Return
to Main Page

Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Profile
Daniel W Kauffman Jr's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge

uat

LINKS


Return
to Main Page
Opposing Views Heinlein Centennial web site This site is Gunny Approved
Heard the
Word of Blog?

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Open Trackback Alliance

Check out our Frappr!


Patterico's Pledge

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues,

I will not obey those rules.

ARCHIVE
« September 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

View blog reactions

Who Links Here

Free counter and web stats

eXTReMe Tracker

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Listed on BlogShares


>
Tuesday, 26 September 2006
The Triple Alliance's Limits
By Peter Zeihan

French President Jacques Chirac met with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris on Sept. 22 before being joined the
next day by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Three years ago, the meeting of
the three powers would have signaled a nightmare scenario for U.S. foreign
policy.

How times change.

If anything, the meeting might have
been hostile, as the logic for the trilateral alliance that once existed has
failed. Though the three obviously still have much to discuss, their
relations now are of little more significance than those between nations of
similar standing.

The Triumvirate

In the early days of
the Iraq war, a diplomatic alliance spearheaded by Chirac, former German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Putin regularly met, consulted and spoke out
against the United States' Iraq effort. The three formed a powerful
diplomatic force rooted in friendly personal relationships and a worldview of
a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that could stand on its own as a global power.


The primary goal of this alliance was to counter and, if possible,
contain American power. Solid geopolitical reasons underpinned this strategy
in Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Paris has long played second fiddle to the
respective global hegemon of the day, whether Hapsburg Spain, Imperial
Britain or Imperial and then Nazi Germany. Currently, that hegemon is the
United States. Thus, France, in particular the France of Charles de Gaulle of
which Chirac sees himself as the custodian, naturally seeks an alliance
capable of countering the global power of the day.

Germany's logic
under Schroeder was different. Germany had been divided and occupied by the
Cold War superpowers for two generations, and had the idea beaten into it
that Germany could not have a foreign policy (and certainly not a security
policy) independent from or hostile to Europe. Within that limited envelope,
Germany for the most part chose to be the European Union's yes-man and
pocketbook.

But after Germany's 1990 reunification, Berlin began to
think of itself as a country again, and under Schroeder it started developing
a foreign policy within the confines of its internationally imposed envelope.
If Germany would be allowed to think of itself as European, then Germany
should -- in Schroeder's mind -- treat European sovereignty with the same
respect and care a normal state would reserve for its own sovereignty. A
partnership with Chirac's view of Europe -- which envisaged Europe as a
global, if French-led, power -- was a natural fit.

Putin's logic also
was different. During the Cold War, Moscow did everything under the sun to
drive a wedge between Europe and the United States, believing (probably
correctly) that so long as the West remained united, it could wait out and
ultimately overpower the Soviet Union. A divided West, however, would be much
more susceptible to Soviet economic, political and/or military power.


This view re-emerged after the heady days of the early 1990s, when it
(briefly and inaccurately) seemed Washington and Moscow were going to become
best pals. As American power waxed and Russian power waned, Russia under
Putin was forced to confront the uncomfortable revelation that if Russia were
ever going to be secure, it had to have a European friend -- and a powerful
one. The logical choice was Germany, which, in addition to being the closest
major European state, boasted the largest economy, and as Schroeder was
discovering, a rather malleable foreign policy. Schroeder was already cozy
with Chirac, so Putin made the duet a trio.

And thus the
Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis was born.

Ungrateful Dissenters,
Meddlesome Americans, French Relics


And it immediately ran into
trouble.

The first and most critical flaw in the trilateral
relationship was that, though speaking on behalf of France, Germany and
Russia, made for powerful rhetoric, the trio presumed to speak as if it
represented the entire swathe of European and former Soviet states. Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, etc. in fact only have one thing in common, aside from their
location on the European continent: In the past 200 years, all of them have
either been at war with or occupied by France, Germany and Russia. Even for
states such as Norway or Greece, which strongly opposed Washington's Iraq
policies, the idea that Paris, Berlin and Moscow could speak for them without
even consulting them grated. And for those that relied on U.S. military power
to guarantee their independence -- particularly the "new" European states of
Central Europe -- the very thought the triumvirate could speak for them was
perceived as somewhere between horrifying and comic.

