Dead Russian spy to be buried as a Muslim and its implications

Culture for All has been following the odd unfolding tale of Alexander Litvinenko very closely. The latest development is that the Russian spy will be buried as a Muslim, having converted soon before his death. Read about it. C4A readers might be confused - why would he have converted to Islam, and does this have anything to do with his death? Well, I cannot speak with certainty as to WHY he converted to Islam - that was his personal choice. But I believe that he converted due to his connection to Chechnya. Lest we forget, Alexander Litvinenko was researching the death of Anna Politkovskaya when he was poisoned. Ms. Politkovskaya herself was researching the Russian government's practices in Chechnya. (see her book on this conflict) Let's take a moment to examine the conflict in Chechnya. In brief: it is a seperation movement of a majority Muslim province of Russia. The Russian government has brutally suppressed the seperation movement, and cracked down on human rights in the area. However, the Chechens have responded by widespread terror, the most inexcusable and vile being the Beslan school shooting, an event that still tears at my soul. Chechen seperatists also have ties to worldwide terror. (read views on that right here) So, what is my opinion about Russia and Putin? It is a nation ruled by a man who is increasingly Stalin-esque, coldly murdering opponents. (I really believe he was behind Politkovskaya's murder, as well as Litvinenko's) Is he a real ally in the war on Islamofascism? One would think that he would be, with his problems with Chechnya. And yet he is not. He is a disgusting hypocrite, condemning Israel for their acts in Lebanon and questioning their motives, while brutally suppressing the Chechens in his own land. Mark Katz wrote a column on Putin - showing him to be more pro-Israel than most of Europe. This is probably due to Chechnya. At the same time, he sold anti-aircraft missiles to Iran and Syria. He has criticized Israel for 'overkill' while practicing 'overkill' twenty-fold in Chechnya. (read some of Politkovskaya's work) And then, of course, there is Putin's support for North Korea and Iran! It has been like pulling teeth to get a UN resolution on North Korea and Iran - due to China and Russia's obfuscating. [ref] What does all this mean? The bottom line is that I have sympathy with neither the Russians nor the Chechens. Perhaps the war in Chechnya is part of the same global 'war on terror' that we are all so obsessed with. But in any case, the way Russia has been fighting the war is not defensible, and they have not shown they are true allies to the West. In short: they can all burn in non-existent hell! (by all, I mean the Chechen rebels and Putin and his cronies)

Alexander Litvinenko was a...zionist who deserved to die!

I knew this would happen. Did I not predict it? I was waiting for Putin to blame the death of Russian ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko on the Zionists, and it seems something not dissimilar is taking place. Somehow, Litvinenko is being linked with the Jooooooos and the Evil Zionists, thereby sending the implication that he deserved to die. Go read it yourself (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/153 - not hyperlinked so as to not add to the number of links to that blog!) Where did this allegation come from? A Debkafile story that says Litvinenko is alleged to have passed documents to Israel concerning Yukos Oil, that may be damaging to Russian leaders. Why Israel? Yukos Oil was run by a Jew (or at least someone born Jewish), currently imprisoned in Russia on orders from Putin. (Go read about Mikhail Khordorkovsky) Of course, the lying, manipulative, disgusting 'Go back to your slumber' blog does not mention the fact that Russia has some incredibly shady dealings, and Khordorkovsky's arrest was very suspect. Oh no. Merely meeting with Israeli officials, for whatever reason = Evil Zionist agent straight from Satan. There could never be a cause that is worthy. And of course, even if it is against Israel's interests to have murdered Litvienko (as it is), I am sure Israel will be blamed soon enough. Funny how I am correct about these things. But then again, it's quite easy to make these predictions. I am right every time, because the pattern is such a no-brainer. Something bad happens in the world? Must be the fault of the Jooooos!!!!

Teaching your Child

Well, I found Lisa VanDamme's essay interesting and now she has a four part plan on teaching children. While I have no children now, I may one day be a father, and I find education very important. While I do not currently claim a faith, I'd consider knowledge and the pursuit thereof to be a sacred rite (like me reading at least one book a month, and often more than that), along with the virtue of thrift. Now, I present Lisa's education plans: Part I deals with the hierarchy of knowledge and how abstract concepts need a solid an concrete foundation. Part II discusses the difference between learning and simple memorization when it comes to complex scientific subjects. I knew that E=MC^2 as early as nine years of age, but it was years before I understood what that meant. Part III continues the criticism of pure memorization as students who don't understand a subject are often bored by it, thus affecting their experience and perception of science...also important to note as I plan to teach History in a few years, and often students complain about history being boring. Part IV is about how science is taught and using hands-on approaches to make certain the subject is learned, as well as going back to the basics historically and showing the historical foundations in science. Personally, Lisa's approach is appealing to me as science was one of my weaker subjects, though I did better when historical examples were used and when I actually learned instead of just memorizing.

Naked man on crack rescued from alligator

Oh, the crazy things that go down in Florida! One of my wonderful Toronto friends sent this to me, and I laughed out loud. I figured it's great for a break! You really have to wonder what some guy was doing naked and on crack in a crocodile farm. Those crazy Floridians!

Muslims are victims of Islam

What strikes me most about the video Steven posted last week is that Islam brutalizes Muslims. In the Middle East, Islam is seen as the answer to life's problems, and notions such as human rights and fairness are thrown out the window. This puts Muslims themselves in a dire position, being manipulated by their incompetent, corrupt, and brutal leaders into accepting them, as they are Islamic, and are fighting the non-Islamic 'other.' Most frequently, the 'non-Islamic other' is a fellow Muslim, who is Shia rather than Sunni, or vice versa, or perhaps is not pious enough. Or, perhaps the individual walked through the wrong neighborhood by accident. In short, Islam has become the ultimate wedge issue, and it is Muslims who are the victims! :( Is Islam 'inherently' violent? Is that 'true Islam'? I largely agree with this very abridged history of the religion (and explanations of core beliefs). That means that it is easier to convince neutral parties that Islam is violent, rather than peaceful. Combine that with the feeling the brutal dictators of the Arab world (not to mention many Western imams, funded by them) inculcate into their followers that they are victims, and the only way to step out of their victimhood is to be the most pious Muslim ever (rather than, say, doing constructive activities), and you have a recipe for disaster, if 'pious,' means 'violent jihad on non-believers.' The solution? At one point, many neocons thought the solution was to democratize Iraq, and to spread freedom, thereby removing the influence of a major player who was breeding hatred (and paying $25,000 per family to suicide bombers in Israel). There is a certain logic to it. Perhaps it will work long term. But certainly it will not work if there is no true American commitment to it. We do not have the will to win, and so we will not win. We are also being run by incompetants who have fought the war poorly, and who largely ignored the sectarian conflict within Iraq. I am not 100% convinced that immediate democracy ever was the solution. A better solution probably would have been to have installed a benevolent dictator, who would teach a generation of students democratic and non-hateful ideals through new school curriculums, and stressed learning, knowledge, and advancement over jihad. In a generation's time, the Iraqis would have been ready for a democracy. (But then again, 'benevolent' and 'dictator' often do not go hand in hand, and Lord Acton did say "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Perhaps that would have been doomed to fail as well. What to do? At this point, if we leave, we guarantee that the civil war in Iraq will devolve into total bloodshed. If we stay, there will be a somewhat lesser civil war, but we will be blamed for it. We also will be protecting a government with American lives that increasinglly appears it will be a Shia religious dictatorship in line with Iran. Both are horrible scenarios, but between the two, I say it makes more sense to leave. What is in our interests, then? Fortify Kurdistan, stay in Kurdistan, leave the rest of Iraq to its own devices, and throw full support behind the good regimes in the Arab world - Kurdistan, obviously, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan. Have a full scale development of alternative fuel resources, and develop a long term strategy of pressuring the House of Saud to stop teaching their impressionable children that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fact. Actually, do the same to Egypt. Stop supporting both countries with the amount of arms and funds that are being sent. Show there is a difference in the way the US treats a good, democratic, non-hate mongering regime, and a bad, despotic, hate-mongering regime. And for godsakes, quit the mealy mouthed message of quasi support for Israel, and come out as a proud supporter for this great nation, on the basis of its adherance to democratic values. Stop asking for one millimeter of land to be conceded to the Palestinians until they de-hateify themselves and show a true commitment to peace and prosperity, or for Israel to not fire back when its citizens are being killed. And Syria should be lambasted, not engaged with talks! Lebanon and March 14 is the nation the US needs to throw 100% of support behind. March 8 and Syria need to be vilified, not negotiated with. If Iran has nuke facilities that the US finds and finds a particular target, it should be taken out. There should be no nice talk with a regime that is cool with annhilation talks about another nation. (Israel) Maybe then, it will be shown that the US means business, is not speaking out of both sides of the mouth, and is not a paper tiger, all roar and no teeth. The US needs to treat its friends better than its enemies. (please read a Christopher Hitchens article about that!) And this long term vision enables Muslims to stop being brutalized by fellow Muslims. I want Muslims to succeed, just as I root for the whole world to succeed. The only way to ensure their said success is to dismember the support for the victim death cult that permeates the Mideast (and parts of the west) in the name of Islam.

The Arab Conspiracy

I am post-dating this post because I want you all to be able to see it.

English Smoking ban and Smokers reactions

So on July 1st 2007, smoking in pubs, clubs and other enclosed public spaces will be banned. And i am happy about that ban. One of the reasons that i don't like pubs all that much is because of all the second hand smoke. I am asthmatic and that second hand smoke makes me ill (brick wall on chest kind of feeling time). I have seen at first hand what smoking related diseases do to people. It's not nice and makes smokers arguements all the more stupid. I'd ban smoking outright, but that is unlikely for the time being, seeing as it's a good source of tax for the British Government. Smokers have made the typical arguements about people having the right to smoke, one even went onto thump on about it being a side show to deflect attention from Iraq - BBC News Article Though in the long run, getting people to quit smoking will save money for the NHS. Who have to deal with the results of smoking related diseases. I don't think there will be a total ban on smoking in the near future. But hopefully people will come to realise that smoking is one of the stupidest habits one can take up. There are cheaper and healthier ways of getting pleasure. I am a rabid anti smoker, and have been since my grandmother died some years ago. I've never smoked and do not intend to. Even though a certain person who shall remain nameless thought it would be a good idea if i did because i'm mentally ill. I will continue attempting to get my parents to quit, even though my dad is a typical smoker, blinded by his need for nicotene and his right to smoke. If any smokers are offended by my views then tough. I don't like having asthma attacks due to inconsiderate smokers who light up and accuse me of being a spoil sport for asking them not to smoke near me.

Radiation found in 12 locations during investigation in Alexander Litvinenko's death

There is new information in the case of Alexander Litvinenko, Russian spy (and ex-KGB agent) who was assassinated via radiation poisoning (polonium-210) while investigating Anna Politkovskaya's assassination. It seems that there was polonium-210 found in 12 locations, amongst them, two British Airways planes. Putin is denying all involvement, but no one else had as much to gain as he did. All I am waiting for is for Putin or his cronies to blame it on the Zionists. I am sure it will happen sooner or later!

What are atheists so angry?

Sam Harris forcefully explains why atheists in the world are so angry. MUST READ!

And yet, while the religious divisions in our world are self-evident, many people still imagine that religious conflict is always caused by a lack of education, by poverty, or by politics. Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise. How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don’t know what it is like to really believe in God. The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking. Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization. Many of these people are lunatics, but they are not the lunatic fringe. Some of them can actually get Karl Rove on the phone whenever they want. While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a “well-qualified candidate” from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country (while being a woman, black, Muslim, Jewish, or gay is not). Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry. As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

Read the whole damn thing. While you are at it, please check out samharris.org.

Penn and Teller debunk the bible

Thanks to Bacon Eating Atheist Jew! (though I saw this video before, I never thought to link it) This goes to the core of my atheism. It explains why I actively reject the bible...but...I do not reject the notion that moral precepts taken from the bible are at the basis of society itself. I understand that. I do reject the notion that following the bibical code is somehow necessary for one to lead a 'moral life,' whatever that is. The bottom line is that I am a believer in science, facts, and history. To the extent that the bible rejects facts, science, and history, I am appalled. To the extent that the bible has pulled together civilization in a common cause of advancement, I am grateful. And most of all, I identify myself as a Jew, and as someone who is deeply affected by Jewish history and philosophy, as distinct from theology. Thankfully, there is actually a movement of people just like myself! It is called Humanistic Judaism. Then again, I consider myself an atheistic Jewish American fag hag. As I said, I pride myself in my infidel status.

Enough Said

A COMMON SUPPOSITION widespread among intellectuals is that pursuing knowledge in a systematic, scientific manner is the singular hallmark of solid scholarship. There is a very fine reason for this; the frontiers of human understanding are advanced only by modifying or discarding theories that fail to explain reality in favour of those that do. In other words, it takes a theory to beat a theory; if you can’t change ‘em, chuck ‘em. In intellectual circles, such is the high standard against which the quality of scholarship is held, and rightly so. But not all is joy and sunshine, it seems. With a regularity that is increasingly disturbing, there are those who now come along and say: sod the scientific method. For these wannabe paradigm-busters, the scientific method, a system which has its roots in the works of medieval scholastics from the lands of Christendom, is terribly old-fashioned and just doesn’t cut it anymore. And in a culture of learning in which ideas stem from positional, as opposed to rational, authority, such attitudes, whether brazen or not, will be common. An intellectual comes to be regarded as such through the view that he alone is in possession of some hidden truth, seemingly impervious to the workings of logic, for which he allows only a selected and privileged few the rights of restricted access, but none to scientifically verify. In his vocabulary, verification means not logical assessment with reference to external reality, but simply awe and agreement. One thing such biased ideas will not be, however, is to be benign in their effects. Extending such “scholarship” to its logical conclusions is likely to bring trouble in its wake. Genuine scientific inquiry, wherever and whenever practiced, is indifferent to issues of shame and honour; this great enterprise is subordinate to no man. But in cultures where the scientific method has been ditched, and where self-styled renegades are the movers and shapers of public discourse, the claims of the elite against its more scientifically-minded members take unconditional priority over such individuals against the elite. Having borders verging on the boundless, scientific inquiry, at some point or another, will pass, undeterred, through the borders of social defection; a high price is paid by those brave souls who dare to go across. Ultimately, however, for society as a whole, the long-term costs of preventing exploration will far outstrip whatever short term-benefits are gained from doing so. IN THE U.S., as well as Britain, Middle Eastern Studies seems a culture unto itself, a dark vacuum devoid of the light of scientific brilliance. Since the publication of Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient by the late Edward Said, the study of the Middle East has been driven heavily by insidiously shaming scholars into harbouring parochial viewpoints, rather than meticulously analysing the intellectual import of the subjects under scrutiny. Never has an established academic field so widely degenerated into emulating what is meant to be the remote object of its study. And the important, albeit timely, advent of Campus Watch reflects an overwhelming need to readdress such unwarranted bias in an era where silencing critics of Said and his followers has become more widely institutionalised ever since the days when Orientalism was first published. Said's book was purportedly aimed at "deconstructing" the writings of past and present Orientalists, who served, according to Said, only to justify and advance the New Imperial Order, where Europe’s and America’s mighty armadas moved to subjugate the stupid and hapless Oriental. Orientalism ignited a whole field of “post-colonial studies” which reiterated the standard quasi-Marxist accusations towards Western nations, especially America, for having hijacked the Orient for its own evil ends, thus taking much of the blame for the present pathetic and humiliating state of the Arab world. And yet, in spite of claiming to “deconstruct” Orientalists whose fallacious writings, Said believed, were seen to be always infused with an air of incomparable contempt directed against the Oriental, nowhere did Said introduce a new way of thinking about the Arab world; nowhere did he provide an alternative, superior theory and framework that contained none of the alleged defects of Orientalist theories. As Martin Kramer has pointed out, Said admitted in the afterword of the 1994 edition of Orientalism that "I have no interest in, much less capacity for, showing what the true Orient and Islam really are." In other words, Said was not interested in advancing scholarship, but only anti-Western polemical screeds, being mostly content with hurling vitriolic and malicious invective against past and present Orientalists, such as Silvestre de Sacy and Bernard Lewis. Said was not so much a professor who happened to be a militant activist, as he was a militant activist who happened to be a professor. Despite his Arab heritage, there is also a peculiar condescension towards Arabs and Muslims that weaves its way throughout many of Said’s works. This is disturbing, given that many Arabs and Muslims share much of Said’s conclusions of who is to blame for their mess. And yet for Said to place much of the blame on Western shoulders strongly implies that Arabs and Muslims are inherently incapable of beginning to sort out their societies; that such people are pathetic, downtrodden children, utterly bereft of any capacity for being instrumentally rational, aside from a talent simply for acting to gain attention the way a two-year-old child throws a tantrum to get Mommy's attention. Surely this is condescension of the worst kind. Despite what the Arab world has been through, no reasonably sane person could believe that Arabs and Muslims are inherently devoid of operating by the Golden Rule: to treat others as you would have them treat you. And yet it is there hidden away, couched beneath Said’s heavy denunciations of the Western “rape” of the Orient. It is, perhaps, not surprising that this is so. In implying such a contemptible viewpoint, whether consciously made or otherwise, Said is forced to necessarily raise the intensity of abuse hurled against his Western targets in order to obscure the obvious insinuation made within. This also acts as a useful relief mechanism for assuaging such pent-up guilt from such condescension by releasing it elsewhere, much of it at the usual suspect, the West. This, incidentally, is quite common practice among quasi-Marxist interpretations of history. Indeed, for Said to remain above the inconvenience of having what he asserts being subject to scientific cross-checking, he expounded on areas outside the realms of falsifiability, casting dark conspiratorial aspersions on those who would disagree with him, in a manner that remains as blasé as it is tendentious. As Lee Smith has written:

"The problem, as I came to believe while rereading his books and keeping up with his columns, was that while my interest in Arab culture had partly been inspired by Said, his work generally tended to discourage readers from conducting their own research. He dismissed authors of any opinion he disagreed with. To him, they were -- to use the once-neutral phrase he had turned into an insult -- Orientalists, and all too often they were just straight-out racists. "[...] Orientalism is essential reading for anyone interested in the meeting of the West and the Orient, but its canonical status, and frequent tone of condescension, convinced far too many readers they had an explanation at hand and needed to go no further."

Said's writings, and those of his acolytes, have received rebuttals in the past, of which among the most notable are by Bernard Lewis and Keith Windschuttle. More recently, Ibn Warraq of the Institution of the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS), has also joined the fray. Ibn Warraq, an ex-Muslim who is no stranger to defecting from established conventional wisdom having written and edited some excellent books on the origins of Islam, has now turned his attention towards the Saidian polemicists and penned a rather exhaustive essay decrying the pretensions of Edward Said towards harbouring any conceptions of intellectual scholarship. Ibn Warraq’s dissection of Orientalism is a masterfully written, albeit long, catalogue of Said’s errors and misconceptions. Indeed, one of the most absurd charges made by Said was one levelled against Bernard Lewis. In an essay, Lewis had discussed the etymological root of the classical Arabic term thawra [revolution] as follows:

“The root th-w-r in Classical Arabic meant to rise up (e.g. of a camel), to be stirred or excited, and hence, especially in Maghribi usage, to rebel. It is often used in the context of establishing a petty, independent sovereignty; thus, for example, the so-called party kings who ruled in eleventh century Spain after the break-up of the Caliphate of Cordova are called thuwwar (sing. tha’ir).”

Said responded thus:

“Lewis’s association of thawra with a camel rising and generally with excitement (and not with a struggle on behalf of values) hints much more broadly than is usual for him that the Arab is scarcely more than a neurotic sexual being. Each of the words or phrases he uses to describe revolution is tinged with sexuality: stirred, excited, rising up. But for the most part it is a ‘bad’ sexuality he ascribes to the Arab. In the end, since Arabs are really not equipped for serious action, their sexual excitement is no more noble than a camel’s rising up. Instead of revolution there is sedition, setting up a petty sovereignty, and more excitement, which is as much as saying that instead of copulation the Arab can only achieve foreplay, masturbation, coitus interruptus. These, I think, are Lewis’s implications ....”

To which Ibn Warraq has this to say:

"Can any rational person have drawn any conclusion which even remotely resembled that of Edward Said’s from Lewis’s scholarly discussion of Classical Arabic etymology? Were I to indulge in some prurient psycho-biography, much in fashion, I would be tempted to ask, “What guilty sexual anguish is Said trying to cover up? Just what did they do to him at his Cairo English prep school?”. Lewis’s concise and elegant reply to Said’s conclusions is to quote the Duke of Wellington: “If you believe that, you can believe anything”."

And it certainly does not end there. Ibn Warraq’s essay is full of delightful rejoinders at Said’s expense. In reading this piece, one recalls the apt words of Stephen Schwartz on Said's book:

"Said's Orientalism, a ridiculous imposture from its first page to its last, is now a standard text in Anglo-American universities, but reads like the product of a rather dense college student who has just discovered Marxism; there can be no more telling condemnation of the present state of the American academy than the ascendancy of Said.”

Indeed. As in life, as in death: may he be long remembered as thus. (NB: This post is an edited version of an article that I originally wrote for Winds of Change.NET, on 16/01/03)

Insanity in Crown Heights, Brooklyn

I found this link via Kesher Talk. It seems that ultra-ultra religious Jews, in a group known as the 'Bochurim,' who are students from the Tzefas yeshiva, vandalized a synogogue in Crown Heights. It is not yet clear what their beef was with the rabbi who ran the synogogue or what their motives were, but it was an intra-Jewish rivalry. THIS IS TOTAL INSANITY. Jews are such a tiny population in the world, and to engage in this form of self destruction is outrageous and pitiful. To engage in it in Crown Heights, home of the famed riots in 1991, is especially sad. More about the 1991 riots here and here. I remember the Crown Heights riots in 1991. I was a young girl at the time, and it made a very indelible impression. It was my first exposure to localized antisemitism. To see Jew on Jew violence at this location is just especially tragic. UPDATE: More on this incident, courtesy of Mental Blog. UPDATE: More on this incident, coutrey of Shturem.net - seems it was the Bochorim (whoever they are), that were responsible. They seem to be ultra ultra religious Jews from Israel, on a visa. There is now a call to pull the visas from these people.

True dialogue

Starting this site, I hoped to have a dialogue with those who think differently. As such, I have not been censoring opposing viewpoints (with exception, the spammer Citisucks, who refused to stop blaming literally every problem on the 'white corporate male terrorist') However, with time, I have started to wonder if a dialogue is really possible. It started with this post, and culminated with my posting on Eteraz's website. I started to see that the gulf between how I think, and how most regulars on this website think, is just so wide, that I wonder if there really is any hope of influencing those who sympathize with jihadists or make excuses for them. My question to all your culture for all regulars is...do you believe any real dialogue is possible? How do you engage in a real discussion with these people, or is it rather pointless? As was recently showcased on Shlemazl's blog, those who appear to have changed often are the same people they always were. I have noticed that it is almost as if I live in an alternate reality from these people. A perfect example of this alternate reality can be seen in the recent imam airport incident in the US. Six imams were escorted off a plane after they had disturbed passengers by praying so loudly and openly, and repeatedly praising allah. To that I say a few things. 1) It is clearly understandable, in an age of international terrorism, post-9/11, why passengers would be worried about six imams loudly praying on a plane. Any attempt to paint airplane passengers as bigoted crazies is politically correct garbage. I would be crapping my pants if I saw that on a plane, as would any person who is honest with their emotions. 2) It is clearly Islamic fundamentalism, not Christian or Jewish, that is the driving force behind airplane terrorism. The amount of Christian and Jewish terrorism is nothing compared to Islamic terrorism. Let's cut the PC bullshit already and admit that! 3) This is not to say that all or most Muslims are terrorists, though I believe the proof is in and most Muslims are antisemites. (see Pew Global Research poll, very well respected) 4) The imams in question were innocent of any designs on committing airplane terror, but not all were necessarily innocent flowers. One of them, Omar Shahin, has links to Osama Bin Laden and Hamas (via the Kind Hearts charity - linked with Hamas) 5) CAIR now wants to criminalize 'racial profiling' at airports as a result of this incident, but refuses to acknowledge the above facts. 6) Wouldn't it be more effective, in terms of getting Americans to be cool with Muslims, for CAIR and other groups to work to stop support for terrorism in mosques and madrassas? Why is that never brought up in any of these discussions? I stated before: You upset? DO SOMETHING! I am hoping there will soon be a mass movement at new Quranic, Hadith, and Sunnah interpretations. I am hoping that there will be a mass rejection of terrorism. Perhaps I am an optimist. What can be done to bridge this gulf? Of course there will be racial profiling, as long as it is generally Muslims who are committing acts of terror. (or at least, while it goes on in the name of Islam) Why is the Female Quran committee so rare? Why is there so little effort being done to reform the faith, and a great deal of effort paid to just reforming how Westerners VIEW the faith? Am I tilting at windmills? Is there any real dialogue?

The 'hudna' in Israel and other such nonsense from Olmert

Carl in Jerusalem wrote a very detailed must read about how the current 'hudna' is a joke, as is the prospect of giving up 'land for no peace,' which is what Olmert is proposing. (please re-read my statements on the Palestinian statehood options here) An excerpt:

Olmert still doesn't get it. First, this conflict is not about territory - it's about Israel's existence. If this conflict were about territory, Gaza would not have become a terror base when it was gifted to the 'Palestinians' in 2005, and the 'Palestinians' would not be demanding that Israel vacate the towns that border Gaza. After all, those towns are within the 'green line,' and in Olmert's delusional world, the 'Palestinians' make no claim to them.

Second, the hudna that began at 6:00 AM yesterday (subject to its violation) has nothing to do with a 'new path' and everything to do with the IDF's effective fighting against the 'Palestinian' terrorists. The terrorists needed a break to regroup and rearm. They have said so. The IDF has said so. But Ehud K. Olmert, who was never even an officer in the army, thinks he knows better than the IDF. After all, he's a lawyer....

Third, Olmert has nothing to offer that will satisfy the 'Palestinians'. He's a lawyer. Note those carefully chosen words: "the Palestinians could establish an independent, viable state with contiguous territory in the West Bank, and have full sovereignty over recognized borders." But there's an elephant in the living room of the 'Palestinian' state. You see, the 'Palestinians' 'minimalist' demand (for now) is a contiguous 'Palestinian' state reichlet in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. You can't get from Judea or Samaria to Gaza without going through pre-1967 Israel. And of course, the 'Palestinians' don't want to be 'humiliated' with 'inspections' every time they go from one to the other. There's also a second elephant in the living room of the 'Palestinian' state - it's not economically viable whether or not Judea and Samaria are contiguous with Gaza.

Fourth, Olmert says that in return for kidnapped IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit's release, "Israel would be willing to release many Palestinian prisoners, including those who were sentenced to long prison terms, in order to increase the confidence between us and prove that our hand is outstretched in true peace." Forget for a minute that Olmert is just encouraging the next kidnapping. If he's releasing "those who were sentenced to long prison terms," he's releasing convicted murderers. What makes Olmert think they won't return to terrorism and murder?

Fifth, Olmert believes that many of the 'Palestinians' are "tired of the high price extremism is exacting on their society." Really? Where are they? Over 50% of the 'Palestinian' children between the ages of 6 and 11 want to grow up to be suicide 'martyrs'. Do your kids want to God forbid grow up to be 'martyrs'? Do Olmert's? Heck, Olmert's kids won't even fight in the IDF.

Sixth, Olmert says that "if the Palestinians responded, Israel would significantly reduce the roadblocks, increase freedom of movement, open and improve border crossings for goods and merchandise, and release Palestinian tax revenues held in Israel since Hamas's victory in last January's elections." Reduce the roadblocks? Let terrorists back into the country after we finally have a handle on it? Maybe next he'll offer to tear down the 'security fence' that has apparently been somewhat effective in stopping terrorism. And then he's going to release tax revenues to Hamas.... That'll make the Euroweenies happy anyway....

Seventh, Olmert is advocating an 'international conference,' at which Israel will sit across the negotiating table from twenty-two Arab countries, Eurabia, Russia, and the UN - and he will expect George Bush's lame duck State Department to protect him from the wolves? Has he gone mad? And on top of that, he's willing to accept 'parts of' the so-called 'Saudi initiative' (which has only been offered as a whole), which includes the 'right of return' that would innundate Israel with 'Palestinian refugees.' (And that's forgetting for a minute that most 'Palestinians' would not be satisfied by the 'Saudi initiative.')

And the 'Palestinian' response to Olmert's insanity?

It seems Olmert's response to the Palestinians is to slowly commit state suicide. But that is nothing new, as I have stated for quite some time that I believe he might be suicidally incompetant.

Creationism in British Schools

It seems truth in science want children to debate intelligent design alongside Darwin's theory of evolution. I've had a look at the website and it has the air of "We can't possibly be descended from chimps". They have also sent out creationist teaching materials to schools. Now i'm all for open debate, but the evidence for Evolution is far stronger than the evidence for intelligent design aka creationism. I am scientifically trained and to me truth in science are not following the scientific method, which is evidence based. They are instead picking apart the weak spots of Darwin's theory and not even attempting to take on Darwin's later researches while he was finding the evidence for his theory. To be frank i find the idea of creationism quite silly. Indeed for all the creationists know, Evolution could be what their god put in place to sustain life on planet earth. Let us test Darwin, teacher says Truth in science And in other intresting news, Richard Dawkins is setting up his own charity to flood schools with anti religious literature. Which is quite amusing. Though more than likely it's just Dawkin's way of staying in the public eye. People should be free to pursue religious beliefs. However they should also be tolerant of science, which has done a lot of good things for human kind. I am aware that not all science is used for good. However as with anything in life, people will abuse progress for their own ends. Be it religious or scientific progress.

This post has been brought to you by the letter P.

