THE FREE WEST

The Free West moved...

2005-10-24T11:59:00.000-07:00

Dear Reader,

Legendary historian Walter Laqueur and one of the world's most brilliant statisticians Mark van der Laan have joined me in blogging at The Free West.
German newspaper Die Welt is hosting us.

Please follow us to

http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/the_free_west

Hope to see you there!

Leon de Winter

Mao's Legacy

2005-10-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristof’s review of ‘MAO The Unknown Story’ by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday in The New York Times, starts as follows:

‘If Chairman Mao had been truly prescient, he would have located a little girl in Sichuan Province named Jung Chang and "mie jiuzu"- killed her and wiped out all her relatives to the ninth degree. But instead that girl grew up, moved to Britain and has now written a biography of Mao that will help destroy his reputation forever.’

They are still out there, the fellow-travellers, the real, imagined, the neo- and the deeply committed Maoists, and some do not hide their admiration for the Great Leader. Some of them are working in academics. Others are politicans or journalists. I know a couple of them.

Kristof writes: ‘This biography shows, though, that Mao was something of a fraud from Day 1.’

His review is a devastating read in its own right – I expect the read of this book to be a long trip into hell.

Kristof: ‘This is an extraordinary portrait of a monster, who the authors say was responsible for more than 70 million deaths.’

Still, at the end of his raving review, Kristof cannot suppress the old habit of trying to find some kind of balance, which is a perverted addiction of Western intellectuals who can make abstractions of even millions of innocent deaths:

‘I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao's legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao's entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world's new economic dragon.’

Indeed, Hitler created the German Freeway and introduced pensions for the elderly. Stalin turned Russica into an industrial state.

You never heard of Willem Drees. He was as gray-ish bourgeois technocrate who transformed post-war Holland into a modern nation without extermination camps, without famine, without killing whole ‘classes’ of people. His contributions to his country are taken for granted because it was normal what he tried to achieve: create more wealth, security, safety, freedom.

Giving Mao his dues for developments that could have occurred without the suffering of so many people, is sickening, especially coming from a man like Kristof, who is a fine journalist and commentator.

Read the review here.

Bin Laden and Benni Landau

2005-10-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden and Benni Landau
The following narrative has recently come to my knowledge; Needless to say I cannot vouch for its authenticity. I have filled in some minor details
It concerns the true identity of Osama Bin Laden.
There is no doubt about the date and place of birth and the identity of his parents nor with regard to the first 30 odd years of his life. But there is much reason to believe that the true Osama disappeared one day in the Sudan and was replaced by one Benni Landau. This was the result of a project carried out by the Mossad in collaboration with the CIA. Their intention was to gain a foothold among the developing jihadi movement and to manipulate it.. The idea occurred to Bin Laden's later handlers having watched The Manchurian Candidate a well known film of the 1960s. The script was by George Axelrod a New York Jewish writer, the main roles were played by Laurence Harvey a South African Jewish actor whose really name was Skikne. The other central character was Frank Sinatra, who (what is less know) is of Chinese-Jewish origin (Sin in Hebrew means China, atar is “place”) It \is well known that one or two of the lost Jewish tribes settled in China and some of their descendants still live there. Nor is it a matter of pure accident that one of the best known songs of said Sin-Atra is called “New York New York”
The technique used in the Manchurian Candidate for a change of personality is brainwashing , but this was considered impractical and hence the idea of a substitution arose. Agents of the Mossad found a tall young man in a suburb of Nashville Tennessee, the son of a realtor, who had a gift for languages and a sense of adventure. Not much persuasion was needed to persuade him to accept the assignment that was planned for him.
For thr next ten years he became what is technically known as a sleeper. But he was a very active sleeper. He underwent intensive training in various Arab dialects, he traveled widely in the Arab world, went on the Haj to Mecca, enrolled at Al Azhar religious university in Cairo and became virtually indistinguishable from an Arab his age.
Meanwhile the real Bin Laden after a few years of militancy had settled in Sudan where he bought a farm at Soba and various other enterprises. In April 1995 Bin Laden went out to inspect a distant part of his farm, but he did not return before the late evening , his horse had jolted, he had a bad fall with major facial injuries. A doctor was called who suspected concussion and prescribed two weeks of bed rest. In truth the switch had taken place; no one knows what happened to the real Bin Laden.
Benni Landau played his new role admirably. True, there were some minor slip ups, he behaved a little strangely and did not remember certain things, but everyone thought that these were the after effects of the fall , which the doctor had predicted. Benni L. gradually disposed of those who had been \closest to him, his four wives were sent home to Saudi Arabia and replaced by others. One of his servants continued to voice astonishment and suspicions, but he had an unfortunate fatal accidentt during a hunt that same summer.
During the next two years until his expulsion from Sudan Benni grew into his new role .perfectly. On Friday mornings after the prayers he went to the horse races, later to his office in Mak Nimr street. The new Bin Laden was more militant than the old one who had been content to engage in his various business activities. He talked increasingly about the need to intensify jihad and when he was expelled in 1997 to Pakistan and later Afghanistan he quickly mobilized the cadres of Al Qa'ida which subsequently was to be come the main terrorist force among the Islamists.
But why had Mossad and CIA engaged in this complicated ,expensive and risky maneuver? The explanation is obvious. The wirepullers were aware of the rising militancy among young Muslims and they wanted to use the substitution as a provocation. If the terrorists had been a bit more patient their base would have been much stronger, their weapons more sophisticated. All the false Osama had achieved was one major operation in New York followed by a dozen minor attacks which did not shake the West but made it aware of the threat facing it .The correct strategy would have been to lull it into a false sense of security. Furthermore the ultraradical strategy led to internal war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. In brief, by acting prematurely the false Osama had caused irreparable harm to the cause he professed to serve.

conspiracy--a competition

2005-10-21T13:57:00.000-07:00

Conspiracy theories a competition
The other day in the middle of a Washington radio phone-in a gentleman from the Middle West announced that President Kennedy had been murdered because he tried to cut the CIA budgt/ \. When asked for the source of this startling information the caller said “that it was all in the archives”. It was a relatively harmless example of a condition called conspiracy theory, a term which goes back to the year 1909; the word conspiracy is of course much older, it can be found as far back as the early 14th century. Its original meaning was to “breathe together” to agree, to unite” but also “to plot”.
Conspiracy theories were relatively infrequent in the 19th century, except at the very end with the campaign against the Elders of Zion, the masons and the Illuminati.. But in recent decades, and especially in recent years there has been a tremendous upsurge of conspiracy theories. There are even encyclopedias about the subject,; the media are full of it, so are the bookshops and even more the Internet. \\\\\C.G. Jung the great Swiss psychologist was quite right when he wrote that the high tide of parapsychology, astrology and similar pastimes was not , as frequently believed, the Middle Ages, it is the present ime.
The same is true with regard to conspiracy theories. It is difficult to think of any major event (let alone any major disaster) which has not attracted the conspiratologists, \from the murder of President Lincoln to John Lennon and Princess Diane. Hundreds of of conspiracy theories have been woven around events such as 9/11 and the Iraq war but also natural disasters such as AIDS, globals warming, Katrina and most recently the Chinese bird disease.There have been countless conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor, about the Pope and the Jesuits, about the Council of Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group, about extraterrestrials and of course the Zionists.
Not all conspiracy theories are bona fide. When a French author wrote a book in which he proved that the attack against the Pentagon in September 2001 never took place, there is no certainty whether he really believed in it or whether the motive was to produce a bestseller. It is also true that according to a well know saying even paranoiacs have enemies. But the overwhelming majority of these theories are sincerely and intensely believed, among their protagonists are British and German ex-government ministers. and even a few scientists.
How to explain this enormous popularity of conspiracy theories? This is a subject that has ben insufficiently studied so far ; the late American historian Richard Hofstetter wrote an important essay on the subject many years ago but it dealt only with the United States ,the subject certainly needs further investigation.
If one were to prepare a geopolitical atlas on the diffusion of political paranoia,, the Arab countries and some ;parts of the Muslim world would probably emerge on top. It is widely believed in these parts ( by about 80% or more) that the Israelis carried out the attacks of 9/11. For how to explain that 3000 Jews working in the World Trade Center had been warned and did not appear to work that day? Muslims lacked the know how and sophistication to carry out a complicated operation of this kind. But at the same time about equal numbers believe that the brave jihadis were the heroes of 9/11 and America had the punishment coming in view of its anti-Arab and anti Islamic policies. These beliefs are not restricted to the more backward sections of sockety, they are widespread among academics and the TV station Al Jazeera , among others, has made a notable contribution.to the spread of these beliefs.
However. other parts of the globe` are also close contenders in this race for the conspiracy championship. Historically the far right was the main champion of the belief in the “hidden hand”but in the 1930's the Soviet Union was not lagging far behind with the propaganda about Wallstreet as the source of all evil, and the Moscow trials constituted another breakthrough. They proved that the Old Bolsheviks had all been agents of British and French, Polish, Romanian and Japanese intelligence. This trend continues to day among many anti Globalists and the believers in the neo conservative conspiracy, with Leo Strauss having replaced Leon Trotsky.
However conspiracy theories are also strongly represented in the Mediterranean world and other European countries,. Less so in India and China but quite prominently in Japan.
I
I do not think we shall find any time soon convincing explanations for the prevalence of conspiracy theories, and why some societies are more prone to believe in them than others. But the attempt should be made and I would like to suggest a competition—Readers are asked
to submit the most fascinating conspiracy theories they have encountered off late.. We are not in a position to offer an award at this stage , but if a donor will be found , it will be announced. I shall present in a forthcoming posting an example.

We don't know our enemy

2005-10-21T10:57:00.000-07:00

Is the Letter real?

Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, thinks so. She informs us about the intriguing end of the letter. She quotes from a critical report of the letter:

"If the letter is written from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, the reports implicated, why does the former ask the latter to send regards to himself? How could Zawahiri, the purported writer of this letter, forget that it was already addressed to Zarqawi?"

Next, Katz tells us that this strange end is a direct reference to a poem that is widely distibuted on jihadi websites:

"You who rule countries by his infidels
You can kill flies with chemicals
You who are riding the fast thing
By Allah, where are you going to?
If you are going to Fallujah
Send my regards to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
And all the jihadis in his group . . ."

Katz remarks: "The poem has caught on in jihadi circles. Members of hundreds of online jihadi forums, not just ones directly connected to the insurgents in Iraq, had posted and discussed it. Some of these discussions are down now, but others are still active. Examples are the Jihadi Palestinian Forum where the poem has been posted since November 15, 2004, and the Yemen Youth Forum, which still features an active link."

Here is her punchline: "The slogan is also frequently used in greetings, blessings, or, as in Zawahiri’s letter, as concluding statements."

The end of her piece reminds us of our lack of understanding of what is going on here:

"An erroneous interpretation of the letter is a typical example of how superficial understanding of the al-Qaeda network and its workings continues to imperil the war on terror. Wrong conclusions based on partial or incorrect information can lead to wrong decisions, tactics, and strategies. The fight over the letter is bad news: The West just doesn't know it's enemy."

Read her piece here.

Morally Reprehensible

2005-10-20T21:04:00.000-07:00

I don't know why it did not come to my attention earlier, but it is revealing to read this statement in an op-ed piece in The New York Times of February 12, 2004:

'We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security — and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.'

I believe the opposite: it is totally morally understandable to prevent some states of pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction in order to save our civilization. I cannot understand why it is morally reprehensible to prevent Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Libya from producing weapons of mass destruction.

I am not at all afraid of France's nuclear power, although I am living 150 miles from its borders. I am not afraid of British WMD, living just across the North Sea. I know that these countries, modern democracies, will never use their WMD in conflict with other democracies.

But Iran? Syria? Libya? It is not morally reprehensible if these countries would pursue the development of WMD?

In reality, they are pursuing it. Libya made an end to it, but Iran is pushing harder than ever.

But it is not morally reprehensible, according to the above mentioned quote, that these morally reprehensible countries, inhuman tyrannies, are developing WMD.

According to the man who formulated this quote in his op-ed piece, we should abandon all WMD - which is like: tomorrow we wake up and suddenly overnight the world has changed into paradise - or we should stop condemning countries - which did he had in mind? - to pursue weapons to erase Israel, the USA, the whole West.

Who wrote that op-ed piece? It is IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Holy war against newspaper

2005-10-20T11:52:00.000-07:00

This comes from The Copenhagen Post: 'Internet collages threatening Denmark and daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten with death and retribution have begun circulating on the internet after the newspaper published caricatures of Muslim prophet Mohammed.'

On the internet the Jihad against Denmark already started: 'Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things.
Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country.'

I know: barking dogs don't bite (maybe I should not compare Muslims hotheads to dogs, who are not considered 'halal'), but it is clear that there are lots of Muslims surfing the internet who can't take a joke or a cartoon.

I want to tell them: if the Prophet really felt insulted, He had taken revenge Himself by striking the offices of the newspaper by lightning straight from heaven. But no lightning was reported - apparently He is not insulted!

Read about it yourself...

Orhan Pamuk

2005-10-20T11:21:00.000-07:00

Orhan Pamuk, Turkey's most prominent novelist, is being prosecuted by the Turkish state because he made insulting remarks about Turkey's past. In a Swiss newspaper he recently remarked that he is the only one in his country who dares to discuss the genocide of Armenians by the Turks in 1915/16.
He was right: he was immediately accused by a state prosecutor of un-Turkish behavior.

Whatever the historical truth of the genocide may be (I read shocking articles about the genocide, but I know there are historians who disagree), it is quite ridiculous that a modern state is suppressing Orhan's freedom of speech this way. If this rule would be the rule in the EU and the USA, many commentators and writers would be looking for other jobs (I know: this in itself is not a bad idea - yes, some of you are thinking along these lines about me too).

