultaneously (and the impossibility of doing both, is perhaps indicated by the fact that an eagerly-Muslim-appeasing President Obama could, seemingly, make an 'aggressive anti-Chinese speech'). Myself, I do not fancy doing either. - CM
"We're in the lee of the great whoosh of American policy making for good or for bad - we have been. Now, we're entitled to pick the eyes out of it, but we should not expect to be taken for bunnies".
So you are proposing that we attach ourselves to post-Mao China and/ or to Muslim Indonesia, instead?. I tell you, Mr Keating, if we get ourselves even more entangled with and appeasing of Muslim Indonesia than we already - foolishly - are, then the word for us will not be 'bunnies', but...dhimmis. We will end up as de facto or (in time, if things do not change) de jure dhimmis, and that is a fate worse than death.
I wonder whether Mr Keating has even heard of the word 'dhimmi'; or of other words, like 'jihad', 'sharia', 'jizya', and 'sulh'. If he knew anything at all about Islam, and what it teaches about fhe general impermissibility of friendships, alliances and agreements between Muslim and non-Muslim entities - and that such agreements may only be entered into temporarily and for Muslim advantage, and may be broken as and when the Muslim side sees greater advantage from breaking them than from keeping them, the ultimate aim always being the achievement and maintenance of permanent and total Muslim dominance over non-Muslims - he would not be saying any of this. Or if he does know, and is still saying it, then he is dangerous. Either way, I would say to today's Australian politicians, whether incumbent or aspiring: ignore him. We cannot be allies with Muslim Indonesia. We cannot be friends. As and when they feel able, they will do us down: for they are Muslims, and we are Infidels.
There is another book that Mr Keating should have read, but seemingly has not. Two books, both of which have very illuminating and disturbing chapters on Muslim Indonesia, and Muslim Malaysia, as well as on Muslim Iran and Muslim Pakistan. V S Naipaul's 'Among the Believers', and its sequel, written ten years later, a sort of 'where have they got to now?', 'Beyond Belief'.
In 'Among the Believers', V S Naipaul visited a pesantren, the Indonesian version of a madrasa, or Islamic 'school'/ indoctrination centre, in Pabelan, in Java, Indonesia. In Java, I stress, the pivotal island politically and economically; not in Aceh which is the most obviously fanatically Muslim of the various islands of the East Indies. In the late 1970s. There he recorded this exchange, initiated after someone observed, of one of the students, 'He's from Timor'.
"Prasojo was interested. 'Which one?' (i.e. from East or West Timor; this was during the mass-murderous Indonesian imperial occupation of East Timor - CM).
"Timor", said Taufiq, and laughed. "Our newest colony. Soon we'll be colonizing Australia".
Mr Keating may choose to ignore a throwaway line like that. Knowing what I know about the jIhad imperative within Islam, Ido not. - CM
Israel owes its survival to effective and continuous deterrence. Confronted with uniquely narrow borders and destructive threats from all directions, the threat of large-scale response has been Israel's most effective insurance policy. When the IDF has acted effectively to deter the threats of conventional attacks from large armies, mass terror campaigns and missiles aimed at cities, Israeli citizens have been protected.
This deterrence did not come easily, but was gradually built in the wars from 1948 through 1973. Although the Yom Kippur war resulted in unprecedented Israeli casualties, largely due to the surprise attack and failure to pre-empt due to American pressure, the successful counterattacks that reached the outskirts of both Cairo and Damascus also created in unprecedented level of deterrence. Egyptian and Syrian leaders realized that any further full scale wars against Israel would be disastrous. As a result, the era of conventional warfare that began in the 1948 invasion reached an end, and Egypt's military government began the negotiations that led to the 1979 peace treaty. Without deterrence, Sadat and Begin would not have signed that agreement, which has been essential for both countries during more than three decades.
But when the deterrence image has faded, and Israel was seen as unable to use its military force, partly due to international political restraints, attacks resumed. In Lebanon, which became the launching ground for PLO terror after 1973, Israel was perceived as unable to effectively counterattack against guerrillas hidden in civilian neighborhoods. In 1982, a large Israeli operation in Lebanon and including Beirut sought to create deterrence against terrorism, but failed in this central objectives. Operational failures, political incompetence, and damage caused by images of Israel air attacks on civilians led to immense pressure from Europe and also the US to halt operations before the military objectives were accomplished.
After 1982, Israel's ability to project deterrence against terror in different forms continued to decline. Unilateral military withdrawals in 2000 from the buffer zone in Lebanon, and from Gaza in 2005, gave further impetus to Palestinian, Hizbollah and other groups to view Israel as a fading power. They increased and expanded the scope of attacks against Israel. The effort to restore deterrence in the 2006 Lebanon war also ended without clear military accomplishments, and a premature cease-fire forced by international pressure.
In December 2008, a major round of rocket attacks from Gaza triggered a large scale counterattack against Hamas. This operation was more successful, in terms of military successes, but at the cost of greater political isolation, resulting from a campaign using alleged "human rights violations" led by powerful political NGOs, magnified in the media, and repeated in the infamous Goldstone report. Overall, Israel's deterrence image was only marginally restored, and the rocket attacks and assaults on Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border resumed steadily and became more deadly.