As some of you know I intend to become a teacher after my tour of active duty ends. While I plan to teach High School, I may one day marry and start a family, and this post will be very relevant, and I will definitely give the Van Damme Academy a look. For now, I present a good post about the value of challenging your kids, and avoiding the dangers of lowered expectations.

Another thing to be thankful for...

...That we are not Jonathan Pollard, wrongly rotting in prison for 20 years. Steven found an audio file interview with Esther Pollard, and she brought up facts I was not aware of, and have since panned out. Shocking. Please listen to the audio file, and tell everyone you know about Pollard's case. UPDATE: Facts about the Pollard case.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I hope all the American posters have a safe and happy Thanksgiving. Cheers!

Semper Fi

Now, as some of you may know, I am a Finance soldier for the US Army, and from time to time I enjoy joshing the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. One time I had a roommate who was prior service Navy, so I played In the Navy on my CD player just for him :) Despite all good fun, I also know we are all on the same team. One organization to applaud is the Marine's Toys for Tots, which has been around for almost 60 years to provide toys for poor children, and through private channels. Unfortunately, a group of fanatics has attacked them for not carrying an indoctrination Jesus doll. Frankly, not every poor child is Christian. Those who are are already getting a religious education from their parents and I bet any fundie church will gladly give those kids this doll, especially if done in some flashy, glitzy way that gets more money in the collection basket. Other kids don't need this doll. How'd Protestant parents like it if Catholic Charities started handing out glow-in-the-dark rosaries and Virgin Mary dolls to their kids. Sure it may be an improvement, but that isn't my call or the call for Catholic Charities to make, and I'm not even practicing anymore, but I have my preferences, still. Personally, I'd rather we dump Christmas as a Federal Holiday and just celebrate World Capitalism Day, on June 3, 2007. Of course, that would eliminate a nice round of days off in December and January for me, but it will contribute to a round of extra days off for Memorial Day weekend timeframe, instead :) More American that way, too.

Pierre Gamayel, Christian leader in Lebanon - assassinated

Pierre Gemayel, Lebanese cabinet member and leader of the Lebanese Christians, was gunned down, shot in the head in the streets of Beirut. See the story here. I guess it doesn't pay to be a Gemayel. His uncle was previously assassinated. Right now, I am worried about the health and safety of Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze. Thus far, no one as brought to justice for Hariri's assassination. I doubt anyone will be brought to justice for Gemayel. But I do worry that this was done by Hizballah, in an effort to force their way into the Lebanese government. Mustapha at Beirut Spring had this to say:

Samir Geagea, another Christian anti Syrian leader had warned a few days ago that the Syrians and their Lebanese supporters are attempting to assassinate two sitting ministers to complement the 6 that resigned, so that the government will be automatically dissolved...

Meanwhile, Hizballah has been arming itself to the teeth, with many thanks to UNIFIL. I truly believe war is afoot...again. UPDATE: It took longer than normal to blame the Jews with this one... but it was only a matter of time. - Steven

And now for some pregig monotony

Cos i think Boxfive is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And this is culture of a sort, if you count Mary waving a pink fairy wand in the air.

Muslim feminists want to start a Koran council

ASMA recently held a women's conference, and at the conference they called for something extreme: they called for women to start a Koran council to reinterpet the Koran according to womenly perspectives! They claimed the Koran was a pro-woman document, but the interpretation of it was anti-woman, and as applied is anti-woman. All I can say is...good luck. (see previous post about this here) What do you all think? Will this be successful?

For your viewing delight

I don't think too mnay people here are endeared to Dhimmi Carter, so I thought I'd make a brief funny post, based on some amusing political pictures from Michael Totten's blog. Here is the true form of Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter:

Dave Bender asks: why is Sderot ignored?

Please read Dave's post! This sums up the post best:

The fear of military casualties and the subsequent hesitation on part of Israel's leadership to conduct military operations also constitute a violation of the basic social contract around which a state is built. The Zionist rationale was founded on the desire to end the helplessness of the Jew in the Diaspora by building a Jewish state whose main function was to defend its Jewish citizens - by force if necessary. (...) While foolproof defense is not always a realistic goal, the Jewish state seems to have difficulty in fulfilling its most basic function - providing security to its citizens. Four thousand Katyushas during the last summer as well as the continuous downpour of Kassams on Israeli settlements in the Northern Negev raise the question: Why should Israelis pay taxes to build and strengthen an army, if the state is reluctant to use the military force at its disposal for the protection of its citizens?