Beyond internal
European opposition, the Americans did not feel too hot about a grouping that
in theory contained allies that were in fact actively working to undermine
its policies. Luckily for the United States, certain things were fairly
firmly hardwired into the international system, giving Washington a great
deal of inertia that the triumvirate was simply unable to dislodge. The U.S.
dollar's dominance meant that even energy trade between Russia and France was
dollar-denominated. And France and Germany's budget shortfalls meant neither
state was willing to underwrite the expense of setting up an alternative
international system. A triumvirate effort to repeal the European Union's
Chinese arms embargo that would have ended most American-European defense
technology sharing -- something that ensured that other European states would
bring down the idea -- similarly failed to get off the ground. Such a deal
would have put weapons in the hands of the authors of the Tiananmen massacre,
something all German political parties -- even Schroeder's Social Democratic
Party, though not Schroeder himself -- opposed.

In time, however, it
was France that proved to be the alliance's undoing. In May 2004, Europhilic
France -- not the Euroskeptic United Kingdom -- defeated the European
constitution. Chirac's worldview -- and, by extension, Schroeder's and
Putin's as well -- required a Paris able to stand on the European platform
(perhaps sharing that platform with trusted partners that knew enough not to
block the spotlight) and use Europe's strength to influence the globe.
Without the unifying effect of a common constitution, however, the European
Union remains hobbled by a decision-making structure that allows individual
states to veto policies on issues of critical importance, such as how to
label cheese. That national veto also exists for less-interesting topics,
ranging from tax and judicial to foreign and military policies. Suddenly, the
political and economic assumptions upon which the triumvirate was built had
been sabotaged by none other than one of its own members.

Since that
decision, the rest of the world has been readjusting. Though Paris, Berlin
and Moscow were certainly at the forefront of the ideal of a world in which
the United States did not dictate policy, they were hardly the only ones with
a stake. Secondary powers the world over -- Brazil, China and India come to
mind -- also fancied the idea of a world in which they might form regional
groupings perhaps able to counter American hegemony.

But strategic
planners in all of these states have long realized that a multipolar system
is only possible with opposing political and economic poles. That means a
multipolar world would require an economically vibrant, politically distinct
and organizationally coherent Europe. When the constitution died -- and
sporadic European rhetoric to the contrary, the constitution is dead -- that
idea, and thus the multipolar dream, died with it too.

The past 16
months have seen the rest of the world unconsciously coming to grips with
this reality. Some states, such as India, have decided to experiment (albeit
warily) with a sort of alignment with the United States rather than to
attempt to play (nonexistent) poles off each other. Others, such as Brazil,
are viewing their own backyard in a new light, as years of mindless
commitment to an anti-American system rooted in the ideal of multipolarity
has begun to generate undesirable effects (in Brasilia's thinking) in
Venezuela and Bolivia.

And so the flaws in the
Chirac-Schroeder-Putin triumvirate's thinking have led to the triumvirate's
faltering -- as did Schroeder's electoral ejection in September 2005.


His replacement, Angela Merkel, cleaves to a worldview shaped by her
background in the former East Germany. For Merkel, American influence is not
necessarily a negative, and more important, her ideological envelope for
German policy is far wider. Whereas Schroeder operated under the constraints
the West imposed on Germany after World War II -- constraints that nearly all
West Germans consider justified -- Merkel and most East Germans consider
similar restraints imposed by the Soviet Union illegitimate. This freed up
German foreign policy to espouse and advocate German national interests
independent of Europe, empowering Berlin to craft a foreign policy free from
French hip-attachment. For example, within the European Union, Germany has
gone from an engine for greater integration to a force arguing as vehemently
as Denmark and the United Kingdom for the preservation of national vetoes in
key decision-making processes.

And of course, Schroeder's once-sturdy
French conjoined twin, Jacques Chirac, is not as dependable as before.
Chirac's term expires in May 2007, and barring an unexpected resurgence in
his fortunes, the French third of the triumvirate will also vanish.


