Sunday, October 08, 2006

Democracy in action

The place where nothing is ever quite as it seems isn't the Twilight Zone. It's apparently Washington, DC. Here are three interesting stories from recent news or opinion articles describing the workings of Government 101. From Selig Harrison, Peggy Noonan and Christopher Hitchens.


Case Study A: Negotiating With North Korea and Herding Cats

To the question of how to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, the State Department's own team was divided even while it was negotiating. Selig Harrison of Newsweek recounts how the US reached an agreement in which North Korea pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" in exchange for a declaration that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations." Four days after this, the Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

It was no secret to journalists covering the September 2005 negotiations, or to the North Koreans, that the agreement was bitterly controversial within the administration and represented a victory for State Department advocates of a conciliatory approach to North Korea over proponents of "regime change" in Pyongyang. The chief U.S. negotiator, Christopher Hill, faced strong opposition from key members of his own delegation at every step of the way.

It was particularly galling to Victor Cha, director for Asian Affairs in the National Security Council and to Richard Lawless, assistant secretary of Defense, that Hill agreed to conduct intensive bilateral negotiations with North Korea in Beijing prior to the six-party talks. In their eyes, bilateral talks amount to implicit diplomatic recognition, and the "steps to normalize relations" envisaged in the agreement would legitimize a rogue regime. When Hill hosted a dinner in Beijing for the chief North Korean negotiator, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan, Cha and Lawless refused to attend. When a draft agreement was finalized, they held up final agreement for three days, unsuccessfully attempting to get the White House to insist on tougher terms.

Case Study B: Washington Spies on Itself or Batman Returns

Peggy Noonan cites instances from Bob Woodward's State of Denial to illustrate just how savage the infighting was to control policy over Iraq. Yes, Virginia, Batman really does exist.

The almost epic bureaucratic battle of Donald Rumsfeld to re-establish civilian control of the post-Clinton Joint Chiefs of Staff; the struggle of the State Department to be heard and not just handled by the president; the search on the ground for the weapons of mass destruction; the struggles, advances and removal from Iraq of Jay Garner, sent to oversee humanitarian aid; the utter disconnect between the experience on the ground after Baghdad was taken and the attitude of the White House--"borderline giddy." This is a primer on how the executive branch of the United States works, or rather doesn't work, in the early years of the 21st century.

There is previously unreported information. Former Secretary of State George Shultz was top contender for American envoy to Baghdad, but there were worries he was "not known for taking direction." Spies called "bats" were planted in American agencies by American agencies to report to rival superiors back home.

Case Study C: Withdrawing from Iraq Before Even Invading It

Not to be outdone, Christopher Hitchens focuses on Henry Kissinger's role in shaping events in Iraq. Kissinger, who was against toppling Saddam Hussein from the first, may yet get his way.

The other two members of the Kissinger Associates triumvirate, Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, have stayed true to form and opposed regime change in Iraq more or less on principle. And Kissinger's own line was not so very different. In a long syndicated column published on Jan. 13, 2002, he did appear to argue that it was time to deal with Saddam Hussein, but only if certain conditions of "stability" were met. ... he feared both Kurdish destabilization of Turkey, via the Kurdish population of that country, and the unwelcome effect that a successful rebellion by "the Shiite minority in the south" might have on the Saudi oil fields. "The Shiite minority"? Yes, that's right. Most fascinating of all, Kissinger made a point of saying that we had to "enlist the Sunni majority, which now dominates Iraq."

Then the Bush administration took the decision to appoint Paul Bremer, a former partner of Kissinger Associates, as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Our best friends in Iraq—the Kurds—were immediately alarmed by this fantastically tactless decision. ... It might also help explain a lot. During the Bremer period of governance in Baghdad, both the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis and the calling of elections were fatally postponed (perhaps when it was hastily discovered that a combined Kurdish and Shiite list could win a vote).

Hitchens ends by resurrecting the word "Vietnam" but this time to turn it against Kissinger.

Of course, Woodward's book has handed a free gift to those who cannot engage their minds on any foreign-policy question without using the word "Vietnam." I have written all that I can on the ahistorical falsity of this analogy, but if Kissinger really does have anything to do with the conduct of Iraq policy, then what we should fear is not just another attempt at moral blackmail of those who call for withdrawal. For the analogy to hold, we should have to find that while this militant rhetoric was being deployed in public a sellout, and a scuttle was being prepared behind the scenes. We are not fighting the Viet Cong in Iraq but the Khmer Rouge. A bungled withdrawal would lead to another Cambodia, not another Vietnam. It would be too horrible for Kissinger to live to see two such triumphs.

