re: "Death By Cultural Misunderstanding"

MikeM at the former-Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") put the recent D.C. restaurant assassination plot by Iran into larger context.

Money quote(s):

"What we now know is that the Iranian used-car salesman from Texas who was apparently the prime broker in the plot was actually trying to arrange not only the murder by explosives of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington DC restaurant, but attacks on American and Israeli embassies possible in simultaneous strikes. Not only was this used-car dealer traveling between Texas, Mexico and Iran, but was prepared to deliver $1.5 million dollars to the DEA informant posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel. It is not known with certainty, but it seems we may have intercepted this plot for no reason other than that the Iranians blundered—by pure chance—into one of our assets rather than the Mexican killers he sought. If so, this is truly one of the most remarkable cases of serendipity on record." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Let's just get it out in the open that CAA is very much against the use of explosives in Washington DC restaurants.

"In its 30-year history of attacking the West, the Quds Force went out of its way never to be caught with a smoking gun in hand. It always used well-vetted proxies, invariably Muslim believers devoted to Khomeini’s revolution. And when the operation was particularly sensitive, they gave the job to Lebanon’s militant Shi’ite Hizballah, organization the Iranians themselves had founded and which has an unsurpassed record in political murder. Hizballah has cells all over the world, including in the United States. But the point of it all was that if caught — and they were, more than once — Iran still enjoyed plausible deniability, a commodity in this business worth its weight in gold. So, if this plot was genuine, why didn’t the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?" " (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

A couple of possibilities, just to throw them out there, occur to me. The first, obviously (given how the writer leads you by the hand) is the possibility that this plot was meant to be blown. Which would take you to the next question: why?

Another possibility is that the plot was being arranged by some other, less professional, player in the sandbox of Iranian assassination operations.

"(T)he Revolutionary Guards have somehow gone rogue and are conducting, dangerous, provocative operations on their own, outside of the knowledge and control of the Iranian leadership. Another possibility is that the democratic Iranian opposition is trying to frame the Mullacracy in an attempt to bring the United States into a direct conflict that might unseat the hardliners, allowing democracy to flourish."

The "democratic Iranian opposition"? Hmm, who could that be?

Seriously, the Iranian opposition most qualified (as in experienced) in covert operations isn't all that democratic a bunch.

And the actual Iranian democrats, stipulating that they survived their almost revolution a couple years ago, might very well be sufficiently un-versed in this sort of thing, in other words they might-could be just about this amateurish. It's an interesting thought to consider.

"I am endlessly fascinated to discover that most Americans seem unable to truly understand that the peoples of other nations are so utterly different than Americans, so actually alien in the truest sense of the word."

What did the guy in Full Metal Jacket say? Ah yes:

"because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out"

"Americans tend to think of religion only within the American framework of separation of church and state and tolerance for the faiths of others. Americans may think adherents of some faiths to be a bit odd--holy Mormon underwear, people going to church on Saturday, eating only fish on Fridays—but they are generally accepting of that, and the fact that Americans are free to change religions and churches as often as they change their socks. Many Americans take their faith seriously, but the idea of killing in its name is—alien, as alien as the idea of being ruled by ministers, mutilating the genitals of their wives and daughters, killing their wives and daughters for violating family honor, killing friends, even family members who leave the faith, or killing anyone not of the faith for that reason alone."

This is something the pre-Founding Fathers brought with them from Europe, the psychic baggage of the Thirty Year's War, where European Christians did most of these things themselves, to one another, decade after decade. With the result that our Founding Fathers and Framers deliberately established a political framework and a civic secular culture inoculated against it.

"In a very real way, we are dealing with medieval thinking, a mindset that sees the world in black and white terms. There are the strong and the weak, the elect and infidels. There is, above all, the Dar al-Islam—the realm or land under Islamic control—and the Dar al-Harb—the realm of war or chaos, the land of the infidels where Islam is not in control. In the Dar al-Islam, Sharia—Islamic law—reigns supreme. It is a medieval code of conduct and justice administered by Imams, essentially Islamic ministers, who have absolute power over life and death. In Islam, there are no individual freedoms, not separation of church and state. The church is the state and individuals live—or die—at its whim."

