:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Thursday, August 29, 2002 ::

A good essay from Norvell B. De Atkine - Why Arabs Lose Wars. I can't wait to read the sequel.

:: Scot 9:56 PM [+] :: ::
...

Michael Jackson's mug - from 1979 to present. A freaky walk down memory lane.

(from Spot On)

:: Scot 9:28 PM [+] :: ::
...

Daniel Pipes doesn't overlook the Europeans in this interview:

Well the United States is the great power and the Europeans have really chosen not to invest in their militaries and are basically secondary powers. The enemies of the West are aware of that and therefore target the United States. It might be true that they would open themselves up to more retaliation if they join us but it's also true that they're freeloaders if they don't. They're benefitting from our military and financial commitment without carrying their due proportion.

:: Scot 9:20 PM [+] :: ::
...

Isn't this interesting. News24 reports:

African and Asian farmers, and hawkers from across South Africa handed over a "Bullshit Trophy" (yes, that is the trophy's real name) to Greenpeace, the Third World Network and BioWatch for their contribution to the "preservation of poverty" in developing countries.

The trophy comprises of a piece of wood on which two heaps of dried cow-dung - "unfortunately not elephant dung" - are mounted.

Not a good year for NGOs.

:: Scot 9:09 PM [+] :: ::
...

More from Matt Welch and Photodude on the U.S. and the Saudis. History will marvel at this charade of a relationship.

:: Scot 9:03 PM [+] :: ::
...

I'm not sure I'm too big on the soon to be overplayed hit "Smell the Coffee" but Spek has one of the coolest websites I've seen from a musician.

:: Scot 3:30 PM [+] :: ::
...

Back from my hiatus. Looks like I won't be able to live without one of these for long.

:: Scot 3:25 PM [+] :: ::
...

Raymond Tallis reviews Roger Sandall's The Culture Cult.

The image of a lost world of wise, peace-loving artists in harmony with the natural world is the invention of Western intellectuals disgruntled with the civilization that makes their lives so easy. In reality, many primitive societies were not only homicidal but also impressively eco-cidal. The Maoris, for example, managed, despite their relatively small numbers, to wipe out about 30 per cent of the indigenous species, including all twelve kinds of Moa, within a century of their arrival in an edenic New Zealand. This took place against the usual background of incessant tribal warfare, and a brutally unfair legal system which was reformed only when, as a result of a series of deals with the white settlers, which benefited the chiefs but not their people, the Maoris were marginalized in their own land and came under European law.

:: Scot 10:20 PM [+] :: ::
...

Cool essay from Steven Levy on blogs.

:: Scot 10:09 PM [+] :: ::
...

Scumbag Saudis are at it again. More commercials to tell us how they are really our friends.

Saudi-US split even picked up by London.

:: Scot 4:10 PM [+] :: ::
...

Marc Erikson comments on the war against Iraq:

How do you tell a war has begun? This is not the 17th or 18th century. There are no highfalutin' declarations. Troops don't line up in eyesight of each other. There are no drum rolls and bugle calls, no calls of "Chaaa...rge!". When did the Vietnam War begin? When, for that matter, World War I? When mobilizations were ordered setting in motion irreversible chains of events or at the time of the formal declarations of war?

The lines of battle and the timelines to overt battle and full-scale combat have become fluid. Consider this: At the beginning of this year, when US President George W Bush started talking ever more in earnest about taking out Saddam Hussein and signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple the Iraqi president, including authority to use lethal force to capture him, the US and putative ally Britain had approximately 50,000 troops deployed in the region around Iraq.

By now, this number has grown to over 100,000, not counting soldiers of and on naval units in the vicinity. It's been a build-up without much fanfare, accelerating since March and accelerating further since June. And these troops are not just sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs while waiting for orders to act out some type of D-Day drama. Several thousand are already in Iraq. They are gradually closing in and rattling Saddam's cage. In effect, the war has begun.

...and on the Washington Post and the New York Times war plan leaks:

In light of these developments, the various "war plans" bandied about in the US press - with the New York Times and the Washington Post trying to outdo each other with the latest scoops - are largely irrelevant as such, whether it's the "Northern Alliance Option" (US troops and intelligence personnel aiding an attack by opposition forces); the original "Franks Plan" (massed attack involving some 250,000 troops); the "inside-out" approach (commando attacks on Baghdad and key Iraqi command centers first, followed by mopping-up action); or the "status-quo" or "do-nothing" option of continued containment of Saddam. Elements of all of these scenarios will eventually be seen as having been incorporated in the removal of the Iraqi leader.

Equally irrelevant is speculation on the timing (September/October for the sake of surprise? January/February a la Gulf War to avoid the desert heat?) of "the" allied attack. Attacks of various kinds are ongoing. Their intensity and intrusiveness can increase at any time ... or decrease again. It's a game of options and contingencies, backed by ever increasing material capabilities; perhaps a game of prodding Saddam into a tactical mistake or a flight-forward reaction. Earlier this year, a British journalist asked Bush how exactly he was going to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He replied, "Wait and see." The journalist, like many of his colleagues, may well still be waiting - for lack of ability to see that the war is on. Some high-speed, high-intensity strikes may later be called "The Iraq War", but it began no later than March.