It's been a long time since Mr. Smith went to Washington. Maybe that was just a movie.

14 Comments:

Blogger Woman Catholic said...

North Korea is now saying they will ditch the nuke test if the US comes to the table in bilateral talks. Which is downright silly. I thought excluding the input of other nations is what made the Iraq War "illegal".

10/08/2006 07:50:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

That "sellout" or "scuttle" which Hitchens warns of in the last paragraph is the not-so-secret James Baker Commission on how the US is going to pull out of the Iraqi Quagmire. As Sen. John Warner recently declared, the whole Wilsonian project is "drifting sideways" and some new options need to be put on the table. The US can not "stay the course" when the course means handing power over to the pro-Iranian Shiite coalition. See stratfor.com's (7 day pass) analysis of Iran's deep infiltration of the ruling Iraqi government.

The infatuation of some confused conservatives with Hitchens the Trotskite provacateur shows the depths of their ideological dissonance. The man is Communist scum, and anyone who's read Tom Piatak's The Purest Neocon: Christopher Hicthens, the Unreconstructed Bolshevik Finds His Natural Home in The Pro-War Right has to agonize over the confluence of "revolutionary" agendas.

From The American Conservative:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html

10/08/2006 09:31:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Iraqi Quagmire? Already?

Reocon, as long as we are in Iraq we remain in a position to influence events. Is it your contention we should precipitously leave and simply hand the country over to the very same elements you claim to abhor? If so, explain how doing so redounds to our benefit or credit.

10/08/2006 03:53:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

sirius_sir said...
If so, explain how doing so redounds to our benefit or credit.

Our credit is already shot on this one and will take awhile to recoup. I trust Sirius, that you've heard Sen. Warner's contention that this whole Iraqi project is "drifting sideways"? The benefit of a withdrawal lies in the ensuing Islamic war between Shi'as and Sunnis. A war that will occupy a great deal of energy and extremism from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia as they back their respective co-religionists. Nothing sucks the oxygen from a foreign crusade (jihad) like a civil war. Pull out. Let it bleed. The benefits for us are obvious, as were the benefits from the Iran-Iraq War.

Why are we spending our precious troops keeping the two sides of Islam from slaughtering one another? They both hate us, why are we supplying family counseling? It is only a matter of time before a militia infiltrated Iraqi Amry or Interior Ministry betrays one of our platoons. That is my fear. If you want to defend the status quo or tell me where "stay the course" is headed, Sirius, I'd love to hear it.

10/08/2006 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Why are we spending our precious troops keeping the two sides of Islam from slaughtering one another?

How about I frame the question a little differently and ask, Why isn't it in our interests to defend those on either side who have aligned, even tentatively, with us against the Islamists? We are making friends and allies and hold at least some power to influence events in Iraq and the surrounding region as long as we stay there. You would have us declare defeat and go home. I doubt that course is liable to enhance our ability to impress or sway anyone--least of all the mullahs and jihadists.

I would agree that what we are doing is messy and costly and not without danger. That is the nature of war, after all. To be sure, it is a strange kind of war. I would rather we had fought it more aggressively from the get-go but we are where we are.

It's possible this whole Wilsonian project, as you put it, is indeed "drifting sideways". It's also possible that progress in this endeavour resists our desire to see it measured as a straight linear progression.

I think we are right to show the Iraqis we are impatient for progress. Maliki should move quickly and forcefully on his pledge to disarm and disband all non-governmental militias. But of course, we can also both argue that al-Sadr should have been dealt with, by us, long ago. We should probably have also levelled Fallujah back when the insurgency was more or less concentrated and contained there. But those choices taken or not taken are now history. In both instances we left the problem to fester, a course of action which I put to you is exactly what we will be doing again should we decide to simply leave Iraq to the Islamists.

My counter is we should stay and fight. We best do both together, but if we aren't going to fight then we shouldn't stay. And if we aren't going to stay then we should also understand that in the eyes of the enemy that will amount to surrender. We should ask ourselves now how far we are willing to retreat.

10/09/2006 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

sirius_sir said...
Why isn't it in our interests to defend those on either side who have aligned, even tentatively, with us against the Islamists? We are making friends and allies and hold at least some power to influence events in Iraq and the surrounding region as long as we stay there.

