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 Monday, 6, 2009.
Monday, 6 April 2009
The Might of Juche-oriented Science

We capitalists running dogs whistle while we work, but in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea they sing a song of Sung. From Korea News (h/t) Harry's Place:

Scientists and technicians of the DPRK have succeeded in putting satellite Kwangmyongsong-2, an experimental communications satellite, into orbit by means of carrier rocket Unha-2 under the state long-term plan for the development of outer space….

The satellite is going round on its routine orbit.

It is sending to the earth the melodies of the immortal revolutionary paeans “Song of General Kim Il Sung” and “Song of General Kim Jong Il” and measured information at 470 MHz. By the use of the satellite the relay communications is now underway by UHF frequency band.

The satellite is of decisive significance in promoting the scientific researches into the peaceful use of outer space and solving scientific and technological problems for the launch of practical satellites in the future.

Carrier rocket Unha-2 has three stages.

The carrier rocket and the satellite developed by the indigenous wisdom and technology are the shining results gained in the efforts to develop the nation’s space science and technology on a higher level. 

The successful satellite launch symbolic of the leaping advance made in the nation’s space science and technology was conducted against the background of the stirring period when a high-pitched drive for bringing about a fresh great revolutionary surge is under way throughout the country to open the gate to a great prosperous and powerful nation without fail by 2012, the centenary of birth of President Kim Il Sung, under the far-reaching plan of General Secretary Kim Jong Il. This is powerfully encouraging the Korean people all out in the general advance.

 

Posted on 04/06/2009 4:40 AM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 6 April 2009
Asian men in burkhas rob jewellers

From the Scottish paper The Herald.
Two Asian men wearing traditional female Muslim dress and carrying handbags have robbed a jewellery shop in a possible copycat of an international spate of thefts. The pair wore black Muslim dress, including headwear which completely covered their faces, as well as sunglasses, when they carried out the attack.
The disguise prompted one prominent Scots-Asian politician to say retailers would be "perfectly within their rights" to deny entry to anyone wearing a burkha or niqab.
Hanzala Malik, a Glasgow councillor for 14 years and in whose ward Saturday's raid took place, said he was concerned this was a copycat event and that while it would be unfortunate for a Muslim women in religious dress to be denied access, safety concerns should outweigh this.
The councillor admitted having some sympathy with former home secretary Jack Straw who caused controversy when he said he asked constituents to lift their veils before he spoke to them at surgeries.
He said: "If retailers are uncomfortable about customers coming into secured premises and dressed in burkhas, they are perfectly within their rights to deny entry. Banks don't allow people wearing helmets into their premises.
"But in this day and age if you want to wear that dress and expect to be served, I don't think you should feel hurt if you are not."  How refreshingly sensible.
The two suspects are described as Asian, around 5ft 10in to 6ft in height. They were both wearing sunglasses and carrying handbags.
Police said no firearm was discharged and no-one was injured but that two female members of staff were left badly shaken and were taken by ambulance to the Western Infirmary as a precaution.

Posted on 04/06/2009 5:07 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 6 April 2009
Pity the Stepford G20

It seems I'm not the only one wondering why our female role models have gone all girlie. Emma Duncan in The Sunday Times:

Let’s face it, macroeconomics is a pretty dreary business. Devising contra-cyclical capital requirements for safer banking regulation isn’t the most delightful way to spend a spring afternoon. Why worry about the world economy when you can talk about clothes and make-up?

This was evidently Downing Street’s view of the intellectual level of the G20 wives, for the spouses were packed off on a programme of the sort that the Saudi Arabian monarchy’s social secretariat might have thought up for the third wife of a visiting dignitary. No doubt the schedule was sent in advance to Mr Angela Merkel, a chemistry professor, and Mr Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, a former president, for they wisely stayed away.

Downing Street seems to have decided that G20 ladies’ virtue would be endangered if they met any of Britain’s notoriously rapacious menfolk, because their visit was conducted in purdah. Michelle Obama was taken to a women’s cancer hospital and then to a girls’ school, presumably on the grounds that nursing and teaching are the only occupations suitable for ladies. Did she and Sarah Brown meet consultant oncologists to discuss developments in radiology? No, they went to the make-up unit, where Obama shared some top tips.