:: Scot 4:03 PM [+] :: ::
...

It seems the New York Times is for progress and globilization.

On the other hand...

:: Scot 9:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

Europe roughed up again. Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff in his essay With Unyielding Faith (part one, Arafat Bombs, Europe pays, is a must read).

Francis Fukuyama's lecture Has History Restarted Since September 11? outlines some of the growing differences between the US and the Europe.

:: Scot 9:22 PM [+] :: ::
...

Looks like there's grounds for that Nazism-Islamism connection after all.

Read three good pieces lately on the Israel-Palestine mess. Daniel Doron's Palestinian Lies & Western Complicity, John Derbyshire's Vae Victis, and Camille Paglia in a reply to a letter.

:: Scot 9:02 PM [+] :: ::
...

Canada yet to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Hamas is a designated terrorist organization in the United States and Britain but not in Canada, where -- almost a year after the Sept. 11 attacks -- the Liberal Cabinet has outlawed only al-Qaeda and six affiliated groups under its new anti-terrorism law. Based in Gaza, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel and orchestrates suicide attacks against civilians. Yesterday it vowed to continue its terror campaign, dashing hopes for an end to the violence that erupted in September, 2000.

The Congress wants Canada to designate the entire Hamas organization as a terrorist group under federal law. Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, has said only the Hamas military wing should be sanctioned.

With that in mind, there's no way this is going to happen.

:: Scot 6:48 PM [+] :: ::
...

Rod Dreher has a clever article on Jesse Jackson and his possible downfall:

Despite his public ranting, Jackson has from time to time attempted to use back channels to secure a meeting with Bush, to no avail. Jackson, whose financial empire is reportedly on the ropes, knows his livelihood depends on being perceived as a power broker, is desperate. You can't be a power broker if those in power won't give you the time of day. Bush is allowing Jackson's rabblerousing career to die on the vine. It's a mercy killing.

Jackson, friend of Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat, has done himself no favors in the aftermath of September 11 by positioning himself increasingly on the loony-left, anti-patriotic fringe. This week, he criticized the Democratic-party leadership for not doing enough to back Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the wack-job black Democrat from Georgia who faces a tough primary battle. McKinney, on whose behalf anti-Semitic tyro Louis Farrakhan will be campaigning over the weekend, has taken campaign contributions from Arab extremists, and has accused the Bush administration of orchestrating the 9/11 massacres to serve its own political interests.

From the Right, it will be satisfying to see Jackson in Washington railing against the popular wartime president in Washington on the same week that the nation he leads marks the one-year anniversary of September 11 in what will surely be a coast-to-coast outpouring of patriotic solidarity. How many of the corporations who have been buying a racial seal of approval by contributing to Jackson will be keen to be associated with him after that? Jesse's cracking up, and the president is helping him along by standing there and doing absolutely nothing. Who knew it would be so easy?

:: Scot 6:37 PM [+] :: ::
...

Cynthia McKinney campaign donation update. The Washington Post reports:

The reelection campaign of Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) has received campaign contributions from at least 18 donors who are either officers of Muslim foundations under investigation by the FBI, have voiced support for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist organizations or have made inflammatory statements about Jews.

Questions about the donors' backgrounds mark the latest twist in a House race heavily funded by outside groups interested in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Most of McKinney's money has come from non-district residents with Muslim or Arab surnames.

Here's an old Debbie Schlussel article from last year on Jihad Cindy.

Update: just found this anti-Cynthia site with the names of four donors who are being sued for their part in 9-11.

:: Scot 6:19 PM [+] :: ::
...

Resistance is futi... well maybe not yet.

:: Scot 5:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

Bernard Lewis on the Saudis:

Imagine if the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation obtained total control of Texas and had at its disposal all the oil revenues, and used this money to establish a network of well-endowed schools and colleges all over Christendom peddling their particular brand of Christianity. This is what the Saudis have done with Wahhabism. The oil money has enabled them to spread this fanatical, destructive form of Islam all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the west. Without oil and the creation of the Saudi kingdom, Wahhabism would have remained a lunatic fringe in a marginal country.

:: Scot 10:59 PM [+] :: ::
...

Another call for Major League Baseball to bring on the shame it deserves.

Back in June, Barry Bonds seemed to sum up the players' attitude when he opined that baseball would survive a strike. "It's entertainment," he said. "It will come back. A lot of companies go on strike, not just baseball. And people still ride the bus." Perhaps. But the arrogance toward the fans who make his $18 million annual salary possible--not to mention the Cracker Jack and soda vendors who would lose big-time in a strike--helps explain baseball's increasingly sorry image with the public it depends on.

So, go ahead and strike, fellas. Maybe after you've ruined the season, alienated more of your fans and jeopardized your own futures, something better will emerge from the rubble. Like a once-great game.

:: Scot 10:52 PM [+] :: ::
...

Ralph Peters pulls no punches when it comes to Bush and the Saudis:

The spectacle of President Bush groveling to Saudi bigots is a disgrace. The Saudis sponsor terror, export hatred, undercut American interests and kill Americans. They are our enemies. Period. History will marvel at this administration's insistence that they remain our friends.