Your prescriptions always lack specifics, which makes you appear uninformed of the very basic facts of this conflict. Who are these "friends and allies" of ours in Iraq? Chalabi? Allawi? Pachachi? None of them has a real following, indeed, all but Allawi are now out of politics. Are you talking of Maliki's Dawa? Do you know anything, ANYTHING, about Dawa? What the name means, what its agenda is, where they were headquartered duing the Iran-Iraq War, where former PM Jaafari was based during that time, where current PM Maliki was? Has Dawa dissolved its militia for the sake of national unity, as their party leader, Maliki has allegedly called for?

To apply actual referents to your abstractions is to see them crumble. If you really believe in what you write, then please provide this forum with the Iraqi political party you trust, the one committed to fighting Islamism that is winning over a sizable portion of Iraqis. Please.

But those choices taken or not taken are now history. In both instances we left the problem to fester, a course of action which I put to you is exactly what we will be doing again should we decide to simply leave Iraq to the Islamists.

A fire left to burn itself out does not fester so much as it is purged. Iraq is the battle zone between two irreconcilable visions of Islam, and there can be no moderation within the Islamic world until these two forces bleed each other into tolerance. Since we are hated by both sides, we ultimately can not influence a peaceful outcome between them. We've tried and failed for three years now and the situation in getting worst. There can be no post-conflict solution without the total defeat of one side. If we back the Shia's, we are backin IRAN, and that is not in our interests. Obviously, we can't back the Sunnis either, hence the present stalemate of which we are caught in the middle.

I'm sure by now you read the State Department's poll showing that the vast majority of citizens in democratic Iraq want us to leave. Do you wish to defy their wishes and remain a hated occupying force just to prove our courage in the face of the obvious? It is only a matter of time before Iraqi political parties begin to reflect the will of their people.

You would have us declare defeat and go home. I doubt that course is liable to enhance our ability to impress or sway anyone--least of all the mullahs and jihadists.

This is the very reason why I oppossed going into Iraq in the first place! The conviction that the US could not re-engineer a liberal, secular democracy out of the tribal stew and Islamist goo of Iraqi society. The situation is no longer about trying to impress anyone, it's about hauling our asses out of a futile quagmire before we sink anymore blood and treasure for a lost cause. Sirius, a wthdrawal is already being considered and you don't even know it. Here, plug this link into your browser and listen to Fmr. Secretary of State James Baker tell Clinton Toady, George Stuffin' Envelopes, all about how "stay the course is done":
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

That is not the admission of a man who lightly surrenders American credibility or purpose. Baker heads the Congressional commission on how to withdraw from Iraq and he's been meeting with the President regularly now. Even Hicthens knows what's up on this score, so he's chosen to lash out at . . . Henry Kissinger! Silly Bolshevik.

And if we aren't going to stay then we should also understand that in the eyes of the enemy that will amount to surrender. We should ask ourselves now how far we are willing to retreat.

As in Vietnam, and though a heavy price, our republic did not fall. Ultimately we lost that conflict because we could not socially engineer a functioning demcoracy (or even a functioning state) out of the poor materials of South Vietnam. We knew the horrors of the enemy we were fighting against but we had no understanding of what we were fighting for: a failed South Vietnamese state. So too with you and Iraq, you have no idea of what are fighting for. You talk of "friends and allies" as if they exist in a significant size or force worth supporting. If you can prove me wrong, then please do so.

10/09/2006 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

If we leave Iraq, then we leave the Kurds, as well as your hated Shia and Sunnis. Leaving aside the possiblity that there might still be Shia and Sunnis worth working alongside and defending (otherwise, what is our purpose in building up the ING and police force from scratch?), what do we say to the Kurds? Fool you once, shame on me? Fool you twice, shame on you?

Not for nothing did Hitchens invoke the name of Cambodia in his assessment of what our high-tailing out of Iraq would entail. Cambodia taught us there is indeed such a thing as a domino effect, and right now we are holding the forces that would tip those dominoes at bay. Better than that, we are even having an effect on Iran whether the anti-war critics wish to admit it or not. But of course the Islamists will force those dominoes the other way should we leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the mullahs and jihadists, to what ultimate effect on the entire Middle East no-one can honestly say.

It is true that our nation did not fall in the aftermath of Vietnam. But whether we failed because we could not socially engineer a functioning democracy or whether it was because we simply gave up and went home, I think you will agree the stakes are higher this time around.

10/09/2006 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger George M Weinert V said...