The way Orhan is being treated is significant for what the Turkish state is: a multi-faced organism with modern and dangerous masks. It is ridiculous to start negotiating with such a state about full EU-membership.

Dutch under-secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai finally had the guts to expose this insanity.

In a remarkable op-ed piece in today's Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (not on-line), he wrote that the treatment of Orhan should have consequences for the 'negotiations' between the EU and Turkey (read more about it on the Dutch website of Elsevier, the weekly for which I wrote a weekly column and to which I will return in January).

He is absolutely right. Salman Rushdie wrote in The Times a strong and convincing op-ed piece about Orhan: 'How can a country that victimises its greatest living writer also join the EU?'
Now Nicolai is ringing the alarm bell.

It is time to wake up.

Putin,Petrovsky,Caucasus,Siberia

2005-10-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

PUTIN.PETROVSKY, CAUCASUS SIBERIA
Russia has an Islamist and a terrorist problem , it is becoming worse and it is not dealing with it very cleverly. What happened in Nalchik a little while ago was not the end of the affair but could well be a further stage in the spreading of unrest beyond Chechnya. Nalchik was not a great victory of the terrorists; they made the elementary mistake of getting overconfident. Instead of concentrating on frequent small scale attacks, they tried to operate in comparatively large units— thus exposing themselves to the Russian forces and were of course defeated by the greater firepower of the other side. But this was not a decisive defeat and the Kremlin is facing a growing problem.
It is frequently forgotten that Russia has a sizable Muslim population, between 16 and 20 millions, no one know the exact figure. And while the Russian population is rapidly shrinking , the population of Tatarstan, Bashkorstan and other Muslim concentrations is rising. These regions furthermore are rich in resources (including oil) and while they do not want to secede from Russia, they want much more self rule . Off late they have suggested that the Vice president of Russia should be a Muslim. They are not in their great majority Islamist but small cells do exist there too. Among the prisoners in Guantanamo there are no Chechens but there are some from Bashkirstan .
Russian Muslims have not very much in common with each other, they are dispersed over a very large country , there is no united front, they do not have a common language and it should not be too difficult for the Kremlin to keep them content by a variety of concessions.
But the Kremlin has not shown much aptitude in dealing with its Muslims. Instead they have been doing all kind of favors to countries such as Iran—for instance building nuclear facilities for them, in the wholly mistaken assumption that the Iranians will help them to contain the Muslim problem at home.
The Russian rulers feel aggrieved about the loss of empire and they increasingly tend to put the blame on the West—rather on themselves. To a certain extent one can feel sympathy or at least understanding; the .loss of Kiev was not just the loss of Ukraine, it is the loss of a thousand years of Russian history for the history of a Russian state begins after all in Kiev.
Putin and a majority of his colleagues want to regain as much as possible of what was lost. But they are doing it all wrong, at best this could be a long process, and they are people in a hurry. They bring pressure not only on the Muslims, they want to undermine Georgia and Moldavia as well as the Ukraine, they put increasingly military bases in Tadzhikistan and other Central Asian republics which depend on them. (These republics too mishandle their Islamist problem as shown recently in Andizhan causing the radicalization of a movement which is not inherently militant and religious-fanatic in character). The Kremlin feels in a strong position in view of the great and growing income from the oil and gas they are selling.
But oil and gas is not enough to reestablish an empire. They try to do the impossible-- to make the new Russia more nationalist and more multi cultural at the same time. But the number of Russians is dwindling , the Russian countryside is becoming empty, thousands of villages are simply disappearing. . The demographers predict that the population of Russia at present 142 million will have declined by 2050 to 101 millions, even if the birthrate should recover which is quite doubtful. For comparison. The population of Yemen , not the most populous country in the Middle East ,will also be about 100 millions by the middle of the century.
Perhaps the demographers are mistaken with regard to the Yemen overrating its growth. But they are not mistaken with regard to the decline of Russia and the question arises how long will the Russian Far East and Siberia remain in Russian hands if it is empty of people? The Russian military leadership and the KGB live an a fantasy world called Eurasianism that is to say an alliance with China and parts of the Muslim world against the Western threat. But neither the Americans nor the Europeans want to replace the Russians in Yakutia and Kamchatka. One of these days this may be understood in Moscow too.
It would be wrong to put all the blame for the crisis in the Caucasus on the Russians. The Chechens had their chance in the nineteen nineties to establish an autonomous republic and they made a great mess of it. . Aggressive Islamism is a virulent condition which tends to spread but it does not occur everywhere and given the situation in the Caucasus it was not preordained that it would spread outside Chechnya.
It is perfectly natural that Russia should have special interests in the region surrounding it and that Russian influence should be felt.. But to assert such influence tact and patience is needed and Russian policy has been showing neither. As far as the Caucasus is concerned they may have missed the opportunities, it may be too late for a real improvement in the situation and we may face a long period of widespread unrest.
.

2005-10-19T16:41:00.000-07:00

Petrovsky
When a few Russians began to arrive in Washington soon after Gorbachev had come to power, one of the most interesting and attractive I met was a youngish man whom I shall call Petrovsky. He had been a dissident who spent some time in prison and during Perestroika edited a little journal which went about as far as one could go within the borders of glasnost. His English was very limited but he was highly intelligent and very enterprising. He wanted to know above all how to set up a research center and how to finance it.
Over the years I met him a few times in Washington and Moscow and watched with admiration his rise from critical dissident to leading spin doctor. What impressed me most was the fact that he established within a few years a substantial center with many employees. I do not know where the money had come from, certainly not from the US or Europe. More impressive yet was his indestructibility; the people in the Kremlin changed but Petrovsky became a permanent fixture, apparently as tenured as the cooks and the physicians in the Kremlin- the man who gave Putin the ideas. .
Last week a conference took place in the Kremlin about of all things multiculturalism. Petrovsky, not surprisingly gave one of the central presentations. He upbraided Washington for being beastly towards Byelorussia “our closest political-military ally”. Speakers at this conference pointed out that while Russia was ;practicing multiculturalism neighbors such as Georgia and the Baltic republics did not.
Reading about this conference it occurred to me that the transformation of my friend Petrovsky was in many ways not the story of one person but that . of large sections of the new Russian political elite. Where will it lead Russia? I shall return to this subject in a day or two

Saint Noam

2005-10-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

I don't care what people do privately. I don't care that they are as opportunistic as possible and are trying to evade the Taxman and hire good tax lawyers to decrease the tax they have to pay.

Unless you are an icon of the Left and a spokesman of the anti-capitalist radicals who despise making money because you like making money.

And, naturally, Saint Noam Chomsky is just as pragmatic as we all are: he is using the advice of a good tax lawyer as well. While trying to get a socialist world revolution off the ground, he created a tax shelter for his own benefits.

I like personal benefits. Even for Noam.

Read this juicy piece.

Iraq the Model

2005-10-19T14:04:00.000-07:00

The Iraqi brothers who run the blog 'Iraq the Model' became worldfamous. They are in the middle of the events, and they have sharp eyes and clear minds.

The scandalous editorial in today's New York Times about Saddam's trial - 'a show trial' - is contradicted by the reality of ordinary Iraqi's.

Here is Iraq the model:

'We’re drawing the outlines of a change not only for Iraq but also for the entire region and I can feel that today we have presented a unique model of justice because in spite of the cruelty of the criminal tyrant and in spite of the size of the atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, we still want to build a state of law that looks nothing like the one the tyrant wanted to create.'

But I am sure, on Manhattan they know better...

Iraq the Model.

'They kill a lot'

2005-10-19T11:42:00.000-07:00

This is a terrifying read: Michael Ledeen, one of the smartest Iran experts, has a very entertaining piece on NRO about recent developments in Iran.

Let me quote him in full:

"A bit of background is necessary in order to get the full significance of the news. According to the Shiite faith, the 12th imam (the authoritative successors to the Prophet Mohammed) disappeared from this earth, and at the end of mortal time he will reappear, to usher in the Kingdom of Allah. The Iranian Shiites believe that the imam is hiding at the bottom of a well in Ifahan, known as the Jamkaran well, around which a magnificent mosque has been constructed. Okay? Now you can understand the story:

In a formal cabinet meeting chaired by Iran's new president’s first deputy, the ministers printed and ratified an agreement with the Shiites' 12th Imam. In his opening remarks, Parviz Davoudi, Ahmadinejad' first deputy suggested that the cabinet ministers should sign an agreement with 12th Imam, the same way they signed a pact with the new president. The ministers collectively agreed and so there is now an agreement between the two! The ministers then questioned how the 12th hidden Imam will sign the agreement!

The solution was resolved when the government's cabinet ministers agreed to ask Saffar Harandi, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance how president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad planned to take the letter to the holy Imam. Next Thursday night, Saffar Harandi dropped the signed agreement to the Jamkaran well, a spot that Moslem religious groups believe is where the Shiite 12th Imam is hidden. This well is also the resting place for tons of letters and requests from Muslim pilgrims.
A short while after the cabinet ministers' collective agreement, the government spent 70 billion rials to feed the needy pilgrims of Jamkaran Mosque. At the Transportation Minister's suggestion, this money would be spent to reconstruct the roads leading to Jamkaran and to allocate large amount of money for other similar projects. There was strong criticism on this from all fronts and even Ahmadinejad seemed very offended. He said that this government was not in power to build roads and that it should be thankful to 12th Imam's blessing for being in power.

We are talking about some of the highest-ranking officials in the Islamic republic. So far as I know, this is not political satire, it’s reportage. And the point is obvious, isn’t it? We are not dealing with people like us (although a couple of the more hyper columnists at, say, the New York Times might well suspect that there are lots of evangelicals who secretly aspire to this sort of behavior).

The Iranian people are suffering enormously at the hands of this regime,
whose president "was not in power to build roads" and owes its legitimacy to a vanished religious figure at the bottom of a well in one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

And for those who thought that Iranian "elections" somehow gave a form of democratic legitimacy to the president and his cabinet, read it again. It’s the 12th imam, not the people of Iran, who bestows power.

There are two groups of people who ought to be made to read this account several times: those European pseudo-diplomats who think that you can reach a rational modus vivendi with the mullahs; and the innumerable failed diplomats and elected officials (I am thinking, as I so often do, of Senator Richard Lugar and his buddies on the Foreign Relations Committee, who do not deign to take testimony from critics of the Iranian regime) in this country who keep on calling for normalization with Iran.

We’re talking about real fanatics here. Fun reading, yes, but they kill a lot."

Ledeen is writing a fascinating series of articles in the last couple of years. Read the piece yourself.

What do Manhattenites want?

2005-10-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Our popular continuing series about the deepest wishes of people reading The New York Times.

Ads on page 2 and 3 of today’s New York Times:

Page 2:
Chanel: jeweled camellia pumps with diamonds $ 925
Tourneau: TagHeuer watch, ladies’ aquaracer $2.795
Asprey: jewelry, daisy collection, starting at $ 1.200
Chopard: LUC Collection, starting at $ 8.765
Cartier: ‘writing instruments’ starting at $ 230

Page 3:
Macy’s: announcement One Day Sale
Bloomingdale’s: announcement chef Daniel Boulud’s cooking demonstration
Lord & Taylor: announcement Pail Innis, make-up artist, will give advice
Saks Fifth Avenue: announcement the No-Limits Lifestyle event
Tiffany & Co: jewelry, pendant $ 950, earrings $ 1.500

Saddam is enjoying what he denied his victims

2005-10-19T08:59:00.000-07:00

Amir Taheri in The Times:

'What is at stake is more than the fate of a despot and his entourage. Iraq and, beyond it the Arab world, where the remnants of pan-Arabism regard Saddam Hussein as their champion, need a prolonged, dispassionate, and judicially impeccable lesson in history and political ethics.
According to Khalil al-Dulaimi, who heads Saddam’s team of Arab lawyers, the fallen despot intends to cast himself in the role of “the defender of pan-Arab values”. This should be welcomed by the judges, for it would allow the exercise to assume a greater role: putting on trial the military-security model of statehood that has been the most popular in the Arab world since the Egyptian coup d’état of 1952. Far from being an aberration, Saddam Hussein was an archetypal figure of the modern Arab despotic regimes based on the military and the security services. His kind of despotism was imposed on a dozen Arab nations at different times and is still in power in Libya, Syria and Sudan. In its 50 years of existence, this form of government has provoked ten large wars, including the longest of the last century: the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 that stole more than a million lives.'

Taheri's short piece is shocking in it preciseness, in the broad perspective on the devastation Arab dictators brought upon their nations.

'In the three decades that Saddam dominated Iraq he had almost $200 billion in oil revenues not only to finance three large-scale wars and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but also to buy influence in the West. Part of that investment may be bearing fruit as the chorus of his admirers, led by the French, raises its voice.'

In The Washington Post Anne Apppebaum writes:

'But if his Sunni countrymen learn what he did to Shiites and Kurds, if the Shiites and Kurds learn what he did to Sunnis, if Iraqis come to realize that his system of totalitarian terror damaged them all, and if others in the Middle East learn that dictatorships can be overthrown, then the trial will have served its purpose. That, and not an arbitrary standard of international law, is how the success of this unusual tribunal should be measured.'