That is because while Chirac's foreign policy is indeed rooted in
geography, that geography is not of today, but of the de Gaulle era. After
World War II, France found itself in a miniaturized Europe composed of only
France, the Low Countries and occupied Germany and Italy. The United Kingdom
was nursing its wounds and wanted little to do with the mainland, Spain was
languishing in Franco-imposed isolation and the Soviet advance had completely
cut off the eastern half of the Continent. For the first time in more than
1,000 years of French history, no major European powers were scheming,
maneuvering or marching to halt a French rise. France's first move? Begin to
band its near abroad into the European Economic Community, the forerunner of
today's European Union.

But the world of the de Gaulle era no longer
exists. Not only did "Europe" expand to include major European powers such as
Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom, but the Cold War's end introduced a
host of new players that did not see eye to eye with France. Paris could
orchestrate and perhaps even control a Europe of six, but in a Europe of
(going on) 27, the best France can hope for is to avoid being drowned in
euromush. Like the rest of the world's geography, France's geography
changed.

But French foreign policy did not change with it.


Future French presidents, whether Nicolas Sarkozy, Segolene Royal or some
other figure, will have one critical characteristic separating them from the
incumbent: They will not worship at the altar of de Gaulle. A leadership
transition will not necessarily make France a fast friend of the United
States, but it will result in a foreign policy more rooted in the geography
of today rather than the geography of yesteryear.

The implications
are potentially devastating. De Gaulle's world was one in which the French
could control Europe, and that security encouraged the ambition that created
the European Union. Now, the French no longer believe that; the union is no
longer something to be embraced without hesitation. If France, the architect
of and -- to large degree -- the engine behind European unification, were to
reduce its support for the European project, and if Germany is increasingly
looking out for its own national interests, why shouldn't Paris do the same?


Beyond the Triumvirate

Which leaves Russia's Putin all
alone in the night.

Unlike Chirac, Putin's polices are not airy
dreams. Unlike Schroeder's, they are not about muscle flexing. Putin is
quietly terrified his country and culture are in terminal decline; an
alliance with France and Germany was one of the few things that might stave
of that unfortunate fate. As such, Putin was the most desperate of the three
to make the alliance work. But since he also has the most to lose if the
alliance failed, Putin would naturally be the player to move away from the
triumvirate the most quickly when he realized it was doomed.

And he
has.

Part of Russian foreign policy during the triumvirate period was
to treat its two friends as well as possible and to leave some of Russia's
blunt policy tools, such as energy cutoffs and military rumbling, for
countries less willing to want things Moscow's way. But with Schroeder gone
(so much was his commitment to the triumvirate that he now works for Russia's
state-energy firm Gazprom) and Chirac's star fading, Putin has no reason to
cater to French and German interests aside from a desire to be polite.


And Russians have a reputation for brusqueness absent a reason to be
polite.

Putin's new program is to look out for Russia's interests
using traditional Russian methods that have not been directed against core
Europe since Soviet times.

The January decision to slash natural gas
exports to Ukraine in the full knowledge that the resultant shortages would
be felt farther west (e.g., in France and Germany) was perhaps the first
large-scale application of this new/old policy. And it demonstrated Russia's
willingness to hurt its former allies in order to press home a critical
point: Our problems are still your problems.

In September, Russian
state-owned Vneshtorgbank purchased 5 percent of the European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Co. (EADS). Shortly thereafter, Kremlin officials leaked
that they intended to acquire a full blocking stake (typically 25 percent
plus one share). EADS, designed in order to empower Europe to compete
head-to-head with U.S. aerospace and defense contractors, has been the baby
of the Franco-German partnership going back a generation. Efforts to keep
that baby in the family know no bounds, and the French in particular are
rumored to be furious at the Russian intrusion. For Putin, French wrath is
immaterial. A Russian grip on EADS not only will secure more Western
technology for Moscow than Putin ever gathered as a KGB operative during the
Cold War; it also will allow Putin legitimately to demand meetings with core
European players -- up to and including the leadership of France, Germany and
Spain -- at a moment's notice.