Democracy and Jihad!
De Paul Jihad
By George M Weinert V
Sunday, October 08, 2006 Chicago, il

The Web page of De Paul's United Mujahideen (er, Muslims) Moving Ahead is still rather bare but we can at least report on the current members of the Shura 1
Council.

For the year 2006-2007 the stellar lineup is as follows and begins with Faghib 2 or PRESIDENT Ahlam Hassan EDUCATION, '08. Though it's a common Arab name Ahlam has a noble counterpart in Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the highly influential Islamist organization born in Egypt in 1928 and the ideological progenitor of the Palestinian Terror Group Hamas. Education is what Dar al-Islam needs badly since literacy in:

* Algeria in 1998 was estimated at 61.6% (73.9% among males and 49% among females);
* Bahrain's literacy rate was estimated in 1995 at 85.2% (89.1% of males and 79.4% of females);
* Comoros total literacy in 1998 was estimated at 57.3% (64.2% of males and 50.4% of females); while according to 1995 estimates, literacy in
* Djibouti stood at 46.2% (60.3% of men and 32.7% of women).
* Egypt stood at 51.4% (63.6% of men and 38.8% of women-a notable accomplishment indeed after only 4500 YEARS of trying!));
* Iraqi literacy was estimated in 1995 at 58% (70.7% of men and 45% of women);
* Jordan iteracy rate was estimated in 1995 at 86.6% (93.4% among males and 79.4% among females);
* Kuwaiti literacy was estimated in 1995 at 78.6% (82.2% of men and 74.9% of women).
* Lebanon, literacy was estimated in 1997 at 86.4% (90.8% of men and 82.2% of women );
* Libyan literacy was estimated in 1995 as 76.2% (87.9% among males and 63% among females);
* Mauritania, literacy was estimated in 1995 as 37.7% (49.6% of males and 26.3% of females).
* Morocco was estimated in 1995 as 43.7% (56.6% of males and 31% of females)
* Qatar, literacy was estimated in 1995 as 79.4% (79.2% of males and 79.9% of females);
* Saudi Arabia a 1995 estimate put the literacy rate at 62.8% (71.5% among men and 50.2% among women); (they can't read, but they DO KNOW HOW TO COUNT MONEY!)
* Somalia, a 1990 estimate put total literacy at 24% (36% of males and 14% of females).
* Sudan stood at 46.1% (57.7% of males and 34.6% of females);
* Syria, a 1997 estimate put the literacy rate at 70.8% (85.7% of men and 55.8% of women);
* Tunisia a 1995 estimate said the literacy rate was 66.7% (78.6% of men and 54.6% of women).
* United Arab Emirates was estimated in 1995 as 79.2% (78.9% among males and 79.8% among females);
* Yemen, a 1990 estimate put the literacy rate at 38% (53% of men and 26% of women)."

Figures for the Palestinian territories and Oman were not available. (as of Dec 2002, Adult Male Literacy in Palestine was 39.4%) - yes, and with those filthy urchins you see on TV throwing stones and molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers the "Drop out rate" and illiteracy are as high as 85% but they find ready employment as gay prostitutes and Hamas serves as the protective pimp) Literacy Statistics? The above looks more like something out of a "History of Europe in the Middle Ages"! Let's hope that Prez Hassan can do something to bring Dar al-Islam basic literacy and at least some hope for joining the rest of the modern world. Please send Big Chief Hassan your Salams.

Next comes a historic moment for "that little school under the El" - it seems that DPU has a GENUINE SHEIKH 3 - I am really impressed! Back in the 70's at the School of Music we certainly had our share of weird characters but this is an international coup - a real Sheikh at De Paul. I bet that those Phi Beta Kappa panty raids will never be the same again now that DPU has a genuine Bedouin tribal chieftain on campus. VICE PRESIDENT Fyeqa Sheikh is a LA&S student, class of '07 who may find that 'liberal art' and the real tenets of Islam are not exactly compatible:

Qur'ran [3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

Cast Terror into their hearts?

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Yes, the Muslims are taught they should cut off your head every day.

[8:60]
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Make your enemies live in Terror of the Mighty and very Bloody Allah and his Islam. The Merciful Allah prescribes awful torture and mortal fear for the non-Muslim - this ought to make for a fascinating interpretation of Liberal Arts.

The next Mujahideen (er, Muslim) Mover is SECRETARY Safa Khaled who is a COMMERCE Major for '08. That's wonderful but as long as business people in the Muslim World have to go to the Mosque and bang their head on the floor five times a day and pay a fifth of their income to the Ulama commercial activity in the Muslim world will be a stagnant as it has always been and the nations of the Muslim world will remain economic basket cases.