Okay, while I get what Mr. McDaniels is saying, I have to lay down a few observations and reservations.

First, the myth of monolithic Islam. Not that there isn't considerable common ground between the various threads of Islam, even those that quite often occupy themselves with trying to kill one another, when it comes to opposing, attacking, invading, defeating, or otherwise troubling the infidel West.

Islam is even less monolithic than Communism was, and for many of the same reasons.

This is not to downplay or dispute that the things Mr. McDaniels describes here; they're true enough in plenty enough places.

But, for instance, the "Imams" mentioned are a feature of Shi'a Islam, not one of the more numerous Sunni muslims.

"Winston Churchill observed that individual Muslims may have "splendid qualities," and indeed, most Muslims wish only to live in peace with their neighbors. However, it must be clearly understood that these Muslim are not, in fact, following the dictates of their faith. It is those who war against the Dar al-Harb who are being true to the letter and intent of their religion. And if there are only ten million such Muslims in the world—and there are surely that many—who are determined to follow the clear dictates of their faith to the letter, it's not hard to see the depth of our problem." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This cuts to the heart of the problem. Too much of their holy book reads like it could have come from Charles Manson, had he been born an arab. So it's part of their "operating system" and their "reality tunnel."

"In waging war, Americans generally abstain from striking the first blow, are incredibly cautious about harming non-combatants, even risking and losing American lives rather than accidently killing innocents. Americans even avoid unnecessarily destroying property. For Americans, there are specific laws regulating the conduct of soldiers. None of this is true for Muslims waging Jihad—holy war aimed at establishing a global Dar al-Islam. They kill indiscriminately, ignore the international laws of war, use innocents as human shields, and commit inhuman atrocities as common practice." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Sayin this is not precisely true takes understatement to the level of criminality.

There is a well-develeped and defined set of rules, laws if you will, governing the waging of war by and within Islam. It is not the same, has not the same basis, neither has it evolved with either the same considerations nor in the same directions as was we in our Western conceit have done with our "international laws of war." From a Western perspective, much of what it condones or even requires amounts to war crimes themselves.

"In the pursuit of Jihad, Islam encourages and allows Muslims to lie to infidels. However, it requires Muslims to give infidels a chance to convert to Islam. If they do not, they may be slaughtered at will. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens America and Israel and suggests conversion to Islam, he is not doing this because he has a sincere religious concern for the souls of Americans and Israelis, but because he is adhering to Islamic rules for war.

Americans make the mistake of hearing what they think is yet another preacher trying to convert them and think ignoring them will have no consequences just as it does in America. They fail to realize that when they don't immediately convert to Islam, the safeties have just been released on Muslim weapons." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This has considerable historical basis and is part of the Islamic laws of warfare. Infidels must first be allowed to submit peacefully to Islam; if they decline, then harsher measures may lawfully follow.

"Jihadists recognize no international laws, no "international norms," no treaties, no diplomatic protocols. There is only the struggle to conquer the world, and apart from the Islamic rules for waging war, they observe no restraints, even killing other Muslims, which the Koran forbids." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

See my above. Jihadists do recognize international laws and "norms."

They just don't happen to be the same ones recognized by the West.

"One of the most dangerous misconceptions Americans have is confusing the political realities of America with those of other nations, particularly Islamic nations. "We can't attack Iran," our State Department says. "It's only the leaders of Iran that are bad. The people love us. There are many factions. There are moderates. Why, the leaders of Iran may not even know what is being done in their name!" Idiocy.

Doubtless many Japanese in 1941 had no desire for war. Many Germans were likewise peaceful people, but nations are responsible for actions done in their name, using their resources--$1.5 million and more in this case--pursuing their stated national goals. All of these factors are clearly present in the thankfully foiled plot." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It wasn't the first Iranian act which could constitute casus belli for the U.S., and it surely won't be the last.