This is the essential background to the current Israeli operation targeting Hamas terror leaders and their deadly missile infrastructure. If the IDF has learned the lessons of the previous efforts, including 2006 and 2008/9, this operation may lead to a significant restoration of deterrence. On the political front of this war, the briefing for foreign ambassadors, held by Prime Minister Netanyahu in Ashkelon, was an effort to deal with this essential dimension. In the long term, strategic deterrence remains essential for stability and perhaps, eventually, for peace.
Gerald Steinberg is professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor
The Woman in Tampa involved with Generals Petreaus and Allen
Jill; Khawan Kelley and Gen. David Petreaus
The head spinning developments in the pot-boiler Gen. Petreaus scandal raised another notch yesterday with revelations about Ms. Jill Khawan Kelley, a sometime socialite and lady bountiful to the CENTCOM commanders at neighboring MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, Florida. Pure speculations have run riot about her involvement in the twists and turns of l’Affaire Petreaus given the contact with an errant FBI agent, and email exchanges with Army Res. Major Paula Broadwell, the alleged paramour. The revelations about several hundred email exchanges between Ms. Kelley and Marine Gen. Allen, Petreaus’ successor as ISAF commander in Afghanistan, put his nomination on hold for the NATO Commander slot.
The media and the blogosphere exploded with information about Ms. Kelley alleging that she might be a Lebanese “Marta Hari” according to a post on the leftist Daily Kos. Glen Beck’s The Blazepicked up on the Daily Kos allegations. There was even speculation about her possible role as a Hezbollah agent from the Israel Matzav blog in Jerusalem. Amazing how speculations double down.
What we do know about Ms. Kelly is that she, her twin Natalie, their two siblings and Maronite Christian parents came to the US as refugees in the mid-1970’s from the civil-war in Lebanon and settled in Philadelphia. The family established Middle Eastern eateries including the Sahara located in Voorhees, New Jersey. They set a pattern for their children of reaching out to socially and politically connected personalities.
About a decade ago, Jill and her twin sister Natalie Khawan settled in the Tampa vicinity. Natalie is a lawyer who was reported to have specialized in whistleblower cases. She apparently was not granted custody of her son in an acrimonious battle with her ex-husband in the DC Superior court. This despite letters from Generals Petreaus and Allen attesting to her good character. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said this of twin sister Natalie Khawan in his November 2011 ruling:
Ms. [Natalie] Khawan appears to lack any appreciation or respect for the importance of honesty and integrity in her interactions with her family, employers and others with whom she comes in contact.
Not only did the judge in the case award her ex-husband custody last year of their 3-year-old son, John, but he also told Khawam to pay his legal bills amounting to $350,000. Khawam filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April after racking up more than $3 million in debt, according to federal court records.
Jill Kelley’s husband Scott, a surgeon, defaulted on sizable mortgage loans and credit card debt according to the Tampa Tribune. The Tribune noted:
Regions Bank filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Jill and Scott Kelley in April 2010, claiming they failed to make payments on the mansion where they often entertained Gen. Petreaus, Gen. John Allen and other top military men. The bank demands repayment of $1.8 million in principal and interest on the mortgage and is foreclosing on the property.
And the couple's Kelley Land Holdings defaulted on a $2.1 million loan from Central Bank. It was secured by a commercial building in Tampa, which the bank eventually took back. Then there is FIA Card Services that sued Jill Kelley for defaulting on more than $25,000 in credit card debt.
Ms. Kelley’s socializing and lavish dinners sprung for the military elite at CENTCOMM must have cost a tidy sum.
The media, ever eager to find a spark behind the scenes, focused on the Honorary Consul Florida license tag on her Mercedes 500 sedan parked in the driveway of the family’s Tampa home. The Tribune noted the responses of both the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the US State Department regarding such designations:
"I am an honorary consul general," Kelley said in one call Sunday to a police nonemergency number. "I have inviolability. They should not be on my property. I don't know if you want to get diplomatic, uh, protection involved as well. It's against the law to cross my property. It's inviolable."
Though she has the special license plate, it remained unclear Tuesday how she qualified for it.
Applicants must show proof they are members of the Honorary Consular Corps, which appears from the U.S. Department of State website to consist of representatives from foreign countries. Florida verifies that with the State Department, said Courtney Heidelberg, who is with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
Florida has issued 107 such license plates.
Mark Toner, deputy spokesman with the State Department, said Kelley "does not work for State, has no affiliation with State."
His office referred all questions about Kelley to the Republic of Korea in an email received after hours.
This morning I spoke with a knowledgeable source in both the international and domestic Maronite Christian community to put some “sunlight” to these allegations. My source frankly had not heard of Ms. Kelley until these revelations. Further, the source indicated that to their knowledge, Ms. Kelly is not an honorary consul for the Republic of Lebanon. Citing the default on the Kelly family mortgage my source said that if she was a Hezbollah double agent, she would have had access to lavish amounts of cash and would not have resorted to borrowing against the properties. The conclusion my source drew was that Ms. Kelley was strictly a socialite trying to ingratiate herself with the CENTCOMM commanders.
As we said earlier, the mainstream media and the blogosphere have gone over the top with speculations injuring the good name and reputation of Gen. Allen. As to Ms. Kelley, she had already lit the match that some over the top FBI field agent bringing down Gen. Petreaus and his paramour, Paula Broadwell. Neither Gens. Petreaus or Allen showed good judgment in their associations with the twin sisters, Jill and Natalie Khawan.