Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
Reviled and Isolated Abroad?
2007-11-16
By Charles Krauthammer

When the Democratic presidential candidates pause from beating Hillary with a stick, they join in unison to pronounce the Democratic pieties, chief among which is that George Bush has left our alliances in ruins. As Clinton puts it, we have "alienated our friends," must "rebuild our alliances" and "restore our standing in the world." That's mild. The others describe Bush as having a scorched-earth foreign policy that has left us reviled and isolated in the world.

Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?

France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but pledged solidarity with the U.S. on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.

All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday noted "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the last half-century. So much for the disarray of our alliances.

The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need. So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces, and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.

It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection, but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.

What's changed in the last year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one.

The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.

It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto, or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the UN. It is success or failure in Iraq.
Link


Olde Tyme Religion
Dictatorial Arab Regimes are Winning the 'Battle for Hearts And Minds' In America
2007-11-14
Editor of Arab Reformist Website: Dictatorial Arab Regimes are Winning the 'Battle for Hearts And Minds' In America

In an editorial in the Arabic reformist website www.aafaq.org, editor Omran Salman explains the failure of American public diplomacy efforts and blames the dictatorial Arab regimes of being behind the campaigns to smear America as part of their struggle for survival.
The following is the editorial.(1)

"The Distortion of the Image of the U.S. Has Become a Political Objective for Arab Governments in Their Struggle for Survival"

"The news of the resignation of Karen Hughes, the official responsible for American public diplomacy who was tasked with improving the image of America abroad, especially in the Middle East, was received with relative quiet. This was in contrast to the news of her appointment to the position in 2005, which enjoyed wide coverage and high hopes.

"But Hughes failed in her mission, though with distinction, and it is expected, or so it is hoped, that this failure will deliver a severe shock to American diplomacy that may perhaps awaken it from the delusions and bureaucracy that are firmly established in the corridors of the Department of State.

"In any case, it was not destined for that Hughes would succeed in 'winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs' in all circumstances, and this has nothing to do with her skills or her competence.

"According to the Reuters article that reported her resignation, Hughes is known for her fast-talking, enthusiastic style, a trait that was not always well received, particularly in the Middle East.

"But this is not the reason, of course. The distorted image of the United States – in the Arab world, at least – is not due to lack of information about the motives and nature of American foreign policy, and not because Arab citizens have insufficient information about American life, or the laws or institutions of the United States.

"The residents of the Arab world do not live on another planet, and they are not isolated from the revolution of rapid communication, technology, and the Internet, where anyone can push a button and get the information he wants. Many Arabs have visited the United States or have a relatives or friends living in America.

"The real reason is that the distortion of the image of the United States has become a political objective for Arab governments in their struggle for survival, and a tool to banish the specter of democracy and change in the Arab region.

"Those conducting this smear campaign are primarily autocratic Arab regimes, as represented by Ministries of Information. They have decided to make the United States pay the price for toppling one of their regimes – the regime of Saddam Hussein – and then calling for reform in the region."

"What Those Conducting American Public Diplomacy Do Not Realize is that, in the Arab World, Little Happens by Chance"

"To this end, they poisoned the views and ideas in the Arab world, and filled the minds of the people with such extraordinary superstitions, fantasies and conspiracy theories, beginning with the accusation that the CIA and the Jews masterminded the attacks of September 11 and not ending with the 'Crusader war' that President George Bush has declared on the Islamic world.

"What those conducting American public diplomacy do not realize is that in the Arab world, little happens by chance.

"When Karen Hughes visited a school in an Arab capital to meet with the pupils, or a social institution to meet with its employees, she thought that people were speaking naturally and revealing what they actually believe – their opinions, in fact – especially toward the United States.

"Such things may happen in America, where people are free in what they believe and what they say. But it is naive to assume that the same thing happens in the Arab world.

"In the Arab world, numerous authorities intervene to shape people’s views and impose on them what to say. First, there is the information authority, for the most part owned by the government or by agencies close to it; this information, whether it comes in the apparent form of news or opinions, teaches people negative views of the United States day in and day out.

"Then, there is the imam of the mosque. Generally, he is a government official, and it is impossible for him to leave cursing the Jews, the Nazarenes (Christians), and the global arrogance – headed of course by America! – out of his sermons."