In September, the Russian Natural
Resources Ministry revoked the license for Royal Dutch/Shell's Sakhalin-2
liquefied natural gas project and has threatened the same for Total's
Kharyaga oil project on the mainland. Technically, both projects are
protected by production-sharing agreements, but in Russia, the rule of law is
hardly firm. The message is clear: Investment and partnership with European
firms is all well and good, but it will occur on Russian terms. These
include, among other things, a European commitment to spread the wealth and
share technology liberally.

The Sept. 23 triumvirate meeting was a
testament to the past power of the threesome -- the key word being past. No
new initiatives were announced, no grand joint statements were released. The
biggest news -- if it can be called that -- was the announcement that the
three powers were forming a study group to examine the issue of Russian
participation in EADS, and that some natural gas from a stalled Russian
offshore project might go to Europe instead of the United States. The French
Foreign Ministry, denied even the mildest assurance from Putin that Total
would not be ejected from its Russian production-sharing agreement, was
reduced to issuing a statement of hope that all would eventually work
out.

Though this will not likely be the last trilateral summit of the
three -- European meetings have a tendency to continue rescheduling
themselves long after the meat of a relationship has rotted -- it clearly
illustrates how the special relationship the powers once enjoyed has been
relegated to history. Exposed to simple geography, rising strategic
competition among the three is nearly a foregone conclusion. France and
Germany will fight over, rather than cooperatively plan, the future of
European unification. Germany and Russia will discover that overlapping
economic interests in Central Europe are less a reason for common ground and
more an issue of winner takes all. France, looking to wring the last bits of
usefulness out of the European Union, will likely back a free trade deal with
Ukraine -- something that will rankle Russian sensitivities.

The one
player missing from this, of course, is the one player who will benefit the
most from the triumvirate's demise: the United States. While Washington would
likely greatly enjoy maneuvering Europe's various powers into more mutually
antagonistic positions, the current administration will not be the one to
take such steps. The Bush administration is simply too occupied with Iraq and
the Iranian complications that go with it to take advantage of anyone. Until
the White House can find more foreign policy bandwidth, it will be sitting
this one out.

Or at least, it will as long as the European powers
allow it to. Traditionally, when European powers maneuver against each other,
they tend to seek the assistance of an outside power, one that can serve as
an ally to help them balance their threats. With Moscow, Paris, and Berlin no
longer seeing eye to eye, one -- and perhaps all -- will ultimately seek out
Washington's helping hand.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.


Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.  


Go to https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to register



Technorati Tags:*********
*********

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:42 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 7:49 PM CDT
Gente contra Corriente
A very interesting website I discovered because the owner linked to a post I had about the USO

USO Sends 800,000th Care Package to Troops Serving Overseas!
In addition toCongressmen and Senators, celebrity guests at this stuffing party included Sherri Saum, James Avery, Brian Littrell, and Leann Tweeden.


The scenery on the site is usually very nice I rather like the purpose relayed to me

Dear Mr. Kauffman:

Thank you so much for you support. However, I shoul clarify that this blog's target is not to support the troops. This is a blog made from Spain, and my intention is to fight against the false belief that every celebrity holds leftish ideas. I know that happens in the US, and believe me, it's much worse in Europe. So I'm trying to bring famous people from the show bussiness, culture world, sports, fashion, etc, who have made statements holding libertarian or conservative beliefs, or, at least, against que ruling leftish beliefs. Certainly, someone who supports the troops is against that ruling flow, and so deserves to appear in this blog, though it is not the main target itself.

Anyway, thank you so much for your comments, and you`re a guest here anytime you feel like collaborating.



Here is just one of the sites Non-Left Celebrities.




Yes they not only linked to me they put my URL right next to LeAnn Tweeden

I think under the circumstances we need not stand on formalities, if you are reading this, please, just call me Dan? I would say we think alike. Allies can be allowed a less "proper" form of address. ;-)
Technorati Tags:************

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:31 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:42 AM CDT
Monday, 25 September 2006
Submit or Die
From Iris.org to my email in box to you.


Submit or Die


Finally, a columnist has echoed my sentiments from last week that rarely has a facile opinion been so widely repeated. Here is how I explained it:

The conventional wisdom about the Papal Intifada is clever ("we'll protest your charge that we're violent with violence") but facile. Islam is not the slightest bit interested in fairness toward infidels. The entire point of the laws regarding insulting Islam and dhimmitude in sharia in general is to inflict humiliation on non-Muslims to pressure them into converting or accepting subjugation. "Submission," after all, not "peace," is the definition of "Islam."