Ralph Peter's column (free subscription needed) in The New York Post should be quoted here in full, which I can't do, but I am quoting a large chunk:

'Iraq may yet fail as a unified state. Violence will continue. But what's frustrating is the determination of so many in our media to convince the American people that Iraq's a hopeless mess. It's an example of vanity, selfishness and spite virtually without precedent in the history of journalism.
The greatest tragedy imaginable for our "mainstream media" would be to have to admit that President Bush was right about Iraq.
A startling number of editors and opinion columnists have been wrong about every development in Iraq (and Afghanistan). First, they predicted a bloody, protracted war against Saddam's military. Then they predicted civil war. They insisted that Iraq's first elections would fail amid a bloodbath. Then they declared that Iraq's elected delegates would not be able to agree on a draft constitution. Next, they thundered that Iraq's Sunni Arabs wouldn't vote.
Most recently, the sages of the opinion pages declared that the proposed constitution would be defeated at the polls by the Sunni Arabs. All along they've displayed a breathtaking empathy with the Islamist terrorists who slaughter the innocent, giving Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a pass while attacking our president and mocking the achievements of our troops.
A herd mentality has taken over the editorial boards. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary, columnists write about our inevitable "retreat" from Iraq, declaring that "everyone knows" our policies have no chance of success.
That isn't journalism. It's wishful thinking on the part of those who need Iraq to fail to preserve their credibility.
We are dealing with parasitical creatures who, never having done anything practical themselves, insist that the bravery and sacrifice of others has no meaning. Their egos have grown so enormous that they would sacrifice the future of Iraq's 26 million human beings just so they could write "I told you so." And, of course, the greatest military experts are those who never served a day in uniform.'

Please read Peters' full story.

The U.S. lead coalition is not only in the middle of a war against the 'so-called' insurgents, but also in the middle of a fight for the TV-screens and the hearts and minds of Western audiences. Vietnam is often mentioned by the peaceniks, and of course there is no similarity between both wars. The mythology surrounding the Vietnam War has left all kinds of distortions in the collective memories of Western audiences. And the mythology always stops at the departure of the Americans from Vietnam. The reign of terror that stopped any human devolpment in the whole of Sout Eastern Asia for decades is never part of the left-wing mythology.

The Left is suddenly in the grip of International Law, which Bush seems to have damaged. The Left has never been a champion of International Law. International law was of course no argument for the Left to oppose the invasions of the North Vietnamese in the South. The Left did not oppose whatever the Northern Stalinists aimed for. For decades the Left had been looking for ways to appease the Soviets, who de facto controlled half of Europe. International Law? Has that ever been a Leftist argument during the civil wars in Central America?
Well, now it is.

The Left, still led by the Radical Chique of the Vietnam era, needs the idea that a Socialist Utopia is Man's destination while it enjoys the wealth and liberties of Capitalism.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the spokesmen of the environmental movement in the US, prefers to travel in private planes, in limo's, and has no problem of maintaining several houses, each one big enough to give shelter to many families. For me, he is a symbol of the hypocrisy of large parts of the Left in the US. Never go where your mouth is.
Here, in Berkeley, where I am staying until the end of the year, on the bumpers of big SUV's I see stickers condeming a war about oil.
Do you see G.I.'s stealing Iraq's oil? Has the price of oil dropped dramatically since the war?
It is a war to change the systems that kept the Arabs in a state of confusion, poverty and resentment.

If the present media would have been reporting D-Day, Europe would have been a Nazi continent.

Saddam on trial

2005-10-18T22:48:00.000-07:00

Saddam will be on trial for his murderous reign. With or without weapons of mass destruction, the end of his tyranny is the result of the neocon idea that collaborating with Middle Eastern dictators did not bring the world a lot of progress, peace and love.

What I have been missing though in the opposition against US involvement in Iraq, is the call for Saddam's return as Iraq's supreme leader. The people in the 'peace' camp want the Americans out of Iraq, but I always miss the next step in their reasoning: restore Saddam himself. Apparently they feel that the US did not have any legitimacy in invading Iraq, and if you took that position three years ago you still take it today.

The 'leave Iraq now' movement has always been implicitely a 'restore Saddam tomorrow' movement too. It always meant: we don't care what foreign dictators do unless we find a conspiracy which will lead us to Zionists and American conservatives. Madman Mugabe is not an issue at the moment. The genocide in Darfur is not an issue. Abu Ghraib still is.

'The landscape of Baghdad was haunted by the earless, the handless, the tongueless, the widowed and orphaned.'

This is from an article in U.S. News about the psychological toll of living under a brutal totalitarian regime for a quarter century.

'When Iraqi-American psychotherapist Ilham Al-Sarraf visited Iraq two years ago, she stayed in her 7-year-old nephew's room. In a place of honor at the head of his bed was a clock with a prominent picture of Saddam on its face. Unable to sleep with the dictator's image looming above her, Al-Sarraf turned the clock to the wall.
The next morning, when her nephew came in to gather his clothes, he asked her why "Baba Saddam"--Father Saddam--was facing the wall. Her brother and sister-in-law frantically tried to explain it away as a clumsy accident. What if the little boy told his teacher that his American aunt had acted disrespectfully toward Saddam Hussein?'

And:

'A minor incident, perhaps, but one that reveals many of the psychologically most debilitating forces at work in a brutal totalitarian state: the intrusive cult of personality; the ruthless indoctrination of children; the pervasive atmosphere of paranoia; the frightening potential for one inconsequential event, remark, or gesture to become grounds for severe reprisal.'

Scene from hell. The peaceniks don't care. They - the leftists, the anti-authoritarians - are suddenly deeply concerned about the legitimacy of international law and the rules that govern the interaction between states. Suddenly they care for the sanctity of Iraq's borders. They do not care for the sanctity of its population, that physically and mentally has been tortured by a regime of sadists.

It will be fascinating to see how these peaceniks will swallow the flood of horror stories that will brought in the case against Saddam.

Wait for the stories.

Islamophobia

2005-10-18T06:36:00.000-07:00

Help Needed: When was the term Islamophobia (Islamophobie) first used? It was given fairly wide currency by some after 9/11. It was used infreqeuntly earlier on, for instance in a report by a committee in London in 1997. Does anyone know about use of the term prior to 1997? If so, please let me know.

Tony Judt and the elephant in the living room

2005-10-17T19:15:00.000-07:00

Tony Judt and the elephant in the living room
Fall has come to Washington. The leaves are falling after a hot summer, the squirrels in Rock Creek park make their preparations for the winter and the birds of passage are disappearing., The politicians have come back from their long summer holiday but nothing of overwhelming interest is happening in this field just now. There are some new books worth reading, one is Tony Judt”s Postwar-- a history of Europe since 1945. Judt, London born and educated, relocated to the United States and became famous when he suggested in an article that instead of Israel and the Palestinian authority there should be a binational state, an idea that did not strike everyone as brilliant or indeed practical.
Postwar is a huge book, it describes how bad, indeed desperate, the situation was as the second world war ended and how within a decade Europe recovered, how it became not only wealthier but more peaceful and civilized than ever before,..how if flowered culturally and how in the end the wall between west and east came down and Europe was reunited. It is a remarkable story and it is well told . Of course, like in almost every book, there are sections which are more competent or more profound than others, but as my old Latin teacher used to say In magnis voluisse sat est—in great endeavors it is enough to have wanted—and to write the history of Europe of the last sixty years is indeed a great endeavor.
Judt is on the whole very happy with the outcome . Europe as a social model is something for emulation for the whole world , its productivity is higher than America's ,its holidays longer, its values are universal, it is everything that America is not. Judt does not go quite as far as some recent authors who argued that the 21th century belongs to Europe but he comes pretty close to it. There are a few paragraphs of this book of 876 pages hinting at certain unresolved problems and difficulties but by and large this is a huge success story.
And yet, as the reader reaches the last pages he has the distinct feeling, there is something very essential missing in this book. Mr. Anatole Kaletsky, a leading contributor to the London Times said last week in an article that the nations of Europe are on the road to economic decline, political paralysis and global irrelevance. And the question arises whether Messrs Judt and Kaletsky are writing about the same continent.
The brief answer is that Judt's story about Europe's amazing recovery after world war two is quite correct. But he manages to ignore the elephant in the living room—every one knows about it but it is thought ill advised to draw attention to his presence. In other words, he does not mention that more recently the story of Europe has been one of economic stagnation and even decline and of lack of political will. He manages to ignore something which half an hours walk through the inner part of any major European city (or many of its suburbs) would have shown him, that the demographic constitution of Europe has radically changed and will change even more.--- the Europe he writes about no longer exists.
He says many times that Europe has become more cosmopolitan, but he does not mention that multiculturalism, how to put it cautiously?, has been less than a full success. He does not consider that the future of the European social model is in danger, and that the common European values are not perhaps as widely shared as they used to be. How much of Europe will there be left within a generation or two and what will it be like? The historian is not a prophet but nor can he afford to be oblivious of trends which are as obvious as the elephant in the living room.

BREAKING NEWS: WALTER LAQUEUR JOINS THE FREE WEST

2005-10-17T16:07:00.000-07:00

Walter Laqueur, legendary historian and one of the sharpest and clearest minds of our time, has joined The Free West. Walter will post his commentaries and observations on this site. His experience, knowledge and reputation will make a welcome contrast to my, often emotional, posts. Watch his posts, which will be signed by him.
I am honored that Walter, whose studies of Nazi Germany, Fascism and the Holocaust are part of the central curriculum of Western civilization, is going to blog here. There are not many people of his stature and maturity taking the step to enter the Empire of the Blogosphere.
Walter did.
I bow to him.

Walter Laqueur directed the Institute of Contemporary History (Wiener Library) in London from 1964 to 1994. He was Chairman of the international research board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington (he was at CSIS from 1970 - 2001).
Walter Laqueur was founder and editor of the Journal of Contemporary History, chairman of the board of editors of the Washington Quarterly, and editor of the Washington Papers monograph series. He is the author of many books and has published numerous articles in such newspapers and periodicals as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Commentary, Encounter, and the New Republic.
Laqueur's books and articles have been published in many countries. His works include The Dream That Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union (Oxford University Press, 1994) and Fascism: Past, Present, and Future (Oxford University Press, 1996). A 66-page bibliography of Laqueur's work was published in 1986.
His most recent works are 'Voices of Terror' (2004) and 'No end to war: terrorism in the Twenty First Century' (paperback 2004). Please visit Amazon.Com's amazing list of Walter Laqueur's work.

The End of Al Qaeda?

2005-10-17T16:00:00.000-07:00

The Iraqi’s went to the polls and there is only one conclusion possible. Walid Phares, a Lebanese who teaches ‘Middle East political issues, ethnic and religious conflict, and comparative politics’ at Florida Atlantic University, wrote in The Washington Times:

‘On October 15, 2005, an historic Iraqi victory was registered in the 6,235 polling centers across the country. Millions of Iraqis cast their ballot for a "yes" or a "no" to the new constitution.
Regardless of the final results, the political process in the post-Baath Iraq is emerging as a victor against the stubborn terror attacks by al Qaida and the Saddam regime remnants. From that angle alone, the bloc of 15.4 million registered voters – including those who voted "no," or weren't able to participate because of fear – have defeated one more time the forces of Jihadism and Baathism.’

Until two and a half years ago most of these voters collaborated – actively or passively - with Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were willing executioners. Millions of others were only able to survive by averting their eyes and placing the interests of their own family and clan above the elevated but dangerous principles of solidarity and compassion. In Communist Eastern Europe and in Europe under the occupation of Nazi Germany, people often made the same choice.

Saddam Hussein’s immediate power base was his own Sunni clan and the tribes living in what is now known as the Sunni Triangle. Their hegemony has left deep scars. Iraq is littered with mass graves. From the centre of this artificial nation - Iraq was devised in 1921 by Winston Churchill (one of his lesser masterpieces) - Saddam Hussein ruled over Iraq like potentates have done for millennia in the Middle East: with cruelty, violence, corruption.

As such, Saddam showed himself a classic Middle Eastern despot, knowing exactly when to kill and when to distribute gifts. His was a regime that differed little from the traditional governments of the Arab Islamic region (and differing until recently little from that of many a dictator in much of the rest of the world).

In addition to bringing an end to this specific terror, the American-led invasion incidentally undermined the organisational principle on which the power of the state has been founded in this region since time immemorial. Small wonder, therefore, that this democratic revolution has caused a major upset in the Arab world.

America swept away an order that prevailed in Iraq based on violence and corruption, but the new democratic order (which is a concept introduced from the West: peaceful transfer of power through regular free elections) is vehemently opposed by various different groups. Were it not for the violence of these anti-democratic so-called ‘insurgents’ - in most of the Western media the murderers of innocent Iraqi civilians are still not referred to as terrorists - Iraq would probably have long ago been pacified and the most liberal and free society that the Arab world has ever known would have become a fact. Progress towards this goal is continuing, but many obstacles remain. The main question is what would happen if the Americans were to leave the country in the short term.
To answer this it is necessary to examine the forces currently undermining the new order.

The British government recently confirmed what many had already surmised: Iran is actively involved in terror in Iraq. Iran has much to gain if the democratic revolution fails. An Iraqi Shiite state that pursues its own liberal agenda alongside a fundamentalist Iran would form a direct threat to the Teheran regime. For the mullahs it is therefore essential to be able to influence events in Iraq, and if possible to ensure the secession of the oil-rich south-eastern Shiite section of the country.

For Teheran the advantage would be enormous: a Shiite vassal state in the south would dramatically reinforce the position of the Iranian regime. It is hardly surprising that Iran has put so much energy into obtaining a nuclear capability, since this would place its hegemony over that part of Iraq beyond dispute. The mullahs have obviously learned from Saddam Hussein’s mistake of occupying Kuwait without having first acquired a nuclear arsenal. It is in Iran’s interests, therefore, to maintain instability and to keep up the level of violence in Iraq until it has manufactured an atomic bomb, enabling it to annex – de facto or de jure - the south unopposed. The mullahs know that the West would not risk nuclear war over Basra.