"Those Who Conduct American Public Diplomacy Have Allowed the Arab Governments and Their Corrupt and Despotic Agencies To Deceive Them – And Have Then Themselves Attempted to Deceive American Public Opinion"

"And then there is the school – a government institution – which programs the pupils from childhood on with hostility toward everything non-Arab and non-Muslim, and programs them to believe in declaring other Muslims apostates and infidels, and in jihad, and in the restoration of the Caliphate and the revival of Arab and Islamic glory – to which the West is an obstacle!

"Instead of researching the true reasons for the distortion of America’s image in the Arab world, and presenting a list of the organizations and individuals engaged in the distortion – which in any case takes place openly, in broad daylight – those who conduct American public diplomacy have allowed the Arab governments and their corrupt and despotic agencies to deceive them – and have then themselves attempted to deceive American public opinion.

"What they do not know is that they have become a joke in the Arab world, subject to jest and ridicule from all sides.

"Thus, instead of the United States winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, the Arab governments and Muslim Brotherhood have ensnared the hearts and minds of many State Department diplomats, as well as those of some of Washington's influential research institutes."

Endnote:
(1) www.aafaq.org, November 2, 2007.
Link


Terror Networks
Al-Qaeda sinking in the polls
2007-09-20
By Karen Hughes
The recent video reappearance of Osama bin Laden is a stark reminder that murderous extremists continue to threaten innocent people worldwide. His emergence - after three years of hiding - also provides an opportunity to reevaluate bin Laden's standing in majority-Muslim countries. Several reputable polls show that bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network have suffered a dramatic decline in approval among Muslims since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Polling in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, reveal that more than 90 percent of those populations have unfavorable views of AI-Qaeda and of bin Laden himself. This astonishingly high rate of disfavor no doubt reflects the horrible violence that these two populations have suffered at the hands of bin-Laden and his network of killers. Just two years ago in Turkey, polls showed that 90 percent of citizens there believe that the Al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust; 86 percent thought that there was no excuse for condoning the September 11 attacks; and 75 percent said bin Laden does not represent Muslims.

Another study shows that since 2002 support for terrorist tactics has fallen - often dramatically - in seven of eight predominantly Muslim countries that were polled as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project (www.pewglobal.org). Five years ago in Lebanon, 74 percent of the population agreed that suicide bombing could sometimes be justified. Today, only 34 percent hold that view - still too high, but a stark reversal nonetheless. Similar declines in support have also occurred in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indo nesia and Jordan.

Equally significant, Muslims the world over are openly rejecting bin Laden's attempts to pervert their faith. WorldPublicOpinion.org (www.worldpublicopinion.org) found in April that large majorities in Egypt (88 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and Morocco (66 percent) agree that groups such as Al-Qaeda violate the principles of Islam. These shifts in attitude are beginning to show up in actions. Sunni leaders in Iraq's Anbar Province are working with coalition forces against Al-Qaeda because they say the terrorists bring only chaos, "Killing people, stealing. . . , everything, you name it," as one local leader commented.

Osama bin Laden's recent tape was a reminder that he and his network offer only destruction and death. Their attacks on mosques, shrines and even wedding celebrations confirm that they care nothing about innocent Muslims. As one woman in Algeria put it, "They are criminals who want to sabotage the country." That is a message bin Laden will not convey on tape, but one that his actions make clear. Six years after September 11, good and decent people of many faiths and cultures are increasingly rejecting his brutal methods.
Link


Home Front: WoT
George Bush goes wobbly
2007-07-06
By DANIEL PIPES
When Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his 500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements") even as the American president embarrassingly bumbled (Muslims in the United States, he declared, have the right to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy.

Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery. Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace."

This cri de coeur signaled how Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy. Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as do his fellow Americans today.

OF COURSE, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006.

He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a preposterous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush." As his understanding grew, Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand, after all.

But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Bush retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."

Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a US special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, tasking this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But
The OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations.
the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As Steven Emerson has noted, Bush's dismal initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."

Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience. In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing."

But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature. Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to his potential successors and look for them to return to Bush's occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic.

Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains.
Link


Africa North
Egyptian novel provides "an amazing glimpse" into Middle Eastern society
2007-02-22
Rachel Aspden, The New Statesman

"You hate Egypt?" a disbelieving aristocratic roué demands of his impoverished secretary in Alaa Al Aswany's novel The Yacoubian Building.

"Of course," she replies, shocked that he had to ask.

In Cairo, this is a dangerous sentiment - and Al Aswany's portrayal of homosexuality, Islam ism, poverty, exploitation and corruption is doubly so. Writers in Egypt are caught in a tug-of-war between an autocratic government intolerant of criticism and dissent, and an increasingly powerful Islamist movement vio ently opposed to any "affront to public morality".

The space between them is narrow. In the past few years, writers have been imprisoned, beaten, fined and had their books pulped by government agencies - and suffered harassment, attacks and even murder at the hands of Islamists. But The Yacoubian Building slipped through, selling hundreds of thousands of copies since its first publication in 2002, and becoming the bestselling Arabic novel in recent history. In 2006, when a lavish film adaptation was released, 112 MPs demanded that the film be censored for "spreading obscenity and debauchery".

Controversy, especially involving sex and Islamists, sells. The Yacoubian Building, in an excellent translation by Humphrey Davies, has been picked up by HarperCollins for a rare publication in the west. Like The Bookseller of Kabul and last year's Booker-shortlisted In the Country of Men, it will become famous for offering, as the New York Review of Books put it, "an amazing glimpse" into Middle Eastern society and culture. Ominously, President Bush's adviser Karen Hughes has it on her bedside table.
Link


-Short Attention Span Theater-
Rave reviews for Rice’s gala peformance
2006-07-28
KUALA LUMPUR: US top diplomat Condoleezza Rice won rave reviews yesterday for her musical performance at Asian security talks, despite skipping the traditional rowdy skits in favour of a sombre piano recital.

With North Korea firing off missiles, carnage in Lebanon, rockets raining on Israel and killings convulsing Iraq, Rice was in no mood for the kind of frivolity staged in previous years.

In keeping with her “serious” mood the Secretary of State performed two pieces from the brooding repertoire of Johannes Brahms – a solo Intermezzo number two, and Brahms Sonata for violin and piano, opus 108, with a Malaysian guest soloist.

She arrived at the Istana hotel in downtown Kuala Lumpur for the annual gala dinner wearing a glamorous red dress and red jacket made of traditional Malaysian batik material.

Rice’s decision to take the stage alone was a relief to some of her entourage. Karen Hughes, former spin doctor for President George W Bush, now czar of US public diplomacy, admitted she had been let off the hook.

“I can’t even hum,” she confessed on the eve of the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) gala.

Last year, Rice rumpled Asean feathers by skipping the foreign ministers’ meeting and sending her then deputy Robert Zoellick.
Link


International-UN-NGOs
Karen Hughes: We Need To Learn Arabic
2006-06-30
Karen Hughes makes the case for a military solution to end the WOT. However, that was not her intention. How can "education" create understanding while Saudis textbooks promote hate for Christians, Jews and Hindus? And should our "respect" for other cultures, include the jihadist cultures? I do agree with much of what she says.
Press Release: US State Department
Karen Hughes, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Remarks at the U.S.-Arab Economic Forum
Houston, Texas
June 26, 2006

...Here in America, we need to do a better job of educating our young people about the world, learning more about other countries and cultures, learning languages such as Arabic so we can better communicate with and understand each other. With education also comes the ability to decide for yourself and that's what we want. Because I believe most people with educated open minds will choose liberty over tyranny, tolerance over extremism, and hope over hate. Open minds also inspire people to stand for their rights: the right to live in freedom, to participate in choosing their governments, to live in just societies that are governed by the rule of law and whose officials are not corrupt. Open minds are what will ultimately allow us to prevail in the war of ideas.