After Sept. 11, Bush took an impressive stand against global terrorism, although his resolve has grown wobbly in recent months - especially in the Middle East. But his administration consistently turned a blind eye to Saudi culpability. Our president speaks of an "axis of evil," but ignores the nexus of evil in Riyadh.

The sad explanation seems to be that this oilman's administration cannot see beyond the lure of oil deals, past cozy historical relationships between American dynasties and the Saudi dynasty, or past the traditional wisdom that has served to protect only degenerate Saudi princes, not the American people.

Reluctantly, one is forced to wonder what the Saudi ruling family knows that might prove embarrassing to our current political leadership, were it to be revealed. Is this a case merely of strategic blindness, or of implicit blackmail? How can this administration berate Israel for defending itself, while begging Saudi forgiveness for a closed-door briefing?

The trigger for the latest orgy of kissing Saudi feet was an article in The Washington Post by one of our nation's finest reporters, Thomas E. Ricks, revealing that a Pentagon briefing to top insiders dared to question Saudi virtue and perfection.

President Bush & Co. immediately got on the phone to Prince Bunkum bin Bigot to insist we didn't really mean it, like a spineless husband caught cheating on camera. In this grotesque case, our president clearly forgot who he works for. Bush family friends or not, the Saudis are murderers. And their preferred victims are Americans.

The royal family doesn't do its own dirty work, of course - no more than they fight their own wars. Like mafia dons, they put out contracts. Some of those contracts are for oil deals or public-relations blitzes, or to buy influence-packing lobbyists inside the Beltway. Others involve money handed to terrorists to spread the cruelest imaginable perversion of a great world religion - in the end, the Saudis are even greater enemies to the future of the Islamic world than they are to the United States.

In fact, the comparison to the mafia is unfair to organized crime, since the mafia did have a code of honor, a sense of obligation and respect for women.

:: Scot 10:49 PM [+] :: ::
...

Looks like America isn't the only one with Iraq in its crosshairs. The Guardian reports the possibility of an attack by the Kurds.

:: Scot 10:33 PM [+] :: ::
...

Not sure if there's much to be afraid of with a war against Iraq. If it isn't an army of children they're using, it's women fighters (without helmets or ammunition) and suicide-belt wearing soldiers. Pretty intimidating.

:: Scot 10:25 PM [+] :: ::
...

David Limbaugh on black conservatives:

Have you ever considered what it would be like to be a black political conservative in modern America? How many people are brave enough to endure the kind of vilification and scorn they routinely encounter? Just consider the mistreatment Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly and many others have received for years. And it is not just from other blacks. White people (liberals) are even permitted to call these blacks names with impunity.

Why? Because they don't buy into the liberal template: the welfare state, affirmative action, multiculturalism, judicial activism, the public education monopoly and the rest. Unless you side with liberals on these issues, you are against blacks.

Why aren't conservative blacks allowed to have a difference of opinion? Why are they automatically branded as the enemy if they reject the liberal dogma that blacks and other minorities must be dependent on a paternalistic government? Why aren't they praised instead for their refusal to be told by the white cultural elite how to think?

Ironically, liberals purport to champion the dignity and independence of minorities, but when any of them tries to escape the tyrannical bonds of their credo, he is branded as ignorant, an Uncle Tom, self-hating or worse.

:: Scot 8:41 AM [+] :: ::
...

Next city on my vacation route: Bad Doberan, Germany. This town of 12000, for the last thirteen years, has hosted 'Zappanale' - the annual Frank Zappa festival. Apparently Zappa is still toast of the town in many parts of Europe.

:: Scot 8:18 AM [+] :: ::
...

Not every editorial out of Europe is soft. Richard Perle on the need for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq:

Would Saddam's removal set the region aflame? Fear that the Arab world will unite in opposition to Saddam's removal lures even thoughtful critics into opposition. It seems at least as likely that Saddam's replacement by a decent Iraqi regime would open the way to a far more stable and peaceful region.

A democratic Iraq would be a powerful refutation of the patronising view that Arabs are incapable of democracy. And an end to Saddam's incitement of Palestinian terror would surely help the search for peace. Judgments about the aftermath of Saddam's fall differ widely. But this is precisely the sense in which the whole question of removing him involves a balancing of risks in the face of uncertainty.

Sir Michael rightly worries that an action to remove Saddam could precipitate the very thing we are most anxious to prevent: his use of chemical or biological weapons. But the danger that springs from his capabilities will only grow as he expands his arsenal. A pre-emptive strike against Hitler at the time of Munich would have meant an immediate war, as opposed to the one that came later. Later was much worse.

:: Scot 7:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

Forget about daisy cutters and thermo-bombs. It looks like the destructo du jour will be microwave weapons.

An attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave weapons that produce a split-second spike of energy powerful enough to damage electronic components and scramble computer memories.

:: Scot 7:31 AM [+] :: ::
...

Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán write about the history and future of American Muslims.

Because the immigrant Muslim community is so new, it is still very much in formation. Which way will the first generation of immigrant children turn? Will their dual identities as Americans and Muslims be complementary or contradictory? Will they accept or reject the Islamist program of changing the United States? Will they control the urge toward violence? More broadly, will they insist on adapting the United States to Islam, or will they agree to adapt Islam to the United States? Much depends on the answers.

:: Scot 11:51 AM [+] :: ::
...