Syria is equally anxious at the prospect of peace in a free and prosperous Iraq. The Alawite tyranny in Damascus, which has the country in a grip of economic stagnation, is only able to maintain its hold through corruption and repression, so that the influence of a democratic Arab neighbour might easily lead to a conflagration in Syrian society.
There is a tradition in Damascus of conspiring with Iran against Iraq. During the rule of Saddam’s family, ideological cousins of Syria’s Assad family, their aim was to restrain the expansionist ambitions of Iraqi Baathists. But unlike Iran, Syria has no long term interest in chaos in Iraq. Syria’s support for terrorism is almost a natural reflex reaction for the Assad regime, but Damascus has nothing to gain from a restoration of Iraq’s Baath party regime or an Islamist victory.
What the deal is between Damascus and Teheran is not entirely clear. Strong Western pressure will probably produce results in Syria, unlike in Iran: the rulers in Damascus know equally well that Teheran’s mullahs will never trust the Alawites, a Muslim sect.

The Islamist terrorists pretend to have their own long term perspective. But the notion of a caliphate in the west of Iraq is despite Islamist rethorics quite unrealistic, and it may well be that the terrorist leaders have come to realise that Iraq is no Afghanistan, where Koran students in isolated regions of the country formed the Taliban and exported their rural culture to the cities. Nothing like this could emerge in Iraq, nor could it be imposed from above. If Iran’s support for terror can be stopped - which is an absolute prerequisite - there are two options for Iraq, and neither of these fulfils Islamist ambitions.

Option 1: Iraq disintegrates into three separate states with their own ethnic and cultural identities - Kurdistan with oil, Shiitistan with oil, and Sunnistan without oil.

Option 2: Iraq manages to survive as a modern federal state.

The fourth group, the Baathist insurgents, have equally little chance of succeeding. Saddam relied on his secret police services, who gave Iraqis a choice as individuals either to collaborate or to be marginalised (or eliminated), and on the army, which he compartmentalised, like the secret police, in order to prevent possible coups. The Baathist state apparatus and its executive organs have been destroyed, making the restoration of the old regime virtually impossible.

There is one burning ambition all these groups share: the demise of America’s power. Despite the vast differences in their goals and capabilities, the main resistance groups hope to weaken the foundations of the only superpower by a terror campaign which main objective is to strengthen opposition in the West against the present American administration. The Americans cannot be defeated in the field, but they can be defeated on their television screens and their newspaper pages. That is the Vietnam Option (in Vietnam the Americans withdrew from a victory).

The Islamists face a terrible dilemma: they have to fight the Americans, but if they succeed they play Iraq – or a huge part of Iraq – into the hands of the Shiites in Iran. There may be cooperation between Sunni terrorists and Teheran, but this will break down the moment the Coalition troops would leave.

The terrorist leaders are still driven by a century old Muslim fiction: the Ummah, the global Islamic community. They still imagine that they are able to galvanise the Ummah, the global Islamic community, to rise up en masse against the West.

Why did this not happen after 9/11? Nor after Bali, Madrid or London?

The abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib make two things clear: in the American army as well there are individuals who are unable to control themselves when they have people in their power. And secondly: pictures of incidents perpetrated by Americans - comparable incidents would have been considered irrelevant by the world’s press under Saddam Hussein’s regime - are considered far more scandalous by Muslims than pictures of mosques blown up by terrorists. At least, this is what the media try to picture.

On 26 September Reuters reported that ‘gunmen killed five Shi’ite primary school teachers and a driver in a school in Iskandariya, south of Baghdad on Monday, a spokesman for Babel police said. “These men were terrorists in police uniform,” the spokesman told Reuters. He said the gunmen arrived at the school in two civilian cars, led the teachers and the school driver to a part of the school where no children were present, and shot them.’

This type of attack is an everyday occurrence. There is no response from the Arab-Islamic world. The terrorists are counting on the explosion of indignation in the Ummah when new photos emerge of humiliated Arab prisoners (an American judge recently ordered the Pentagon to release more pictures). Al Jazeera and Western media created an immense scandal of the Abu Ghraib pictures, and severe incidents of rioting Muslims occurred. But no such thing as an uprising of the Sunni civilization as such – Bin Laden’s main ambition. Not even a shred of that.

On the contrary: increasing numbers of Muslims are voicing their abhorrence to terrorist tactics, and it seems that the barbarity and magnitude of the attacks against the Shiites are beginning to reduce support among the Ummah. Nevertheless, the terrorists continue to try and provoke the Americans into retaliating and creating Abu Ghraib-like situations.

Al Qaeda’s acting COO Ayman Zawahiri has a sharp eye for the changing image of his brand among Muslims. He warned in a letter to Al Qaeda’s franchise chief in Iraq Abu Musab Zarqawi against the negative response to his terror campaign.

The Washington Post noted: ‘The letter may indicate al Qaeda’s recognition of Muslim public opinion, said one Middle East scholar. “If the letter’s true, it’s new because they haven’t shown any particular avoidance of certain ruthless tactics. It says to me they are concerned about the way they are being perceived in the Muslim world,” said Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland. “The vast majority of people in the Arab world sympathize with al Qaeda only because it champions their issues and speaks their language and it’s seemingly effective against their enemies. But most would not want al Qaeda to be the rulers. They would be repulsed to have someone like Zarqawi, who is beheading people, to head their government,” he said.’

In her speech at Princeton op September 30th, Condoleezza Rice explained that there is a serious danger that al Qaeda may seize hold of Iraq if the Americans withdraw. President Bush repeated the message in his speech on October 6th for the National Endowment for Democracy: ‘Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?’
Is there an alternative to ‘cutting our losses en leaving Iraq now’?

Sunni terror - perpetrated by national-socialist Baathists and Islamo-fascists - has left deep wounds among Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds. Their self-control is remarkable. But without the US army in place that self control would probably not last long. The question is whether this is something that should be prevented.

America’s intervention in Iraq has been heroic. The achievements of US soldiers have been astonishing and decisive in creating the conditions for the emergence of a just Iraqi society. Walid Phares wrote in his Washington Times piece:

‘With 155,000 American troops, 22,000 coalition forces, and about 200,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, deployed efficiently, Iraq's territories have been secured by significant deterrent forces. The Jihadists and their cross-borders allies, who have been attempting to wage massive attacks since mid-summer, were denied the capacity to disrupt the voting process. That alone is a field victory for the US-Iraqi alliance: For a second time in one year, the Iraqi people were allowed to express its will freely, while Jihad terror was incapable of reversing the democratic process.’

The consequences of this for the Arab Islamic world are potentially huge. But for now it is essential to examine the current situation as dispassionately as possible.

The social fabric of the Middle East is dominated by ethnicity and religion. The characteristics of a functioning nation-state - the division of legislative, executive and judicial powers, a neutral civil service, responsible police, democratic elections leading to peaceful transfer of power - arose in the West through centuries of bloody conflict, and have to date never been successfully emulated in any Arab state. The variants developed by Arabs themselves, from semi-secular Baathist national-socialism to stifling Taliban style fundamentalism, have created societies brimming with resentment, anger, confusion, delusion.

The Kurds have shown that it is possible to form a relatively open, reformed society based on ethnic-religious identity. With sufficient support, the Iraqi Shiites will be in a position to emulate their success. This depends on Iran being prevented from exercising a negative influence on the situation in Iraq.

It is hardly surprising that it has proved difficult to build up a non-ethnic, national Iraqi army. Not pressured anymore by a ruthless tyranny, with which collaboration seemed to be the only way to succeed in Iraqi society, for most recruits their primary loyalty is not with Churchill’s notion of Iraq but with their tribe and their ethnic-religious affiliation.

Instead of insisting on building a national Iraqi army, it is necessary to discuss the creation of ethnic National Guards, Kurdish in the north and Shiite in the south, which together will form a proto-Iraqi army. The referendum will lead Iraq into the direction of a federation with three distinct ethnic-religious member-states.

The violence is being fed by resentment in the Sunni Triangle, Saddam’s former backbone, a region that has been deeply perverted by its collaboration with Saddam’s culture of rape, repression, theft, murder. If Saddam would have been in power now, the men who now commit acts of terrorism would be his henchmen.

Sunni leaders know what to expect if Kurdish and Shiite units would arrive in the Sunni Triangle to restore order with their US-supplied arms. American forces are limited in their scope and force by rules that don’t fit the region (Israel’s forces face the same kind of problems). The Kurds and Shiites will hardly be interested in playing by rules that the Pentagon will be able to sell to the Western media.

The lack of its own army will weaken the authority of the federal Iraqi government, but a functioning Iraqi state with functioning member states can only flourish after the eradication of terrorism. If an Iraqi army cannot do this job because it hasn’t created national legitimacy, Iraqi National Guards should do the job.

The bitter truth is that terrorism in Iraq continues by the grace of moral and ethnic rules imposed on Western fighting forces by Western journalists and commentators, rules that form a protective mantel over the towns and villages in which the terrorists find refuge. It is the television cameras of the press agencies and the presence of the US army that protects their tribes and families from the vengeance of the Kurds and Shiites. As has been the case for the first time in Vietnam, the media are part of the conflict. In this case: it is unavoidable that camera’s work in the advantage of the ‘insurgents’ (even the wording of their deeds plays into their advantage).

Without Western presence in their region, and because of that a sharp reduction of Western media representatives, the Kurds and Shiites would probably adopt a more ‘traditional’ Middle-Eastern approach to Iraqi terror. What is this more traditional Middle-Eastern approach? A traditional Middle-Eastern solution to terrorism could for example be the torture or liquidation of relatives of terrorists, or even the destruction of entire villages.

Sunni terrorist leaders, and the tribes that harbour them, will understand the potential consequences of the creation of ethnic-religious militias - excluding, as long as the ‘insurgency’ continues, the creation of a Sunnite National Guard - in the context of a new Iraqi federation. Kurds and Shiites, armed with American technology and driven by traditional ethnic-tribal passion, seeking revenge for the mass graves, massacres and car bombs, will not feel the constraint of the Western press. It is highly probable that the creation of ethnic-religious militias will persuade the Sunni leadership that America’s presence is the only guarantee for the continued existence of their clans.

These are cold Machiavellian considerations, but the facts are indisputable. Before the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Arab Islamic world can begin, terrorism has to be eradicated. Iraq is in the centre of the world where the expression ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ was born. That the response to this in Manhattan’s Upper West Side is one of horror, will mean little to the Shiite who has just lost his wife and children in a bomb attack on a market.

Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes recently found out in Saudi Arabia that Saudi women are the happiest in the world, so she’ll have the time to tell the Sunnis the truth. Cooperation, marginalisation, or annihilation. Those are the only options.

One remark about the ‘Ummah’, a term that also shows up in the letter written by the killer of Theo van Gogh.
The Ummah does not show any concern about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Islamic victims in Darfur, and it is seemingly unconcerned about the terrorist campaign in Iraq, that kills thousands of innocent Muslims. Would the Ummah suddenly be concerned if Kurdish and Shiite Muslims actively defend their markets, schools and shops by invading the Sunni Triangle?
If it is true that the Ummah remains stoic when confronted with terrible evil, the question arises if the Ummah exists at all. Isn’t it an abstraction comparable to the ‘Christian world community’?
There is only one way for Al Qaeda to succeed: the worldwide revolt of the Ummah. It may be cruelly ironic that Bin Laden is barking up the wrong tree, or better: is barking up the illusion of a tree. Is the Ummah unconcerned because the Ummah does not exist? It may be possible that the Ummah is one of those romantic but deeply ineffective concepts floating around in the ‘dream palace of the Arabs’, as the Arab mindset was called by the great scholar Fouad Ajami.

“Can people taken more or less at random, who are however members of a class or nation perceived to be an enemy of Islam, rightly be beheaded?”

2005-10-16T22:38:00.000-07:00

One of the most fascinating conservative thinkers in Britain is Theodore Dalrymple. For many years, he has been a psychiatrist in British jails, he tried to help people living in the underbelly of British society, and most of his observations are devastating.

In an interview with FrontPage he remarked: 'About half of British homes no longer have a dining table. People do not eat meals together - they graze, finding what they want in the fridge, and eating in a solitary fashion whenever they feel like it (which is usually often), irrespective of the other people in the household.
This means that they never learn that eating is a social activity (many of the prisoners in the prison in which I worked had never in their entire lives eaten at a table with another person); they never learn to discipline their conduct; they never learn that the state of their appetite at any given moment should not be the sole consideration in deciding whether to eat or not.
In other words, one's own interior state is all-important in deciding when to eat. And this is the model of all their behaviour.'

Dr. Dalrymple now wrote a piece about beheadings:

'Is beheading Islamic? Clearly it is not uniquely so, or it would have been unknown elsewhere, which is certainly very far from the case. Nevertheless, in the modern world at least, beheading seems to be largely the prerogative of people acting in the name of Islam. This is a sociological fact, whatever the doctrinal justification for it. But is beheading permitted or enjoined or forbidden by true Islam?'

Read his piece. It sparkles with intelligence.

'A Jinn is trying to have sex with me.'

2005-10-16T22:07:00.000-07:00

Islam On Line is a wellknown website for Muslims looking for answers.
And, thank God, Smart counsellors are able to find answers for most questions.

Like this one:
'As-salamu `alaykum. During the night, when I am sleeping, I get this strange sensation that almost paralyses my whole body and prevents me from screaming for help. The worst thing is that during that time, I think something is having sexual intercourse with me. Then whenever I put a Holy Qur'an under the left of my pillow, the feeling of paralysis goes away. This thing happens mostly when I do a good deed. I would like to ask if it is Satan causing this to happen, and if so, how can I fight against this bad thing?'