That Moving Muslim Money really matters so there is TREASURER Osmaan Akhtar who is a CTI & COMMERCE '08 Major and this can spell a real disaster for this group. Muslims have never been very good at math since they have problems counting once they run out of fingers and toes but we wish them the best.

Publicity is being handled by Faseeh Biabani and Saqib Tabba both Commerce Students which is rather funny. The web site is trying to appear like just another college group site and asserts that any monies collected are being donated to the Chicago Food Pantry but there's a problem: there are already a plethora of Christian and Jewish based charitable groups aiding the homeless and poor on Chicago's Near North side so why not just direct folks to those sites?
Chicago has a rather sordid record of Islamic Charities being shut down by the FBI for donating money to Islamic Terrorist groups so why ask again? (unless of course...)

The answer lies not in charity but in proselytizing for Islam as we stated in our first two essays and the position of DA'WAH COORDINATOR Chris Claar verifies our initial syllogism. The "Charity" of this new group is nothing but the Islamist Taqiyya taught to Muslims in Qur'ran 066.001 "Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows." (A MUSLIM CAN LIE!)

An example of "Taqiyya" would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that "of course" there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur'anic verse -- "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Kitman" is close to "taqiyya," but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth - taqiyya, religious deception, as founded on Qur'an 16:106. (A similar but distinct concept is kitman, which is akin to mental reservation, and is based on Qur'an 3:28.

We find excellent examples in the Sunna of Tabari VIII:143 "In this year a twenty-four man raiding party led by Shuja went to the Banu Amir. He launched a raid on them and took camels and sheep. The shares of booty came to fifteen camels for each man. Also a raid led by Amr went to Dhat. He set out with fifteen men. He encountered a large force whom he summoned to Islam. They refused to respond so he killed all of them." I do believe that Allah lied in the 2nd surah when he said in Qur'ran 002.256 "There is no compulsion in the matter of religion. The strategy is to present Islam as just another religion and use its charitable activities in order to disguise the rotten core of this despotic ideology of slavery, murder and Terror. The Dutch, French and British peoples have already fallen victim to the World Wide Global Jihad but there is still hope for America and certainly for the Nation's Number One Catholic University as long as the true nature of the Muslim monster is revealed.

CULTURAL CENTER REP Samar Damra is a LA&S '07 Major and perhaps could advise De Paul's ultra-chick LPC women of a few 'liberal' facts about the "Religion of Peace" such as -

* Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
* It declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
* It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
* It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
* Worst of all, the Qur'an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish the to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34). It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

I don't think that the Friday night crowd on Lincoln Avenue will like it much and the female genital mutilation favored by Muslims will not be a big hit.

There's a lot more that Muslims in America don't want you to know like these accounts of Master misogynist Mohammed from the Sunna -

Tabari IX:126 "The Messenger of Allah married fifteen women. He combined
eleven at a time and left behind nine." This, of course, does not include rape
victims, concubines, and sex slaves but does include pedophilia and incest.

Speaking of pedophilia: Ishaq:311 "The Apostle saw Ummu'l when she was a baby
crawling before his feet and said, 'If she grows up, I will marry her.' But he
died before he was able to do so." Tabari IX:128 "Aisha, when he married her
was very young and not yet ready for consummation." Tabari IX:130 "Bakr
married Aisha to Muhammad when she was only six years old." Tabari IX:131 "My
mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and
got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me.
When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then
brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother
made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet
consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old." Most
rational people prefer to get their spiritual inspiration from someone who
isn't a sexual predator and pervert.

Some of the low lights of the stallion's conquests include: Tabari IX:133
"Juwayriyyah was chosen by the Messenger for himself on the day of the Muraysi
raid from the captives." "Muhammad married Umm, who had embraced
Christianity." Tabari IX:134 "Muhammad took Zaynab [his daughter-in-law] but
Allah did not find any fault in the [incestuous] relationship and ordered the
marriage." Tabari IX:135 "When the Prophet scrutinized the captives on the day
of Khaybar, he threw his cloak over Safayah. Thus she was his chosen one."
Tabari IX:139 "The Messenger married Ghaziyyah after the news of her beauty
and skill had reached him." Tabari IX:137 "Allah granted Rayhanah of the
[Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced
to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to
be raped, and her sisters sold into slavery]." Tabari IX:137 "Mariyah, a Copt
slave, was presented to the Prophet. She was given to him by Muqawqis, the
ruler of Alexandria." Muhammad was despicable.