There has been a lot of anti-war clamor from German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ news) suggests a good reason why:

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's pledge to keep German soldiers out of a U.S.-led war against Iraq has breathed fresh life into his coalition's bid for re-election and created a rift between members of the opposition Christian Democrats and their chancellor candidate, Premier Edmund Stoiber of Bavaria.

Observers say Schröder's tough stance on Iraq may help divert public attention from the scandals and provide the Greens, who were heavily implicated in both, with some tailwind. The party, which was founded on an environmental and pacifist platform, dropped its anti-war stance shortly after taking office as junior partner to Schröder's Social Democrats in 1998. It voted to send troops to Afghanistan in the wake of Sept. 11 after Schröder threatened a vote of no confidence, which would have ended the coalition. Since then, however, support for U.S. President George W. Bush's “war against terrorism“ has waned among both the Greens and in Schröder's party.

:: Scot 11:47 AM [+] :: ::
...

Another doubleheader here and here from Mark Steyn (and no, I'm not on his payroll).

:: Scot 11:43 AM [+] :: ::
...

Now this is detail. Maps and satellite shots of American military bases in Qatar.

:: Scot 11:37 AM [+] :: ::
...

James Robbins is having difficulty wondering why the RAND report on the Saudis has become such big news.

However, it still leaves the question of why the Post ran the article at all, and gave it such prominence. Slow news day? Secretary Rumsfeld said he couldn't imagine why they published it, but he repeated his wife's admonition, "Don, don't forget, you have your job and they have theirs." Very true. But can't they do their job a little better?

I have a theory. This report became a hit because we (as in the 70-80% of Americans who peg Saudi Arabia as an enemy) finally get to see a link, no matter how faint, between intellectual opinion and the government. The Bush team must have realized by now that public opinion on Saudi Arabia is unfavorable at best, but now there is a strategic think tank that is saying the same thing. People are at least confident that Saudi malfeasance is now on public display.

A quick glance at Middle East media might also attest to the importance of this report. In the Arab News (Saudi Arabia's most popular English daily), two days garnered more than a dozen stories on America including:
a denouncement from Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal on moves to denounce U.S.-Saudi ties, US military brass and their backing of war against Iraq, a Saudi student capturing top prize in an international computer fair - held at Silicon Valley!, the (mostly oil) implications of a U.S.-Saudi split, a near stream of consciousness piece on reality and future Arab destiny, American spies in Iraq, the 'normal' Arabs America should know about,
Israel-Palestine violence and American reticence,
and good ol American regime toppling. This was just day one after the report hit Western News outlets (including the original Washington Post feature). Day two in Arab News featured much of the same but with an added bonus - Kahil's August 9th cartoon that I've dubbed the "Draw em, cowboy!" pic.

Quite the day in Araby for a report that Robbins sees as weightless. The U.S. should feel proud that it took up so much editorial space - space that is usually reserved for Israel and Jew bashing.



Sick of the Saudis yet? Here's a good essay by Lee Harris on Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology, an anaysis from one hand clapping on Saudi's reasons for pursuing nuclear weaponry, and a call from Deroy Murdock to engage the Saudis now.

:: Scot 10:11 AM [+] :: ::
...

Paul Knox from the Globe and Mail has some misguided thoughts on an Iraq invasion:

Whoever came up with the term "regime change" has a lot to answer for. It sounds like marbles in a gearbox. It's a weaselly euphemism, too, suggesting that you can overthrow a government rather like shifting tent assignments at summer camp.

Uh, you can. It was done less than a year ago in Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein is worried, and is making fresh overtures to the United Nations about restarting some sort of weapons-inspection regime. But there are signs of desperation in Washington as well. Its allies cannot understand why George W. Bush wants to blur the focus of his fight against the terrorist threat to the United States.

The reasons for Saddam's paranoia are obvious. As for Washington? Hardly. Iraq supports terrorism (so what if it isn't al-Queda - supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and various other Palestinian terrorism to attack America's obvious ally, Israel, is just as repugnant), Iraq is desperate to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has flaunted post-Gulf War agreements (including weapons inspections and no-fly zone activity). In addition, over 85% of Americans favor an invasion of Iraq. There is no desperation in Washington. People know exactly why a regime change is being contemplated.

Much of Iraq's ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction was dismantled under UN supervision during the 1990s. There is almost certainly no nuclear weapons capability left. There are probably quantities of chemical and germ warfare agents, but there is little evidence of systems to deliver them.

'Almost certainly,' 'probably' and 'little evidence' are not good enough. If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to do their job the last ten years, there would be absolute certainty and plenty of evidence to argue that Saddam is no longer a threat. Suspecting Iraq is benign and knowing it is benign is a margin of error just big enough to land a suitcase full of anthrax at the next superbowl.

Mr. Hussein is a tyrant whose people suffer greatly, but, in recent years, he has behaved more like a caged animal than an aggressor. What he does have is a massive security apparatus designed expressly to squelch dissent and disloyalty, of the kind that some in Washington are now irresponsibly suggesting is waiting to be harnessed in a dump-Saddam attack.

Considering how quickly Iraq's army surrendered and switched sides last time, this makes some sense. However, Washington's success hardly depends on it. It is simply one of among dozens of scenarios and tactics under study.