Our opponents want closed minds. They say their way or no way. Death to anyone who disagrees with them, no matter what faith or what religion. Together we must confront the violent extremists and their ideology of tyranny and hate. They seek to portray the West as in conflict with Islam, because that's the window into which they recruit. They can only flourish in environments that foster anger and misunderstanding. Yet their world view is wrong. Islam is a part of America. As an American government official, I represent almost seven million American Muslims who live and work and practice their faith freely here in our country. Together we must undermine the extremists by providing platforms for debate, by empowering mainstream voices of tolerance and inclusion, and by demonstrating our respect for Muslim cultures and contributions to our society and to world society. We can also undermine the extremists by building a world of greater opportunities...
Link


Home Front: WoT
America's message to Muslim world
2006-06-20
By Craig Charney and Steven A. Cook

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shocked Indonesia during a recent trip. Instead of focusing on familiar US-Indonesia issues -- terrorism, business, and military ties -- Rice promised funds for an Indonesian version of ``Sesame Street." The Muslim nation saw her unveil America's newest agent abroad -- a big red puppet named Elmo. A local blogger wrote, ``This is one export the US can be truly proud of."

The news from the Muslim world is not that anti-Americanism has grown -- that's old hat. The real news is that America's image in Muslim lands is starting to get better. Government and corporations are re tooling US public diplomacy in the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, with encouraging results. Still, America's overseas communication efforts remain paltry compared with private-sector marketing campaigns. Puppet diplomacy can help, but restoring America's image will take much more.

Although Americans have seen numerous reports of growing anti-Americanism in Arab and Muslim lands since 2001, this is not the whole story. In focus groups conducted for the Council on Foreign Relations in Egypt, Morocco, and Indonesia, people still admired American education, science, economic strength, and law. Moreover, polls show that immediate local issues -- education, political change, corruption, and job opportunities -- concern most Muslims more than Iraq and the West Bank.

These findings suggest bases for a more effective public diplomacy. America's message in the Muslim world should be: partners in development and democracy. Since Karen Hughes became under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs last year, she has begun to craft a message about reform and change.

Secretary Rice's speech to Jakarta intellectuals stressing partnership in education and healthcare was another notable change. The US Agency for International Development has launched a pilot program plugging its good works in Indonesia. The recent earthquake there was followed by widely-reported American relief efforts, too.

Together with America's generous, well-publicized relief after the devastating 2004 tsunami, these efforts have turned around perceptions of America among Indonesians. The latest poll shows 44 percent are favorable to America and 41 percent unfavorable. That's quite a shift from the 85 percent unfavorable -- 15 percent favorable ratio found in a 2003 poll.

Realizing that anti-Americanism is bad for business, the private sector is also getting involved. Hughes encouraged US business leaders to contribute $100 million to earthquake-stricken Pakistan, while ExxonMobil, M cDonald's, Microsoft, and other big firms formed Business for Diplomatic Action, which seeks to rebuild bridges overseas.

This good news is obviously welcome, but much remains to be done. The worldwide US public diplomacy budget is only $350 million -- one-fifth of Coke's global ad spending for its products.

Of course, a new American approach to communicating with Muslims faces obstacles. One cause of Muslim outrage is the gap between America's democratic rhetoric and the reality of Washington's support for authoritarian leaders in the Islamic world. Our talk of democracy and reform will not be credible if it is just spin; it must be reflected in deeds, too.

Moreover, there are limits to even the best communication effort. Policy differences over Iraq, and the war on terror (which, to many Muslims, looks like a war on Islam) affect how Egyptians, Pakistanis, and other Muslims see America.

Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that renewed US efforts have started to change Muslim minds about America. Greater success will take more public and private resources, along with tact and creativity. Reaching the Muslim world demands a more serious effort by America to put its best foot forward -- even if it is a red and furry one.

Craig Charney is president of Charney Research, a polling firm, and a consultant to the Council on Foreign Relations. Steven A. Cook is the Douglas Dillon fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Link


Terror Networks
Al-Qaeda is very media-savvy
2006-04-30
Terrorists use the press and public relations as weapons, said a study released Wednesday by Arizona State University.

"People are surprised the jihadis think of the media as a weapon," said Steven Corman, director of the school's Consortium for Strategic Communication and a Defense Department consultant on communications networks and counterterrorism.

His study analyzed almost 300 al Qaeda statements, letters and other documents, many of them captured during U.S. military actions in the Middle East and recently declassified by the Pentagon.

The report found that jihadist operations use consistent patterns of outreach that establish them socially and religiously, generate public sympathy and intimidate opponents. Threats, in fact, are part of terrorist "talking points."

"Jihadis pursue these strategies using sophisticated, modern methods of communications and public relations," Mr. Corman said. "There's evidence in the documents that jihadis segment audiences and adapt their message to the audience."

This week, audio and video messages from Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi were posted on the Internet and immediately picked up by international news organizations.

The report cites similar demonstrations as the "ideological machinery" of terrorist organizations, which maintain formal information committees and are adept at using print, broadcast and online resources on a global basis. The Internet provides such a promising terrorist forum that Mr. Corman suggests the United States create a permanent "geek battalion" to disrupt jihadist message boards and Web sites.

The United States monitors terrorist messages through clandestine agencies or within the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. That office follows the objectives set forth by Undersecretary Karen Hughes: to "isolate and marginalize the violent extremists; confront their ideology of tyranny and hate;" and "undermine their efforts to portray the West as in conflict with Islam by empowering mainstream voices and demonstrating respect for Muslim cultures and contributions," the office's mission statement says.

Mr. Corman and co-author Jill Schiefelbein said the Arizona study is a response to "controversies about efforts by the U.S. to influence foreign media coverage of jihadi activities. ... While we deliberate such issues, the jihadis are busy executing a communications and media strategy of their own."

The authors worked closely with the Combating Terrorism Center, a research facility established in 2003 at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Mr. Corman offered six measures to counter al Qaeda's media savvy. He recommended that the United States try to improve its credibility with Muslim audiences, "degrade" the jihadis' outreach efforts, draw attention to terrorist messages that contradict Islam, deconstruct idealized historical concepts, systematically disrupt Internet operations and seek assistance from sympathetic American Muslims.
Link


Terror Networks
Kaffir: Admit Your Guilt And Prepare For Muslim Peace-Wrath
2006-03-23
Thinking Like a Muslim
(Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem)
By Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
Posted: 21-02-2006

This material would interest those who are somewhat familiar with Islam.

Recently - due to certain martyrdom operations in Dar al-harb - many Muslims have taken to condemning fellow Muslims, and have, in their pursuit of aiding the kuffar, used the ideas, the terms, the concepts, the perspective of the kuffar to condemn their fellow Muslims.
Therefore 100% of Muslims are actual or potential traitors.

There needs to be clearer understanding of the Islamic perspective - and a desire to distance ourselves from the kuffar ("disbelievers" in Islam) in our life, and in our very way of thinking. We should strive to once again think like a Muslim - that is, judge things from an Islamic perspective, and an Islamic perspective only.
"Distance?" Make haste back to where you came. Over 1200 bodies of African Muslims have been pulled out of Atlantic this year. They were trying to get out of dar-islam and to the Canary Islands, Spain.

The perspective of the Muslim is the perspective of The Last Day, of the judgement of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) - of this mortal life as but a means - and of following the guidance given to us in the Quran and Sunnah so that we might attain Paradise (Jannah) InshaAllah.

Innocent and Civilian:

Two terms which are frequently used by Muslims are "innocent" and "civilian". There is no concept, in Islam, of either "innocent" or "civilian". We should know and accept that these are kaffir concepts - concepts which they, and they apostate allies, seek to impose upon Islam in order to try and control Muslims and bring Muslims under the control, the domination - both physical and mental - of the kuffar.
So we kaffirs are guilty-soldiers, that any Muslim can target with RPGs or SUVs.

Some Muslims quote the following Hadith in an effort to show that there is such a thing as the concept of "innocent" in Islam:

Narrated 'Aa'ishah who said that the Nabi (Prophet) (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "The pen has been lifted from three; from the sleeping until they awake, from the child until they mature, and from the one who is crazy until he is sane."
Speaking of "child," narrator Aa'ishah was Mohammad's 6 year old bride. Yech!

In this Hadith we have a beautiful expression - "The pen has been lifted..." The question we must ask is - Do we take the context to mean that the three are "innocent" as the kuffar understand innocent? That is, do we project a kaffir meaning into this Hadith? Or do we refer it, for explanation, to what Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has told us, and thus take it in the literal sense to mean that what they are doing, have done, has not been recorded? If we refer to what our Rabb says:
Abdullah's Record of Good Muslim Deeds: Monday, I sent a check to CAIR; Tuesday, I beat my wife, according to Koran 4:84; Wednesday, I had wicked honor rape thoughts about Karen Hughes...

