Hillary Clinton and the Fall of Libya

Three-part Washington Times article:
Part 1

Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.

Part 2

The intelligence community gathered no specific evidence of an impending genocide in Libya in spring 2011, undercutting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s primary argument for using the U.S. military to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power, an event that has left his country in chaos, according to officials with direct knowledge of the dispute.

Defense officials, speaking in detail for the first time about their assessments of the Libyan civil war four years ago, told The Washington Times that Mrs. Clinton’s strong advocacy for intervention against the Libyan regime rested more on speculative arguments of what might happen to civilians than on facts reported from the ground.

Part 3

The reports included a 16-page list of weapons that Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region. The memos were corroborated by a U.S. intelligence asset familiar with the documents as well as former top Gadhafi regime official Mohammed Ismael.

“NATO has given permission to a number of weapons-loaded aircraft to land at Benghazi airport and some Tunisian airports,” the intelligence report said, identifying masses of weapons including tanks and surface-to-air missiles.

That report, which was prepared in English so it could be passed by a U.S. intelligence asset to key members of Congress, identified specific air and sea shipments observed by Libyan intelligence moving weapons to the rebels trying to unseat the Gadhafi regime.

Obama's Bad Trade

Contrary to the demagoguery of some irresponsible commentators on the right, I don't think Bergdahl's release has anything to do with Obama's relationship with Islam. I think the primary motivations for the exchange were, in order:

1. It is an election year and he needs some good news to help the country forget about the Benghazi and Obamacare fiascos. Everything I have seen indicates that Obama believed that the country would be thrilled that we were releasing the last POW from Afghanistan, and he evidently thought no one would dig too deeply into the background of Bergdahl. If they did, he could always blame it on right-wing political rhetoric. This is actually a reasonable expectation given the normal tendency of the press to ignore anything that would embarrass a Democratic politician.
2. He has been under pressure from the Left to close Guantanamo as he promised to do in his 2008 campaign. We don't normally follow the far-left and of course the press will not cover their criticisms, but they have been furious with Obama for five years over this. Since it is a really bad idea on several levels, the country would never go for it, but he seems to think that he can appease both sides with a prisoner exchange. He gets to look like a patriot for bringing back our soldier and he gets to look like a champion of justice for closing down Bushitler's torture chamber. Win, win.
3. If you don't look too closely, he gets to prove that negotiation with the Taliban can work. His whole foreign policy is based on the idea that we don't need a strong military if we take the time to understand foreign cultures and show them that we can be reasonable. This is important because he just got completely outclassed by Putin over the Ukraine, and also because of his failures with Syria and the whole Arab Spring fiasco. So he needs to look like a shrewd negotiator, even if the deal wasn't a very good one. Again he is relying on the press to paint everything he does in the best possible light.

Here is a good analysis by Allahpundit from HotAir which largely agrees with me, though he puts some of the factors in a different order. Look especially at the last paragraph:

The media’s assuming that the White House wanted an American POW back so badly that they’d reluctantly agree to release five very dangerous Taliban to make it happen. In reality, maybe the reasoning went the other way. Maybe, in the name of finally closing Gitmo, they were eager to get rid of the five Taliban but realized that they couldn’t free them without paying a heavy political price. If, however, they could get the last American prisoner in Afghanistan back as part of a trade, that might give them enough cover to make it happen. It wasn’t Bergdahl who drove the deal, in other words, it was springing these guys from Gitmo. Bergdahl was just a bit of political sugar for the White House that’s now suddenly turned sour on them.

The rest of the article has some good analysis of how and why this all went wrong for Obama.

For some further relevant information look at these stories:

Desertion note

Feinstein's reaction

Here is an early report from CNN before the trouble started. This is how the story was supposed to play out. Note that there is no suggestion that Bergdahl deserted (even though he was publicly investigated in 2010):

Bergdahl was deployed to Afghanistan in May 2009. He was 23 when he was captured by the Taliban after finishing a guard shift at a combat outpost on June 30, 2009, in Paktika province.

Note also, this paragraph (near the end of the article):

A senior administration official told CNN, "With regard to whether or not we're negotiating with terrorists: Sergeant Bergdahl is a member of the military who was detained during the course of an armed conflict. The transfer of these individuals is not a concession -- it is fully in line with the President's goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

Another Reason to Dislike Farrakhan

Anyone who has been paying attention to the invectives and pollemics of Louis Farrakhan (and I don't necessarily recommend doing so) will know that he is committed to anti-semitism in a way that would embarrass Archie Bunker. But I don't think most people know (I certainly didn't) that Farrakhan is also a defender of African slavery by Arab Muslims. This piece by Charles Jacobs on the iAbolish website has eye-opening details:

PBS’s Tony Brown Journal, the most popular Black news program at the time, invited Mohammed and me to speak about slavery. Immediately after our appearance, we were attacked by Farrakhan’s spokesman who denied that Blacks served Arab masters in Sudan or – worse from NOI’s point of view, that Black Muslims served Arab Muslim masters in Mauritania. Farrakhan’s “calling,” after all, funded in part by Arab dictator Muammar Khadafy, was to break the Black/Jewish civil rights alliance while teaching American Blacks that Islam was their path to freedom. Not in Sudan and Mauritania it wasn’t!