Were he conclusively linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, there would be a far better case for invasion. Sure enough, anonymous White House officials are trying to flog life into the tale of the alleged meeting in Prague in April of 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent. Czech officials have given differing versions of this tale. Whether or not the meeting took place, both the FBI and the CIA have cast doubt on the notion of an Iraqi connection to the attacks.

Again, this is irrelevant. Syria has no direct ties to 9-11 but that doesn't mean they are exempt from confrontation. If Mr. Knox thinks this war simply begins and ends with one terrorist faction then he doesn't understand too well the nature of this enemy. Terrorist group allegiance and territoriality is as porous as Middle Eastern borders. This war is not contingent on one man who may or may not have met with one other man.

There is a threat to America's security out there. It is composed of wrong-headed adherents of a twisted religio-ideology who claim divine authority for death and destruction. The way to fight the immediate threat is to find them and capture them. The key to that, in the short term, is not military force, but rather intelligence and police work.

Right on the first part, dead wrong on the second. Find and capture them? From where? Under the bed? In Saddam's closet? His laundry hamper? Capturing him unfortunately requires the destruction of property and the death of civilians. That is how these leaders have positioned themselves. Intelligence and police work do not win wars, they solve crimes. Conversely, military work does not solve crimes, it fights wars. This point took a decade to prove (the 90's), but it has been proven.

Over the long haul, the United States must work far harder to promote tolerance, democratic values and economic opportunity for the masses in the Muslim world, so as to demonstrate the futility of the al-Qaeda vision. Spinning yarns about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and lavishing favours on decrepit Middle Eastern allies to secure their help against Mr. Hussein, are not the way to begin.

No, the United States must first protect itself. It will promote tolerance, democratic values and economic opportunity - but not through taking out ads in the Arab News. It will do this by delivering a humiliating blow to the enemy.

Iraq is worse than a distraction. It's an invitation to a two-front quagmire, à la Bonaparte. If enough people in the right places remind Mr. Bush to keep his eye on the ball, perhaps the hubris-driven scheming of the hard core can be stopped. To do so is crucial; the alternative is a world held hostage to both the shadow of al-Qaeda and the fantasy of U.S. omnipotence.

No fantasy here. The US, in the context of military power, pretty much is omnipotent. To compare it to Bonaparte's blunder of two simultaneous fronts is ludicrous. This isn't a confrontation with Russia and China. It is a manoeuver to cut the head off a terrorist snake while pursuing smaller terrorists world-wide. The second is a question of intelligence and police work. To the first, there is no question.

:: Scot 7:23 AM [+] :: ::
...

Jonah Goldberg holds postmodernists accountable today. Normally I'd snippet some of the better quotes but this article is too good not to read in whole.

:: Scot 9:23 PM [+] :: ::
...

Hebrew University in Jerusalem survivor Eliad Moreh:

I see history repeated. It is again considered a crime to be a Jew, just as it was during the thirties and forties. Nobody gives a damn. Just as in the thirties and forties, the rest of the world stands by while Jews are assassinated every day. The difference is, thank God, that today we have a state. But we are refused the right to defend ourselves against our enemies, which is a more perverse way to forbid our existence. By finding reasons to justify the assassins, some people in Europe encourage them to shed more Jewish blood.

Israelis who are constantly victims of terrorist attacks are presented as executioners through the demonic propaganda of the Arab world and the help of Europe. At least the Americans can understand, because of the catastrophe of September 11th. All those Americans who lost friends and family know how we feel, how we feel every day, because every day Jews are assassinated. I was just in France, and I looked in the windows of the bookstores and saw horrible books, books saying that September 11th never happened, that it was all a lie invented by the Americans. Can you imagine how pernicious the terrorists' propaganda can be?

September 11th was a tragedy for all humanity, and its threat still exists, the same threat that exists today in Israel exists throughout the Western world. And there is only one way to deal with it: The terrorists, everywhere, must be put to death.

It is only the beginning. The political conflict in Israel is only used as a pretext. The truth is that the aim of fundamentalist Islam is to dominate the world, in every place, no matter who is the population. Look at the conflicts in the world, in the Philippines, in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Algeria, fanatic Muslims are every time involved. Muslim Fundamentalism represents a danger for the whole of humanity, wherever there is democracy and freedom. It does not concern Israel only. The sooner the world understands it, the sooner we will be able to vanquish these forces of evil. And I have no doubt we will triumph because the forces of life are stronger than those of death.

Hear that Europe?

:: Scot 8:59 PM [+] :: ::
...

Daniel Pipes suggests Israel is winning the war against the Palestinians:

To be sure, the Palestinian campaign of terror continues apace, with frequent, bloody successes. But it has failed to have the intended effect of demoralizing Israelis. Quite the contrary, the violence has promoted a sense of resolve and unity the likes of which Israel has not enjoyed for decades. "Rather than undermine our morale, the terrorist attacks only strengthen our resolve," observes writer Yossi Klein Halevi. A "notoriously fractious society has rediscovered its commonality," he concludes.

David Warren has an interesting take on Israel's lack of offensive:

Even Israeli "liberals" are demanding -- in newspaper commentaries -- for Mr. Sharon to "stop daydreaming and act like a man".