The thing is, acts of war are in the eye of the beholder.

"Islamic nations, particularly rogue states like Iran—unquestionably the foremost terrorist nation on the planet—do not brook internal opposition. There is no democracy, no debate, no effective political opposition. Iron-fisted rule extends from the top down. And while it is true that millions of young Iranians think well of the United States and would welcome having the heel of the Islamic boot lifted from their collective necks, this is a tactical, not a strategic concern.

It is not as though we are contemplating turning all of Iran, or even its major populations centers, into a sheet of glowing, radioactive glass. Alone in the world we possess the military means to strike with amazing precision, severely limiting collateral damage. Our assets could, with a few days of overwhelming strikes, severely damage, even obliterate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and wage war."

&

"But Iran would be angry with us! Iran would strike out at us! Iran has been doing just that since 1979. Not only have its agents been caught on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have captured its munitions, specifically designed and manufactured to kill American soldiers. There is no doubt that Iran is arming and training our enemies, enemies that have killed Americans and the citizens of our allies. Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been actively pursuing that war on multiple fronts.

Yet, Iran has exercised some restraint. Its leaders understand that in a conventional military conflict with the United States, it wouldn't last a week. But they also understand that we are tied down in two conflicts. It works with China, North Korea, Syria, any nation opposed to America, to keep us occupied, to limit our ability and willingness to respond."

It is well to remember that Iranians, even "crazy" (by our standards) Iranian mullahs are Persians.

Persia is one of the oldest continuing civilizations in the world, certainly one of the oldest which was (and remains) the dominant culture within a multiethnic empire.

Islam is a major cultural overlay upon Persian culture, but it is only the top, latest layer.

Persians were civilized when most Westerners ancestors were, to put it plainly, not yet civilized. Politics, including international power politics, is something they were waging against not just the Romans, but the Greeks before them.

"Would Iran conduct an attack against Americans that would cause hundreds, even thousands of deaths? Of course it would. Iran has been killing hundreds, even thousands of Americans for years. But iran has never done anything so brazen before! You mean like seizing hundreds of American diplomats hostage and keeping them for more than a year? You mean like killing hundreds of Americans through proxies and by providing purpose-built weapons to them? But this hasn't been Iran's modus operandi—their method of operation—in the past!

Even if that were true—and it isn't--it is now." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Nothing about this plot crosses any bright new lines for Iran. Assassinations of diplomats? Check. Operating in the U.S.? Check.

So check your preconceptions.

"Americans must now be careful in interpreting the clear words and actions of one of our most deadly and determined enemies. They say: "we will kill you all," over and over again. If we don't take them at their clear words, if we don't understand their mindset, millions of Americans and Israelis could die of a cultural misunderstanding."

10/16

re: "This Is A Parody--Right?"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shared a good appreciation of our Iranian adversaries.

Money quote(s):

"One might be tempted to think that this situation—whatever it is and whoever it involves—is a very serious matter and that our government will respond with the kind of righteous rage demonstrated after 9-11. It is a very serious matter indeed, but that's where reality breaks down.

As reported at Fox News, we've intercepted an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to America, with explosives, on American soil. Iranian members of the Quds Force," a paramilitary spy/internal security force pursued a hit on the Ambassador by trying to hire what they thought was a Mexican drug cartel to make the attack. Two Iranian agents were captured and others remain at large."

Shocked? Nah, me neither. Neither was Mr. McDaniel, who shared a nice 11 point list to justify his non-surprise.

"What must the Iranians think of our response thus far? We're imposing sanctions on individual Iranian spies? American firms won't be able to do business with them? Just how many Americans firms, pray tell, do a considerable portion of their business with Iranian operatives such that these sanctions will have any effect—other than provoking uproarious Iranian laughter—on Iran? Will the threat of treating their spies as common criminals accorded the full protections of the Constitution the Iranians not only refuse to recognize but see as a sign of weakness strike fear into the hearts of the hardened terrorist murderers running that despotic nation? Will it cause them to abandon their nuclear designs? Beg for mercy and forgiveness from Israel?"