At the school she told pupils “being smart is cooler than anything in the world”. Quite so. All that was missing was a visit to a college of domestic science; Downing Street probably judged that since cooking had been taken over by male celebrity chefs, it was too sensational.

If the guest list for the all-women dinner at Downing Street represented top British female talent then, by Obama’s measure, this country is doomed. There was Naomi Campbell, a woman who became famous because she is beautiful and stayed that way because she is spectacularly ill-mannered; Emma Freud, who has a fashionable surname, used to do things on television and lives with Richard Curtis, a successful man; Martha Lane Fox, who is rolled out every time somebody wants a young entrepreneur, even though the company she started has been swallowed by a competitor and she is no longer young.

Yes, I know JK Rowling has created an industry single-handedly and Kelly Holmes is a fabulous athlete, but where were Patricia Scotland, the attorney-general, Athene Donald, physicist and fellow of the Royal Society, and numberless other seriously successful women?

I didn’t think it could get worse until I read about the entertainment at the Royal Opera House. There these sensible women were treated to the Stepford-style experience of Rowling, in pink chiffon, reading from her fairy story, The Tales of Beedle the Bard, while their menfolk saved the world. Indeed, it could have been a scene from one of the bard’s tales: the lovely creatures sitting in rococo splendour, while down on the darkling plain their knights swung glinting swords at the hordes of toxic assets.

Surely the press complained at this patronising treatment? Of course not. The torrent of gush about Obama - almost entirely written by female journalists - was restricted primarily to the tone of her arms, her ability to mix’n’match designer with high street fashion, whether her silhouette had been achieved with the help of “magic pants” and the sensitive question of how Sarah Brown might be persuaded, in the interests of the nation, to buy herself a pair of the same for future summits.

I’d like to think that this hideous parody of 1950s femininity was thought up by some twisted misogynist plotting how best to insult women. But I fear it wasn’t so. I think it was principally the consequence of a worrying new way of thinking about political wives that has taken over in Downing Street and the White House.

[...]

If Downing Street and the White House like the idea of political wives being helpmeets and mothers rather than people in their own right, it isn’t surprising. The previous leaders’ wives, Cherie Blair and Hillary Clinton, loomed a little too large for comfort. Blair’s professional life at times collided with the government’s interests. She had a bad-tempered relationship with the press that reflected well on neither. Clinton grabbed a huge political role in her husband’s administration - healthcare reform - and botched it. Memories of the hostility she aroused not just among Republicans but also in her own party are still sharp among Democrats.

Yet regressing to the 1950s model of political wife can’t be the right answer. It’s bad for the country, because it sends out a dreadful message about what the government thinks of the role of women. And it’s a waste of Obama and Brown. They’re smart women who have done a lot with their lives. Their husbands should boast about their achievements, not hide them away.

I would take issue with the last sentence. Sarah Brown is fairly smart but she hasn't done a lot with her life, and Michelle Obama is not even all that smart. Both are now mere appendages of famous men and quite unimpressive. Sarah Brown has more class, however - if all you're going to be is a first lady, you should at least be ladylike.

Posted on 04/06/2009 6:01 AM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 6 April 2009
Cliché corner

So far President Obama has shown no greater knowledge of Islam than former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Whether he is quite so ignorant remains to be seen, but his attitude to Turkey does not augur well. He also has Blair's facile optimism and way with clichés. From the BBC:

Barack Obama is visiting Turkey - his first trip to a predominantly Muslim country since becoming US president.

He is expected to try to revitalise ties with the Turkish government, which have deteriorated in recent years because of the war in Iraq.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul greeted Mr Obama, who has voiced support for Turkey's efforts to join the EU.

He said Turkey's accession would send an important signal to the Muslim world and firmly anchor it within Europe.

Sending an important signal is so ...er ... important, isn't it? Unlimited Muslim immigration is a price worth paying if it "sends out an important signal". More supporters of Shariah law, more terrorist attacks, more honour killings, more niqabs, more Jew-hatred - all worthwhile because of that important signal.