The counsellor answers as follows:

'As-salamu `alaykum. Thank you for writing to us. Your question is actually best addressed through in- person counseling, or at least discussing this particular situation with an imam in person. If you feel you do not have access to in-person counseling or to a local imam, so we are glad that you at least submit this same question to us. If for now you know that putting the Qur’an under the left of your pillow is helping you to deal with this paralysis, then by all means put the Qur’an under the left of your pillow each night when you go to sleep.
Based on what you have written, it is highly likely that you are dealing with the Jinn at night. We quote for you a response regarding the Jinn from our Islam Online Fatwa section. The entire response can be accessed through the link below. “Shedding more light on the protection against, and the immunity from, the harm of jinn, we’d like to cite for you the following:
"Because jinn can see us while we cannot see them, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us many ways to protect ourselves from their harm. They are seeking the refuge of Allah from the accursed Satan, reciting Surat Al-Falaq and Surat An-Nas, and reciting the words taught by Allah in the Qur’an. Allah Almighty says, “And say: My Lord! I seek refuge in Thee from suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge in Thee, my Lord, lest they be present with me.” (Al-Mu’minun: 97-98)Saying bismillah, (in the name of Allah) before entering one’s home, eating or drinking, and having intercourse will keep Satan from entering the house or partaking with a person in his food, drink and sexual activity. Similarly, mentioning the name of Allah before entering the toilet or taking off one’s clothes will prevent the jinn from seeing a person in a state of undress or harming him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of be upon him) says:
“To put a barrier that will prevent the jinn from seeing the `awrah(parts of the body to be covered) of the sons of Adam, let any one of you say ‘bismillah’ when entering the toilet.” (Reported by At-Tirmidhi)For further guidance please refer to the following links: Jinn Possession: Between Facts and Illusions.'

This is a truly effective answer. So, if you are being haunted by a Jinn, contact Islam On Line. Don't forget to visit the 'Jinn Possession' site. It is enlightening.

(See the site here. Via Littlegreenfootballs)

Thailand's complicated south

2005-10-16T08:43:00.000-07:00

Here a good essay about the history of the troubles in southern Thailand written by GlobalSecurity, a respectable U.S. think tank.

Bikini's make them do it!

2005-10-15T22:22:00.000-07:00

If you still think that the Zionists force the Jihadi's to go nuts - because of the Palestinians, who are so terribly humiliated by the Jews, who stole their land - you have to do some mental acrobatics: it is not about the Zionists!

It's about bikini's.

"Alcohol, bikinis, that kind of thing makes Muslims angry. Don't do that when visiting a country with a Muslim majority," he said. "I'm sorry, Australian culture makes war on morality. They come to Bali with bikinis, they make war on morality. Not physical war, morality war. Respect the culture and religion of Indonesia."

Who is this he?

Well, he is an expert: he is a brother of two of the bombers of the 2002 Bali bombing.

According to the son of this expert the bombers go to heaven:

'He believed the first Bali bombing committed by his uncles was justified because it discouraged tourists in Bali. "If Muslims died in that action, the Muslims will go to heaven," he said.'

Don't believe me; read it yourself.

Civil war in Thailand

2005-10-15T22:07:00.000-07:00

I have no clue why the MSM is not reporting at length and in detail about the civil war taking place in the south of Thailand. Here, Islamist terrorists kill people at random.

Read this Reuters message: 'Suspected Muslim militants killed a Buddhist monk and two teenage boys and set fire to a temple in Thailand's restive south, police said on Sunday, in separatist violence that has claimed more than 900 lives.'

For the MSM, it is hard to explain this violence. How to link this to Bush or Zionist agression?

And, as usual, not the use of the word 'militants'.

Bush's low is high

2005-10-15T21:43:00.000-07:00

You have read the messages in the MSM about Bush's low ratings. I've seen many articles that almost glow because of Bush's reducing popularity. Schadenfreude, is the German word.

One cannot deny it: relative to his earlier performances, Bush has hit a low.

But how low is low? We don't know yet if this is the lowest low Bush can go, but according to many MSM articles his crew is in deep trouble. The vast attacks on him (Iraq, Katrina) and the enormous publicity concerning the problems of his crew (Rove, DeLay) have had a biting effect on his standing.

But: is the context right?

Here are the lows of the last 7 presidents:
Bill Clinton: 37 percent
George H. W. Bush: 29 percent
Ronald Reagan: 35 percent
Jimmy Carter: 28 percent
Gerald Ford: 37 percent
Richard Nixon: 24 percent
Lyndon Johnson: 35 percent

Bush stands at 38% now. He has still a long way to go to go lower than Nixon or hero of the Eutopians and the lunatic fringes, Carter.

Until now, Bush's low is still higher than Clinton's.

Did you read that in your MSM-newspaper?

You can read about this here.

A staged soldier speaks up

2005-10-15T20:27:00.000-07:00

'Yesterday, I (bottom right corner in the picture) was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID's Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, "A Staged Event."'

These are the words of one of the soldiers who took part in the discussion with President Bush which was world-wide by the MSM qualified as a staged event.

Thank God we live in the Age of the Blogosphere. Read his blog here. He is still serving in Iraq. He writes:

'The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, "So...What's REALLY going on over there?" Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It's like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it's not.'

The terrible truth is: he' s right, the media became a political force in intself, until recently unchecked, unbalanced, unfair.

I carefully see how U.S. politics are being described in the Netherlands, my homecountry, by correspondents who basically are being lead by what they read in The New York Times and The Nation. Fine publications, but they don't cover the whole spectrum of opinions and perspectives in this vast country.

Pinter's wasted talents

2005-10-15T10:36:00.000-07:00

Harold Pinter got the big one. The group of Scandinavian critics who last year gave the prize to Elfriede Jellinek, now gave the Nobel Prize to another progressive and experimental artist.

I searched the web to look for Pinter’s website, and yes: he has one.

It opens as follows:

‘In 1958 I wrote the following:"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false." I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false?’

So Pinter as a writer explores reality without making distinctions between real and unreal and true or false. Is that really possible? And if so: is that more exciting than seeing the grass grow? Or leafing through the Yellow Pages? Are some of the truly great plays not about morality and necessity? About doing evil for good reasons? About integrity and pragmatism?

Pinter writes: ‘The exploration of reality through art.’
It is a remark that can be found by thousands in catalogues of galleries for modern art. It means absolutely nothing. It is a remark to cover the emptiness of a huge chunk of modern art.

And what does Pinter mean with the distinction between being a writer and being a citizen?
I don’t have a clue what he means.

And to be honest: I still do not have a clue what most of his plays are about. As a young man I have spent many hours in the theatre watching Pinter plays, and I – how to put this? – I often did not get it.
No, let me be blunt: I was often bored to death.
At the time, it was impossible to admit this in public. There was something deep in his work, it was assumed, and he was considered important. I had no clue what the importance was. The boredom I experienced was sometimes tantalizing – and there was always a strange exultant moment when the play was over. I was grateful that the torture had ended, and in this relief I confusingly found my opinion about Pinter. It was great, I honestly could say, although I really meant: It is great it is over.

The reception of Pinter’s work is in general a collective misunderstanding. He is a modernist, and usually that means that you don’t need to develop identifiable characters or a plotline. Many modern artists cannot not draw a recognizable head or a recognizable tree. Modern art is essentially about ‘Verfremdung’, Alienation, and naturally for Alienation one does not need a basic mastery of technique.

But one has to be honest: as a screenwriter Pinter did wonderful work with Betrayel (one of his better plays) and The French Lieutenant’s woman. He is a master dialogue writer, and working within the framework of a film production with all kinds of demands from producers/directors, he wrote beautiful scripts. But I feel he spent his enormous talent on a lot of experimental nonsense.

The Scandinavian critics of the Nobel Committee are a small group of extremely arrogant snobs. Giving the prize to Pinter is, as usual, most of all a political gesture. Pinter moves around in the centre of the British radical chique, a Bush-hater, a basher of American popular culture, an anti-Iraq-veteran.

Why not Peter Schaeffer? Schaeffer is a truly great play writer. Or is his work too understandable and too identifiable?

Why not novelist Philip Roth or my countryman Harry Mulisch? Why not the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk? Why not maestro John Updike?

I can tell you why: because these laureates don’t represent a clear-cut self-hating, anti-capitalist, Eutopian political point of view. I cannot wait for Pinter’s speech when he comes to Stockholm to cash his cheque!

How to stop this?

2005-10-14T23:05:00.000-07:00

David Gelernter, Professor of Computer Science at Yale, wrote in The Los Angeles Times a wonderfully furious column.

Bill Bennett, former Drugs Czar under Bush I and a well-known and hated conservative, made a remark a couple of weeks ago about abortion. Bennett is a dedicated Pro Lifer. In a discussion on his radio show about the consequences of abortion he gave an example: abort black women and the crime rate will probably go down, but he added this was impossible and morally reprehensible and ridiculous.

Here is Gelernter:

‘A few weeks ago, Bennett said on his radio program that X is a stupid idea; then he said that if you believe X, you might as well believe Y. But Y is "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible." One thing we know for sure: Bennett is against Y. He thinks that Y is "impossible," is "ridiculous," is "morally reprehensible." "Y" was the idea that aborting all black babies would cut the crime rate.
So the left jumped all over him. Bizarrely enough, the White House chimed in. (A Republican White House opening fire on Bennett is like the Joint Chiefs bombing their own front lines.)
Yet no one who read or heard Bennett's actual statement in context could possibly have believed that Bennett is racist or had talked like a racist. But our public life is so deeply phony that, although a few stalwarts defended him, no one pointed out the gross hypocrisy of his accusers. (No one I've heard, anyway.)
Those accusers knew perfectly well that he was not promoting a racist view of American life, he was denouncing a racist view — loudly and clearly, without a shadow of ambiguity.What part of "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible" did they not understand?’

Expierience the full fury of this column.

By the way, here is Bennett’s personal answer.

Tony Blankley in The Washington Times writes about the same things:

‘During the Reagan years, and even during the Gingrich years, the central complaint about the mainstream media by conservatives was that they misrepresented the substance of our policy proposals. A 4.5 percent budget increase (after adjusting for inflation and the size of the beneficiary class) of the hot-lunch program was characterized by the media as a cruel cut in the program that would leave poor little children hungry and with empty tummies, thus causing empty minds. (The second part was true, but that was due to the damage caused by National Education [sic] Association — not the government-provided nutrition programs.) A guarantee that the current-law traditional Medicare program would remain available for any beneficiary who wanted to participate in it was called an end to such benefits. Increases in spending were called cuts. Guarantees were called broken commitments. President Reagan's war efforts to defeat Communism and create democracies in Central America were called support for fascism and brutal right-wing regimes.’

Read his full column.

I have often the same experience watching the media. Are we paranoid?
Vice president Cheney repeated in a TV interview that his administration thinks that Zawahiri’s letter is for real. But this does not mean a thing anymore: most journalists love to think that the CIA faked the letter.
The preparation for a TV conversation with the President is called a ‘set up’: as if not in most shows nervous guests are asked to repeat what they want to ask. Spokesmen for Bush assured that their answers were not scripted – nobody wants to believe him.
And at the same time Louis Farrakhan, the totally nutty leader of the Nation of Islam movement, which is a kind of parody itself, is being treated with velvet gloves by the MSM and the Democratic Party.

Farrakhan: ‘Well, I was in a tiny village in Mexico on the 17th of September, 1985. And I had a vision-like experience climbing a mountain there, on the top of which is a temple to the Mexo-American Christ figure, Ketso Quato. And one of these little UFOs came over that mountain and I was signaled from a group of persons to come. And I was beamed up into that small vehicle and carried to a larger vehicle, where I heard the voice of my leader and teacher, the Honorable Elijah Mohamed (search), saying these words to me, in early September, the president met with his joint chiefs of staff to plan a war. He didn't tell me who the war was against or what not. But early in the next year, it came to me while I was in Ghana that this war was against Libya and Libya's leader Muammar Qaddafi. So I went there and warned him of what was about to take place. And it did take place. And the following year, sir, I was sitting on an airplane, I happened to pick up the The New York Times magazine section, and it said America planned war against Libya.’

Here is the whole unbelievable interview.

What’s going on? And how can we stop this?

What do Manhattenites want?

2005-10-13T14:50:00.000-07:00

Ads in today’s New York Times, page 2 and 3:

Page 2:
Chanel: Wedge boots $1365
Baume & Mercier: Classima Executive watch $2295
Movado: rings starting at $3995
Coach: Signature Patchwork bag $398
A.Testoni: Turtle bag $1530

Page 3:
Bergdorf Goodman: bracelet $1560
Macy’s: Doony & Burke bag $220
Bloomingdale’s: printwork, no prices mentioned
Saks Fifth Avenue: invitation for trunk show
Tiffany & Co: earrings $4950

G.I.'s and concrete walls

2005-10-13T14:40:00.000-07:00

What is happening in this picture?

A. American G.I.'s jump behind a concrete wall when they come under attack from Iraqi insurgents.

B. American G.I.'s are preparing to blow up a house in which Iraqi insurgents have been hiding.

C. American G.I. are building a new camp where they will humiliate and torture innocent insurgents.

D. American G.I.'s are setting up concrete barriers to protect a polling station - where free Iraqi civilians will bring out their votes - against insurgents/freedomfighters/rebels/guerrillero's.