NOI was serious about shutting us up. Samuel Cotton, a black reporter for the City Sun, NY’s second largest black paper conducted a thorough investigation that resulted in a five part series. “Arab Masters, Black Slaves” screamed across the front page in NYC’s news kiosks. NOI warned Sam. They followed and menaced him when he spoke in Chicago, not far from their headquarters.

[...]

Farrakhan has always said that slavery in Sudan and Mauritania was a Zionist lie. Last week, South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, demanded the liberation of 30,000 slaves still held by Arabs in the North. Minister Farrakhan, South Sudan is not a Jewish nation. You met with South Sudanese leaders in the Spring of 1994. They begged you for support – and to help free the slaves. They wrote that you told them "When it comes to a choice between religion or the dignity of the black man I will choose my skin." You betrayed them. Why?

Read the whole article for more background and supporting links.

Saudi woman beats up virtue cop

Kind of a strange story, from the Jerusalem Post, but probably encouraging:

A member of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the Saudi religious police known locally as the Hai’a, asked the couple to confirm their identities and relationship to one another, as it is a crime in Saudi Arabia for unmarried men and women to mix.

[...]

According to the Saudi daily Okaz, the woman then allegedly laid into the religious policeman, punching him repeatedly, and leaving him to be taken to the hospital with bruises across his body and face.

“To see resistance from a woman means a lot,” Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi women’s rights activist, told The Media Line news agency. “People are fed up with these religious police, and now they have to pay the price for the humiliation they put people through for years and years. This is just the beginning and there will be more resistance.”

“The media and the Internet have given people a lot of power and the freedom to express their anger,” she said. “The Hai’a are like a militia, but now whenever they do something it’s all over the Internet. This gives them a horrible reputation and gives people power to react.”

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

James M. Kushiner posts a review of Islam: What the West Needs to Know at Mere Comments.

It was a rational and non-hysterical inquiry into the history and teachings of Islam. Major interviewees from inside Islam: Bat Ye'or, Walid Shoebat, Abdullah Al-Araby, plus Serge Trifkovic and Robert Spencer. It made a pretty compelling case for viewing Islam as much more than a religion but really a political/religious ideology for world domination.

Here is my response:

I am not familiar with Serge Trifkovic but the other four names on the list are all either apostates from, or Western critics of, Islam. Not that that makes them wrong, but it is hard to get an accurate picture when all the voices are from one side of the debate. Unfortunately the advocates of Islam are uniformly more ideological, which make me despair of ever getting a straight story on this crucial subject. Perhaps the post-modernists are right and there really is no straight story, only a mass of competing ideologies, but I can't quite bring myself to believe that. Even if pure objectivity is impossible, its pursuit is still worthwhile.

One of the sources whom I find helpful is Bernard Lewis. The Mohammad he paints is (in my words, not his) essentially a wannabe Moses whose promised land was not Canaan but the entire world. That is problematic, of course, for at least two reasons: 1) Mohammad lacks the authority of Moses and 2) that authority has been fulfilled and superceded by Jesus. But it is worth noting that Mohammad's plan of conquest was law-bound, if not objecitvely lawful, and virtue-centric if not virtuous. The present Jihadist mentality is an aberration characteristic of the 20th century and a variant of the secularism and relativism that have infected the West. It is, in other words, a symptom of the loss of faith that there are objective standards promoted by evolution and Marxism, rather than a logical result of the religion of Islam itself.

Now, one might critique Lewis' characterization by noting that Mohammad was a false prophet and therefor subject to the rule that those that are at war with God will find themselves abandoned to their own destruction. Just as the prophets of Baal began by worshipping fertility and ended by sacrificing their children, so Islam began with the sword and ends with the exploding belt. In this view, the current trajectory of Islam which is at odds with the previous 13 centuries is explainable by the conjecture that God has finally removed his hand of restraint and given Islam over to the fullness of its iniquity. This is plausible, and I even have some sympathy for it, but, not being a prophet myself, I lack the certainty that this is indeed the case.

But it is worth noting that under both of these hypotheses, it is a grave error to promote secularism and a modern point of view among Muslims. The critique that the West is more advanced than the medieval Islam seems dangerously wrong-headed. Perhaps this is because my sympathies are somewhat medieval themselves. I would much rather have a beer with Dante than with George W. Bush (though admittedly in the latter case, it would probably be better beer). But in any case, the advancement of the West I would attribute to the salutary influence of Christianity and it is an influence that our culture is trying its hardest to undo. If Christians continue to promote this sort of chronological snobbery in order to combat the evil of Islam, we may succeed only to find ourselves at war with a united front of Western and Middle-Eastern secularists.

Those of you who do not believe in Hell, please take note...

Exhibit A: Samira Jassam

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

She is known as "Um al-Mumenin" which, if I am reading that right, translates "mother of all believers". If anyone deserves eternal torment, surely it's this bitch.

Islam, of course, has often been accused of encouraging the abuse of women. There are those who claim that this is a corruption of Islam rather than its truest expression. I confess that I don't know enough to decide on that issue. But clearly there is something profoundly rotten with a system in which women find themselves in a situation where committing acts of mass murder is more socially or religiously acceptable than living with shame for which they bear no responsibility.