I don't want Turkey "anchored firmly" in Europe. It can anchor itself firmly in Ankara. 

Before his visit, the US leader attended a Nato summit in France, where he helped to overcome Turkey's objection to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's appointment as the military alliance's next secretary general. 

Turkey had initially blocked his appointment because he had defended the right of one of his country's newspapers to publish controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which caused outrage in much of the Muslim world.

But Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday that Mr Obama's support had helped to assuage his country's concerns.

"He put forth a lot of positive energy," he said. "We responded positively to this. We hope that the promises made are kept."

Or else? How can I be so cynical, though. "Positive energy" is all that's needed. If only they'd had positive energy at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Just think what kind of a signal that would have sent out.

Update: no wonder Obama has the reputation for being a good orator. Here's what he said in a BBC interview:

"I’m a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards."

That's looking forwards than looking backwards you can believe in.

Posted on 04/06/2009 6:34 AM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 6 April 2009
Majority of Americans back Outreach to Muslim World While Ignorant of Islam’s Belief System

It would appear from the results of a Washington Post-ABC poll released today that Americans are pretty ignorant about what Islam is all about. Further, the poll results show that Americans naively believe that Obama's outreach to the Muslim ummah is a good thing. Frankly, this does not bode well for the future of this country. Note these findings from a Washington Post ABC poll published in today's Washington Post: "Americans Support Goal of Improved Relations with Muslim World:"

55% of those polled are without a basic understanding of the basic teachings and beliefs of Islam. The majority said they did not know anyone who is a Muslim.

About half, 48 percent said they had unfavorable views of Islam, the highest in polls since late 2001. Nearly 3 in 10, 29 percent, said they see mainstream Islam advocating violence against non-Muslims; although more, 58 percent, said it is a peaceful religion.
Further there is a political divide on the Issue of Islam:
Republicans are also more apt than others to hold negative attitudes toward Islam, with six in 10 having unfavorable views, compared with about four in 10 for Democrats and independents. Among conservative Republicans, 65 percent view Islam unfavorably; liberal Democrats, in contrast, are 60 percent positive.
By religious affiliation, age, and level of education among Americans, the poll results show other splits in opinion when it comes to Islam. Notable for the future is the finding that the younger and more educated responders to this poll overwhelmingly sided with the majority views.

Perceptions of Islam as a peaceful faith are the highest among non-religious Americans, with about two-thirds holding that view. Among Catholics, 60 percent see mainstream Islam as a peaceful faith; it is 55 percent among all Protestants, but drops to 48 percent among white evangelical Protestants.

There are deep divisions in perceptions of Islam between younger and older Americans as well: More than six in 10 younger than 65 said Islam is a peaceful religion, but that drops to 39 percent among seniors.

And views of Islam are more positive among those with more formal education.

Of concern is that these majority opinions are held without any understanding that the canon of this 'faith' harbors an underlying totalitarian belief system antithetical to American values, let alone our Constitution. Muslim Brotherhood Fronts like CAIR with Saudi backing will probably run up and down main street touting these Washington Post ABC poll findings, waving the green flag of Islam as being our future. All propelled by the wind of Obama's outreach to the Muslim ummah beginning in Ankara, Turkey today. 

On the cusp of Holy Week, Passover for Jews, Easter for Christians, in the Western rites, Obama's presence in Turkey doesn't send a comforting message to a confused and split American opinion about Islam.

Islamist Turkish PM Recep Erdogan who is a violent critic of Israel's right to defend itself during Operation Cast Lead walked out of a World Economics Forum in Davos after telling Israeli President Shimon Peres that "we know how you like to kill." Erdogan gave a speech at an Oxford Islamic Studies program last Thursday during which he said about moderate Islam:

"It is unacceptable for us to agree to accept such a definition. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not." 