&

"America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012. On the other hand, with leadership that bows to despots, reflexively supports Marxist and Islamist despots and which actually delivers arms to our deadly enemies as a cynical and incredibly stupid means of imposing anti-freedom domestic policies, do we really need enemies?"

10/11

re: "Norwegian Lessons"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") drew some lessons from the Utoya Island shootings in Norway.

Money quote(s):

"Dressed in a police uniform, he called many of the youngsters on the island at a summer retreat to him and opened fire, eventually killing 86 and wounding—at the bombing and on the island--more than 90. His rampage was stopped when he was shot—he survived--by a police SWAT team, but it took approximately 90 minutes from the first shot until the police were able to find transportation and travel to the island."

As Mr. McDaniels notes further down in his post (see red bold type below), when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sometimes lots of minutes.

"There was immediate speculation that the attack was another Jihadist outrage, which these days is far from an unreasonable assumption, but it seems that this attack was most similar to that in Tucson: the act of an evil man, acting alone in response to whatever demons pursued him."

Apparently SJS is not limited to those of the jihadist persuasion. There is no ideological or religious monopoly, after all, on either evil or madness.

"I'll provide only three primary lessons, though there are surely more.

(1) Gun free zones are deadly. In this case, the entire nation of Norway is essentially a citizen disarmament zone. Even though many Norwegians own firearms, even the police do not routinely carry handguns. Utoya island was very much like American schools: isolated, vulnerable, and completely unarmed. In school attacks, and in the attack on Utoya Island, the final body count will depend on the lack of marksmanship and the humanity of the killer(s), who will be stopped only by the intervention of armed police. Even in America, it takes far longer for the police to respond to such attacks than most people realize. When seconds count, it will take the police tens of minutes to arrive and longer to react. On Utoya Island, the killer—exploiting a dream Socialist gun-free zone--had approximately 90 minutes to roam the island at will, killing at a truly leisurely pace." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In our own fair land, whose federalism has fostered over fifty (don't forget D.C.!) jurisdictions with their own particular interpretations of the Second Amendment, it's more than clear that the easier it is for ordinary law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, the lower the incidence of violent crime.

"(2) Evil exists. The left sees all things through a political lens. All motivations, all meaning may be found in political ideology. Socialist/Statist/Leftist ideology is infallible, so it can never be mistaken. It can never be wrong. Any problems along the way must be attributable to the existence of Conservatism, which keeps Socialism from working properly, or to the fact that not enough time has passed for a given Socialist policy to work properly, or as in the case of gun control issues, insufficient Socialism has been applied. Not until all firearms are in the loving hands of the state can the state protect individual citizens, despite the fact that the state has no obligation—or intention—to protect individual citizens.

Because all is political, morality—to the small degree that leftists recognize its existence, exists only in service to the preferred political narrative. Concepts such as good and evil have no meaning unless they are politically useful, such as evil being applied to those who oppose righteous Socialist policy, which is inherently good."

While I cannot personally vouchsafe the existence of Satan as an individual manifestation and personification of evil, it's more than clear to me that there is evil abroad in the world. The presence and persistence of evil acts, evil men (and women), and evil governments makes this inarguable.

"One need not be a Christian to believe in evil, for evil is manifested most meaningfully in acts, not words. The most revealing evidence of evil in despotism is not in the despot's writings and pronouncements, but in the millions of innocents they slaughter. On Utoya Island, the killer dressed as a policeman, and knowing that kids would not be alarmed by an armed policeman, called them to gather around him and betrayed their trust in the loving state by shooting them. He spent 90 minutes, taking his time, calmly walking about the island and shooting everyone he could find, killing 86 and wounding a great many more. He reloaded multiple times. If this was not evil, evil has no meaning." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(3) One indisputable fact remains: If a single, capable innocent on that island was armed, the killer could have been stopped and nearly two hundred children would not have been wounded or killed. Life could have been preserved and evil defeated. Evil cannot be appeased or reasoned with; it must be confronted and destroyed.