See here and here, for some of the hundreds of pundits pontificating that the violent reaction to the Pope's implication that Islam is violent is hypocritical and ironic. (My favorite headline in this group, by the way, is this one: Many Missed Pope's Point)



Of course, this is precisely the point that was missed regarding the Danish Cartoon Intifada. Here is how I explained it then:



Outrage Over Danish Cartoons is Not "Hypocritical"



This controversy has nothing to do with fairness or sensitivity. It has to do with the insistence of Islamists on the principle of the primacy of Islam, and a second-class status (dhimmi) for others. We do not understand this because the West cannot conceive that anyone could openly espouse inequality as a principle.
Precisely as I have been explaining for months, Clifford May explains the reaction in the terms I used, dhimmitude and submission:

Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence — and Muslims riot in protest.



Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.



Many commentators are missing the point: These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.” They are saying: “It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.” They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate “infidels” criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.



They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and “unbelievers” submit — or die. Call it an offer you can’t refuse.



If you don’t understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary — a Muslim Fascist if ever there was one — told demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed — for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor’s description of Islam as a religion “spread by the sword.”



“The Muslims take their religion very seriously,” Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, “and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”



Iraqi insurgents — some Europeans admiringly call them “the resistance” — posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.



In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope “should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric.” In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.



Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: “We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: ‘Aslim Taslam’” The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: “Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.”



It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the Pope’s expression of regret for his remarks was “acceptable.” But he added: “[W]e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims.”



Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope — expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive — must be viewed as a form of violence.



Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course but that’s only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi — the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari’a law, dhimmis are meant to “feel themselves subdued,” to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.



In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe, even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.



We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We do expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The “international community” does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.



Most of the world’s Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven’t the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamist Fascists brands himself as an apostate — as deserving of death as any uppity pope.




Technorati Tags:*********************







Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 4:39 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 4:45 PM CDT
Sunday, 24 September 2006
The Open Trackback Alliance XLIII
For your listening pleasure while you browse

"Der er et yndigt land" (There Is A Lovely Land)


Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager
Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer
Adopted: 1844

"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.

When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not



Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK


I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "

I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".




When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a
Statement of Purpose
Now upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.

And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.

For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.

And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.

As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.

The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the

OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE


This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.




In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech.

Sign the Petition NOW!

JEG opstille hos Danmark!




45127 Total Signatures 12:03 AM CDT September 25, 2006 We can do better pass the word~!




From Agora a call to Support the Manifesto online by signing another Petition, why not sign both?


MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "

Open Trackback Alliance


Blogs that Trackback to this Post:

On Monday
Warning About Red Lobster Restaurants from planck's constant
Muslim Humor - Muslim Jokes from planck's constant

Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)
Technorati Tag:******

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 10:57 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Monday, 25 September 2006 6:41 PM CDT
Jihad Means Struggle
We have been told over and over again that the word Jihad means internal struggle

CAIR: The Council on American-Islamic Relations
Shora explained that the Arabic word "jihad" means "struggle," not "holy war," but the word has been hijacked by terrorists groups to justify attacking innocent civilians. "Lesser jihad" or "defensive jihad" refers to a military stand against the enemies of religion, but is meant to be a call to arms if the religion is under attack and threatened with annihilation.


The Canadian office of the Council on American-Islamic
"Islam respects the sacredness of life, and rejects any express statement or tacit insinuation that Muslims should harm innocent people. Despite our disagreement with certain American policies, we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians.

"Jihad, which literally means 'struggle,' has an internal, societal and combative dimension. The internal dimension of Jihad encompasses the struggle against the evil inclinations of the self, and the spiritual project to adorn the self with virtues such as justice, mercy, generosity and gentleness. The societal dimension includes struggling against social injustice and creating a communal identity based on charity, respect and equality.






But I just finished viewing a daunting video presentation.




It would be hard to do justice to the message conveyed, one item stands out most strikingly.