And this is the Turkey has Obama holds up as an exemplar of a Democratic Muslim country for his outreach message? Pour les deluges!
Posted on 04/06/2009 7:21 AM by Jerry Gordon
Monday, 6 April 2009
From 2006, Chris Parry's Warning Does Not Date

The Sunday Times June 11, 2006

Beware: the new goths are coming Peter Almond

ONE of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flights. The idea of assimilation was becoming redundant, he said.

The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a conference last week. Parry, head of the development, concepts and doctrine centre at the Ministry of Defence, is charged with identifying the greatest challenges that will frame national security policy in the future.

If a security breakdown occurred, he said, it was likely to be brought on by environmental destruction and a population boom, coupled with technology and radical Islam. The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals".

Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet."

Third World instability would lick at the edges of the West as pirates attacked holidaymakers from fast boats. "At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta," said the admiral.

Parry, 52, an Oxford graduate who was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands war, is not claiming all the threats will come to fruition. He is warning, however, of what is likely to happen if dangers are not addressed by politicians.

Parry — who used the slogan "old dog, new tricks" when he commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless — foresees wholesale moves by the armed forces to robots, drones, nanotechnology, lasers, microwave weapons, space-based systems and even "customised" nuclear and neutron bombs.

Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, welcomed Parry’s analysis. "Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead," he said. "The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the government."

Ancient Rome has been a subject of serious public discussion this year. Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP and journalist, produced a book and television series drawing parallels between the European Union and the Roman empire. Terry Jones, the former Monty Python star, meanwhile, has spoken up for the barbarians’ technological and social achievements in a television series and has written:

"We actually owe far more to the so-called ‘barbarians’ than we do to the men in togas."

Parry, based in Shrivenham, Wiltshire, presented his vision at the Royal United Services Institute in central London. He identified the most dangerous flashpoints by overlaying maps showing the regions most threatened by factors such as agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages, rising sea levels and radical Islam.

Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China.

He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status.

This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas.

The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.

Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.

In an effort to control population growth, some countries may be tempted to copy China’s "one child" policy. This, with the widespread preference for male children, could lead to a ratio of boys to girls of as much as 150 to 100 in some countries. This will produce dangerous surpluses of young men with few economic prospects and no female company.

"When you combine the lower prospects for communal life with macho youth and economic deprivation you tend to get trouble, typified by gangs and organised criminal activity," said Parry. "When one thinks of 20,000 so-called jihadists currently fly-papered in Iraq, one shudders to think where they might go next."

The competition for resources, Parry argues, may lead to a return to "industrial warfare" as countries with large and growing male populations mobilise armies, even including cavalry, while acquiring high-technology weaponry from the West.

The subsequent mass population movements, Parry argues, could lead to the "Rome scenario". The western Roman empire collapsed in the 4th and 5th centuries as groups such as Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Huns and Vandals surged over its borders. The process culminated in the sack of Rome in 455 by Geiseric the Lame, king of the Alans and Vandals, in an invasion from north Africa.

Parry estimated at the conference there were already more than 70 diasporas in Britain.

In the future, he believes, large groups that become established in Britain and Europe after mass migration may develop "communities of interest" with unstable or anti-western regions.

Any technological advantage developed to deal with the threats was unlikely to last. "I don’t think we can win in cyberspace — it’s like the weather — but we need to have a raincoat and an umbrella to deal with the effects," said Parry.

Some of the consequences would be beyond human imagination to tackle. The examples he gave, tongue-in-cheek, include: "No wind on land and sea; third of population dies instantly; perpetual darkness; sores; Euphrates dries up ‘to clear way for kings from the east’; earth’s core opens."

TOP STRATEGIST

Rear Admiral Chris Parry is the armed forces’ chief “blue skies” thinker.

Parry, 52, was educated at the independent Portsmouth grammar school and at Jesus College, Oxford. During the Falklands war in 1982, he was mentioned in dispatches while serving with the Fleet Air Arm on the destroyer HMS Antrim.

Parry is one of Britain’s leading specialists on amphibious warfare. He once commanded the assault ship HMS Fearless, was in charge of amphibious warfare training at Portsmouth naval base and headed a joint British-Dutch taskforce before moving to his post at the Ministry of Defence.