What has got into him? Why don't we see a massive new Israeli operation forming -- on a scale beyond Operation Defensive Shield -- as proportional response to several dozen strikes, either successful or attempted, involving not only Hamas but every one of the Palestinian terror brigades? Instead, by all reports, Mr. Sharon is counselling his own party members and coalition allies to keep their cool.

As Sherlock Holmes explained in The Sign of Four -- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Mr. Sharon is holding his bucket because something is happening on the horizon that is bigger than the fire at his feet.

That something is almost certainly Iraq, where initial preparations for an American strike at the regime of Saddam Hussein are now, for practical purposes, complete. As I wrote several weeks ago, I believe U.S. special forces are already in place, within the country. Mr. Bush must still give the order, but what is new is that he is now in a position to give it, to go in on a fairly large scale at 24-hours' notice, instead of weeks' or months'. And moreover, Saddam is now in a position to know, that the gun is cocked at his head.

Israel can expect six hours' notice from the U.S., when the time comes. This is not as good as the 24 hours' notice it can derive, from its own satellite early warning system, of either Iraqi or U.S. manoeuvres that would portend the main event. And the moment that comes, all Israel's resources must be focused on the threat from the skies.

:: Scot 8:53 PM [+] :: ::
...

Wanna know what Paul Tibbets, the pilot who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thinks of this war?

ST: One big question. Since September 11, what are your thoughts? People talk about nukes, the hydrogen bomb.

PT: Let's put it this way. I don't know any more about these terrorists than you do, I know nothing. When they bombed the Trade Centre I couldn't believe what was going on. We've fought many enemies at different times. But we knew who they were and where they were. These people, we don't know who they are or where they are. That's the point that bothers me. Because they're gonna strike again, I'll put money on it. And it's going to be damned dramatic. But they're gonna do it in their own sweet time. We've got to get into a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn't waste five seconds on them.

ST: What about the bomb? Einstein said the world has changed since the atom was split.

PT: That's right. It has changed.

ST: And Oppenheimer knew that.

PT: Oppenheimer is dead. He did something for the world and people don't understand. And it is a free world.

ST: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

PT: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

:: Scot 8:42 PM [+] :: ::
...

Fox has a cool poll here. It asks three simple questions on Saudi Arabia: friend? foe? dont know. As of this writing, 85% voted foe, 3% voted friend, and 12% don't know. The margin of error was as usual irrelevant.

:: Scot 8:30 PM [+] :: ::
...

'Our Enemies the Saudis' has been zipping around the blogosphere today (or last night on the King of all Blogs). Pejman has it, as does Volokh, Nick Denton , Spot On, little green footballs, Daily Pundit and countless others. Just wait until all the dailies get wind of this tomorrow. I'll post the latest from Arab News on this too - should be a hoot.

:: Scot 8:22 PM [+] :: ::
...

A good article from the Washington Post to start my Monday morning - Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp. analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

:: Scot 5:26 AM [+] :: ::
...

Simon Blackburn dissects John Polkinghorne's Faith, Science and Understanding and his The God of Hope and the End of the World in the New Republic.

:: Scot 12:05 PM [+] :: ::
...

Two writers, one topic, two political opinions. Karl Vick from the Washington Post:

Then Bush weighed in. His statement echoed reformers' complaints and urged the overthrow of the clerics, promising that afterward Iran "will have no better friend than the United States of America."

In Iran, however, the focus was on neither the substance nor the form of Bush's remarks. Rather Bush's statement had the immediate effect of shifting public debate abruptly to terms favoring the conservatives.

"The whole internal debate was heating up," said a Western diplomat in Tehran, the Iranian capital. "The last thing anybody needed was some heavyweight comment coming in from overseas."

and Michael Ledeen from National Review:

According to the Left, the Soviet Empire fell because St. Gorbachev brought it down. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it, and in fact the whole thing could have happened a lot earlier if only Reagan hadn't insisted on saying all those mean things about the Soviet Union, like calling it an evil empire.

Yet if you talk to any of the leading Soviet dissidents, they will tell you that Reagan's words had an electric effect than ran from the Politburo to the darkest cells in the Gulag. Once the Soviet peoples heard the American president describe the Soviet regime in truthful words, they took courage and fought even harder.

Once the evil regime in Tehran has been destroyed, you'll hear the same thing from the Iranian freedom fighters. Meanwhile, skip the Post and the many others who try to blame a brave American president for the evil actions of the mullahs.

One thinks Bush's statements were a folly, the other a success. I think I'll listen to the second guy.

:: Scot 11:53 AM [+] :: ::
...

Chessmaster Garry Kasparov and his thoughts on the war:

As in World War II, the war waged by terrorists began with attacks on Jews. Any attempt to separate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the war on terror is futile. Once again momentum is building toward a Middle East peace push, but I'm convinced it is hopeless to look for a separate solution to the Middle East crisis before we achieve victory in the war on terror.

As in the 1930s, every delay in prosecuting this war will raise the price of victory, not just in terms of lives lost in the Palestinian conflict, but also of Westerners who will be targeted. Conventional wisdom says that victory against terrorists will require decades. I don't believe it will take anywhere near that long.

The war on terror also has a powerful political dimension. It requires the U.S. to rebuild the nations ravaged by Islamic fundamentalism. We cannot wait for the internal liberalization of rogue countries. There will be moaning about a new colonialism. Yet ask if the people of Afghanistan are better off now. It is in our interests that others too are freed.

But offense comes first. Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal--total defeat of terrorism--is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up.

On the second imperative--the courage of our convictions--America's allies in Europe are wavering. Listening to European leaders on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I find myself more sympathetic to the plight of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Dalladier, the British and French prime ministers, in Munich in 1938.

In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe"--the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45.

Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope.

I still find it unlikely that Bush hasn't been playing rope-a-dope with the Middle East governments (such as they are). Weapon trading is up a thousand percent (Saudis enquiring about nuclear missiles from Pakistan, Iran supplying Iraq vis-a-vis the Syrians, Iran supplying the Palestinians, North Korea supplying Egypt, etc.) without so much a second look - yet. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and obviously Iraq, are as likely to implode as they are to be attacked. Hostilities old and new have been stirred up (Turks-Kurds and Iraq, Syria and Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Saudi Arabia and U.S.) and lines are being drawn. Not a bad strategy to sit back and see who is actually on your side (Israel, Russia, Turkey, Qatar) and who is not (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen). Confronting these countries one at a time would be like playing whack-a-mole at the carnival. Why not play 'enemy corral' and gather as many of them together as you can? Superpowers are good for more than just military heft. I've seen this past year as little more than an exercise in picking sides.

:: Scot 11:05 AM [+] :: ::
...

Hackers vs. the Recording Industry Association of America. Happy Fun Pundit suggests that this could be the first cyberwar of the 21st century.

:: Scot 8:27 PM [+] :: ::
...

Even the Guardian is coming around on the side of war against Iraq. How long before the New York Times follows suit?

:: Scot 8:18 PM [+] :: ::
...

Some idiots just can't let the Jenin non-massacre go.

:: Scot 8:11 PM [+] :: ::
...

Bluestar Reading Room is now up and will be linked under my 'recommended opinion' links. I'm using it as an archive for essays, studies, interviews, and articles from various writers - living and dead. I hope to add a half dozen or so entries per week. I've also included my research and news links and will soon be expanding the directories.

Happy Reading

:: Scot 7:57 PM [+] :: ::
...

Bill O'Reilly scolds Islam and Catholicism:

First, Islam. The telling event here is that faced with a violent faction using the name of Allah to kill civilians, Muslims the world over did little. There were no mass demonstrations against terrorism, no peace vigils and no organized condemnation of the al Qaeda criminals. In fact, many Muslim countries actually condoned the attacks on Sept. 11 or blamed them on "the Jews."

Likewise, it would have been unthinkable one year ago to consider that Catholicism would be besmirched by clerical perverts. But again, that has happened. The Catholic Church in North America has lost its moral authority because high-ranking cardinals and bishops covered up acts of priest-pedophilia and the Vatican has refused to discipline the guilty parties.

And it is not enough to give lip service to these problems. Until there are massive anti-terrorism demonstrations headed by Islamic clerics, the world is right to be suspect of that religion. And until the Pope dismisses the American clerics who have disgraced the Catholic Church, and until John Paul becomes proactive in protecting children, Catholicism has no credibility in preaching about moral imperatives.

:: Scot 7:35 PM [+] :: ::
...

Two brothers. One is named Winner, the other is named Loser. Ironically enough, Loser is successful as a New York City detective while Winner is a hapless, small-time thug.

You couldn't make this absurdity up.

:: Scot 7:23 PM [+] :: ::
...

Cynthia McKinney update.

:: Scot 7:02 PM [+] :: ::
...

Mark Steyn with a few thoughts on journalism, bin Ladenism and the Middle East morass.

:: Scot 6:59 PM [+] :: ::
...

Canada - home of the fascist liberal? Elizabeth Nickson on the smearing socialists.

The results? Liberal corruption, which this paper has proved conclusively is epidemic and endemic. Public cynicism and withdrawal. The bullying of challengers by human rights tribunals who suppress free speech. The hobbling of police forces unable to investigate crimes in immigrant populations. The financial constriction of middle-class families. The time-bomb of an ever-increasing under-class. A consistent policy of putting the ideas of political correctness ahead of public safety. An imperial judiciary. Left-wing fascism.

:: Scot 6:56 PM [+] :: ::
...

Finally. Someone with the guts to pin the Saudis. Sen. Joe Lieberman on Fox News Sunday.

I think, while the Israelis are responding as they must, as we would, particularly the killing of five Americans at Hebrew University last week, we ought to be doing everything we can to cut off the flow of support to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups that's coming from Iran, Iraq, Syria and, I fear, Saudi Arabia. And our allies in the Arab world ought to be helping us to do that.

Well, we have to be consistent with our principles. I mean, President Bush said it very clearly: You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. And that's true of the Saudis, as it is of everybody else in the world.

I'm saying that there's very ample evidence that, from Saudi Arabia, Hamas and other terrorists groups claiming credit for bombings such as those have occurred this week, including those that killed five Americans, have sent money from Saudi Arabia to these terrorists groups.

:: Scot 6:49 PM [+] :: ::
...

More on the America-Europe divide from Jonah Goldberg.

So, either help us out or go argue about the appropriate weight of a croissant, but don't get in the way.

:: Scot 7:26 AM [+] :: ::
...

John Leo has a good article on how blogs have been dismantling the New York Times for its spurious reporting and shoddy journalism.

:: Scot 7:17 AM [+] :: ::
...

The National Post makes their feelings on Iraq and Saddam Hussein more than clear:

No one should expect Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction voluntarily. He is a proven genocidal maniac on par -- in method, if not in scale -- with Joseph Stalin; and nothing will convince such a man to part with his murderous toys. Shortly after becoming President, Saddam launched a pointless war against Iran that claimed a million lives. At the end of that conflict, he gassed his country's Kurds -- turning whole villages into open-air concentration camps. A few years later, he invaded Kuwait, abducting and murdering hundreds, and setting the country's oil wells aflame out of sheer bellicose spite. Killing people is what Saddam does -- and if he had nukes, he would find ways to use them.

As does OpinionJournal:

If the antiwar party wants to stop an invasion, they know how to do it--for example, by cutting off funds the way Congress did in 1973 for South Vietnam, paving the way for a 20-division invasion by the North. We doubt, however, that the mood of the country is ready to call it quits on the war on terror and one of its main global sponsors.

:: Scot 6:53 AM [+] :: ::
...

Jonathan Kay writes about last week's murder (sacrifice) of a Kurdish daughter in Sweden and the perils of multiculturalism:

Until Sept. 11, the only people who complained loudly about multiculturalism were conservative think-tank types. Academics and activists, by contrast, embraced it as a vehicle to promote their favourite themes: cultural relativism, noble savagery and the original sin of racism. But there was always a fatal theoretical flaw at the doctrine's heart. If multiculturalism means anything substantive, it means taking seriously not only the superficial trappings of other cultures -- the falafel, the folk dancing, the exotic headwear -- but also core values as they relate to women, homosexuals, children and outsiders. Yet the crude ethnic and religious bigotry, homophobia and misogyny that permeate most Third World cultures are venomously hostile to the spirit of tolerance multiculturalism is supposed to foster. How can you be "tolerant" of intolerance?

For years, multiculturalism's proponents tried to paper over this flaw by insisting that whatever anti-liberal strains existed in immigrant cultures were dwarfed by the unseen racism and "neo-colonialism" our society supposedly oozes. But our stomach for that argument died on Sept. 11. Sunera Thobani found this out the hard way. At a conference last October, the University of British Columbia professor sneered at "this talk about saving Afghani women," and declared "There will be no emancipation for women anywhere ... until the Western domination of this planet is ended."

Had she made her comments on Sept. 10, no one would have noticed them. But in the wake of al-Qaeda's monstrous crime, the stupidity of Ms. Thobani's pronouncement -- confirmed a few months later by the sight of jubilant Afghan women welcoming U.S. troops -- astonished us. Ms. Thobani had a choice between supporting the real interests of Afghan women and clinging to her multicultural dogmas. She chose the latter, and disgrace was her well-deserved reward.

:: Scot 6:48 AM [+] :: ::
...

Paul Knox has more today on the young Cuban defectors.

:: Scot 6:40 AM [+] :: ::
...

Indepundit has found a couple of dark skeletons in Cynthia McKinney's list of political contributors for 2001.

The first curiosity is the donors that contributed on Sept 11. Of all the things to be doing that day, could you really imagine having nothing better to do than make a political donation? According to Opensecrets, 22 people of Middle Eastern descent contributed over $13 000 that day. Does this not seem deliberate?

The second oddity is the fact that 91% of her donations come from outside of Georgia. Is it normal for a politician to receive almost all their contributions from people they don't serve? I can't imagine the mayor of Pittsburg receiving more money from the people of Philadelphia than from his own city.

If I was anybody from the FBI I would be on her like a shadow.

:: Scot 10:26 PM [+] :: ::
...

According to World Tribune, the Saudis have been approaching Pakistan with the hopes of purchasing some nuclear firepower. Memo to Musharraf: that billion dollars you received from the U.S. last year had strings attached. The Saudis are a sinking ship. Make nice with India and stay out of the Middle East.

:: Scot 4:41 PM [+] :: ::
...

Kim Strassel on why America should reject CEDAW (The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women):

The treaty defines discrimination as "any distinction . . . on the basis of sex." The goal, says the treaty, is to "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of . . . all . . . practices which are based on . . . stereotyped roles for men and women." The way we should do this is through nationwide re-education, or as Cedaw puts it, "the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods."

Cedaw advocates have become so desperate to get it signed that they have taken to reassuring people that it won't really do much. The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote a plaintive column last month explaining that we ought to just sign it because "this international agreement can't trump national law." But that clearly isn't the view of the Justice Department, which also sent a letter to Mr. Biden expressing its concerns over just that issue.

That, of course, is the nub of the matter. The creaking women's rights groups long ago lost their bid to turn the U.S. into a modern-day Amazonia. The Equal Rights Amendment thankfully died, and today's women are so comfortable with their opportunities that huge numbers are choosing to revel in girliness and mommyhood. And so the feminist groups have turned to international bodies, hoping to force on the U.S. through a treaty what the country would not choose for itself through law or culture.

:: Scot 5:10 AM [+] :: ::
...