A statement by Walid Shoebat a former Palestinian Terrorist (reformed)




I won't bother to source the statements by numerous Islamic Religious Leaders that Jihad also means Holy War to destroy the Jews, the Idolaters and the Polytheists.

Walid Shoebat summed it up perfectly.

Yes Jihad means struggle.

But so did


MEIN KAMPF


and as for the statement:

"we must never abuse the concept of Jihad to target innocent civilians'


I will close with the statement of one of the Muslim Clerics in Obsession,

No Kaffir is Innocent

Technorati Tags:************

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 9:07 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sunday, 24 September 2006 9:14 AM CDT
Friday, 22 September 2006
Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Saw a post at No Pasarn! called Where she belongs
On Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Neither is she pessimistic about the West. It has, she says, "the drive to innovate.'' But Europe, she thinks, is invertebrate. After two generations without war, Europeans "have no idea what an enemy is.'' And they think, she says, that leadership is an antiquated notion because they believe that caring governments can socialize everyone to behave well, thereby erasing personal accountability and responsibility. "I can't even tell it without laughing,'' she says, laughing softly. Clearly she is where she belongs, at last.


Now I have some ancestors that walked here (On the Bering Land bridge during the end of the last Ice Age) and I have some ancestors that rode later, but they have all certain things in common. They went to a lotof trouble to get here.

Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?

Oh that's right because it was a lot better here, more Opportunities, more Freedom, more Liberty, more of an entire array of things that in the OLD world were often reserved for the elite.

Some people forget that. Some people make a big deal because they say the US stole what is now the Southern South West from Mexico, leave aside the fact that the Mexicans and Spanish stole that land from the First Nations, if that ares had stayed in Mexico, what makes anyone think it would be any different today than the rest of Mexico?

Would people be risking death in the desert to get to somewhere just like the place they were leaving?

Some people also forget that some of our ancestors went to a lot of trouble, to leave Europe.

Why should we go to a lot of trouble to duplicate the failed Socialist policies of Europe? Why should we wish to turn this country into a duplicate of what we spent so much effort to leave?

Remind Me Again, Why Did We Come Here?
Technorati Tags:******

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 6:02 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Friday, 22 September 2006 9:07 PM CDT
Thursday, 21 September 2006
Hugo Chavez Thinks Noam Chomsky Is Dead?
Not dead yet: Hugo Chavez can still meet Noam Chomsky!

But compared with Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Chavez was just more colorful. He brandished a copy of Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later, he told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)


He thinks George Bush is the Devil

Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites

Speaking on Wednesday from the same lectern Mr. Bush had occupied the day before, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela announced, to gasps and even giggles: “The devil came here yesterday, right here.

“It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of,” he said.

Just hours before, Mr. Ahmadinejad took issue with the great Satan, too. But what a difference. Where Mr. Chavez was Khrushchevian, waving around books and stopping just short of shoe-banging, Mr. Ahmadinejad was flowery, almost Socratic in his description of behavior that only the devil would condone.


But then he also thinks Socialism works. So it is obvious there are few other areas than obituaries in which the man is illiterate.
Technorati Tags:*********>***

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 9:38 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:48 PM CDT
Official Oman Site: 'Islam Was Spread by Fear'
From Iris.org to my email in box to you.

Oman during Islam

Apparently Oman's government is (not?)ignorant of "true Islam":
After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.
Via: Little Green Footballs

Technorati Tags:************

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 4:53 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:52 PM CDT
Do You Remember How It Felt
Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?

Boy did it raise a ruckus. But you know something I was so tired of hearing over and over again how terrible America was with no response from our side.

It seemed like they could say anything, call us anything but Oh NO!, we were not supposed to say or do anything to hurt their feelings.

Then our President stood before the world and stood up for us. Told them what they really were.

My reaction was, RIGHT this man is not groveling with politically correct platitudes. This man is standing up for us and the values we hold dear.

I was proud to be an American that day. I have always been proud to be an American, unlike some who seemed to be proud to be ashamed they were Americans. That Day I was reminded of why I had a right to that pride,

I am grateful to have lived at a time where I could experience that feeling.

Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?

If not I feel in a way sorry for you, but you have today a chance to experience a 21st Century version of that.