The admiral heads the development, concepts and doctrine centre, set up in 1998 and based at Shrivenham, Wiltshire. It has more than 50 staff and is being expanded to include extra analysts.

Posted on 04/06/2009 8:23 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 6 April 2009
Barack Obama in Turkey: US 'will never be at war with Islam' - also we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation. . .

From The Telegraph
President Barack Obama declared on Monday that "the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam" and told Turkey's parliament of his "deep appreciation for the Islamic faith".
Introduced to the gathering parliament in Turkish by his full name of "Barack Hussein Obama" – the new US president was at pains to distance himself from his predecessor George W. Bush.
"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda," he said. In an implicit reference to the Iraq war, he quoted a Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames."
The English reversion is the opposite, "Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire" and, I believe, comes from the tactic used to contain the Great Fire of London in 1666 of burning houses ahead of the fire to make a firebreak beyond which it could not pass. But I digress.
"I know there have been difficulties these last few years," the president said in Turkey. "I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practised.
"Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."
He emphasised that many Americans "have lived in a Muslim-majority country", adding "I know, because I am one of them".
Speaking for 25 minutes in front of a vast chamber of Turkish assembly members seated in comfy orange leather chairs, Mr Obama was received politely and was applauded when he described the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, as a terrorist group.
Before the speech, Mr Obama stood next to Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, and stated that in the US: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."  One of the reasons I support the continued establishment of the Church of England. While the Queen is our Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England for such international purposes we are a Christian country.
In a rebuke to Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president who had publicly admonished him on Sunday for interfering in European Union affairs, Mr Obama reiterated that he "strongly supports" Turkey joining the European Union, adding: "We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of Turkey and Europe."
He is scheduled to fly to Istanbul on Monday night and scheduled to meet Muslim leaders on Tuesday as well as visit the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia mosque. Its not a mosque. It was built as a cathedral, is currently used as a museum and we would like it back thank you.

Posted on 04/06/2009 10:59 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 6 April 2009
President Obama thinks Austrian is a language

barack obama thinks Austrian is a languagePresident Obama in Strasbourg answering a question from an Austrian reporter. He wants her to understand that the concept of wheeling and dealing is universal. But 'I don't know what the term is in Austrian'
Oh dear.  HT/Maddie.
 

Posted on 04/06/2009 1:20 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 6 April 2009
Also Sprach Obama

Also sprach Obama: "The trust that binds us has been strained." 

What "trust" is it that "binds us"? The "trust" that Pakistani generals, ramrod-straight, Sandhurst-educated, terry-thomased moustachioed, pukka-sahib fly-whisks in hand, would forever be true-blue friends of their counterparts in the Pentagon, and surely would never ever betray the trust that the Americans showed over so many decades, supporting Pakistan ever since the days of CENTO, that fiasco as a military pact (with Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan supposedly offering a "Muslim" version of NATO where the United States and Great Britain would supply the money, the weapons, the training, and our loyal Muslim allies the manpower), that first tied the American and the Pakistani military together. Was it the "trust" that allowed the ISI to divert American aid for A. Q. Khan's little nuclear project? 

Was it the "trust" that made Jimmy Carter hail Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith" without him, Carter, bothering then, or bothering in the thirty years since, to find out what that "faith" inculcated? 

Was it the "trust" that caused American policymakers to assume that Turkey would remain on the Kemalist path, and to ignore, underneath the bright young officer corps that was in the Kemalist line, the primitive masses of Muslims in Turkey who were ready for Erbakan, and Erdogan, and Gul? 

Was it the "trust" that allowed the Americans to overlook, for decades, what Saudi Arabia was like, what its textbooks and clerics taught about Infidels (and teach still), what vast sums the Saudis and other rich Arabs gave for the spreading of Islam all over the West, and to corrupt, through armies of Western hirelings, the policy-making, and to delay the day of recognition of what Saudi Arabia, and Islam, meant for the West? 

Was it the "trust" that American policymakers keep putting in Egypt, another "staunch ally" that is in fact a world center of antisemitism, with its population at the same time deeply hostile to America? 

Was it the "trust" that America had in Jordan, and its plucky little king, Hussein, as he was formulaically known, and which, like Egypt, will take what it can get from the Americans but whose population remains -- and will always remain -- deeply hostile?

Was it the "trust" that the American government put in Karzai, the ineffective, corrupt ruler of Afghanistan, who is quick to go on the attack against the Americans, whenever it suits his purpose, whenever it can gain him domestic support at home? 

Was it the "trust" that the Americans have put in the Muslims who have been allowed to come to America, and who have become, as they have become all over the Western world, sources  of domestic disruption, of campus anti-Israel and antisemitic activity, of security risks in the government, of the exploitation of power by Muslims to override the system in order to further the cause of Islam in the West (in the case of the Boston Mosque and the below-market-value sale of city land arranged secretly by a Muslim member of the Boston Redevelopment Association)? 

Is all that the kind of "trust" we once had, and somehow allowed to be diminished, because of nearly ten thousand terrorist attacks, and millions of attacks in other ways, not using violence but rather a slow and steady subverting of Infidel legal and political institutions, and attempts to suffocate the exercise by Western men of their own freedoms, guaranteed in their own countries, if such exercise is believed by Muslims to get in the way of the spread, and then the certain dominance, of Islam.

What "trust"? The "trust" of those who practice taqiyya and kitman? The "trust" due to those who believe that Muhammad was the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, worthy of emulation in all things, for all time, the same Muhammad who said, so celebratedly, that "war is deception"? 

Which trust is that that binds us? 

Posted on 04/06/2009 2:34 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Monday, 6 April 2009
Ye ken tha noo

A man goes into a baker's shop in Glasgow. Pointing at a cake, he asks: "Is that a doughnut or a meringue?" The baker replies: "No, you're right; it's a doughnut." (Translation for Americans: a meringue = am I wrang = am I wrong in Scottish.)

"Am I wrong?" is a question I would ask more often, but I rarely get the opportunity. It is certainly not a question I would expect to be asked by Lawrence Auster:

I don't see anything in Dhimmi in Chief Obama's speech to the Turkish parliament that former Dhimmi in Chief Bush wouldn't have said. Am I wrong about that?

No, you're not wrong. It's the packaging that's different - both are equally ignorant about Islam. America is now going through its Tony Blair phase. Been there, done that. But you won't hear quite so much crowing this side of the Atlantic as we got from certain American websites, because when America sneezes we all catch cold.

Posted on 04/06/2009 4:33 PM by Mary Jackson
Monday, 6 April 2009
"Israel Has Realized That A Peace Treaty With The Arabs Is Not Worth A Fig"

An excerpt from an article at MEMRI by an Arab reformist: 

 

"Israel Has Realized that a Peace Treaty with the Arabs Is Not Worth a Fig"

"4. Israel - its government, its public opinion, its Knesset, and its media - has realized and become convinced that a peace [treaty] with the Arabs is not worth a fig, or the paper it is written on. Consider Egypt. It got back the entire Sinai desert and also Taba, without losing one penny or one soldier. Moreover, not only did it allocate the funds which it would otherwise have spent on the army and weapons to various development projects, but in the past 30 years it has also received [U.S.] aid amounting to hundreds of billions [of Egyptian liras] (approximately 50 billion U.S. dollars). Yet the only thing Israel got in return is an apartment in Cairo, which they turned into an embassy, and in which the [Israeli] ambassador and the staff are [effectively] imprisoned. [Indeed,] they can move around only under the protection of the [Egyptian] intelligence and security guards. Israel is forbidden to participate in Egyptian public life, even in book fairs. In fact, Israel has no part whatsoever in Egyptian public life, and the same holds for Jordan.

"So how can we expect Israel to sign more peace agreements with the rest of the Arab countries, and especially Syria, after its [disheartening and] bitter experience with Egypt and Jordan. And nevertheless, without a comprehensive peace and despite all the above, over the past 30 years, Israel has progressed politically, militarily, culturally, and economically - while the Arabs lagged behind. The Arab [policy of] isolating Israel has given it strength and triggered its advancement"

Posted on 04/06/2009 10:58 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald

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