"And over you are Watchers - just, honourable - who know and record [write down] all that you do. Thus shall those who do what is commanded be in bliss while the disobediant will be in the blazing Fire. " [82: 10-14 Interpretation of Meaning]
And I thought Hell was a Christian concept?

Thus, understood in the context of the words of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) this Hadith refers not to some kaffir concept such as "innocent" but to the recording of our deeds.
I get it: kaffir deeds are all damnable.

In Islam, there is only the distinction between Dar al-harb, the realm of war, and Dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam; or, expressed another way, between the lands of war, and the lands of Islam. Peace, for Islam, is the peace of Jannah (Muslim Heaven), and the peace that arises from a submission to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Peace has no other meaning in Islam. This peace can be and should be expressed through Muslims living in an Islamic way, that is, among Muslims in an Islamic community. This means Muslims giving bayah (blood oath; bin Laden took same from his terrorists) to an Ameer; it means turning to the Quran and Sunnah for guidance; it means upholding Shariah and Shariah only. It does not mean democracy and it does not mean accepting the kaffir concept of a "nation". It means a Khilafah, ruled by a Khalifah.

Thus, the lands of the kuffar are the lands of war - they can expect war; they can expect bloodshed; they can expect chaos. Only if and when they submit to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala can they expect peace.
I know exactly what to expect from Muslims.

"Allah guides toward peace those who seek His pleasure." [5:16 Interpretation of Meaning]...
Like when he guided suicide bombers to Murder teenagers in an Israeli pizza parlor.
-----------------------------------------------------

If you download "Virtues of Jihad," remember: Homeland Security lists it as red-flag #1.
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/azhar/Virtues%20of%20Jihad.pdf

Myatt interviewed:
http://www.dwmyatt.info/ibnmyatt_interview.html

Prior to his conversion to Islamofascism, Myatt was a Nazi. Not much difference:
http://www.dwmyatt.info/conversionsite.html




Link


Home Front: WoT
WaPo: Everything That's Wrong With Bush Admin - Manliness
2006-03-21
Man Overboard - By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; A17
I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.
mmmmm...does that include Condi?
"Manliness" is the unapologetic title of a new book by Harvey C. Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, which makes him a species as rare as a dissenting voice in the Bush White House. Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.
as opposed to vacillating and temporizing until the polls come in?
Manliness, he writes, "seeks and welcomes drama and prefers times of war, conflict, and risk." It entails assertiveness, even stubbornness, and craves power and action. It explains why men, naturally inclined to assert that "our policy, our party, our regime is superior," dominate in the political sphere.
like straight talk in diplomacy rather than Burgess Meredith in a $600 dress hoping her brooch conveys determination and State policy?
Though manliness is "the quality mostly of one sex," Mansfield allows that women can be manly, too, though the sole example he can seem to come up with, and deploys time and again, is Margaret Thatcher. "Is it possible to teach women manliness and thus to become more assertive?" he wonders, but not really. "Or is that like teaching a cat to bark?" Me-ow!
Karen Hughes and Condi have shown more leadership skills and done more for women than all of the NOW/ACLU ditzes together
"The problem of manliness is not that it does not exist," Mansfield concludes. "It does exist, but it is unemployed." Well, um, excuse me, but I think -- it's just my opinion, now, maybe you disagree, and I'm sure we could work it out -- Mansfield has it exactly backward. Manliness does exist. The problem is that it's overemployed -- nowhere more than in this administration.

Think about it this way: Is a trait exemplified by reluctance to ask directions -- "for it is out of manliness that men do not like to ask for directions when lost," Mansfield writes -- really what you want in a government deciding whether to take a country to war?
nice slur...guess the PMS is up next?
The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too. hubba hubba - Ruth sounds a little excited, no? ) Bill Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush's father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor. Mansfield recalls Thatcher's manly admonition to 41 on the eve of the Persian Gulf War: "Don't go wobbly on me, George."

No wimpiness worries now. This is an administration headed by a cowboy boot-wearing brush-clearer, backstopped by a quail-shooting fly fisherman comfortable with long stretches of manly silence -- very "Brokeback Mountain," except this crowd considers itself too manly for such PC Hollywood fare. "I would be glad to talk about ranchin', but I haven't seen the movie," Bush told a questioner.
or spent the night embracing a man...
There are, no doubt, comforting aspects to the manly presidency; think Bush with a bullhorn on top of the smoldering ruins of the twin towers. After a terrorist attack, no one's looking for a sensitive New Age president. Even now, being a strong leader polls at the top of qualities that voters most admire in Bush.
but you'd prefer a puss in charge...say Gore, Kerry, Kucinich, right, Ruth?
But the manliness of the Bush White House has a darker side that has proved more curse than advantage. The prime example is the war in Iraq: the administration's assertion of the right to engage in preemptive and unilateral war; the resolute avoidance of debate about the "slam-dunk" intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; the determined lack of introspection or self-doubt about the course of the war; and the swaggering dismissal of dissenting views as the carping of those not on the team.
hmmmm - domestic violence card appears
The administration's manliness doesn't stop at the water's edge. Pushing another round of tax cuts in 2003, Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said. After the 2004 election, Bush exuded the blustering self-assurance of a president who had political capital to spend -- or thought he did -- and wasn't going to think twice before plunking down the whole pile on Social Security.

Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.

Mansfield writes that he wants to "convince skeptical readers -- above all, educated women" -- that "irrational manliness deserves to be endorsed by reason." Sorry, professor: You lose. What this country could use is a little less manliness -- and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.

But that's just my view.

marcusr@washpost.com
feel free to write to Ruth - use manly words and cuss a lot - deep down, I bet she likes it.
Link


Arabia
‘Objections to DPW takeover is a backlash on 9/11': Karen Hughes
2006-02-21
DUBAI - US lawmakers’ objections to a Dubai company’s takeover of US port operations is a backlash from the Sept. 11 attacks, not an expression of wider anti-Arab sentiment among American politicians, the top US envoy for public diplomacy said here on Monday.

In a discussion with reporters, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said she didn’t believe the gathering objections represent a general Islamophobia among American lawmakers, as a Dubai newspaper’s opinion article Monday alleged. “I would hope that is not the case,” Hughes said. “I hope the people of the United Arab Emirates and the government will understand that in a democracy, there is a process of debate.”
No wonder the folks in the UAE were bewildered!
Hughes defended the Bush administration’s security review of Dubai government-held Dubai Ports World’s $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. But “the lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the UAE,” Hughes said. “Since that time, and over a period of years, the UAE has been a long-standing good friend and a strong partner in the war against terror.”

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who plans to discuss the lawmakers’ objections during a visit to the Emirates this week, has pushed for a more open discussion of the security oversight DP World has undergone. “Secretary Rice says we will have to go to Capitol Hill and get the administration to explain a little more fully the thorough review that was done,” Hughes said. “The administration will be doing that, I’m sure, in the days ahead.”

Newspaper opinion articles in Dubai have blamed the US backlash on political grandstanding ahead of this year’s congressional elections and a general American sense of “Islamophobia.” An op-ed article on Monday in a local newspaper said the controversy demonstrates that “Islamophobia is rising and has become like an infectious disease that spreads amid political and media circles in the West.”
A phobia is when you're inappropriately afraid.
Hughes arrived in Dubai on Sunday after a two-day visit to Doha Qatar, where she attended the US-Islamic World Forum and implored regional leaders to wipe out terrorism. Hughes, who greeted reporters with a few words of halting Arabic, wore a necklace inscribed in Arabic calligraphy.

She spoke out Monday against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed (PTUI PBUH) that have sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world. “The cartoons were offensive. I can understand why Muslims are offended by them,” she said.

Americans, Hughes said, refrain from using racial and ethnic slurs not because they are outlawed, but because of a general sense of decency. “I think that could be a model” for the mainly European newspapers that printed the offending caricatures, she said.
Except for the American Left, which doesn't mind slurring Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Southerners, Kansans, Koreans, Cubans, ...
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More