Christians often (rightly) critique the secular West for encouraging irresponsible use of sexuality and individualism at the expense of social responsibility. But at least Western women understand that they bear responsibility for their own sins, not those visited upon them by the violence of others. These Iraqi women (and for all I know, Muslim women everywhere) need to hear the news that their sins are atoned only through Christ and that they never need to be ashamed of what they have not consented to.

Hitchens: On the Waterboard

In the August edition of Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens reports that has allowed himself to be waterboarded and concludes that the process constitutes torture:

You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don’t want to tell you how little time I lasted.

[...]

As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, “Any time is a long time when you’re breathing water.” I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

Hitchens does seem to back off a bit from the absolutism of this statement later in the article:

Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus. Among the veterans there are at least two views on all this, which means in practice that there are two opinions on whether or not “waterboarding” constitutes torture. I have had some extremely serious conversations on the topic, with two groups of highly decent and serious men, and I think that both cases have to be stated at their strongest.

[...]

As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

But he goes on to note that waterboarding "is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others." That is a point worth considering, though not itself dispositive.

The remainder of the article shifts from moral to policy analysis. The crux of his point is that "if we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way." I acknowledge this point, but I feel that this is a matter best left to the discretion of the military, who will bear the brunt of the risk.

I was actually impressed that he lasted as long as he did. I have tremendous respect for Hitchens’ integrity and courage in putting his pro-interrogation views to the test. Also, I appreciate the distinction he is trying to make between this sort of “torture” and the sort used by the enemies of civilization.

However, there is a kind of moral equivalence implied by use of the same word to describe both actions. I take it that Hitchens would say something like “waterboarding is unacceptably bad, but not as bad as other practices” which would save him from inconsistency but defeats the purpose by subjectivizing the definition of torture.

Given that the whole purpose of the procedure is to disorient the subject, his subjective judgment that it is torture remains unconvincing. Especially in light of the fact that he voluntarily underwent the procedure — twice! — it is hard to conclude that it should be categorically prohibited. In fact, having seen the video, I am slightly more inclined to approve of the procedure than I was before, provided that there are sufficient controls in place to avoid abuse.

Credit Where It's Due

Evidently Zawahri is getting irritated that the Jews are getting all the credit for Al Qaeda's hard work:

One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Al-Zawahri accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

"The purpose of this lie is clear—(to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

Of course, he doesn't mention the competing theory that Bush was behind the attack, but he pretty much nails that coffin lid, too.

(Via: Tammy Bruce)

Egyptian Court Recognizes Converts to Christianity

From Voice of the Martyrs (via email):

Praise God! An Egyptian court has recognized the faith of 12 converts to Christianity. The decision overturns a lower court ruling which said the state need not recognize conversions from Islam because it constituted "apostasy," an act often treated as a capital crime in the Muslim world. A lawyer for the 12 Coptic Christians described the case as a victory for human rights and freedom of religion that will open the door for hundreds of other Copts who want to return to their original faith from Islam. There is concern, however, over the ruling's mandate that the converts' former religion must be noted in their official documents, as this could leave them vulnerable to discrimination. Thank the Lord for this victory. Pray that these individuals will not be subject to further discrimination. Pray that those who were born into Muslim families and convert to Christianity will also have their conversions recognized by the Egyptian government.

St. John's - Baghdad

Back in business...

Michael Yon's caption:I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Infantry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

Note: Michael Yon is completely reader-supported. Donate here to support his work.

(Via: Althouse)
Update: Instapundit has a round-up.

Bless Those Who Curse You

According to Voice of the Martyrs (VOM):

More than 40 Christian leaders were arrested after a video recording of them praying for Muslims was leaked to Islamic organizations. Muslims claim the Christians blasphemed the Koran by placing it on the floor and praying for millions of people that had been deceived by it. The Islamic organizations consider the video's content abusive and have released the video to the media. Among the imprisoned were parents of young children. According to sources in Indonesia, some imprisoned women and the elderly have been released.

For those of you who don't know much about Christian theology, this actually means we are winning. When the church can happily co-exist with tyranny it is not the true church. When even praying for our enemies is a cause of offense, we know that we are driving the enemy crazy. We have deprived them of all rational-seeming causes to hate us, so they resort to blatantly irrational causes. This is a harsh sort of victory to be blessed with, but it is victory nontheless. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslim converts to Christianity increase in Indonesia after this idiotic response by their government.

Unfortunately VOM doesn't provide links or video. Journal Chretien has the identical story (probably from the same email from VOM.)

Schlussel vs Hannity

La Shawn Barber calls attention to this claim by Debbie Schlussel that Sean Hannity is using her work without attribution:

Readers of my work and of this site know that I risked my life to go undercover to Hezbollah events and rallies in Dearbornistan to bring you exclusive info on Al-Husainy, the man who delivered the invocation on Friday at the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting. And that I've been writing about Al-Husainy since the beginning of year and before (in the Wall Street Journal).

[...]