What is the right answer?
(picture: Scotte Nelson/World Picture News)

THEY CANNOT WIN BUT WE CAN LOSE

2005-10-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Al Qaeda cannot win – after having read the letter again and again by Al Qaeda’s Chief Operation Officer Ayman Zawahiri to the chief of his Iraqi franchise, ‘insurgent’ leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, it is completely clear that this movement is a blimp on the radar screen of history. It doesn’t mean they cannot hurt innocent people, it doesn’t mean they will fade out slowly as the ending of a Hollywood horror picture. But their ideology is a set of extreme concepts in the margins of reality. We are dealing with the phenomenon of collective religious delusions for which Western psychiatrists have created all kinds of fine treatments.

Let me put it differently: these Islamists believe that there is a Cosmic Power outside human consciousness who has been communicating with mankind through a book. I know some things about books. I know how they come to light, how they are constructed and how they function. I can assure my readers: Cosmic Powers don’t write books. If Cosmic Powers exist, they would communicate with us through the new iPod. Or by sending us messages in our mailbox. Why books? Because there was nothing else until the arrival of the telex and telephone.

These Islamists believe that a Cosmic Power first gave his book to the Jews, and according to these Islamists the Jews distorted it. Next he communicated with the Christians, and they distorted the message as well. Next he gave it to the Supreme Messenger (no, this is not a treatment for a new episode of Startrek), and this man got it.

In this book this Cosmic Power orders his followers to convince all humans to follow his guidelines. If they don’t, they should be killed or subjected to special, harsh treatment. His guidelines should be followed strictly. If you die and you have followed his guidelines faithfully, you will be rewarded: you go to a special place where everything you dream of is available without limits for eternity.

The sad thing is: I am not making this up. This narrative is essential for the monotheistic tradition. The Islamists took it to its most radical version. Theirs is a fully magical world, just like the Christian world in the Middle Ages and the world of the ultra-orthodox Jews. The orthodox Christian world outlook had to change under pressure of science, which gradually restricted the fearful magic of Nature – the crib of any religion - to purely personal preferences and personal needs. Science unraveled the movements of the sun, the moon, the cycle of the seasons, the creation of life, and nowhere science found the Cosmic Power, who for many believers still is a Person, as the Man in Charge. If this Cosmic Power exists, it is hiding someplace beyond the frontiers of science and reason.

The present discussion in the USA about Intelligent Design is basically a last, low-level fight about a conflict that really has been resolved in the last two centuries: Bible research has given us lots of fascinating insights into the development of our holy texts. And in my opinion, because these texts are so deeply human, they have grown in beauty the more the human hand is visible. It is quite ridiculous to historicize the events descrtibed in these texts. Some have taken place more or less, some not. They are purely literature of the highest level, written by unknown geniuses with the gifts of Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes.

The Cosmic Power has not been heard of for many centuries, and it is clear that this Power Designer cannot be present in our reality after the enormous revolutions that took place during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Holy books cannot be written anymore. They will be shred to pieces by a reviewer in the New York Review of Books. And nowadays, a person who hears a voice telling him to conquer the world, will be treated as a patient, not as a visionary. We will not find scientific prove for his stories, and most of us will turn to our daily concerns.

Sometimes, a couple of people will be influenced by the charisma of this new Messenger, and in the media this group will be described as a sect of lunatics. The closest we can see in our present the conditions of religious mythology and religious hysteria similar to those in the past, is probably North Korea, where information is strictly controlled and mythologies are spread by design or spontaneously, probably as happened in the decades after for instance Mohammed’s death.

In an era where books were rare and every second of their existence people feared the often terrible, and always magical events in life – birth, death, illnesses, epidemics, roving tribes, natural disasters – a story about a man who heard the voice of the Creator, laid down in a book, could make a devastating impression.

Don’t get me wrong: I love the rituals of religion. I think we need to mark the essential moments in our lives. It is beautiful to thank in a prayer for a meal with friends and family. It is comforting and moving to say a prayer at a grave of a beloved person. And at those moments I hope the Cosmic Power leaves his distant planet for a second to help us, mortals.

The belief in a personal, individual Creator, a power we nowadays feel is synonymous for Goodness and Love, is a new episode in the history of mankind. Even though sportsmen who scored and musicians who get an award make a prayer and thank the Creator for their blessings, the hold of magical thinking on our lives has been reduced tremendously in the last five centuries. God means Goodness to most of us, the bringer of Love, and He is as helpless in the face of Evil as we are.

A magical world is a world fixed in itself. There is an explanation for occurring events in the magic itself. Only after breaking through this closed circle, mankind was able to master the indifference of nature. We now know that sickness is not a punishment by the Creator. We now know that there are no witches, no demons, no ghosts. There is still a lot we don’t know of our reality, but the journey mankind made between 1400 AD and 2000 AD broke the tragic chain of suffering that has been the fate of almost every individual before the rise of modern science.
  In this period mankind opened its eyes.

The progress of human civilization can be defined by two developments: the reduction of magical thinking and the expansion of control over Nature. The two developments are interlinked. Although most Americans define themselves as religious, their belief is a totally different set of ideas and emotions than Christians in 1300 AD in Spain or Germany experienced. The modern Creator is a remote power, an Enigma himself, a symbol for the scandal each one of us experiences by being both an animal in our bodies and a God in our minds, during our lifespan searching for eternal answers to our temporary existence.

I am an optimist about the flexibility of our minds, about our amazing ability to solve problems and about the direction of mankind. In this regard I am not condemning religiosity in general: having a personal Creator you don’t fear, having belief in a power that asks you to be a tender, attentive person, is a positive step in the evolution of monotheism.

It is not an accident that the Muslim world is lacking progress in science. Patents are rarely given to Muslims in the Arab Islamic world. It is difficult to do scientific research at Arab universities. Their world view is closed. It is magical – filled with demons and ghosts who could take over your personality. The feeling that everything and everybody is helplessly owned by a Cosmic Power with its own strict supernatural rules, creates passive individuals, obsessed by the fear to trespass the limits set by this Cosmic Power. In such a world superstition, conspiracy theories, the fear of female sexuality, tribal loyalties, flourish.

What we face in Al Qaeda, is the insane un-reality of original monotheistic thought conceived in a ‘holy’ book. It is about the absurdity of the extreme belief in God-given texts which order you to maim and kill, to take slaves as booty, to hide women behind veils, to isolate women when they menstruate, to make pilgrimage to holy places and throw stones or light candles or to stop eating for a month or forbid the flesh of certain beasts.

In the Western world religion evolved from being an explanation for the unjustified sufferings human beings have to endure into a kind of a mood-setting environment for humane self-help sessions. Going to a church does not mean going to a sacral confrontation with your own helplessness; going to a church is a feel-good-event. Naturally, for many believers it is still about raising questions about the source of evil and suffering, for Christians symbolized in the cross, but the religious service and the religious experience in general are meant to be an uplifting, up-beat event.

I once spent two days in a convent. The monks gathered at 5 AM for the first service, like they did in the Middle Ages. This was not a happening preceding the full, wide, colorful embrace of life – this was about a life-long preparation for an existence after death. I met lovely men in there, but at the same time the life in this convent, pure as it may be, was a step back in history.

Nowadays, religion in the West is preparing for the richness of life. Religion in the Arab world is still preparing for the afterlife, for accommodating the rules of the Almighty.

Often, Islam is being compared to the phase of Christianity seven hundred years ago. It needs time to develop, experts explain. I don’t agree. I believe Islam is where Judaism was in the first century AD before the Destruction of the Second Temple. I believe Judaism was saved by this destruction; only after this event it could transform into an open, universal way of life. A God who dwells in a selected building is a tribal God and a limited concept.

Muslims carry this same burden: the central role of Mekka in Islam is transfixing the development of Islam and keeps Islam hostage – think of the role of stones in the Meccan rituals, a legacy of the pre-Islamic religions of the Saudi peninsula - to the mindset of Beduins of the seventh century.

The revolt of orthodox Islamic ideas will fade away. The world moved on since the time the holy book of Islam was composed with material from Christian, Jewish and Beduin sources. The majority of Muslims realize that they have nothing to gain from turning back to a literal devotion to the rules of their God. In Western civilization, one day a man said that God was dead. One day in Mekka, such a man will repeat those words without being killed.

I am not pleading here for the abolition of religion. It would be an immense and empty undertaking. There is a lot of truth in the great myths of religion. And a lot of moving, brilliant poetry. It helps us accepting the limits of our existence. But the moment it creates hate, resentment, aggression, we need to suppress it. If necessary, when it threatens our existence, with violence.

In Zawahiri’s letter there is no mention of hunger or poverty. He is not fighting for freedom or equality or brotherly love. He is obsessed by the tasks he believes his God has imposed upon him. He does not talk about love or forgiveness; he only talks about the need to fight the impure and the infidels. He is regarding life like most human beings have been doing for thousands of years: as a ritualized and violent step towards death.

Zawahiri and his ilk are signifying the end of the morbid phase of monotheism. Modern Christianity and modern Judaism have become life-embracing forms of personal meditation. The majority of Muslims will join them.
  The death-loving behavior of the Islamists is not the beginning but the end of a development. They kill innocent people in the lowest manner imaginable because they lost the ability to convince people with other means: the majority of Muslims is, just like most Christians and Jews have experienced, in the middle of losing their fears for the Almighty. They as well start to find out that the world is only what we, mere mortals, make of it and you’d better not bet on what comes after it. This transformation doesn’t happen easily. Vast crises hold the Arab-Islamic world in their grip. I believe these crises are essentially cultural and religious – they are the birth throes of modern individualism in the Muslim world.

Al Qaeda cannot win. It is a manifestation of an outdated and terrifying phase in human development. But that does not mean we cannot lose. Islamist Muslims cannot design and build airplanes, but they can fly one into a majestic building. They can copy the design of a nuclear weapon and bring us the death they love so deeply.

I can write these words freely and without fear of being punished by the religious police. If I would have written these words in 1400 AD, I would have been burned at the stake. If I would have been writing these words in Cairo in 2005, I would have been jailed or Islamists would have come after me to kill me.

Some readers criticize the name of this blog. I am not taking back one inch of it. We live in The Free West. I am proud to live in The Free West. I am proud to be part of its humanistic tradition, its fight against stupidity, magical thinking, superstition, and its fight for freedom and its quest for knowledge, truth, sanity. I realize the black parts of its past. The pages on which the cruelty in European history have been described, fill whole libraries. But still – it is there, this miracle. Never before in human history have so many people enjoyed so much freedom and material and emotional wealth as in the past fifty years in the West.

If you don’t agree with its liberties, please move on to an Afghan cave.

Fisking Ayman Zawahiri

2005-10-12T13:15:00.001-07:00

The letter from Al Qaeda’s Chief Operating Officer Ayman Zawahiri to the chief of his Iraqi franchise, ‘insurgent’ leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, is a revealing document. It gives a clear insight in what Al Qeada is trying to establish. The letter was linked yesterday on the Web site of the American Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte. Here is the link: http://www.dni.gov/.

I will Fisk this 6000 word letter for you. For my dear readers who don’t know what Fisking is, the following: Robert Fisk is a British journalist who will never pass a chance to accuse the USA or the Zionists of evil deeds. He became famous for his ridiculously distorted reporting about the Middle East. He is still working for British newspaper The Independent. His name became synonymous for bad reporting, and in the blogosphere Fisking became a verb indicating the analysis of a pile of s**t.

LETTER FROM AL-ZAWAHARI TO AL-ZARQAWI

In the name of God, praise be to God, and praise and blessings be upon the Messenger of God, his family, his Companions, and all those who follow him.

The gracious brother/Abu Musab, God protect him and watch over him, may His religion, and His Book and the Sunna of His Prophet @ aid him, I ask the Almighty that he bless him, us, and all Muslims, with His divine aid, His clear victory, and His release from suffering be close at hand. Likewise, I ask the Almighty to gather us as He sees fit from the glory of this world and the prize of the hereafter.

1-Dear brother, God Almighty knows how much I miss meeting with you, how much I long to join you in your historic battle against the greatest of criminals and apostates in the heart of the Islamic world, the field where epic and major battles in the history of Islam were fought. I think that if I could find a way to you, I would not delay a day, God willing.

In other words: it is too dangerous to come out of my cave and travel to Iraq because American F-16s will hasten my trip to heaven.

2-My dear brother, we are following your news, despite the difficulty and hardship. We received your last published message sent to Sheikh Usama Bin Ladin, God save him. Likewise, I made sure in my last speech-that Aljazeera broadcast Saturday, 11 Jumadi I, 1426h, 18 June 2005-to mention you, send you greetings, and show support and thanks for the heroic acts you are performing in defense of Islam and the Muslims, but I do not know what Aljazeera broadcast. Did this part appear or not? I will try to attach the full speech with this message, conditions permitting.

In other words: I don’t have a TV and I am not watching the qualification games for the World Championship Soccer in Germany. I am in this shitty cave without electricity.

Likewise, I showed my support for your noble initiative to join with your brothers, during a prior speech I sent to the brothers a number of months ago, but the brothers' circumstances prevented its publication.

What circumstances? Are they dead? Are they in hiding?

3-I want to reassure you about our situation. The summer started hot with operations escalating in Afghanistan. The enemy struck a blow against us with the arrest of Abu al-Faraj, may God break his bonds. However, no Arab brother was arrested because of him. The brothers tried-and were successful to a great degree-to contain the fall of Abu al-Faraj as much as they could.

To contain as much as they could – come on, they were blown to pieces.

However, the real danger comes from the agent Pakistani army that is carrying out operations in the tribal areas looking for mujahedeen.

This is interesting: he is seeing how the Pakistanis are finally closing in on him and he knows that they are not taking no for an answer.

4-I want to keep corresponding with you about the details of what is going on in dear Iraq, especially since we do not know the full truth as you know it.

He is not reading the Times in his cave: no delivery over there?

Therefore, I want you to explain to me your situation in a little detail, especially in regards to the political angle. I want you to express to me what is on your mind in regards to what is on my mind in the way of questions and inquiries.

In other words: I think you are making a mess and I want you to listen to me.

A-I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God @ about the epic battles between Islam and atheism.

It is not the greatest battle, and he knows it. It is just hard to say: this is a nonsense battle, you blowing up unarmed Iraqi Muslims on markets and in mosques.

It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt.

Read it carefully: in the manner of the Prophet. Of course every Arab state is officially a Muslim state, but that is not enough for him. In the manner of the Prophet means: like the Arab Beduins used to live in the seventh and eight century.

This is my opinion, which I do not preach as infallibile, but I have reviewed historical events and the behavior of the enemies of Islam themselves, and they did not establish Israel in this triangle surrounded by Egypt and Syria and overlooking the Hijaz except for their own interests.

This is traditional paranoid Arab thinking; Israel was established by Zionist Jews fleeing European anti-Semitism. The British opposed it, like many Western countries. Israel is not representing whatever Western interest but is even complicating Western interests. Most Western countries want to deal quietly with Arab rulers, tyrants or not. Israel is complicating this laissez-fair policy.

As for the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world. We ask God that He send down his victory upon us that he promised to his faithful worshipers.

There is no major battle in the heart of the Islamic world. Terrorist cowards blow up innocent civilians and run when they see American forces – you call that a major battle?

It is strange that the Arab nationalists also have, despite their avoidance of Islamic practice, come to comprehend the great importance of this province. It is like a bird whose wings are Egypt and Syria, and whose heart is Palestine. They have come to comprehend the goal of planting Israel in this region, and they are not misled in this, rather they have admitted their ignorance of the religious nature of this conflict.

There is no hidden meaning behind the creation of Israel, but this man is a conspiracy loony (in the tradition of Michael Moore) and he tries to establish some mystical rapport with his reader: both you and I know the hidden schemes!

What I mean is that God has blessed you and your brothers while many of the Muslim mujahedeen have longed for that blessing, and that is Jihad in the heart of the Islamic world. He has, in addition to that, granted you superiority over the idolatrous infidels, traitorous apostates, and those turncoat deviants.

Superiority? I hear the lice laughing out loud in his cave. They dress up as women and blow themselves up with children!

This is what God Almighty has distinguished you and your brothers with over the mujahedeen before you who fought in the heart of the Islamic world, and in Egypt and Syria to be precise, but this splendor and superiority against the enemies of Islam was not ordained for them.

Still playing nice guy to his reader – giving him support.

God also blessed you not only with the splendor of the spearhead of Jihad, but with the splendor as well of the doctrines of monotheism, the rejection of polytheism, and avoidance of the tenets of the secularists and detractors and inferiors, the call to the pure way of the Prophet, and the sublime goal that the Prophet @ left to his companions. This is a blessing on top of blessing on top of blessing which obliges you and your noble brothers to be constantly thankful and full of praise. The Almighty said: (If ye are grateful, He is pleased with you) and the Almighty says: (If ye are grateful, I will add more unto you.)

Yes, the Almighty loves to see children torn to pieces by his fierce Mujahedeen.

B-Because of this, we are extremely concerned, as are the mujahedeen and all sincere Muslims, about your Jihad and your heroic acts until you reach its intended goal.
You know well that purity of faith and the correct way of living are not connected necessarily to success in the field unless you take into consideration the reasons and practices which events are guided by. For the grandson of the Prophet Imam al Hussein Bin Ali }, the Leader of the Faithful Abdallah Bin al-Zubair }, Abdul Rahman Bin al-Ashath ~, and other great people, did not achieve their sought-after goal.

Extremely concerned – now the introduction is over and he is playing hardball. He means: you are digging a hole in which you yourself will be buried.

C-If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly-according to how it appears to us-in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal.

A large step? The Iraqi’s stand in line to bring out their vote, men and women alike. There is not the slightest hint of a caliphate in the whole wide world. Why? You cannot bring a dinosaur back to this world. Caliphates cannot work in this time and age. They are a concept of a bygone era. In a world of Britney Spears, Skype, Club Med, Cheaptickets.Com and Madonnistic Kabbalah you cannot return to an isolated population living in fear and poverty reigned by a religious elite. Forgetaboutit.

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

This could have been possible with the help of CNN, Robert Fisk and John Kerry. Tough thing: the Americans redefeated Bush!

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

The Sunni may not like the Shiites and the Kurds, but they will kill him the moment he tries to establish a Taliban-like reign. What will happen if the Americans would leave? The Kurds and Shiites will have a ball going after the Sunnis and Islamists in the Triangle!

There is no doubt that this emirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

Come in: this is an illusion, but the writer is hostage to his own delusions.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

There can be terrorism, they may be blowing up children on markets in Jordan and Syria as well, but they will provoke a terrible reaction among Arab leaders, who will not play the game like the radical chique in Paris, London and Manhattan wants to see the game played.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

Yes, please, let them go to Gaza and have a fight with the Israelis lead by Sharon. Don’t be a coward, Zarqawi, do it!

My raising this idea-I don't claim that it's infallible-is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

In other words: I know you have lost this struggle and now go elsewhere.

If the matter is thus, we must contemplate our affairs carefully, so that we are not robbed of the spoils, and our brothers did not die, so that others can reap the fruits of their labor.

In other words: we have to re-foc-us!!

D-If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then, we will see that the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy - after the help and granting of success by God - is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.

Popular support? They are hated. They will be hanged by wild mobs!

So, we must maintain this support as best we can, and we should strive to increase it, on the condition that striving for that support does not lead to any concession in the laws of the Sharia.

There is no need to maintain support because there is no support.

And it's very important that you allow me to elaborate a little here on this issue of popular support. Let's say:

Now he comes with the stick:

(1) If we are in agreement that the victory of Islam and the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet will not be achieved except through jihad against the apostate rulers and their removal, then this goal will not be accomplished by the mujahed movement while it is cut off from public support, even if the Jihadist movement pursues the method of sudden overthrow. This is because such an overthrow would not take place without some minimum of popular support and some condition of public discontent which offers the mujahed movement what it needs in terms of capabilities in the quickest fashion. Additionally, if the Jihadist movement were obliged to pursue other methods, such as a popular war of jihad or a popular intifadah, then popular support would be a decisive factor between victory and defeat.

Lots of words for a simple message: we need public support!

(2) In the absence of this popular support, the Islamic mujahed movement would be crushed in the shadows, far from the masses who are distracted or fearful, and the struggle between the Jihadist elite and the arrogant authorities would be confined to prison dungeons far from the public and the light of day. This is precisely what the secular, apostate forces that are controlling our countries are striving for. These forces don't desire to wipe out the mujahed Islamic movement, rather they are stealthily striving to separate it from the misguided or frightened Muslim masses. Therefore, our planning must strive to involve the Muslim masses in the battle, and to bring the mujahed movement to the masses and not conduct the struggle far from them.

How to bring in those ‘masses’?

(3) The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.

No, they do not. He does want to discuss this, but the main reason is: deep down they don’t care what is happening in Palestine or elsewhere. Deep down all these people know what they want: a good life, decency, safety, a car and a fridge, good schools, a careful doctor and a clean hospital.

This, in my limited opinion, is the reason for the popular support that the mujahedeen enjoy in Iraq, by the grace of God.

In other words: let’s try to pretend there is some support for us.

As for the sectarian and chauvinistic factor, it is secondary in importance to outside aggression, and is much weaker than it. In my opinion-which is limited and which is what I see far from the scene-the awakening of the Sunni people in Iraq against the Shia would not have had such strength and toughness were it not for the treason of the Shia and their collusion with the Americans, and their agreement with them to permit the Americans to occupy Iraq in exchange for the Shia assuming power.

Treason? The Shia have been killed by the thousands by Saddam’s Sunni tyranny. Of course they are happy to see him bleed in his cell. Of course they are happy to support a power that could get him.

(4) Therefore, the mujahed movement must avoid any action that the masses do not understand or approve, if there is no contravention of Sharia in such avoidance, and as long as there are other options to resort to, meaning we must not throw the masses-scant in knowledge-into the sea before we teach them to swim, relying for guidance in that on the saying of the Prophet @ to Umar bin al-Khattab<: lest the people should say that Muhammad used to kill his Companions.

In other words: you cannot kill Shiites unpunished, we need these guys to drive out the Americans.

Among the practical applications of this viewpoint in your blessed arena:

(A) The matter of preparing for the aftermath of the exit of the Americans: The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority-as soon as the country is freed from the Americans-does not depend on force alone. Indeed, it's imperative that, in addition to force, there be an appeasement of Muslims and a sharing with them in governance and in the Shura council and in promulgating what is allowed and what is not allowed. In my view-which I continue to reiterate is limited and has a distant perspective upon the events-this must be achieved through the people of the Shura and who possess authority to determine issues and make them binding, and who are endowed with the qualifications for working in Sharia law. They would be
elected by the people of the country to represent them and overlook the work of the
authorities in accordance with the rules of the glorious Sharia.

In other words: in case the Americans leave, we need a new religious elite to impose the Sharia.

And it doesn't appear that the Mujahedeen, much less the al-Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers, will lay claim to governance without the Iraqi people. Not to mention that that would be in contravention of the Shura methodology. That is not practical in my opinion.

Again: we need popular support!

You might ask an important question: What drives me to broach these matters while we are in the din of war and the challenges of killing and combat?

He know, he knows: he is losing!

My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the
collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.

This is pure mental coaching. He comes up with the Vietnam thing, repeating the slogans of the Michael Moore lunatic fringes, and keeps up the works by pretending that this is going to happen again. But Iraq is not Vietnam.
The US was winning the war in Vietnam but it lost the war against a new force: the coalition of neo-marxists, students and the new electronic world media, an amazing force that could (and still can) change the mood in a country and undermine the legalities of a war. In the sixties and seventies this was a revolutionary new phenomenon: next to state powers fater World War 2 this new power emerged, a power that said its main ambition was to check the political powers but that became a new political power in itself. And this has changed again: now the blogosphere is checking the media power.
CBS and the NYTimes don’t set the agenda anymore.

Second: This is the most vital part. This authority, or the Sharia amirate that is necessary, requires fieldwork starting now, alongside the combat and war. It would be a political endeavor in which the mujahedeen would be a nucleus around which would gather the tribes and their elders, and the people in positions, and scientists, and merchants, and people of opinion, and all the distinguished ones who were not sullied by appeasing the occupation and those who defended Islam.

In other words: set up a network, appease the Shiites, promise tribal leaders influence and wealth.

We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have any representation for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so the result was that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from them. Even devout ones took the stance of the spectator and, when the invasion came, the amirate collapsed in days, because the people were either passive or hostile. Even the students themselves had a stronger affiliation to their tribes and their villages than their affiliation to the Islamic amirate or the Taliban movement or the responsible party in charge of each one of them in his place. Each of them retreated to his village and his tribe, where his affiliation was stronger!!

In other words: we f***ed up in Afghanistan.

The comparison between the fall of Kabul and the resistance of Fallujah, Ramadi, and Al Qaim and their fearless sisters shows a clear distinction, by God's grace and His kindness. It is the matter towards which we must strive, that we must support and strengthen.

Resistance? Who told him? Ted Kennedy? He should look for another advisor. They were wiped out!

Therefore, I stress again to you and to all your brothers the need to direct the political action equally with the military action, by the alliance, cooperation and gathering of all leaders of opinion and influence in the Iraqi arena. I can't define for you a specific means of action. You are more knowledgeable about the field conditions. But you and your brothers must strive to have around you circles of support, assistance, and cooperation, and through them, to advance until you become a consensus, entity, organization, or association that represents all the honorable people and the loyal folks in Iraq. I repeat the warning against separating from the masses, whatever the danger.

Again: create a network, create support. Apparently, he does not know how deeply his mujahedeen are hated.

(2) Striving for the unity of the mujahedeen: This is something I entrust to you. It is between you and God. If the mujahedeen are scattered, this leads to the scattering of the people around them. I don't have detailed information about the situation of the mujahedeen, so I ask that you help us with some beneficial details in this, and the extent of the different mujahedeen movements' readiness to join the course of unity.

There is a lot of friction between the various ‘insurgents’. The old Baathists, the tribal Sunni warriors and the real mujahedeen hate each other’s guts.

(3) Striving for the ulema: From the standpoint of not highlighting the doctrinal differences which the masses do not understand, such as this one is Matridi or this one is Ashari or this one is Salafi, and from the standpoint of doing justice to the people, for there may be in the world a heresy or an inadequacy in a side which may have something to give to jihad, fighting, and sacrifice for God. We have seen magnificent examples in the Afghan jihad, and the prince of believers, Mullah Muhammad Omar - may God protect him - himself is of Hanafi adherence, Matridi doctrine, but he stood in the history of Islam with a stance rarely taken. You are the richer if you know the stances of the authentic ulema on rulers in times of jihad and the defense of the Muslim holy sites. And more than that, their stances on doing justice to the people and not denying their merit.

This is about the various theological schools in Islam. He means: it does not matter to which school you belong, we all share the same dream.

The ulema among the general public are, as well, the symbol of Islam and its emblem. Their disparagement may lead to the general public deeming religion and its adherents as being unimportant. This is a greater injury than the benefit of criticizing a theologian on a heresy or an issue.

In other words: don’t quarrel about theological issues, the religious leaders – the ulema – should work as one team.

Of course, these words of mine have nothing to do with the hypocritical traitors who are in allegiance with the crusaders, but I wish to stress the warning against diminishing the ulema before the general public.

In other words: the religious leaders should speak out!

Also, the active mujahedeen ulema - even if there may be some heresy or fault in them that is not blasphemous - we must find a means to include them and to benefit from their energy. You know well -what I am mentioning to you- that many of the most learned ulema of Islam such as Izz Bin Abdul Salam, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar - may God have mercy on them - were Ashari. And many of the most eminent jihadists, whom the Umma resolved unanimously to praise such as Nur al-Din Bin Zanki and Salahal-Din al-Ayyubi - were Ashari. The mujahedeen sultans who came after them - who didn't reach their level - whom the ulema and the historians lauded such as Sayf al-Din Qatz, Rukn al-Din Baybars, al-Nasir Muhammad Bin-Qallawun, and Muhammad al-Fatih, were Ashari or Matridi. They fell into errors, sins, and heresies. And the stances of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiya regarding al-Nasir Muhammad Bin Qallawun and his extolling of him and his inciting him to jihad - despite the prosecutions and prison which befell the sheikh in his time - are well known.

In other words: we need religious leaders who lead the Jihad!

If you take into account the fact that most of the Umma's ulema are Ashari or Matridi, and if you take into consideration as well the fact that the issue of correcting the mistakes of ideology is an issue that will require generations of the call to Islam and modifying the educational curricula, and that the mujahedeen are not able to undertake this burden, rather they are in need of those who will help them with the difficulties and problems they face; if you take all this into consideration, and add to it the fact that all Muslims are speaking of jihad, whether they are Salafi or non-Salafi, then you would understand that it is a duty of the mujahed movement to include the energies of the Umma and in its wisdom and prudence to fill the role of leader, trailblazer, and exploiter of all the capabilities of the Umma for the sake of achieving our aims: a caliphate along the lines of the Prophet's, with God's permission.

This is what he dreams of: his own caliphate. And strong religious leaders should untite and organize the Umma, the world community of Muslims, for this goal.

I do not know the details of the situation where you are, but I do not want us to repeat the mistake of Jamil al-Rahman~, who was killed and whose organization was shattered, because he neglected the realities on the ground.

This is hard criticism again: I cannot watch CNN regularly but I heard you really have messed up.

(4) The position on the Shia:

This subject is complicated and detailed. I have brought it up here so as not to address the general public on something they do not know. But please permit me to present it logically:

I repeat that I see the picture from afar, and I repeat that you see what we do not see. No doubt you have the right to defend yourself, the mujahedeen, and Muslims in general and in particular against any aggression or threat of aggression.

In other words: I heard you have been killing many Shiites.

(B) I assert here that any rational person understands with ease that the Shia cooperated with the Americans in the invasion of Afghanistan, Rafsanjani himself confessed to it, and they cooperated with them in the overthrow of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq in exchange for the Shia's assumption of power and their turning a blind eye to the American military presence in Iraq. This is clear to everybody who has two eyes.

In other words: you may have reasons to kill the Shiites because they helped the Americans to destroy Saddam, BUT…

(C) People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extent
of danger to Islam of the Twelve'er school of Shiism. It is a religious school
based on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions of Muhammad { of heresy in a campaign against Islam, in order to free the way for a group of those who call for a dialogue in the name of the hidden mahdi who is in control of existence and infallible in what he does. Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.

In other words; I hate the Shiites, they are pieces of s**t! BUT…

(D) The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later. This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnis.
These are clear, well-known matters to anyone with a knowledge of history, the ideologies, and the politics of states.

We know already for ages the Shiites are fools, BUT…

(E) We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.

BUT: It not good for our image to kill Shiites. The majority of Muslims are innocent and plain people who cannot figure out why it is necessary to kill Shiites in their mosques. You and I know why it is OK to kill them, but most people are naive.

Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that is unavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger? And if some of the operations were necessary for self-defense, were all of the operations necessary? Or, were there some operations that weren't called for? And is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision? Or, does this conflict with the Shia lift the burden from the Americans by diverting the mujahedeen to the Shia, while the Americans continue to control matters from afar? And if the attacks on Shia leaders were necessary to put a stop to their plans, then why were there attacks on ordinary Shia?

In other words: stop killing the Shiites!

Won't this lead to reinforcing false ideas in their minds, even as it is incumbent on us to preach the call of Islam to them and explain and communicate to guide them to the truth? And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners - many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries - in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?

In other words: we are provoking the Iranians, and that is stupid. The Iranians are not fools like the Americans, who are even afraid to humiliate us. The Iranians will eat our guts for lunch if we go on!

All of these questions and others are circulating among your brothers, and they are monitoring the picture from afar, as I told you. One who monitors from afar lacks many of the important details that affect decision-making in the field.

In other words: you stupid s*n of a b**ch!

However, monitoring from afar has the advantage of providing the total picture and observing the general line without getting submerged in the details, which might draw attention away from the direction of the target. As the English proverb says, the person who is standing among the leaves of the tree might not see the tree.

In other words: don’t think you can fool me, don’t think you are this wonderful made guy throwing handgranates around as if throwing balls on a bowling strip. I may be far away but I am watching you!

One of the most important factors of success is that you don't let your eyes lose sight of the target, and that it should stand before you always. Otherwise you deviate from the general line through a policy of reaction. And this is a lifetime's experience, and I will not conceal from you the fact that we suffered a lot through following this policy of reaction, then we suffered a lot another time because we tried to return to the original line.

In other words; I know you like killing and the sight of dead bodies, but you need to FOCUS, man!

One of the most important things facing the leadership is the enthusiasm of the supporters, and especially of the energetic young men who are burning to make the religion victorious. This enthusiasm must flow wisely, and al-Mutanabbi says:
Courage in a man does suffice but not like the courage of one who is wise.

So: THINK before you act!

And he also says: Judiciousness precedes the courage of the courageous which is second
And when the two blend in one free soul it reaches everywhere in the heavens.

Follow the rules of our club!

In summation, with regard to the talk about the issue of the Shia, I would like to repeat that I see that matter from afar without being aware of all the details, I would like my words to be deserving of your attention and consideration, and God is the guarantor of success for every good thing.

No, I am not taking back my words. You may think: the old fool is hiding in his cave and doesn’t know s**t. I know. I really know.

(5) Scenes of slaughter:

Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.

In other words: you stupid f**k! You decapitate people and show it on video? And you think that pious Muslims in Detroit are going to love those scenes?

And your response, while true, might be: Why shouldn't we sow terror in the hearts of the Crusaders and their helpers? And isn't the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering? And aren't the cluster bombs and the seven ton bombs and the depleted uranium bombs crueler than slaughtering? And isn't killing by torture crueler than slaughtering? And isn't violating the honor of men and women more painful and more destructive than slaughtering?

In other words: don’t give me crap!

All of these questions and more might be asked, and you are justified. However this does not change the reality at all, which is that the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that, and that this general opinion falls under a campaign by the malicious, perfidious, and fallacious campaign by the deceptive and fabricated media. And we would spare the people from the effect of questions about the usefulness of our actions in the hearts and minds of the general opinion that is essentially sympathetic to us.

In other words: we don’t have any popular support because of your sick videos!

And I say to you with sure feeling and I say: That the author of these lines has tasted the bitterness of American brutality, and that my favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling and she went on calling for aid to lift the stone block off her chest until she breathed her last, may God have mercy on her and accept her among the martyrs. As for my young daughter, she was afflicted by a cerebral hemorrhage, and she continued for a whole day suffering in pain until she expired. And to this day I do not know the location of the graves of my wife, my son, my daughter, and the rest of the three other families who were martyred in the incident and who were pulverized by the concrete ceiling, may God have mercy on them and the Muslim martyrs. Were they brought out of the rubble, or are they still buried beneath it to this day?

In other words: I suffered more than you so don’t oppose me! NOTE: notice the FAVORITE wife’s chest!

However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.

In other words: before going in my cave I saw Michael ‘Goebbels’ Moore’s film and I love it! I love Dean, Kerry, Joschka, I love Jane Fonda, I love all the infidel s**theads before I will kill them! I am for Kerry before I am against him!

And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this.

Don’t show these videos anymore! Kill the captives with bullets, whatever, but only watch the videos in the privacy of your own livingroom!

E-I would like you to explain for us another issue related to Iraq, and I think without a doubt that you are the most knowledgeable about it. Can the assumption of leadership for the mujahedeen or a group of the mujahedeen by non-Iraqis stir up sensitivity for some people? And if there is sensitivity, what is its effect? And how can it be eliminated while preserving the commitment of the jihadist work and without exposing it to any shocks? Please inform us in detail regarding this matter.

In other words: you are not an Iraqi guy but a Jordanian punk. I don’t think the Iraqi’s will ever accept you as a leader.

F-Likewise I would like you to inform us about the Iraqi situation in general and the situation of the mujahedeen in particular in detail without exposing the security of the mujahedeen and the Muslims to danger. At the least, we should know as much as the enemy knows. And allow us to burden you with this trouble, for we are most eager to learn your news.

In other words: how many guys are still willing to die for an illusion?

G-I have a definite desire to travel to you but I do not know whether that is possible from the standpoint of traveling and getting settled, so please let me know. And God is the guarantor of every good thing.

In other words: I don’t have an internet connection here and I cannot get a Priceline quote and I don’t want to pay full price so I stay in my cave.

5-Please take every caution in the meetings, especially when someone claims to carry an important letter or contributions. It was in this way that they arrested Khalid Sheikh. Likewise, please, if you want to meet one of your assistants, I hope that you don't meet him in a public place or in a place that is not known to you. I hope that you would meet him in a secure place, not the place of your residence. Because Abu al-Faraj - may God set him free and release him from his torment - was lured by one of his brothers, who had been taken into custody, to meet him at a public location where a trap had been set.

In other words: there are many people who love to sell you to the Yankees.

6-The brothers informed me that you suggested to them sending some assistance. Our situation since Abu al-Faraj is good by the grace of God, but many of the lines have been cut off. Because of this, we need a payment while new lines are being opened. So, if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand, we'll be very grateful to you.

You think YOU have problems?

7-The subject of the Algerian brothers at our end, there are fears from the previous experiences, so if you're able to get in touch with them and notify us of the details from them, we would be very grateful to you.

I cannot just pick up the phone and ask for assistance! Whatthe hell is going on with the Algerians? I heard there is no support as well!

8-As for news on the poor servant,

A-During an earlier period I published some publications:

(1) Allegiance and exemption - A Faith transmitted, a lost reality.
(2) Strengthening the Banner of Islam - an article emphasizing the authority's commitment to monotheism.
(3) Wind of Paradise - an article about: Most Honorable Sacrifices of the Believers - Campaigns of Death and Martyrdom.
I endeavored in this article to include what was written on the subject as much as I could. I also strived to verify every word in it, and it's an issue that took me almost a year or more.
(4) The Bitter Harvest - The Muslim Brotherhood in 60 Years - Second Edition 1426h - 2005m.

I other words: why isn’t the NYTimes mentioning me in their Bestsellers list?

In this edition, I wanted to delete all the extreme phrases for which there's no proof, and I referred to the book a number of times, then I wrote a new preface. In it I pointed out a dangerous trend of the Brotherhood, especially in the circumstances of the New Crusader War which was launched on the Islamic Umma. In my opinion, this edition is better than the first with respect to the calmness of the presentation instead of being emotional. The Brotherhood's danger is demonstrated by the weakening of the Islamic Resistance to the campaign of the Crusaders and their supporters. God is the only one who is perfect.

Read my stuff and shut up!

(5) I have also had fifteen audio statements published and six others that were not published for one reason or another. We ask God for acceptance and devotion.
I will enclose for you the written statements and what I can of the audio and video statements with this message, God willing. If you find they are good, you can publish them. We seek God's assistance.

I am still looking for a solid agent who’s not overasking.

(6) I don't know if you all have contact with Abu Rasmi? Even if it is via the Internet, because I gave him a copy of my book (A Knight under the banner of the Prophet@) so he could attempt to publish it, and I lost the original.

If you see Abu Rasmi, tell him to return the book otherwise I will kill him.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper published it truncated and jumbled. I think that the American intelligence services provided the aforementioned newspaper with it from my computer which they acquired, because the publication of the book coincided with a publication of messages from my computer in the same newspaper. So if you can contact him and get the original of the book, if that is possible for you all, then you can publish it on your blessed website and then send a copy to us, if that is possible.

Still no answer from the reader at Random House.

B-As for my personal condition, I am in good health, blessings and wellness thanks to God and His grace. I am only lacking your pious prayers, in which I beg you not to forget me. God Almighty has blessed me with a daughter whom I have named (Nawwar), and Nawwar means: the timid female gazelle and the woman who is free from suspicion, and technically: it is the name of my maternal aunt who was a second mother to me and who stood with me during all the difficult and harsh times. I ask God to reward her for me with the best reward, and have mercy on her, our mothers and the Muslims.

In other words: there is no need to send me Viagra.

9-My greetings to all the loved ones and please give me news of Karem and the rest of the folks I know, and especially:
By God, if by chance you're going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

I know he is not in Fallujah, the shmuck, but let HIM do the explaining.

In closing, I ask God entrust you all with His guardianship, providence and protection, and bless you all in your families, possessions and offspring and protect them from all evil and that He delight you all with them in this world and the next world, and that He bestow upon us and you all the victory that he promised his servants the Believers, and that He strengthen for us our religion which He has sanctioned for us, and that He make us safe after our fear.Peace, God's blessings and mercy to you.

I have to run.

Your loving brother

Abu Muhammad
Saturday, 02 Jumada al-Thani, 1426 - 09 July, 2005.

More at the Die Welt website

2005-10-05T19:48:00.000-07:00

You can read my blog at my site at Die Welt.