Tabari IX:138 "The Prophet married Aliyyah, a Bakr woman. He gave her gifts
for divorce and left her. He also married Qutaylah, but he died before he
could consummate the marriage." Tabari IX:139 "Layla approached the Prophet
while his back was to the sun and clapped him on his shoulder. He asked her
who it was and she replied, 'I am the daughter of one who competes with the
wind. I am Layla. I have come to offer myself to you.' He replied, 'I
accept.'" Layla scampered back home and shared her story with mommy and daddy.
"They said, 'What a bad thing you have done! You are a self-respecting girl,
but the Prophet is a womanizer.'" Now there is an understatement. 6

I don't believe that women at De Paul will find this very appealing.

There is yet another historic First for De Paul University - an Islamic Warrior -a Ghazi! 5 ORGANIZATION LIAISON Usra Ghazi who is another LA&S '07 student - Wow what a setup! A real Muslim warrior and a Big chief to boot - I am really impressed but just can't figure out where they're hiding the scimitars.

Just to rap it up, there's new information on UMMA's fellow academic Muslim movers MAS and ISNA at FrontPage Magazine -

For example, Dr. Waller testified that, "The Graduate School
of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS) trains Muslim
chaplains. Operation Green Quest investigators raided GSISS
offices in March 2002, along with 23 other organizations.
According to search warrants, federal agents suspected GSISS
and the others of 'potential money laundering and tax evasion
activities and their ties to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda
as well as individual terrorists . . . [including] Osama bin
Laden.'" He reminded the subcommittee that "Agents also
raided the homes of GSISS Dean of Students Iqbal Unus, and
GSISS President Taha Al-Alwani. Press reports identify
Al-Awani as Unindicted Co-Conspirator Number 5 in the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad case of Sami Al-Arian in Florida."

Dr. Waller told Senators: "The Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA) refers Muslim clerics to the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons." The Islamic Society of North America is an
influential front for the promotion of the Wahhabi political,
ideological and theological infrastructure in the United
States and Canada. Established by the Saudi-sponsored Muslim
Students Association (which has hundreds of chapters on U.S.
college campuses), ISNA seeks to marginalize leaders of the
Muslim faith who do not support its ideological goals. Through
sponsorship of propaganda, doctrinal material and mosques,
ISNA is pursuing the Islamofascists' strategic objective of
dominating Islam in North America. 7

And eventually dominating De Paul University?

Look for much more to come as the web site and the Jihad at De Paul at American Jihad.

Praise the Lord and God Bless America.

1 Board is the language used by these young Depaulians, but a "Shura" is a traditional tribal council - Arabs are tribal folks - I wonder if they miss their tents and camels?
2 Big Chief
3 A tribal Chieftan and leader of the Muslim armies
5 The "Ghazi" Were a war-like Bedouin Tribe that Mohammed converted to his new 'religion' while in Medina who provided the real muscle that enabled him to first attack and then conquer Mecca and soon became his favored hired killers
6 http://prophetofdoom.org/
7 The Enemy Within By Frank J Gaffney Jr. FrontPageMagazine.com | August 19, 2005

10/09/2006 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

sirius_sir said...
If we leave Iraq, then we leave the Kurds, as well as your hated Shia and Sunnis. . . what do we say to the Kurds? Fool you once, shame on me? Fool you twice, shame on you?

Leaving Iraq doesn't mean leaving Kurdistan. If the appropriate SOFA can be reached, it's quite possible for the US to maintain bases in Kurdistan. They'll need protection from the Turks, Iranians, Syrians and other Iraqis. It's worth considering.

Not for nothing did Hitchens invoke the name of Cambodia in his assessment of what our high-tailing out of Iraq would entail. Cambodia taught us there is indeed such a thing as a domino effect, and right now we are holding the forces that would tip those dominoes at bay.

You seem very confused. What domino fell after Cambodia? Or do you mean that Cambodia was the domino that fell after Vietnam? If that's the case then you know nothing of history. In late '78 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and a few months later, in early '79, China invaded Vietnam. What "domino effect"? Furthermore, because the Vietnamese were opposed to them, the CIA backed the Khmer Rouge for a number of years in order to bleed the Viet Minh through guerilla war. No one was crying "domino effect" then. Look it up.