The first night, Tuesday Night, I contacted Sean on his cellphone. He was, as usual, "too busy" and couldn't be bothered to do the right thing. He admitted he knew he used my work uncredited, and I managed to get him to promise to have me on to discuss my original work, he said, "if we talk about this again on the show." I also suggested having Al-Husainy, himself, on along with myself, since I'm only the single commentator who actually knows something--actually, a lot--about him. Sean promised that if they had the imam on, he and John Finley would have me on, too.

But, as is usual for Sean these days, he did not keep his word. Last night, not only did they rip my work off again, but they questioned it (without mentioning my name or allowing me to be on to defend it). Suddenly, Hannity was saying Al-Husainy "reportedly" was at pro-Hezbollah rallies, and Colmes claimed, "We've been unable to confirm that," and questioned my New York Post column's accuracy.

Well, that's interesting to me--they never attempted to "confirm" this in the least. Since I'm the source of the info--I WAS THERE AT THOSE RALLIES and wrote about it in the New York Post column they ripped off--why didn't they contact me? [...]

There is much more, but this is the substance of the claim. Since I don't watch TV, I didn't see the show (and probably wouldn't have been watching it anyway) and I can't see a link to a transcript on Hannity's site, I can't tell if these charges are accurate. La Shawn specifically says in her comments that she hasn't tried to contact Hannity for confirmation and strongly implies that she isn't inclined to do so. But this seems like a serious enough charge that a little more research is worthwhile.

A quick Google News search on "Al-Husainy" yeilds several stories, most of which credit Schlussel. Just counting the first page of 10 results, I found the following breakdown:
4 by Cal Thomas who cites Schlussel.
2 by Paul Barrett who supports Al-Husainy and is therefore irrelevant to our topic.
2 by David Limbaugh who cites Schlussel (but links to a story that does not).
1 by Robert Spencer who does.
1 by News Hounds blogger Ellen who attacks Hannity but doesn't mention Schlussel.

So, out of 10 or 11 stories that popped up on a 0.14 second search, only one comes from a relevant source that doesn't cite Schlussel. It seems that we can conclude two things: 1) Major conservative commentators (Cal Thomas, Robert Spencer and David Limbaugh, to say nothing of La Shawn herself) recognize Debbbie Schlussel as a prime source on this subject and 2) Hannity's failure to acknowledge this is at least a breach of courtesy. It may be that he is getting his info from sources that are not themselves properly attributed, but that is no excuse for someone with Sean Hannity's resources. If I can find this out in a few minutes, he certainly can.

I have tried contacting Hannity, but so far have (unsurprisingly) not received a reply. Others with more clout should take up the question. It must be admitted that Debbie Schlussel's posts on this subject are shrill and abrasive, which may be counter productive in generating sympathy for her complaint. But there is a principle of conservative integrity here that I think it is in all of our interests to defend.

UPDATE: Evidently my idea of posting comments on this issue in the hannity.com forum has been blocked by the moderators:

And Reader Paul tells me that the chat portion of his site, Hannity.com, has been erasing threads where plenty of my readers (a/k/a Sean Vanity's former, now-disenchanted fans) are posting about how Sean ripped me off. All of those readers are getting banned for the reason of "Contempt of Host."

She only cites one instance, so I can't tell if this is indeed a pattern, but here is the email:

[...]
THREAD: CONTROVERSY
"I just signed up for this forum and noticed no postings about Debbie Schlussel and her complaints against Sean? Curious if they're being removed or I'm simply missing them? It'd be interesting to hear Sean's comments regarding the issue."

ONE PERSON REPLIED AND THEY SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF: No one other then Debbies family and friends pay any attention to her.

I THEN REPLIED BACK: Evidentally Sean does and he's not a family member. Rush gives her credit for her work. I'll save you further embarassment by not mentioning others. Let's stick to the Sean issue. Your reply was cute but flawed.

All within a half hour I checked back again and I couldn't access the site. Check out the message I got:

You have been banned for the following reason:
contempt of host
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
Hannity.com[Unnecessary line breaks removed.]

I still haven't been able to get my account validated on hannity.com so I can't do any primary research, but this doesn't look good. I am having a hard time understanding Hannity's motivation in all of this. How much would it cost him to give a simple acknowledgment of his sources? Even if, per my speculation above, he didn't originally get the information directly from Schlussel, it only makes sense to give her credit after the fact, especially compared to the cost in credibility and good will for failing to do so. Pride goeth before a fall...

UPDATE: Michael Reagan gives proper credit on the Hannity show. Well, this is better than nothing, but I am still disappointed.

Persecution and Derrida's Cat

In response to my earlier post about persecution of Christians in Pakistan and Turkey, Rene of Life, the Universe and Everything feels that I am contributing to "the cause of much of the problems we have today, certainly not the solution". While I don't kid myself that everyone will agree with my opinions (and Rene and I have been debating politics, religion and philosophy for years) I am somewhat surprised that he picked this particular article for special refutation. I would have thought my piece defending the Israeli incursion into Lebanon would have been more to his point. Pointing out examples of persecution would seem pretty tame by comparison, but I'll take whatever response I can get.