First there was Pope Benedict statement, taken out of context, no one seems to want to listen to his clarification.

I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason, go together,” he said. He added that he hoped he had made clear his “profound respect for world religions and for Muslims.”


Well they ignored that but the words of Lord Carey The former Archbishop of Canterbury will send them into hysterics.

Capitan's Quarters title Lord Carey Delivers The Real Thing
THE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to “violent” Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope’s “extraordinarily effective and lucid” speech.
Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency” their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilisations” endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

“We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,” he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.” ...

Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a “clash of civilisations”.

Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”



Today I am proud to be a member of Western Civilization. I have a right to be proud of that. I am grateful to Lord Carey for standing up for us for a change.

They can rant, demean, rampage, deface and we are never supposed to do or say anyting that might hurt those ucivilized barbarians feellings?

Why does that sound familiar?

Do you remember how it felt when President Reagan gave his Evil Empire Speech?

If not, you are at least fortunate enough to live in a time to read when Lord Carey Deliverd The Real Thing
Technorati Tags:***************>***

Linked to

|


Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 7:45 AM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:54 PM CDT
Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
In one of his latest statements Pope Benedict said
``I hope that in several occasions during the visit ... my deep respect for great religions, in particular for Muslims — who worship the one God and with whom we are engaged in defending and promoting together social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all men — has emerged clearly,'' he said at the Vatican.


However

The grand sheik of Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, has demanded that the Pope apologize more clearly.

``The Pope has to apologize frankly and justify what he said,'' Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi told papal and Egyptian Catholic representatives in Cairo on Tuesday. — AP


This is probably in the spirit of his efforts at ecumenical harmony

A New Recommendation by Al-Azhar: Stop Calling Jews 'Apes and Pigs'
In March 2003, Al-Azhar University's Institute for Islamic Research issued a recommendation not to describe contemporary Jews as "apes and pigs." The meeting during which the recommendation was drafted was headed by Sunni Islam's highest-ranking cleric, the sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi.

Calling Jews "apes and pigs" is very common in the antisemitic discourse of the Arab world, particularly in Islamist circles. For the most part, the term is used as a synonym for Jews, or in strings of epithets originating in the Koran and Muslim tradition regarding Jews.[25]Sheikh Tantawi himself, in an April 2002 sermon, called Jews "the enemies of Allah, the sons of apes and pigs."[26]


Categorising Non-believers as sub-human is not a case of isolated events in Islam the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca has in the past made his opinions clear. The Free Muslims Coalition relates this in



Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca preaches hate and intolerance

June 19, 2004
Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, the Saudi government appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, will give a series of lectures in Canada next week and attend the Islamic Society of North America conference in Toronto. Al-Sudayyis's position is one of the most prestigious in Sunni Islam. Thus, his sermons hold significant weight throughout the Islamic world.

The themes of his sermons are characterized by confrontation toward non-Muslims. Al-Sudayyis calls Jews "scum of the earth" and "monkeys and pigs" who should be "annihilated." Other enemies of Islam, he says, are "worshipers of the cross" and "idol-worshiping Hindus" who should be fought. Al-Sudayyis has been consistent in calling for jihad in Kashmir and Chechnya, for Jerusalem to be liberated, and for the "occupiers in Iraq" to also be fought. He often claims that Islam is superior to Western culture.

At the Grand Mosque in Mecca on February 1, 2004, Sheikh Al-Sudayyis called on Muslims everywhere to unite to defeat the world's occupiers and oppressors. "History has never known a cause in which our religious principles, historical rights, and past glories are so clearly challenged.... The conflict between us and the Jews is one of creed, identity, and existence." He told those listening to "read history," in order "to know that yesterday's Jews were bad predecessors and today's Jews are worse successors. They are killers of prophets and the scum of the earth. Allah hurled his curses and indignation on them and made them monkeys and pigs and worshipers of tyrants. These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, evil, and corruption...."


As to Pope Benedict apologizing? I have a suggestion. Why not be a gentleman and let Islam go first?
Technorati Tags:*********

Linked to
Open Trackbacks Here from The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

|



Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 8:06 PM CDT
| Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Friday, 22 September 2006 9:17 AM CDT

Newer | Latest | Older