But of course the Islamists will force those dominoes the other way should we leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the mullahs and jihadists, to what ultimate effect on the entire Middle East no-one can honestly say.

What uninformed claptrap! If you must argue in simplistic terms of "dominoes" then you must acknowledge that there is no singular line of Islamist "dominoes" present in Iraq. There are at least two, Sunni and Shiite and they can not coexist. That is what the Civil War (so named even by the Neocon Charles Krauthammer) is all about. What ultimate effect? All out civil war, most likely followed by a reformation. Look to European history and the Thirty Years War followed by the Treaty of Westphalia. Iraq will have to be redrawn and it will be excrutiatingly bloody but myself and hundreds of other Cassandras predicted just such an occurrence.

Lastly, I see that you have failed to identify even a single political party or significant social base that constitutes our "friends and allies" in Iraq, as I challenged you to do so. I invite you to take up the challenge once again, for if you don't then you will not have anything worth fighting for in Iraq. Have you given up? If not, then what are we fighting for in Iraq? Shiite Islamists? Sunni Extremists? Kurish separatists?

10/09/2006 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

...do you mean that Cambodia was the domino that fell after Vietnam? If that's the case then you know nothing of history. In late '78 the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia...

That seems to me more support than rebuttal. In any event, the point being, absent our countervaling influence the people of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were left vulnerable to the depredations that followed, no matter whose Peoples Party was responsible. Admittedly, that is as much an humanitarian argument as a political one.

Your confidence that an all out Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq will play to a benign conclusion seems a little earnest and maybe even naive. "Reformation" is certainly one possibility but there are also, almost certainly, others.

One possibility would be that Iran would end up having even more power and influence in Iraq than it presently enjoys. It's also possible Iran would seek to magnify that power and influence throughout the region. I would again suggest no-one knows what ultimate effect that would have on the Middle East and saying so is not "claptrap" but common sense.

10/09/2006 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

sirius_sir said...

That seems to me more support than rebuttal. In any event, the point being, absent our countervaling influence the people of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were left vulnerable to the depredations that followed, no matter whose Peoples Party was responsible.

No, no, not at all. You were arguing discredited "domino theory" and my point about competing dominoes was indeed a rebuttal. You can read your concession in the phrase "In any event". Lastly, utilizing your arguments it should be point out that the Cambodians were rescued from the "depredation" of their own government (which we supported) from the intervening Vietnamese. Pack that into your obfuscating pipe of domino theory and humanitarian arguments and tell me how it taste.

One possibility would be that Iran would end up having even more power and influence in Iraq than it presently enjoys.

Iran will not be able to control and consolidate the Anbar province any better that we can. Especially since Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia's support for Sunni Arabs will be much more intensive and above board once we leave. (And you know now, after watching the Baker-Stephanopoulos video I provided that it's likely we're leaving sooner rather than later). Iran will not be able to fully incorporate all of Western Iraq after the conflict becomes a real regional war. Besides, why are you objecting to Iran's growing power? Who do you think WON the elections in January '05? Go ahead, list the parties of the United Iraqi Alliance and tell me who there are allied with. It's you who's so eager to turn Iraq over to the Shiite mullahs under the fig leaf of democracy!

I've challenged you twice now to come up with a political base of liberal, secular Iraqis that can unify the nation and are unambiguously our "friends and allies". Not Kurdish separatists, for their interests are too obviously narrow and sectarian, but a Mandela like figure that can bridge the Sunni/Shi'a divide and has a political party behind him. If you can't (you can't, Bush can't) then there is no center for us to save in Iraq. The failed nation has already been polarized beyond repair. Read the following from another pro-War Hawk who has thrown in the towel:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15177998/site/newsweek/

10/09/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

More on the Baker plan here:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/10/the_not_so_fabu.shtml#015955

10/09/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

According to Wikipedia, "the Kampuchean (or Khmer) People's Revolutionary Party (KPRP), was established under Vietnamese auspices; the period following the Second Party Congress of the KPRP in 1960, when Saloth Sar (Pol Pot after 1976) and other future Khmer Rouge leaders gained control of its apparatus; the revolutionary struggle from the initiation of the Khmer Rouge insurgency in 1967-68 to the fall of the Lon Nol government [which we supported] in April 1975; the Democratic Kampuchea regime, from April 1975 to January 1979; and the period following the Third Party Congress of the KPRP in January 1979, when Hanoi effectively assumed control over Cambodia's government and communist party." Please note that the period April 1975 to January 1979 corresponds to the worst of the atrocities following our evacuation, so your insinuation that it was our hand at work does not seem to hold up. Further, dominoes that fall independently are still dominoes that fall, pushed over by the same murderous ideaology. How is it an obfuscation to note an obvious--communist--connection? And how does the fact that Hanoi ended up assuming control in Cambodia argue against that thesis?