First, let me answer a couple of his criticisms specifically, then I will add some further commentary at the end. I don't particularly like this format, since it makes further responses somewhat complicated, but I don't want to give the impression that I am ignoring any of his points..

First of all I think this type of post is completely single sided. Guilty, as charged. I make no attempt on this blog to pretend that I am completely objective and I generally do not trust people who claim to be.

Extreme intolerance or aggression is a serious problem in the world today. It exists and it should be countered and eradicated. But Here he is acknowledging that I have a point. He isn't, therefore in the category of knee-jerk leftists who disagree with any conservative just because he is a conservative. I note this only to point out that I do indeed appreciate the carefulness with which he argues, even though I ultimately disagree with his argument. Yet, note that "but". The real point follows:

the suggestion by examples like this that the problem is an exponent of a single cultural or religious group is absolutely ridiculous. I don't think I made that suggestion. Relating this to the previous sentence, he seems to think that I am blaming all of the intolerance in the world on Islam. My point was much humbler: to point out that some minorities are persecuted with impunity and don't get the attention that they deserve. Even among our "allies", Christianity is treated far worse than, on balance, Christians have treated others.

Too easily do we forget similar tendensies that exist in our own culture, or that of our other neighbours. Have we forgotten the crimes of Nazi and KKK sympathisers? Of extreme black power groups? of violence between Sikhs and Hindus or the aggression that is displayed by Zionist militants? Some people might forget this, but I certainly do not. But the Nazis and KKK have not been in power for a long time, and the other groups he mentions, though perfectly legitimate targets, are not my particular concern. This is the heart of our disagreement, but I will wait until the end to say more about it.

Furthermore, are we forgetting that even in the case of looking at Muslim fundamentalism, that there is no such thing as Islam versus Christianity? There are similar problems between Islam and Hindus, or even within Islam (Shia and Sunni for instance). This whole construct of "them versus us" with "them" as the evil aggressor just does not exist. This is patently false as my two examples prove. Muslim hostility to Christianity may not be the only problem in the world, but it is a problem and it is as worthy of discussion as any other. The fact that I am a Christian (and therefore part of the "us") does not exclude me from having a valid interest in pointing this out.

As to the suggestion that there are conflicts within Islam itself, I am well aware of the fact and my posts on the crisis in Darfur (here, here, here and here for instance) should absolve me of the charge that I have ignored this fact.

Even worse it is the exact same type of propaganda tat is used by extremists in the Islam camps or elsewhere to incite hatred to other groups. If you want an example of Christians abusing a Muslim, or any other combination of ethnic groups, you will have no problem in finding it. Well, I for one have not found too many examples recently. It is true that sectarian violence often involves bad behavior on both sides, but when the violence is one-sided as in the examples I cited, it is usually not the Christians who are the aggressors. If Rene thinks these examples are easy to find, perhaps he can furnish some.

And that is the second major problem. Incidents like this do not even have a proper reference or clear link to facts or truth. Did this happen? Was this the whole story? We don't know. I admit that I cannot verify the truth of the claims, nor even link to a post by Voice of the Martyrs. But these stories are first-hand accounts by people who were treated by VoM representatives. I get three or four such stories via email every week. Some of them may be inaccurate, but that is the nature of after-the-fact reporting.

Even if it happened exactly like this, then the question of how representative of a whole culture / religion or ethnic group this is still remains. Again, I said nothing about these stories being representative. But the fact that they occurred should color our evaluation of the societies in which they took place, even if total condemnation would be inappropriate. If Rene needs me to make a black vs white argument in order to make his point, he should know by now that I am not going to oblige. But neither should unpleasant data be dismissed just because it is not "representative".

In my opinion posting this post contributes to the same problem that it tries to identify and condemn: The aggression of one ethnic group to another. It puts the poster on a same level as the extremist imams that try to convince their followers that Christians are evil, or the Zionist calling for the eradication of Palestinians. As long as we keep hating people, and condemning their beliefs and values, we cannot expect anything else in return. Note in the first sentence that he is careful to say "contributes to" not "causes". This is an example of the carefulness I noted earlier. But in the second sentence he abandons this nuance by the sort of moral equivalence that is emblematic of liberalism. How, exactly, is pointing to specific acts of violence by a specific group of Muslims (in the Pakistan story) or pointing out that certain other Muslims are trying to get a particular church outlawed (in the Turkey story) the same as calling them "evil" or calling for their "eradication"? Is criticism always an act of violence? By that logic, Rene's post is essentially a death threat against me (since he calls my ideas "extremely dangerous") which no reasonable person would conclude. But if there is a hierarchy of disagreement, why is my pointing out specific cases of persecution out of bounds?

So what is my overall response? I happen to believe that Islam is a false religion and Christianity is a true one and that these facts have consequences in the real world. Therefore, I am more inclined to point out abuses of the one against the other. But I have never shied away from pointing out the failings of people I would like to support, as noted by my early comments on the Abu Ghraib scandal. But selecting what stories to talk about is not the same as denying that there are other stories. I pick stories that strike me as interesting and, when I can, that seem to be under-reported.

In The Gift of Death, Jacques Derrida famously discussed the problem of feeding your own cat while not feeding all of the other starving cats. According to Derrida, the act of doing good in one instance is inseparably connected to the guilt of not doing other possible goods. I think that is the fallacy that Rene is committing here. In pointing out these particular abuses, I am guilty of not discussing other, equally abusive situations. But my answer to both Derrida and Rene is that I will do what good I can and allow others the opportunity to fill in the gaps. This is sort of an extension of the principle of the free market to the realm of ethics.

Ultimately, of course, I believe that God will sort all of this out and dispense perfect justice, but until then we frail humans have the responsibility to point out injustice when we see it and fix it when we can.

With Friends Like These...

Two stories of persecution of Christians by our Muslim "allies" from Voice of the Martyrs (via email, sorry no link available).

Pakistan:

On June 6, 2006, Nasir Ashraf, a Christian stone mason, was brutally attacked just outside Lahore. While working while working on the construction of a room at a school near Manga Mandi in Pakistan, Nasir became thirsty and took a break. He drew water and drank from a glass chained to a cemented public water tank next to a mosque which was reserved for "all" poor people. Returning to the construction site, a Muslim man asked him, "Why did you drink water from this glass since you are a Christian?" The man accused Nasir of polluting the glass. The Muslim man yanked the glass off the iron chain, broke it and threw it in a garbage can. The man summoned other militant Muslims to the scene, furiously saying, "This Christian polluted our glass." Hearing this, the incensed mob began beating Nasir, yelling that a Christian dog drank water from their glass. The militant Muslims encouraged bystanders to beat Nasir because it would be a "good" deed that would benefit them in heaven. The attackers pushed Nasir off a ledge onto the ground. The impact of the fall dislocated his shoulder and broke his collar bone in two places. Nasir was knocked unconscious and he did not regain his senses until he reached a clinic. A doctor told Nasir that some people had brought him there. The doctor advised Nasir to never make this kind of mistake again.

Note, for the record, that these were just average Muslim citizens, not necessarily terrorists.

Turkey:

Nationalists in Turkey's Northern city of Samsun have stepped up a two-year campaign against a Protestant church, denouncing in the media the legally registered congregation's right to exist. Izzet Altunbas, chairman of the Samsun Association of Balkan Turks, and a prominent member of the local Nationalist Movement Party, publicly attacked the Agape Protestant Church in vicious terms in mid-June. In speeches broadcast over three local TV channels on June 16th, Altunbas declared that establishment of the church, officially registered as the Agape Church Association, revealed "extensive damage" to the nation in that it reflected Turkey's compliance with European Union legal norms strengthening a dangerous "assimilation" drive against both Turkish ethnicity and Islam. "I find this association and its secret activities a huge danger for Samsun and for Islam," Altunbas said. "This is treason against our Muslim and Turkish identity."

I agree with the nationalists on one point: as long as this kind of crap continues, Turkey does not belong in the EU. (And, as a side note, they need to get out of Cyprus before they are allowed into Europe.)

England and St. George

It is easy to be amused by this:

[...] the Church of England is considering rejecting England's patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims.

Clergy have started a campaign to replace George with St Alban, a Christian martyr in Roman Britain.

[...]

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams indicated support for an upgrade for Alban, although he is said to be cautious about relegation for George.

He told the Sunday Times: 'I think St Alban is irreplaceable in the history of English Christianity. Perhaps we ought to raise his profile because it's the beginning of the church in this country with martyrdom, wisdom and courage.'

[...]

The saint became an English hero during the crusades against the Muslim armies that captured Jerusalem in the 11th century.

An apparition of George is said to have appeared to the crusader army at the Battle of Antioch in 1098.

His dragon-slaying legend is thought to have begun as an allegory of Diocletian's persecution of Christians.

Alban was martyred in 304 AD on the site of St Alban's abbey in the Hertfordshire city that now bears his name.

A Roman army officer, he was said to have converted after sheltering a Christian.

I am not sure to what degree St. Alban needs his profile raised, as he is easily as recognizable in the Anglican community as St. George. Not that I have anything against St. Alban, but I think this is yet another example of the Archbishop trying to strike a diplomatic note and missing the point completely.

There is a Byzantine icon of St. George (sans dragon) on my cubicle wall as I write this. On the back is a brief bio of the saint:

St. George was born of Christian parents (275 AD). During his childhood, his father died as a martyr. He grew up in Lydda of Palestine, the native town of his mother.

At the age of 18, he was recruited into the Roman army. Handsome, with an athletic and gentle appearance, clever and educated, courageous and brave, he was promoted to the highest military ranks in a short time.

Now Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, declared a severe persecution against the Christians and demanded that all his soldiers and officers offer pagan sacrifices as proof of their loyalty.

St. George was the first to refuse. He gave up his military commission, confessed his faith openly, and made himself available to the persecutors, obviously with the purpose of inspiring courage among the Christians.

Diocletian, unsuccessful in his efforts to change St. George's mind, ordered to put him under the cruelest tortures. He endured his martyrdom with great courage which caused the conversion of many officers and soldiers, and encouraged the Christians to stand firm in their faith. Finally, he was beheaded at Nicomedia on April 23 in the year 303 AD.

What exactly is "warlike" about this image? There are several striking similarities between this story and the one about St. Alban. As to the suggestion that St. George may not be an actual historical person, what of it? I happen to believe that he was, but the point of the story is to demonstrate an ideal of courage under duress and standing up for convictions. That is surely an ideal that we need to recover now more than ever. I would understand if the nation of England were to become so secularized that it decided to abandon its Christian heritage. But there is no excuse of the Church of England to be aiding such a movement.

The crux of the issue, of course, is not the secularization of the country but the appeasement of Muslims. The association of St. George's cross with the crusades is undeniable. But one ought to remember that the crusades were not an act of aggression by Europeans against Arab lands, but a defense of land they already owned against the invader. There are many reasons the crusades were not ultimately successful, but chief among them must be the lack of unity and conviction within the Christian camp. St. George went to his death, if the legend is to be believed, rather than bow to public pressure or pagan religion. If the Church of England is to continue its Christian witness, it will have to take note of his example and refuse to bow to either of the false gods of secularism or Islam.

(Via Mere Comments)

Dubai to Divest?

Rossputin notes:

CNBC is reporting that Dubai Ports World will transfer the ports that they would have run as part of their takeover of P&O to a US Entity.

Senator John Warner was on the floor of the Senate announcing the transfer of the US ports to a US investor. I think they gave him the news because he has been one of the few voices of reason in the Senate on the issue.

There is no link in the above blog, but here is the story from the Washington Post:

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

[...]

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

This has always struck me as a tempest in a teapot, but it illustrates how difficult this administration seems to find comminicating its ideas. I suspect that Bush, who ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, has never really understood the philosophical underpinings of conservatism. This was abundantly clear as he fumbled with the definition of "judicial activism" in his explanation of the Harriet Miers nomination, and his earlier inability to persuasively argue his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Hint: They were both bad ideas to start with.)

Tagged!

Sonia tagged me. I am supposed to tag 4 other bloggers, but I promised I wouldn't do this after the Book Meme:

1: Black and White or Color; how do you prefer your movies?
Color. Some movies belong in black & white such as "The Wind", "M", or even "Shadows and Fog". But some old movies are in black & white just because the director didn't have a choice.

2: What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?
I am not easily bored, but there is still more than one. "Other People's Sex Life" springs to mind.

3: MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?
Probably CDs. I haven't really gotten into MP3s, and I don't quite trust the medium for long-term storage. I mostly listen to tapes in the car, but that is just because I am too lazy to install a CD player. You can probably tell that music isn't a big part of my life, huh?

4: You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going … Ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?
Socrates refused to leave Athens when his life was at stake. I would be embarrassed to betray family, friends, and church for a mere $10 million.

5: Seriously, what do you consider the world’s most pressing issue now?
The most pressing issue has always been our long war against God. The most obvious manifestation of that war seems to be the spread of Islam. Go ahead and tell me in the comments how stupid I am for not acknowledging that Islam is a valid approach to God...

6: How would you rectify the world’s most pressing issue?
Pray. Evangelize. Try to set a good example. (Oh, wait, that's redundant.)

7: You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?
I never look back and I don't really subscribe to the Donny Darko school of Calvinism, so this question is kind of meaningless to me. There are plenty of things that I have done that a better person wouldn't have. But I suspect that changing those things would make me a different person, and I can't consciously will my own destruction.

To put this a little less abstractly, in High School I used to fight with my girlfriend constantly. While I shouldn't have done that, the knowledge of my failure to live up to even my own low standards eventually led me to Christ. And if I had stayed with her, I never would have met my wife and she might not have returned to the faith without my encouragement. So who would have been better off?

8: You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?
This is just the Donny Darko question with a bigger bunny suit. The same principle applies.

That said, I do wish the crusaders had not sacked Constantinople in 1204. But that event came at the nadir of a whole series of disasters and villainy so I have a hard time singling it out for correction.

9: A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole’ Opry –Which do you choose?
Uggh. Can't I just give them both my ticket and $10 million and make them go away? Unless you count Gilbert and Sullivan as opera which I adore.

10: What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you’d like to solve?
Jack the Ripper, if only because he is a discredit to the name.

11: One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?
Ayn Rand and C. S. Lewis, together. I'm not sure what I'd serve. Probably pizza.

12: You discover that John Lennon was right, that there is no hell below us, and above us there is only sky — what’s the first immoral thing you might do to celebrate this fact?
Piss on John Lennon's grave? Seriously, this is the wrong question on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.

First, the assumption that Christians are motivated by threat of hell or bribery of heaven is inaccurate (though perhaps understandable). These are often motivations to convert (since the natural man is primarily motivated by self-interest) but after conversion one comes to love truth, goodness and beauty for their own sake (or for God's sake which ammounts to much the same thing).

Second, assuming there is no transcendant standard, it makes no sense to talk about committing "immorality". One never acts immorally from one's own conscious perspective, actions can only be judged immoral from an external standard (ie God's, Society's or Freud's inernalized Superego, which is distinct from the conscious Ego).

Third, it makes little sense to talk about committing immoral acts "in celebration". Immorality is only fun if it is contrast to a standard that is perceived as tyrannical or unreasonable. If there were really no such standard, immorality would be seen for what it is -- self-destructive and harmful to others. This is assuming you can get over the contradiction mentioned in point 2.

Finally, on a more personal note, I reject the entire premise of the question. When I was an atheist, I felt that the only intellectually honest response to a godless universe was a desire to destroy all false promises of happiness. That initially meant religion and social mores, of course, but I eventually came to see that it pretty much included all personal illusions such as emotion, pleasure and damn near everything else. Pain and pleasure are only truly appreciated in memory -- the actual experience is gone by the time you can identify it. But who will remember those subjective experiences five minutes after I am dead? The thing that kept me from being a full-blown anarchist/nihilist was that I could never answer an even more important question: who will experience my intellectual honesty five minutes after I am dead?

Hope for the Muslim World

Pastorius links to an interesting article in the New York Sun. The following excerpt caught my eye as it illustrates a point we both have been making in several different ways:

Ms. Darwish, 57, said she had not met a Jew until she moved to America at age 30. As a child, she was taught, "Don't take candy from any stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you."

Then, ten years ago, her brother in Gaza had a stroke. A panic ensued over whether to send him to Cairo Hospital in Egypt or Hadassah Medical Center in Israel. The matter was settled by an Egyptian diplomat in Gaza: "If you want him to live, you send him right now to Hadassah." And so his life was saved.

Ms. Darwish said that while her mother was in Jerusalem taking care of her brother, she noticed that Jews who had been kicked out of Egypt by Nasser, who had confiscated their property, had rebuilt their lives in Israel. "They are not left in refugee camps like we did to the Palestinians," Ms. Darwish said.

Meanwhile, Back In Iraq...

...Sistani emerges as a voice of calm and common sense:

Iraq's top Shiite cleric also weighed in on the controversy, condemning the publication of the cartoons, but suggesting Muslims were partly to blame for distorting the image of Islam.

"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said.

Mr. al-Sistani's remarks, posted on his website and dated Jan. 31, refrained from any calls for protests against the cartoons. Mr. al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

Sonia remarks, "It's quite ironic that the only Muslim country where there are no widespread anti-cartoon riots is... Iraq."

Ironic, perhaps, but hardly surprising. Given the increasing evidence that this entire "protest" was a ruse to distract Muslims from the failure of their tyrannical rulers, it makes perfect sense that the voice of reason should come from the epicenter of the liberation. Alternatively, you could explain this as a result of the Coalition military presence. Those most likely to protest would be the "insurgents" and they are too busy trying to stay out of American gun-sights to afford a public protest. In either case, I am happier about the war effort than I have been in months. Congratulations Mr. Sistani. You are a credit to your country!

UPDATE: But the French still don't get it! Note the paragraphs after the one cited above:

France's Foreign Minister said Friday he was shocked that Islamic hardliners have burned flags to protest caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed printed in European newspapers.

[...]

However, the minister told LCI television: "I'm shocked and I find it unacceptable that, because there were caricatures in the West, extremists can burn flags or adopt fundamentalist or extremist positions that would suggest the caricaturists were right."

Look, monsieur, the problem isn't the flag burning or the positions that they are adopting that is the problem. Those are perfectly legitimate (if somewhat misguided) expressions of free-speech. The problem is with the arson, death threats and other acts of violence.

Bethlehem Under Hamas

Speaking of paying the Jizya, this story is disturbing on many levels:

While Israelis struggle to come to terms with the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections last week, another group also is worried by the rise of the avowedly Islamist organization -- the Christian Arab minority centered here in Jesus' birthplace.

The Palestinian draft constitution of 2003 establishes Islam as the official religion while noting that Christianity will be "equally revered." It also names Islamic Sharia law as "a major source for legislation."

[...]

"I know they are not Taliban," said one Bethlehem mother of two, who did not want her name used. "But I wonder what they mean by 'Islamic.' We are Christian, we don't want trouble."

[...]

"There are groups putting rumors into the minds of Christians, that there will be registrations," for example, said the mayor. "I say, 'Don't worry. Hamas has promised not to.' "

But there are those articles in the Palestinian constitution. And there is persistent talk about a tax, or "jeziya" that could leveled on second-class, or non-Muslim, citizens.

A Hamas member of the Bethlehem City Council, Hassan El-Masalmeh, told the Wall Street Journal in late December: "We in Hamas plan to implement this tax someday. We say it openly, everyone is welcome to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules."

I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the suffering of my fellow Christians, but my initial reaction is "what did you expect?" Palestinian Christians have been siding with the terrorists against Israel for decades. Now that they have come to power (although in the form of Hamas rather than the PLO) it is a bit late to wonder if the bonds of "race" are going to prove stronger than differences of religion. Especially when one of the religions is Islam...

Nevertheless, the Christians have a hope that the Israelis do not. I am reminded of the letter to the church at Pergamum in Rev 2:12-17. The Palestinian Christians have been tempted by bonds of the flesh, but Christ will not forget those who dwell in the Devil's country, yet remain faithful to the death. Martyrdom may be all that they can hope for in the near future, but it is still a better fate than apostasy.