In the 1930's and 40's Germany and Japan lost their minds, in the 60's the Chinese did, in the 70's the Cambodians, in the 90's the Rwandans, the Serbians, etc. in the same way that a large segment of Muslims have lost their minds. I don't know when but I am sure there will come a day when sanity returns to the Muslim world, most likely when the oil runs out. If they don't, then they will simply howl at the desert moon, too poor for anyone to care. This is why I think we should do everything that is possible to develop alternative energy, just to hasten the day when sanity or irrelevence can return to the Middle East.

Pakistan is an ethnic hodgepodge artificially constructed.  The great majority are Punjabis and Sindhis who are Indians who happen to be Muslim. Perhaps if Muhammad Ali Jinnah had been healthy at the time his creation was born and he had been able to imprint upon it his vision of self-government, things might have turned out differently.

I think the opening sentence in para three should be either "an effort to dissuade . . . from leaving" or "an effort to persuade . . . to leave"

That's what happens when you write like you are running a marathon. You end up all blue in the face, gasping for air, with no oxygen and garbled meanings. Marty, take a deep breath. You are no good to anybody if you are too angry to construct a proper sentence which leaves us mystified.

But to you point, here is how Martin Amis puts it:

"Let us make the position clear. We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad - a unique and luminous historical being. Judged by the continuities he was able to set in motion, he remains a titanic figure, and, for Muslims, all-answering: a revolutionary, a warrior, and a sovereign, a Christ and a Caesar, 'with a Koran in one hand', as Bagehot imagined him, 'and a sword in the other'. Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived. And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god. Naturally we respect Muhammad. But we do not respect Muhammad Atta.

Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam. That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam. Well, the civil war appears to be over. And Islamism won it. The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible. We are not hearing from moderate Islam. Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is."

www.guardian.co.uk/.../september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety

In this case, I agree with Mr. Peretz (and appreciate that he managed to make his point with out gratuitous and irrelevant swiping at those with whom he has disagreements).  However, granted that this is all spot on, the question for adults is, what is to be done?  Bush may not be at war with civilization, but he is a simpleton and his simpleton's views of what can and should be done have made a bigger mess.

Pace to Robert Powell, I have written here multiple times that the greatest threat to the west lies in Pakistan (made worse by the still unpacified Afghanistan bordering the wildest part of Pakistan).  Control of nuclear weapons and materials needs to be the first three highest priorities of our foreign policy and struggle with terror.  Nothing else can threaten us with existential harm.  

"This is the lesson of Mumbai, and specifically of Mumbai, for up to know the ferocity of contemporary Islam could have been debited to the Israelis and the Jews.  Dishonestly debited, to be sure, but debited nonetheless.  Oh, yes, I know, Mumbai Muslims also targeted the Lubavicher Jewish Center.  But it was almost as an afterthought or a routine: Jews are Jews. What do you expect? Why shouldn't we kill Jews when we are killing and maiming hundreds of others in hotels, a movie theater, a hospital, a railroad station, the streets, a backpackers' center?"

There is a conection between the hatred of Israel by and of India.

The conection is jealousy. Here you have two very succesful States which show the Muslim world how backward they are. This is something they can't abide.

How there these Yids and Hindis be so succesful, they say with murderous rage.

"I Know That Islam Is A Religion of Peace...But Something Mysterious Obscures This "

What obscures it and is its original sin is antisemitism which is exemplified in among other things in the official policy of Iran.

Here is an evil article in the Teheran TImes at work which makes this clear:

"Zagreb book fair incident showed overarching influence of Zionism:"

"official Tehran times political desk"

www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp

For a gloss on this nasty piece of work take a look at this:

"Antisemitism is Iran’s Official Policy"

blog.z-word.com/.../antisemitism-is-irans-official-policy

With Bush gone and Obama in office maybe liberals, at least the more intelligent among them, will be willing to admit that Islamic extremism really is  a threat to civilization.

Obama will certainly need all the support he can get in the war against radical Islam (or whatever we're supposed to call it.)). Afghanistan will be a harder war to win than Iraq was.

I don't know any Liberal, stupid or otherwise, that doesn't understand that murdering psychopaths butchering the innocent isn't a threat to civilization Bulbman. What exactly is your point?

Can we please drop this exhausted, bankrupt Conservative tripe about Liberals being weak, or lacking understanding when it comes to this social pathology?

And Marty, can you please, please, please stop pushing the greater Zion during every atrocity?You're right in one respect: delivering justice and peace in Palestine is utterly separate to these incidents. It has its own pressing moral necessity.

I've no problem myself with the "War against Radical Islam" but I'd prefer "Islamism" to suggest a specific ideology of religious authoritarianism and exclusivity rather than the basic faith itself.  I doubt that it'll stick, though, as the dangers of specifically mentioning "Islam" are greater than any advantages of the clarity achieved thereby.

The classic arguments against the "War on Terror" have been rehearsed many times, but it's indicative that the attempt to create an object for the act of war that would be clearly seen as negative by most people (who is really for "Terror" apart from a few fanatics?) ended up being seen as a disugise for some other war (the belief that America has declared war on Islam worldwide).  Indeed, it might ultimately cause less problems to be honest about the target for the war -- at least we admit who we're after, and try to make the distinction clear.  But in the modern world, fuzzy is always better, it seems.

To take a different example, the "War on Drugs" has certainly been, by almost any measure, a failure:  it's certainly not the only reason, but at least part of the fault is the deliberate fudge embodied in the phrase.  The war is in fact a war on drug producers, smugglers, and dealers, and poorer addicts (rich addicts can always get what they need), with a startling absence of any recognition that it was a burgeoning U.S. domestic market that created the drug business (no business, legal or illegal, without interested customers) and kept it going.  The attitude in places like Columbia and Mexico that the U.S. should fucking well do something about its own citizens' consumer demand before blaming them for the "drug problem" is perfectly understandable.  The smug pretence that "Drugs" are a kind of filthy, foreign-directed, subversive presence in our otherwise pristine, smiley-face nation is imo part of the reason for the "War's" failure.

The "War on Poverty" was also a tragic misnomer, as poverty is, ultimately, a relative thing and the poorest American would be looked at in awe by people in many other parts of the globe where economic activity levels out much lower than in the West.  While the older "wars" on e.g. polio could indeed be seen through the metaphor of military-style campaigns with clear targets, and were often won, declaring war on a non-static concept or state of being is a decidedly bad idea, as the target changes along with changes in the larger society.  Instead of a "War on Poverty" a struggle to make sure that every American, irrespective of where or how they live, has access to functioning basic education and health care would be of more value.

Watching Boris Johnson's, surprisingly entertaining, documentary stab at West v East on BBC2.

Not bad at all. Didn't realize Mohammed ascended to meet-and-greet Abraham, Moses and Christ. Islam really does see itself as an improved, efficient synthesis of the three. It's a faith of bureaucrats really. Bureaucrats packing AK's now, clearly.

I've also learned that "zealots" were, in fact, heroic, Jew martyrs. Interesting - by calling someone a zealot, you're accusing them of being courageous...as well as demented.

Well hello, bulbous.  

Once again we get to read one of your typical Limbaugh-wan-a-bee smears of the left.  Liberals don't need to be persuaded of the threat of terrorism.  They just don't happen to believe, as you and the rest of the brain-dead right-wing plainly do, that loud, pompous declarations of one's own toughness combined with tactical and strategic incompetence and stupidity constitute a successful defense.

Thank god this nation will soon be rid of the likes of you in power.  We cannot endure much more.

What Roid said!  X2.  Thank you.

ironyroad said:  "I've no problem myself with the "War against Radical Islam" but I'd prefer "Islamism" to suggest a specific ideology of religious authoritarianism and exclusivity rather than the basic faith itself.  I doubt that it'll stick, though, as the dangers of specifically mentioning "Islam" are greater than any advantages of the clarity achieved thereby."

I didn't know you were a nominalist, Irony.

What does it matter what we call the  fight against murderous Jihadists?

When all is said and done, we want be able to defeat these fanatics (and no they are not psychopaths---just killers in the name of Allah---not the same thing) by ourselves. We will need to have the active help and support of those 80% of Muslims who practice “the basic faith” itself without turning to violence.

We will need to make it clear to them that they can’t just sit on the sidelines. Because one way or another they will become involved. If they tolerate the jihadists without taking a stand against them then they will be seen as offering them support; passive support, but support nevertheless.

Moreover the Jihadists themselves will not let them be mere spectators.

It needs to be made clear to the non Jihadists Muslims, then, that it’s in their interest too to take an active stand against them.

Liberals have done everything they can to help Al Qaeda win in Iraq and to hinder the efforts of the administration to prevent further terrorist attacks.   Fortunately they have failed in both those efforts.

The liberal base consists mainly of Hollywood airheads, hack journalists, and academic phonies who have never done an honest days work in their life.

Now that he is about to become president Obama is running from those people as fast as he can.  If he ignores their squeals and governs from the center he may be a successful president.

Jackson, I have a feeling that those 80% of peaceful Muslims know exactly what they are up against, since the greatest number of victims of extremist violence has been them, even though Jews, Christians and Hindus generate the lion's share of the headlines. The problem is to organize themselves in the face of tyrants who too often buy off the fanatics, or in the case of Pakistan, an unstable government riddled with corruption.

"The problem is to organize themselves in the face of tyrants who too often buy off the fanatics, or in the case of Pakistan, an unstable government riddled with corruption."

Yes, of course, but they will have to do it themselves. We can't do it for them.

We might be able to assist in various ways, but it's their war to win or lose.

Bulbman vents:  "Now that he is about to become president Obama is running from those people as fast as he can."

Yes.  Well, here's the thing:  Obama, like many other Americans, has recognized the wild ideological fantasies at the core of conservative "foreign policy" (as it has been rather over-generously known as) and will do his best to move the nation onto a more rational and constructive path, one element of which is extracting ourselves from Iraq.

Unlike Bulbman, many of us also realize that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist in Iraq until we invaded Iraq.

There are, fortunately, many, many people unlike Bulbman.  Being unlike Bulbman is the way to go.

Obama doesn't need to extract the US from Iraq.  The enemy has been defeated there, and the US has signed an agreement  with the Iraq government that all US forces will be withdrawn by the end of 2011.  The treaty has been ratified by the Iraqi parliament.

That's why the war in Iraq was not a big issue in the campaign.  The war is almost over, and the good guys won.   Liberals, with characteristic dishonestly, refuse to admit that.

To liberals Iraqis are a stick to beat Bush with.   That is in accord with the liberal practice of regarding people as ideological abstractions rather than as human beings.  Liberals have this racist attitude that people in the Third World don't desire or deserve freedom and are content to live under brutal tyrants.   I find nothing progressive about that attitude.  It is in fact reactionary, and deplorable.

Far from being a failure Bush's foreign policy has been a success.  Terrorist attacks are down around the world over the last eight years.  Opinion polls show a decline in support for extremism in most Muslim countries.  Not only that, but the US has an alliance with every Arab country except Syria!

France and Germany, the biggest critics of the invasion of Iraq, have both elected pro-American leaders.  Bush has forged strong ties with India and Japan, and he remains popular in Eastern Europe. In sub-Saharan Africa Bush is admired for his role is in the battle against AIDS.  In Ghana he has an approval rating of over 80 percent.

Bush is accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq.   Wrong.  Over 50 countries sent at least token military forces, including Great Britain, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, Ukraine, and Japan.

Bush took entirely too long to find the right strategy in Iraq.  He has gotten a lot of criticism for that, and he deserves it.  But two amazing things happened.  The Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaeda and allied with the Coalition forces.  That combined with General Petraeus' brilliantly led surge turned looming defeat into victory.

IronyRoad cries:

"Obama, like many other Americans, has recognized the wild ideological fantasies at the core of conservative "foreign policy" (as it has been rather over-generously known as) and will do his best to move the nation onto a more rational and constructive path, one element of which is extracting ourselves from Iraq."

Here is from Oliver Kamm:

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in 2004:

"Resolution 1441 did not allow Saddam several more chances and several more bouts of imperfect compliance with U.N. demands. Once he again obstructed and obfuscated, it became clear he was not voluntarily and verifiably disarming—and 1441's clear implication was that this was unacceptable. Whether it automatically justified war was of course debatable, and was hotly debated at the time. But a legal case certainly could be made for that justification.

"To be sure, when Washington tried to secure formal approval for war, the United States and its partners failed to gain their desired second U.N. resolution in early 2003. That is why, practically and legally, the war was not explicitly or unambiguously legal. It was in a grey area. But again, being in a grey area is not the same as being illegal."

[-]

If there is no supranational organisation capable of exercising sovereignty, then it will be left to the United States - which, uniquely among states, provides global public goods such as a guarantee of collective security - to confront the behaviour of miscreant regimes. That's just the way it is, and the way it will continue to be under President Obama. If there is to be a successful containment of Iran's nuclear adventurism, for example, then European powers might usefully show greater understanding than they did in the case of Saddam's regime of both the necessity and the costs of containing states that threaten regional stability. "

timesonline.typepad.com/.../lord-bingham-de.html

I know it's much more gratifying to yell "wild ideological fantasies" instead of dealing with the actual menace that was Saddam Hussein. You would be surprised how many on the more emetic "Left" find good things to say about Saddam these days in an attempt to cleanse the sheretz of its sheretzhood, by way of continuing to discredit Bush's policies and decisions.

Excellent post by noga1.  Michael O'Hanlon proves that not all liberals are shallow, irrational, and hyperpartisan.

This article gives thoughtful consideration to the question of what history's verdict on President Bush is likely to be.

The author, Ronald Radosh, has on occasion written for TNR.

pajamasmedia.com/.../will-bush-bashing-end

Noga, who knows that ironyroad's handle is ironyroad and not IronyRoad, asserts that his modestly-expressed comment consists of a "cry."  Not true, I think.  Generally I try to keep -- most of the time at least -- a reasonably civilized tone in operation.  Unlike Bulbman, for example, who chose from the get-go (unprovoked, as far as I judge) to insult people who don't happen to share his opinion on matters of national policy as follows: "Liberals have done everything they can to help Al Qaeda win in Iraq and to hinder the efforts of the administration to prevent further terrorist attacks."  There is in fact only one appropriate answer thereto:  "Fuck you, asshole!"  It seems to me that I did Bulbman a courtesy by ignoring that part of his comment and responding to something more substantive.

What I said was:

"Obama, like many other Americans, has recognized the wild ideological fantasies at the core of conservative "foreign policy" (as it has been rather over-generously known as) and will do his best to move the nation onto a more rational and constructive path, one element of which is extracting ourselves from Iraq."

You might agree with this, you might disagree with it.  But I don't quite see how you find Bulbman completely in order with his wholesale slur on millions of people who consider themselves liberals (or in my case more of a social democrat with liberatarian tendencies as regards free speech and individual lifestyle choices and a conservative tilt when it comes to literature and culture) while I get cast in with whatever the "emetic" Left is because I dare to suggest that Obama will move U.S. foreign and strategic policy to a more productive and constructive place.  I didn't bash Bush, I didn't praise Saddam, I didn't do anything except note that there's an historical fudge lurking in claims that we defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq because Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded Iraq (it's also not only in Iraq, but that's another point).  Is that now no longer ok in Nogaland -- the country where only one view on events is permitted?

I don't disagree entirely with O'Hanlon's analysis, and he's always worth listening to -- and I haven't demonized people who were in favor of the invasion, I've merely said that the justification advanced for the invasion turned out to be empty (no WMDs, which could have been established in couple of months by UNMOVIC), the claims regarding the Niger yellow cake purchase were unfounded, and there was a concerted administration attempt to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11.  Add to those Chalabi's connections to Teheran and the absence of a Plan B in case everything didn't turn out right, and you have something less than a recipe for success.

I'm not going to go through Bulbman's tired litany of non-points, but if he posts " Terrorist attacks are down around the world over the last eight years" a day after the Mumbai attack was finally gotten control of after three days of urban fighting, he's sawing off the branch he's sitting on.

And I have never, not ever, no place, suggested, intimated, or declared that "people in the Third World don't desire or deserve freedom and are content to live under brutal tyrants."

Let's leave Iraq out of this, Irony, et al,  let's deal with the Islamicist assault on Mumbai and the world reaction to mass murder.

Some Muslims are reacting to the events be predictably blaming Jews:

“Mumbai and India Under Attack”

“Our worst fears have come true. It is clear that Mossad is involved in the whole affair. An entire city has been attacked by Mossad and probably units of mercenaries.”

ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp

I expect that antisemitic websites like counterpunch will pick this theme up and run with it.

The reason the Muslim Brotherhood blames it on Jews is the same as the reason antisemites deny the Holocaust:

To further inflict emotional pain on Jews.

Besides, by getting people to debate who did it they can claim that there is some uncertainty and hence the Muslims are not guilty and that Islam is still the religion of peace.

It also reveals once again that eerie psychic gesture in which almost supernatural powers are ascribed to the no doubt talented and professional but also -- one imagines -- entirely human beings who staff the Israeli intelligence service.

If one just keeps working back through history, Mossad created the universe.

"If one just keeps working back through history, Mossad created the universe."

Yes, and they better be careful, what one creates one can uncreate.

Speaking of antisemitism, the UN is at it again.

www.boston.com/.../the_uns_obsession_with_demonizing_israel

Ironyroad: Your over-sensitivity to criticism always surprises me. I don't know why.

1. I'm sorry about misspelling your name. I wasn't paying attention. There was no underhanded message intended. I can't see why you would even take notice of such a thing. How is it derogatory to spell your name this way or that way? I just don't get.  

2. I used "cries" as Jane Austen  would, which means, to react with some vehemence:

"Mr. Darcy is not to be laughed at!" cried Elizabeth. "That is an uncommon advantage, and uncommon I hope it will continue, for it would be a great loss to me to have many such acquaintance. I dearly love a laugh."

3. What you say here  "I dare to suggest that Obama will move U.S. foreign and strategic policy to a more productive and constructive place. "

is not the equivalent of this:

"Obama, like many other Americans, has recognized the wild ideological fantasies at the core of conservative "foreign policy"

4. I was not defending anything  Bulbman is saying. I am much more concerned with things you say (or think) considering that I have high regard for your opinions, exactly because you are not part of the rancid left.  

5.  This statement "Is that now no longer ok in Nogaland -- the country where only one view on events is permitted?" is worthy of some of the people you never put up with, at the old pub. I won't say it wounds my sensibilities since it does not.  I have come to realize that where Bush is concerned, people tend to develop incredibly narrow tunnel vision, and  thoughtfulness and moderation simply fly out the window.

ironyroad says; "It also reveals once again that eerie psychic gesture in which almost supernatural powers are ascribed to the no doubt talented and professional but also -- one imagines -- entirely human beings who staff the Israeli intelligence service."

Unfortuntely this is no longer a staple of Islamic or Arab extremism. I was a bit shaken when I went to see the latest James Bond movie and learned that Bond was fighting an axis of evil, consisting in Dominic Greene, a former KGB person and an ex-Mossad.

A group of more distilled evil and greed you could not find, and an Israeli Jew had to be included in it.

I was wondering whether it was done at the behest of Daniel Craig, who counts Robert Fisk among his heroes. For Fisk, I doubt even the fulminations of the Brotherhood are fantastic enough to describe Israel's evil.

Someone on the blogosphere suggested that "the reason they blame it on Jews is the same as the reason antisemites deny the Holocaust:

To further inflict emotional pain on Jews."

I just noticed that jacksondyer  has already quoted the same comment from the blogosphere that I did. I'm sorry for not reading closely enough.

Oh I'm not that sensitive, call me what you like, Noga.  I just wondered why Bulbman's broad-brush slur garnered no criticism whereas my (imo) relatively mild formulation -- and by the way, I do think there has beem much actual *evidence* for the ideological fantasies (let's delete "wild") framing conservative f-p, it's not just my unfounded opinion -- provoked such a response.

And I was asking rhetorically about "permitted views in Nogaland."  I knew that question would annoy you, but -- well, sometimes it appears like that.  Regarding the "old pub," I think that there were more possibilities at that location for structuring discussion differently -- being able to open up new threads ourselves, for example.  I rather miss the dynamic mix of short polemic, long argument, and literary play that was a characteristic of a lot of the exchange (although Bill Yard has done some great things here with limited text resources).

But noga -- have you lost some of your own elasticity and satirical humor in the intervening year or two?  Maybe it's both of us.

But funny you should mention "A Quantum of Solace" -- I recall some strange, almost fleeting (?)mention of the Mossad, but I couldn't quite relate it to anything.  I found the movie in general to be emotionally and narratively very unfocused, and not a patch on "Casino Royale," so I didn't pay it much mind.  I do remember the Canadian intelligence agent at the climax in Moscow, and felt guilty that I went "yeah, right" somewhere in my mind.  I mean, know you guys have an intelligence service and all that, but . . .

noga1 said:

"I just noticed that jacksondyer  has already quoted the same comment from the blogosphere that I did. I'm sorry for not reading closely enough."

Do you have a link to the original quote, Noga?

To jacksondyer:

contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/.../mumbai-strictly-islamist-analysis-of.html

ironyroad: "But noga -- have you lost some of your own elasticity and satirical humor in the intervening year or two?"

I daresay I have. What you describe, though, was the singularity, not the norm , in my case... :-)

"I do remember the Canadian intelligence agent at the climax in Moscow, and felt guilty that I went "yeah, right" somewhere in my mind.  I mean, know you guys have an intelligence service and all that, but . . . "

I wouldn't be so dismissive of Canadian agents, licensed to kill. It's the perpetually apologetic haplessness that conceals some very dark horses. Have you never watched "Nikita"?

I've zero memory of "Nikita."  Should I look at it again (it's a movie, right)?

In any case, you might be right about the dark skills hidden under a kind of cuddly self-deprecating Canadian exterior.  The two young CSIS officers in the pic here look cool (in both senses) and capable:

www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/.../index-eng.asp

Assuming of course, they weren't models just employed for the photo-op!

Nikita was a movie and then it was a Canadian TV series about a deadly secret anti-terrorist service whose star agent was the very athletic and very tall and very blond and very Ausralian Peta Wilson:

www.imdb.com/.../tt0118379

Her love interest and boss was the feisty Michael (the Quebecois Roy Dupuy)

www.imdb.com/.../nm0001163

(the same actor who played General Romeo Dallaire  in  "Shake hands with the devil." about the UN's moral failure in Rwanda.)

It was a good enough series, lots of shooting, silent looks, etc.

BTW, have you ever looked up "The Sandbaggers" series which I recommended without any qualification?

Terry Glavin has assembled some pickings:

Catechism Of The Doomed

transmontanus.blogspot.com/.../catechism-of-doomed.html

Militant Islam is a piece of shit, akin to Nazism. These guys are no less dangerous and bloodthirsty than Adolf Hitler and his fucked-up Germans. Large portions of the Islamic world are as fucked in their heads as Nazi Germany was.

And I don't want to hear anymore about the Islam being the religion of peace. In the name of Islam people are murdered now. In the name of Islam people of Eastern Europe were occupied and murdered for 400 years, Most countries there have national holidays to commemorate when they got rid of fucking Islamic Turks. I lived in such a  country and Islamic legacy was a piece of shit - corruption and murder. Islamic imperialism and colonialism is a plague - brutal and imbecile, as Islam.

What is terrifying is that the way the politics and demographics are going western Europe is likely to come under Islamic rule.   The European left is openly sympathetic to this trend.

When you read about something like this:

normblog.typepad.com/.../freedom-to-travel-for-iraqis.html

I wonder how many people can claim, with determination and validity, that the decision to remove Saddam was  nothing but a wild ideological fantasy?

irony, I take no exception to your posts except this: The "War on Poverty" was also a tragic misnomer, as poverty is, ultimately, a relative thing and the poorest American would be looked at in awe by people in many other parts of the globe where economic activity levels out much lower than in the West.

I have lived in some of the poorest areas on Earth, what you say is simply not true. I prefer to live in such areas than I would living in Newark any day. Don't mistake materialism for worth. Security, culture, family, etc. have value far above that. Being poor in America can be far worse than being poor in other countries.

blackton -- I think I was saying something like that, in an oblique sort of way, so I tend to agree.

Take a look at the opinion piece in today's WSJ by Amr Bargisi on the published thoughts of Egyptian liberals.  Is this what Islamic moderation is all about?  

" Is this what Islamic moderation is all about?  "

______________________

Bertrand Russell, in one of his Unpopular Essays, tries to explain that the role of a teacher is to be the guardian of civilization. A teacher, says Russell, "should be intimately aware what civilization is'.

"Civilization", according to Russell,  is "a thing of the mind":

"it is a matter partly of knowledge, partly of emotion... A man.. should see his own country not only as home but as one among countries of the world, all with an equal right to live, and think, and feel. He should see his own age in relation to the past and the future".

The danger and impossibility to fulfill the true role of the teacher is much less present in democratic countries. A teacher, however, in totalitarian countries, cannot hope to serve his noble goal, for

"In each of these countries fanatical nationalism was what was most emphasised in the teaching of the young, with the result that the men of one country have no common ground with the men of another., and that no conception of a common civilization stands in the warlike ferocity". In such countries, he goes on to say, "Collective hysteria, the most mad and cruel of all human emotions, is encouraged instead of being discouraged".

I recalled Russell's unpopular essay when I watched a video of an an interview with Syrian actress Amal 'Arafa, which aired on Al-Hiwar TV on October 4, 2008:

"Policies may change, but there is something that is already in my genes. We've been brought up to hate Israel. It's in our genes. If Arab countries make political decisions, and there is peace, and so on and so forth... First of all, who would be against peace? I am not against peace.

...But as far as I am concerned, Israel will continue to be a black, dark, and murky spot in my memory, in my genes, and in my blood. Even though I am Syrian and not Palestinian, the Syrian upbringing we received and by which we lived – we've sucked it with the milk of our mothers. There is no playing around with this, it's in our genes, and we will pass this down for many more generations."

_____

Yet sometimes we do encounter the miracle of civilization doing its work, despite the indoctrination, the teaching of implacable hostility, as evident in the figure of the Egyptian author and intellectual, Ali Salem. in David Price-Jones's blog, he describes how genuine teaching is possible even in authoritarian states:

"The world needs men like Ali Salem. He’s one of Egypt’s most distinguished writers, aged 72, with a long list of books and plays behind him. In every way, intellectually and physically, he’s very big. There is tremendous humour in his face. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks, being an outspoken critic of Islamism and an active campaigner for a real peace with Israel. In 1994 he first visited Israel, and the book he wrote about it was a runaway best-seller. Since then, he’s been to Israel many times, and has received an honorary doctorate there. He keeps saying that Arabs have nothing to fear from Jews, that there’s no place for hate, and that peace is better than war. Back home in Cairo, the elite boycott him and his writings, and those on the street can kill anyone who talks and acts as he does.

Yesterday he was awarded the Civil Courage Prize which comes with a handsome check....

What an occasion! Ali Salem’s humour came out the moment he started his acceptance speech. He quoted the scene in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesarwhen a citizen attacks Cinna the poet, shouting, “Tear him for his bad verses.” He also gave a great and apposite example of an Egyptian joke, told about a man going home one evening, only to find himself surrounded by an armed mob who demand “Are you with Us or The Others?” With Us, he replies, whereupon they shoot him dead declaring that they are The Others."

pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post

Get Ready for the Post-Mumbai Muslim Bashing

user-pic

By M.J. Rosenberg - November 30, 2008, 11:09AM

The Mumbai terror attacks were appalling. That should go without saying.

But we all need to be on guard as the usual Muslim bashers go rushing to the barricades to indict Pakistan (with no evidence of its involvement) and Muslims in general.

Take a look at this garbage from the New Republic. Martin Peretz is practically wetting his pants in excitement at the possibility that Mumbai can be used against....the Palestinians.

The Israeli right (in Israel and here) strongly supports, and works with, the Hindu/ BJP right in India on the predictable grounds that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There will be a joint effort to blame Islam as a civilization for this horror. As for Pakistan, it could be implicated but so far it hasn't been.

So let's not fall for propaganda. The facts are bad enough.

"The facts are bad enough"

The hostages were tortured before being killed,  but the Israeli hostages got an even more special treatment:

"The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said."

www.rediff.com/.../30mumterror-doctors-shocked-at-hostagess-torture.htm

Islam is the world's stupidest religion.  The Europeans need to put a stop to Muslim immigration, and to pay Muslims who don't assimilate to western values to leave.

The US should do the same.

Only those who practice tolerance deserve tolerance.