As for Iraq, you should know by now that my intention is that Iran not be given free reign to take over that country. I will resist the impulse of claiming obfuscation to which you so easily descend and merely repeat: you should know--and indeed, you do know, (judging by your follow-up challenge)--that I support a continued U.S. presence in opposition to Iranian and jihadist intervention. There may not at this point be "a Mandela like figure that can bridge the Sunni/Shi'a divide and has a political party behind him" but that sets the bar exceedingly, maybe impossibly, high. Not even Sistani meets that requirement, despite his working in opposition to al Sadr and having very helpfully suggested that religion should be kept seperate from politics.

If we leave then al Sadr and his ilk, backed by Iran, will gain in influence and power to the exclusion of others. We may neither of us be entirely happy with Maliki or any part of the present government but, though you seem not to want to recognize the fact, there is a natural tension between the Arab Shiites of Iraq and the Persian Shia of Iran. I submit we would do well to continue attempting to exploit that divide. But if your fervent desire that we leave comes to fruition then it is likely voices like Sistani's will become muted or even silenced, and your prophecy of doom will look like nothing so much as self-defeating wish-fulfillment.

10/10/2006 09:17:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

sirius_sir said...
Please note that the period April 1975 to January 1979 corresponds to the worst of the atrocities following our evacuation, so your insinuation that it was our hand at work does not seem to hold up.

Where do I insinuate that? I certainly don't believe it.

Further, dominoes that fall independently are still dominoes that fall, pushed over by the same murderous ideaology. How is it an obfuscation to note an obvious--communist--connection?

Sigh. Dominos falling independently negate the theory. The domino theory is premised on countries falling in a line, a Communist line in which the states were comletely controlled by the Communist bloc. The idea was that Moscow/Beijing was a single monolith. The contries that assumed communist government DID NOT ALLY. In fact they turned on each other: Vietanm invaded Cambodia and China invaded Vietnam. There was no functioning bloc of unified communist states in South East Asia afer the fall of Vietnam. The primary conflict was between Vietnam/Laos/Russia and China/Khmer Rouge. Aside from these quarreling communist states, the dominos that were predicted to fall didn't: Burma, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia.

As for Iraq, you should know by now that my intention is that Iran not be given free reign to take over that country.

Then you will be opposed to a "democratic process" that gives power to Shiite dominated parties allied with Iran, right? Have you switched positions?

Not even Sistani meets that requirement, despite his working in opposition to al Sadr and having very helpfully suggested that religion should be kept seperate from politics.

You're behind the times yet again. Sistani threw in the towel back in March, crying that no one listened to him anymore:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/03/wirq03.xml

It's too bad, but in times of anarchy its the Leninists who tend to take power. Fortunately, there are rival Leninists in Iraq, if only we stop trying to keep them apart.

If we leave then al Sadr and his ilk, backed by Iran, will gain in influence and power to the exclusion of others. . . you seem not to want to recognize the fact, there is a natural tension between the Arab Shiites of Iraq and the Persian Shia of Iran.

The tension and my disagreement lies between your first sentence and the second. You acknowledge a tension between Sunnis and Shiites (second sentence) yet you think al Sadr can gain power "at the exclusions of other". No, the Sunnis will not bend to a Shiite theocrat, that is why there is a civil war on. It is beyond our power to reconcile these squabbling Islamists . . . let them have at each other to our benefit. The tensions between the Persian and Arab Shiites are not that great: Sadr who was very anti-Persian has had make up sessions with Iran and recieves money and logistics from Iran. Surely you know this.

But if your fervent desire that we leave comes to fruition then it is likely voices like Sistani's will become muted or even silenced, and your prophecy of doom will look like nothing so much as self-defeating wish-fulfillment.

As cited above, Sistani has already gone silent. The center has not held. Things fall apart. The blood dimmed tide is loosed . . . and it has little to do with my wishes. I wish we had never gotten to this point in the first place, which is why I so fervently advocated against this war on conservative grounds. Check out some past issues of The American Conservative and come over to the Right side, Sirius:
http://amconmag.com/

10/11/2006 06:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger