Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Ken Livingstone today defended the right of Abu Hamza’s son to work for a Tube contractor - despite his conviction for terrorism in Yemen. Mohammed Kamel Mostafa, 25, from Wembley, was given a security pass and had access to restricted areas - including tunnels under Parliament - during his time as a labourer at nights and weekends on the Underground. But the Mayor said he doubted the veracity of any conviction from Yemen and said Mostafa had passed Tube security checks. He said it was wrong to restrict his ability to work simply because he was the son of Abu Hamza. Mr Livingstone said: “Has he broken any laws here in Britain? The answer is no. We are happy to have him working for us. “No one can be blamed for what their parents do. All we ask is that they respect the law of the land and do not hurt anyone.”Hat tip - Little Green Footballs - Link to the Daily Mail Article Um, Kenny boy, in this case, Mostafa was convicted himself in Yemen. This is not even mentioning his connection with an extremist hate mosque that incited murder. It's all okay - let's give him a job working for the London Underground! And while we are at it, let's dance in the forrest with the Jolly Green Giant! Sounds like a great plan to me!
It is absurd to think that Muslim hearts and minds can be won. They can be rented, not bought, and rented only for the shortest of periods. Meanwhile, the rent -- that is the further transfer of wealth from the Camp of the Infidels to the Camp of Islam -- only helps to pay for mosques, madrasas, worldwide campaigns of Da'wa, and armies of Western hirelings who conduct public relations and disinformation efforts on behalf of Saudi Arabia, the Arabs and Muslims more generally, and Islam itself. Sixty billion dollars has been given by successive American governments to Egypt. Egypt today has still failed to honor any of its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords (save for that not to engage in open warfare, a commitment that it keeps for the same reason that Syria does not attack Israel -- because of the likely consequences). Tens of billions have over many decades gone from the American government to Pakistan, a country whose military actively encouraged A. Q. Khan in his theft from Western laboratories of nuclear secrets and his subsequent effort to share those secrets with, inter alios, North Korea and Iran. .... Where is the evidence that more such payments will help, since there is not the slightest evidence that the payment of a disguised Jizyah does anything except encourage Muslim attitudes that this Infidel aid must be given, is given as a duty? And what is even more sinister, the Infidel donors behave as if this is indeed the case -- that they cannot stop such payments for fear of the reaction of the Muslim donees. This is madness from top to bottom. That some in the government think this way, even for a second, shows how little they comprehend of Islam, of its unambiguous tenets and the natural attitudes that flow from them, in any society suffused with Islam. This involves ignorance of so much history -- some 1350 years of it, and over such a wide swath of different territories once held by so many different peoples, all of them conquered and subjugated and forced to endure the status of dhimmi. That lasted up until the last half of the 19th century, when Western power forced a change upon a most reluctant Ottoman Empire. In Muslim countries today, the reversion to persecution of non-Muslims has everywhere led to a great reduction in their numbers -- in the Arab countries (both Jews and Christians have left), and in Pakistan and Bangladesh (where it is primarily Hindus whose percentage of the population has gone down to about a fifth, in Bangladesh, and a tenth, in Pakistan, of what it was at Partition).Read the whole thing! The money we send these nations is paying for our own destruction. That said, there is one positive development! Pakistan recently bombed a madrasa that doubled as a terrorist training facility for Al-Queda. It seems Pakistan is cooperating with us at the moment...of course, that may be because Musharaff knows his neck is on the line, and faces constant threats of a coup. Protests for this attack have occurred in Pakistan, and to that I say of course they will protest. When a madrasa school that doubles for a terrorist training facility is bombed, terrorists and terror supporters will be rather unhappy. Their unhappiness does not faze me.
Monday, October 30, 2006
"Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well."
"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now.
"We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further (than Kyoto)."More details can be found in this BBC news report. We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing, for short term economic prosperity. Even if the Science is wrong (and i don't think it is, i've sifted through the data on climate change since the 1990's, i am a science nerd) then it is far better to be safer rather than sorry later. Other sources: Skynews report The Times report Guardian Unlimited Washington post report New Scientist report CNN report
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A report by Sir Nicholas Stern (former chief economist at the world bank) is being issued tomorrow about the economic costs of climate change. In the report Sir Stern paints a bleak picture of what will happen if we do nothing to tackle climate change in economic terms. However we can do something to protect the future of the world economy. Huge amounts of money will have to be spent on tackling climate change.
The points that have leaked from the report so far are as follows:
Emissions would need to by cut by 3 quarters of GDP by 2050, to stabilize carbon levels to 500-550 parts per million compared to todays level which is around 430 parts per million.
The Power sector will need to be decarbonized by 60% to 70%.
Deforestation would have to be stopped as it causes 18% of global emissions.
Transport emissions will also need to be cut by a large amount.
Around 1% of global GDP by 2050 will have to be spent to pay for these changes.
Growth will be hit by spending 1% of GDP on tackling climate change.
If we carry on as business per usual it would lead to a loss of up to 5% of global per capita consumption, which we will not recover from.
If we do nothing at all to tackle climate change then we could see a reduction of consumption per head of up to 20%.
Stern says that if we spend 1% of GDP tackling climate change then we could be richer by 20% :- “Stern says that if you take the present value (the value in today's money) of the benefits over the coming years of taking action to stabilize greenhouse gases by 2050, then deduct the costs, you end up with a "profit" of $2.5 trillion (£1.32 trillion). “ There are two models through which emission cuts can be obtained by:
Rationing the amount of carbon that business and individuals can make and create a carbon trading market where by companies can sell off excess carbon to other companies.
Governments will have to change behavioral patterns through regulation on things like energy efficiency in buildings etc. Though the poorer nations will suffer more than the developed world which is why richer nations should take on the lions share of cutting emissions, which would be around 60% to 80%. It is a moral obligation that we as people of developed nations have to take on. As we have caused most of the carbon emissions that have lead to climate change.
So there is now an economic reason to tackle Climate change. It will cause a lot of short term pain but the benefits outweigh the pain.
Source: BBC News website. Note: This may not make a whole lot of sense, as it has been a long time since i've had to deal with units of GDP (like 10 years).
Here is the BBC's guide to climate change.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Turning to the Palestinian arena, Ganor said that "the Palestinians are now at the stage of shaping their self-identities," a process he described as ultimately "positive." They are torn between "terrorism and violence against Israel, definitely the concept used by Yasser Arafat under the Oslo accords," as well as today's "Islamic radical terrorist organizations," and the "alternative option, which is actually being represented by (PA President Mahmoud Abbas) Abu Mazen," based on the idea that "terrorism and violence will never fulfill the Palestinian national interest (Interest in wiping out Israel -ed)."IMO: The PLO is our greatest danger, worse than Hezbollah and Hamas combined. Abu Mazen is a champion of deception; his method is to walk us into the ovens. The hope for a future peace remains hollow until these genocidal terrorist networks are eliminated.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I just want to reaffirm the values that Culture for All stands for, because I think that it does sometimes get muddied. (Maybe in part because I write so passionately and often in a stream of consciousness.)
This blog stands most of all for the notion that we are all living in one world and all deserve a place on this place called Earth. Be you Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, you ALL deserve to share this planet. As such, we stands firmly against those who wish genocide upon any other group.
Thus, this blog stands against the Kahane Jews, Woodsboro Baptist Christians (and people of their ilk), Fundamentalist Muslims and their supporters, and right wing Hindus who wish to kill all Muslims.
In examining each of the genocidal sects of the major religions, it is quite clear that only the Muslim world has such strong support and funding for genocide. Every other genocidal group is marginalized and despised by the wider religious communities. It is clear that Muslims are being brainwashed to support genocide, one only needs to look at the textbooks and media in Muslim schools and Saudi funded madrassas around the world to confirm this problem.
That does not mean every Muslim is bad or Islam is somehow rotten to the core. I believe that in many ways these Muslims who are being brainwashed across the world are in fact victims of child abuse and oppressive regimes. It is a tragedy to teach children to hate, wish death, and not value life.
I also do not believe that Islam is peaceful to the core, as I explained earlier. I do not believe that ANY religion is inherently peaceful, least of all the "Big Three" monotheistic faiths. Islam has a bloody history, but so does Christianity, and bibical Judaism. That said, I do believe that Islam can be peaceful, and I know there are peaceful Muslims out there. I want it to be clear that I believe a peaceful Islam requires a radical reinterpretation of the Quran, as there are very clearly non-peaceful verses spread all over the Quran. A whole new set of hadiths is likely necessary. But this is not impossible, and in fact Christianity had a reformation that radically transformed the Christian faith. I fail to see why a reformation is impossible for Muslims. In fact, Reza Aslan believes that a reformation is going on as we speak, in his book No God But God. I recently purchased this book, and I will give my review of it after I read it.
So, in short, as an atheist, I think that the religious tenets of all religions are wrong, however, there is something to be learned from the history and culture of all religions.
I welcome all people of all faiths to post on this blog, bearing in mind that this blog is fervantly anti-genocide, and hence fervantly pro-Israel and anti-Islamofascist, Christofascist, etc. Furthermore, while this blog stands for cultural pluralism and acceptance, it does not accept those who support terrorism or genocide. Anyone who believes we should accept intolerent ideologies stands wholly against TRUE acceptance and the core values this blog espouses.
The big question whose answer remains shrouded in a mystery is how to combat such religious fascism without sacrificing core values of freedom, pluralism, and democracy. Is it possible to win the war against those who wish to destroy us without destroying a part of ourselves in the process?
I say that it is possible to win the war without destroying ourselves. It takes encouring thinking. I believe that those who think and reason will be able to change the course of the world. If nothing else, just think of the story of Scheherezade.
- Written by Red Tulips
Update by Steven on 02 June 2008: This article is approximately 20 months old and reflects the views of the author at the time of writing.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
But he is even better than that - yes really. Dave's articles are mind numbingly clear when it comes to important issues - and if you have not read Israellycool before I invite you to read this important post titled: "Disproportionate Response"
UN peacekeeping chief French Major General Alain Pelligrini on how UNIFIL may deal with Hizbullah terrorists on the way to attack, or even in the midst of attacking, Israel:See what I mean. ;)Contrary to Israeli hopes that the new multinational force in Lebanon will engage and disarm Hizbullah, the beefed up UNIFIL will not immediately open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they are on their way to an attack or even in the midst of an attack on Israel, the commander of the UN peacekeeping force, Maj.-Gen. Alain Pellegrini, told The Jerusalem Post Thursday in an exclusive interview.UN peacekeeping chief French Major General Alain Pelligrini on how UNIFIL may deal with IAF flights over Lebanon:
While the new rules of engagement set by the UN allowed the new UNIFIL force to open fire in order to implement resolution 1701, Pellegrini said he would not automatically order his troops to open fire on Hizbullah guerrillas if they were spotted on their way to the Blue Line to attack Israel. The job of the new multinational force, he said, was to assist the Lebanese army and not to disarm or engage Hizbullah or even to prevent its attacks.
According to UN Security Council resolution 1701 (Link -ed), UNIFIL was in Lebanon to "assist the Lebanese army," Pellegrini said, and "to inform them and advise them how they can do their job."
"We first will observe and then inform the Lebanese army," he said. "If we see something dangerous we will inform the Lebanese army and it will decide whether it will act independently or consider having a joint reaction together with us."UN peacekeeping chief in Lebanon French Major General Alain Pelligrini said on Thursday that should diplomatic efforts fail to stop Israeli flights over Lebanon, force might be considered in the future.Let's make it simple:
His comments came as the son of slain former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri urged French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday to help stop the Israel Air Force's overflights.
Pellegrini calledd the overflights "violations [of UN resolution 1701] because you have a foreign jet crossing first the Blue Line and entering the national Lebanese airspace."
"If the diplomatic means should not be enough, maybe it could be considered other ways, we never know," he added.
When asked if that meant in the future UN troops might consider preventing the overflights by force, Pellegrini replied, "it could be. It could be."
"l think that it could be considered, and it will depend on new rules of engagement drafted and decided [at UN headquarters]," he said.
Action Possible UNIFIL Response Hizbullah attack Israel Observe...and then inform Lebanese army IAF planes fly over Lebanon Shoot down planes
"Who should be allowed to decide what a group needs to do or be in order to have a state of their own? In other words, whose standards should matter most?"Aka. Freedom loving people have no right to say that a genocidal terrorist group leading a dangerous indoctrinated population should not have a country to run. Our ideals are no more moral than theirs.
"It's rather patronizing for an outsider to assume that they can possibly know what a groups 'real interests' are or should be. If I were to say that Jews should only be given a state if they are willing to conform with what the non-Jews think they should do, it would be equally ridiculous as non-Palestinians claiming that their conditions should be met before Palestinian statehood is recognized."Bint attempts to make us understand that there is no moral truth. Who are we to say that a genocidal terrorist group linked to the Nazis is morally wrong. They think we are morally wrong! In Bint's world we just have our own perceptions of morality and the only thing that is wrong is for us to impose our ethnocentric ideas of morality on another culture. It is wrong for me to say that a culture which indoctrinates its youth with hate is immoral. It is wrong for us to say that the PLO's goal of genocide is immoral - all these ideas are, according to Bint's moral relativism, equal. Who are we to judge? This is bordering on insanity.
"Let's say we did decide to only give states to those societies where there is no hatred and only love and where the population has apologized for whatever wrongs any of their members might have engaged in."Clearly, being human, this is impossible.
"Do you realize what that would mean for Israel? Even more importantly, do you know what that would mean for every single nation on this earth?"What is Bint asking here exactly? Well, she is saying that what would it mean for the world if every nation was perfect. If there was "no hatred and only love and where the population has apologized for whatever wrongs any of their members might have engaged in." I would call that a Utopia myself. This is a straw man, as Wikipedia describes it:
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.So right now Bint wants us to the image of a Utopian world in our minds:
"There isn't a single nation that has fulfilled the pre-requisites [sic] that you are proposing."And here we have the rest of the straw-man argument. There was no proposal of creating a nation where everything is perfect. The only concept of creating a nation with "no hatred and only love and where the population has apologized for whatever wrongs any of their members might have engaged in" was created entirely by Bint. We were proposing a nation that does not support genocidal ambitions or indoctrinate its youth from point blank. The Utopia world that nobody was talking about was created simply to be destroyed in an effort to create an argument - but it doesn't work. It is not logical.
"If you're going to talk about who has committed sins, then which religion's definition of sin should we use?"(You don't even need to stop at "which religion". Some of the most moral people I know are agnostic. You do not need to be taught religion to know the difference between right and wrong.) This is more moral relativism, but Bint has a very good point which can never be answered. Trying to answer this question puts the reader in an impossible position by forcing them to personally decide what is the correct moral code. Naturally whatever decision you make it will alienate millions of people who have a different perception to morality than you have. Is it fair for you to dictate what is moral and what is immoral? Do you have the guts to say your perception of morality is right and they have it wrong? Does that make you a Bigot? Nobody can properly answer this question - and it is not supposed to be answered. It is supposed to make you think. "Perhaps there are no moral truths and it is all a matter of opinion. If it is all a matter of opinion what right do I have to say that people who have aspirations for genocide should not have a state. That might be moral after all."
Bint To Red: "Even if you do choose to believe in a particular deity--which is perfectly acceptable to me, even though it would mean that you were no longer an atheist--your ideas about what sins someone should apologize for are just irrational because they may not share your same preferred deity and the sin-list that goes with it."Bint's moral relativism can be extended to the insane. Maybe our opinion that genocide is wrong is irrational because Adolph Hitler may not agree with it. With this philosophy we will be going around in circles until we die - and that is exactly why the Islamic Fascists love the so-called left so much. The "left" has lost it's morality and can justify the unjustifiable. This philosophy will also be the death of our civilisation because it will excuse murderers and weakens our resolve to defend ourselves against a people who would not tolerate this kind of thinking. Moral relativism is an affront to law - it impedes our ability to protect basic freedoms because we put ourselves into a position where we have no right to tell someone else that what they are doing is wrong, regardless of what it is they are doing. Bint thinks this is intelligent, the consequences prove this philosophy is most unwise.
"Unless you can convince the rest of the world to believe in your deity-of-choice, then there is no reason why others must make these apologies for behaviors that you think of as sins."Let me re-write that for you: "Unless you can convince the rest of the world to believe that genocide is wrong, then there is no reason why others must make these apologies for behaviours that you think of as sins." Here is the philosophy of moral relativism in its purest form.
"You see, arguments break down whenever you try to mix logic with religious views."Bint views this loophole of morality to be logical. But is it logical? Let's read it again: I wrote: "Unless you can convince the rest of the world to believe that genocide is wrong, then there is no reason why others must make these apologies for behaviours that you think of as sins." You can come to your own conclusions. What I will add is that regardless of how logical it is, this philosophy is blind and dangerous.
"You see, arguments break down whenever you try to mix logic with religious views."Bint suggests that she is completely logical, and logic is better than religion. This is her victory. You can't win because whatever you do she will draw you back into the relative moral loophole until you take the bait and say that your moral values are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, essentially humiliating yourself in the process. Personally I see this entire philosophy as humiliating for Bint. I see her attempts to justify genocide as being immoral because genocide is wrong. No ifs no buts no conditions. Moral relativism is what Bint believes in, with it she can twist and turn morality like a game to lead us into a world where one can never say anything is wrong. A world where someone can morally punch you in the face for no reason at all.
"Trying to fight religion with religion doesn't work because you'll never be able to convince everyone to adopt one single belief system. As long as others have their own preferred religion, they will base their actions on what's right in their belief system and not what's right in yours."Bint is Atheist. She can't prove there is no God but she "believes" there is no God - that is why Atheism is like a religion. In contrast Agnostics tend to be more mellow, they just don't care if there is a God or not because they feel that it will not make a difference to their lives. Being Atheist, Bint naturally believes and asserts that all moral law is man-made. Who is one person to claim that their manufactured morality is superior to that of someone else's design. We are all equal after all. As it is impossible to convince everyone of any set moral truths Bint concludes that there are no set moral truths. In essence, if you can not convince everybody that genocide is wrong, it is not wrong - so would you please stop imposing your bigoted ethnocentric views of morality onto another culture. Epilogue I don't know if "epilogue" is the right word to use here, but it will do! All this moral relativism reminds me a little of Stephen Colbert's "Wikiality" with a slight twist. The relativism may be there - so is the insanity. The difference in the form relativism that Bint advocates is that there is no popularity contest. Even if 99% of the world say that genocide is wrong, her philosophy dictates that they are just being ethnocentric. Updates I may update this article with examples of Moral Relativism in the news; and perhaps link to any other articles that I post on this subject at CultureForAll (or elsewhere).
- Charles at Little Green Footballs posted a Reuters article titled: "Egyptians who enslaved girl, 10, get U.S. prison":
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two Egyptian nationals who pleaded guilty to enslaving a 10-year-old Egyptian girl at their Southern California home, making her work long hours serving their family of seven, were sentenced on Monday to prison terms. [...] "The young victim in this case was subject to inhumane conditions that included both physical and verbal abuse," U.S. Attorney Debra Yang said in a written statement. "As a result of recent changes in federal law she has been granted a visa that will allow her to stay and hopefully prosper in the United States," Yang said. In pleading guilty in June the defendants admitted bringing the girl to the United States from Egypt in 2000 when she was 10 under an arrangement with her parents, confiscating her passport and forcing her to work 16 hours a day as a domestic servant. The girl was required to assist the couple's youngest children in getting ready for school, to prepare and serve food, clean the home, do laundry and work in the yard, according to court papers. She was not allowed to attend school and was told she would be arrested if she was spotted alone outside their home. The couple each admitted to slapping the girl at least once to get her to work, the court papers said. Authorities did not say how her plight came to light.Charles: Egyptian Slavery in Southern California. But really, who are we to judge their culture?
- I recently read an Aish.com article on Athiesm which states:
One who sees only random forces behind why we humans find ourselves here can have no reason to believe in objective categories of good and evil. I took pains to stress that I was not contending that atheists are bad people, and certainly not that religious people are necessarily good. I was not judging anyone, rather stating a self-evident philosophical truism: If our perception that some deeds are good and others are not is but a quirk of natural selection, none of us need feel any commitment to morality or ethics.
- Here is another Little Green Footballs post on the University of California:
The University of California Irvine has been the subject of many posts at LGF, because the school plays host to one of the most unabashedly radical Muslim Student Union groups in the US. And now the anti-Jewish incitement has reached such a fever pitch that on the weekend of October 8, a student housing building was defaced with swastikas. What? You didn’t hear about it on the news? Apparently, deranged expressions of antisemitism on California campuses are not really news any more. In response to this event, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Manuel Gomez held a meeting and demonstrated exactly why UC Irvine has degenerated into a pit of hatred:
Some of the Jewish students at the meeting revealed that they and others had been subject to verbal and physical intimidation at the hands of MSU members, and that they had previously reported these claims to campus security. In light of this, some students asked that Drake place restrictions on where MSU events are held, saying that if their events were held in classrooms as opposed to public spaces, their effect would not be as broad. However, Chancellor Drake told Jewish students at the meeting that he cannot restrict any club, that it would be “violation of law to prohibit certain speech.” Gomez emphasized that though hate speech may be present, he would not seek to curtail it, as “one person’s hate speech is another person’s education.”
This is just a disgusting call to arms. The man is urging people to be terrorists. In that sense, he is a terrorist himself. He does not just hate Israel. He is actively calling on people to join genocidal organizations dedicated to the destruction of all Jews. And this is a man that the blogosphere - many of them Israelis - spent so many months trying to get out of jail. Revolting.
Whenever someone tries to convince me that the Brotherhood is no good, that as a secularist and a leftist I should consider them my enemies instead of my comrades; I think of two adventures that the Brotherhood youth shared with other political powers in Egypt; one is the Free Student Union and the second is the judges solidarity protests. These two adventures are an example of when creativity, energy, daring and sense of adventure in us the youth of Egypt, were coupled with the courage and compassionate support of the not so young Egyptians who are a bit more experienced in political work came together and united us all in beautiful acts of resistance and made me feel as proud and optimistic as I felt when I first heard the news about HizbAlla h's adventure.These two adventures are an example of when creativity, energy, daring and sense of adventure in us the youth of Egypt, were coupled with the courage and compassionate support of the not so young Egyptians who are a bit more experienced in political work came together and united us all in beautiful acts of resistance and made me feel as proud and optimistic as I felt when I first heard the news about HizbAllah's adventure.
I guess what I'm trying to say is albeit very clumsily let's take a leaf from HizbAllah and go on more adventures together.
I’ve been wondering about that gleam of triumph for quite sometime.
First of all lets consider what Harry’s blood contains, traces of his mother’s sacrifice, which protected Harry from Voldemort’s killing curse and which made it backfire on the Dark Lord. I have read many different theories over the years on the various Harry Potter fan sites and editorials on mugglenet, some of which went along the lines of Dumbledore being evil.
Now, armed with the knowledge of the prophecy and what the power the dark lord knows not, I have formulated a rather bizarre cheese cauldron worthy theory, in which Dumbledore is not evil, but in which the gleam of triumph was yet another piece to the puzzle of how Harry may cause Voldemort’s final downfall.
We learn from Dumbledore in the Horcruxes chapter of the half blood prince, many interesting facts about Harry. That he is just as pure of heart as he was when he was 11 and looked into the mirror of erised and saw not immortality and riches, but the only way to thwart Lord Voldemort.
Canon evidence quote 1: ‘You are protected, in short, by your ability to love. Said Dumbledore loudly. ‘The only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemorts! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart’s desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality and riches. Harry, have you any idea how few wizards could have seen what you saw in that mirror? Voldemort should have known then what he was dealing with, but he did not!’ Pages 477-478, chapter 23, the half blood prince, UK edition
Dumbledore goes on to say that because Harry’s soul is untarnished and whole it has incomparable power over what is left of Lord Voldemort’s mutilated soul.
Canon evidence quote 2: ‘But he knows it now. You have flitted into Lord Voldemort’s mind without damage to yourself, but he cannot possess you without enduring mortal agony, as he discovered in the Ministry. I do not think he understands why, Harry, but he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole.’ page 478, chapter 23, The half blood prince, UK edition
We also learn that Harry’s power over Voldemort is just love (see quote 1). Perhaps one of the uniquely deadly weapons Voldemort handed Harry when the curse backfired.
Now if we take a look at Harry’s soul and his power to love where can it lead us? Back to the end of the order of the phoenix and Voldemort’s failed possession attempt on Harry.
Canon evidence quote 3: ‘If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy…’ Let the pain stop, thought Harry … let him kill us … end it, Dumbledore … death is nothing compared to this … And I’ll see Sirius again … And as Harry’s heart filled with emotion, the creature’s coils loosened, the pain was gone; Page 720, chapter 36, The Order of the phoenix - UK edition
We learn from Dumbledore in the lost prophecy chapter that Harry was saved from possession not because he could not close his mind, but because he opened up his heart about Sirius Black.
canon evidence quote 4: ‘In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you.’ Page 743, Chapter 37, Order of the Phoenix - UK edition
Fast forward to the Horcruxes chapter in the half blood prince and we learn from Dumbledore that Voldemort cannot possess Harry without enduring mortal agony, whereas Harry can flit in and out of Voldemort’s mind with little damage to himself.
The question i ask myself is why does Voldemort feel this mortal agony and Harry is undamaged?
Part of the answer is that Harry’s soul has incomparable power over what is left of Voldemort’s soul which is beyond repair, so perhaps that causes Voldemort’s soul to weaken.
The other part of the answer i think is to do with Harry’s ability to love.
Voldemort does not understand love and he could not touch Harry at the end of the first book, because he was protected by his mother’s sacrifice which was borne out of love for Harry. This is the blood that Voldemort used to regenerate his body and come back from whatever he was after his first fall from power. He is able to touch Harry without feeling any pain. But now i think when Voldemort possessed Harry at the end of the order of the phoenix, his assumption that using Harry’s blood would make him invincible is in reality yet another one of Voldemort’s miscalculations.
When Harry opened up his heart about Sirius i believe that not only did Harry’s soul cause Voldemort to feel mortal agony, the blood he shares with Harry, was influenced by that surge of love Harry had. This activated the latent protection Lilly Potter provided to protect Harry from Voldemort. So, in essence Harry can influence the blood that is circulating in Voldemort’s body to an extent that could possibly kill Lord Voldemort.
Hence, the gleam of triumph might have been Dumbledore seeing another piece of the puzzle of how to finish Lord Voldemort off falling into place. Nothing sinister, just another weapon in Harry’s deadly arsenal of talents and gifts that will help him bring about Voldemort’s final downfall.
Now this method of loving Voldemort to death would only work under a few conditions: 1. Voldemort’s Horcruxes would first have to be destroyed 2. Harry would have to allow himself to be possessed by Voldemort or force his way into Voldemort’s mind. 3. Harry would have to hold Harry in this deadly embrace until one of them dies.
As to the question of Harry being a horcrux, i think this theory would most likely still work. In essence Harry would have to use his connection via the scar to enter Voldemort’s mind, and then with his ability to love kill the last two remaining pieces of Voldemort’s soul. Without killing himself in the process. But it could work.
However i did say this is probably a cheese cauldron worthy theory. I’m probably not even barking up the right tree. But it all seems to fit into the grand scheme of things in relations to Dumbledore’s Gleam of triumph being the hinge on which the series is balanced on.