This was not possible because of what Socialists would surely consider one of their greatest accomplishments, an achievement they would see as indisputable evidence of more advanced evolution, of more enlightened humanity: the more or less complete disarmament of an entire nation, including its police.

The media and Norwegian and American politicians sharing the same political and social views will be unable and unwilling to recognize or accept this final, simple truth. They will argue instead for even more disarmament of the law-abiding and innocent, and the suppression of political ideas with which they disagree, even in a country that has no First or Second Amendments, for all must be made to serve the narrative."

I can't improve on Mr. McDaniels words above.


7/25

re: "Useful Idiots, Part II"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") knows a Marxist mob when he sees one (or more).

Money quote(s):

"There are many parallels between the rebels without a clue of the 60s and these equally clueless children of privilege, including no understanding of the system they wish to overthrow or the horrors unleashed should they be successful.

As history has revealed, the protestors of the 60s really were "useful idiots," a derogatory term used by Marxists for their lackeys in democratic nations working toward the destruction of their own freedoms."

The protesters of the 60s are now in their 60s (and 70s) themselves, at the very lingering peak of their political and academic careers. And still misunderstand their earlier (and continuing) roles as dupes.

"For any member of Congress, or the President, circa 1965 to utter support for Marxist protesters would have been unimaginable."

It's acceptable today because Marxists have re-branded themselves as Progressives.

"Marxists care nothing for "the people," who are merely an abstraction, useful only in their temporary, situational utility to the state. Marxist leaders and their states have no conscience, recognize no limits on their power, and if history is any judge, inflict upon 'the people" terrible suffering such that it eventually destroy the very state they claim must be immortal, for Marxist theory can never be wrong, it can never be falsified even as the state crumbles around their ears.

Marxism is utterly incompatible with democracy. When these world views conflict, one must give way, which in our democracy causes Marxists to settle for varying degrees of Socialism just as leftist Bill Clinton was forced to settle for centrist policies."

In practise, Marxism is all about gaining, and maintaining, power. It's not about liberating anyone.

""The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What, such Americans wonder, would be sufficient cause for rebellion? What would cause Americans to rise against the federal government?"

Disquieting questions, to be sure. But thinking-the-unthinkable is sometimes part of the job discription.

"(H)ow can those contemplating our foundational principles be radical? Our Founders well understood that freedom, once gained, is not eternally secured. They knew that the threat of armed conflict to regain freedom lost would always be present. They knew that it would once again become necessary to preserve liberty and to secure the inalienable rights of men, among them, life, liberty and property.

Marxists recognize and honor no such rights. They admit only to state-bestowed privileges which may be altered or revoked without notice or concern for the welfare, health or the very lives of "the people," they rhetorically claim to love and represent.

Here are the seeds of Revolution, but not the safe, secure Revolution imagined by the pampered children of privilege. Weak, unschooled mentally and physically in the arts of survival, they would be among the first to perish in the kind of conditions they foolishly seek to create. What might be the triggers of the real kind of Revolution the Founders foresaw?
Colonial Americans were far from united on the specific usurpations, or their degree, which might spur them to armed conflict against their Government. So it is today. Marxists recognize only that Revolution which brings them to power and which maintains it. American patriots seek that bright line, that trigger, hoping it is never necessary to cross it."

Mr. McDaniel expounded on some very predictable results from current policy objectives that could prove catastrophic. Each of which alone could prove sufficiently antagonistic to the American way of life that it would suffice to inspire rebellion.

"(T)the rebels without a clue occupying Wall Street foolishly seek to implement policies that will inevitably unleash forces they are utterly unprepared to resist and which they will not survive.

Am I advocating armed rebellion? Certainly not, but even as staunch a liberal as Hubert H. Humphrey understood these issues:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." "

10/10

re: "Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") still has a liberal friend (or two).

Money quote(s):

"(H)e was also exercised that al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was not given a proper civilian trial before being executed. Irony challenged, my acquaintance.

As to Awlaki's citizenship, the facts are clear. Awlaki was an American citizen, but a citizen who took up arms against America. We know this because he explicitly told us, many times, that he was at war with America. We know that he was a top enemy commander and that he was directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks against America, American interests and Americans, attacks resulting in American deaths, the Fort Hood attack being only a single example.Arguably, this would make Awlaki guilty of treason, and if captured, he could be tried for that offense. However, capture and trial were not required for one very powerful and well understood—legally speaking—reason: we are at war.

It is hard for most Americans to understand this simple fact: we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979. Because most Americans have to make no sacrifice, because the ongoing war does not disrupt or directly affect their lives in any way, the very concept of war seems a matter of semantics, a debating topic, not a deadly, personal or national reality. We will almost certainly be at war for a generation or more. We may not consider ourselves to be at war with our Islamist enemy, but he does not share our peaceful convictions.

In war, our declared enemies may be killed whenever and wherever they are found. This simple fact does not change because of the nationality of the enemy. This too is a well-settled fact of law. There are no clear demarcation lines on a worldwide battlefield. Americans have, in past wars, gone over to the side of America's enemies and have as a result become indistinguishable from any other enemy soldier or leader. We have killed them when necessary and captured them when possible. When captured they were tried by military commissions." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

These are facts, stated plainly and without adornment. It pains me how many of my fellow citizens, even some of my FS colleagues, seem not to understand them.

"Some have suggested that due to the unique nature of our current world wide conflict, the Congress should enact standards for stripping Americans of citizenship so that they may be killed without trial when acting as an enemy of America, but this is unnecessary and likely designed to impede rather than assist America in her war fighting efforts. American and international laws and standards are quite clear on all of the issues involved and have been since the early 1900s."

Standards already exist for expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship) as part of the public law, incorporated as part the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. I'm sure I don't understand why this hasn't been utilized, but I'm not sure it's ever even been considered in cases like these. Perhaps the legal bar is simply too high, would provide a public soapbox for avowed enemies of the U.S. as they (or their lawyers; i.e., lawfare) appealed such measures, and it's purely simpler (and just as legal) to kill them.

10/2

re: "Triumphs Of Smart Diplomacy: #28,764"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") noted the failure of a host nation to protect an embassy.

Money quote(s):

"The seizure of the embassy of a foreign nation is normally considered an act of war."

Sure, when a government does it.

On the other hand, when a government fails to protect a diplomatic mission, it fails in its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It's less clear to me that this can/should be considered an act of war.

Lots of things can be considered to be causus belli, but if every government went to war every time something that could be considered an act of war happened, then there'd be a lot more wars.

9/9

re: "Rhetoric vs. Reality"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") eloquently described the American Dream.

Money quote(s):

"America is, more than anything, an idea. It is a set of beliefs and values that bind together peoples from all over with the world because they believe that only in America, only in a nation where individuals truly have inalienable rights, where there exists the rule of law, and where the government exists to ensure equality of opportunity, only there can they live in freedom. Only there do they have the opportunity, with the sweat of their brow, with their intellect and abilities, to thrive, to prosper and to instill the American ideal in their children. When enough of the residents of this nation no longer believe, when enough of those who live within our borders no longer see any advantage in being known as an American, America is over."

The rest of his post a bit less positive.

8/9

re: "Adventures in Smart Diplomacy, #2,783"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") reminds us of just how many tentacles the Muslim Brotherhood possesses.

Money quote(s):

"The Muslim Brotherhood is arguably the oldest, most influential and most extreme Muslim organization in the modern world. Founded in 1935 in Egypt, its most modern jihadist incarnation began in 1952 when Sayed Qtub, arguably the modern father of the Jihadist movement, returned to Egypt. He had been studying, of all things, American Literature at the University of Northern Colorado. The behavior of American women he saw in movies and in society in general—remember, we’re talking about the early 1950’s—convinced him that western society and Christianity were depraved and turned him irrevocably toward Jihad. His writings had a major influence on Jihadist thinking, an influence still being powerfully felt.

With branches in at least 70 countries (Hamas is the Palestinian branch), including America, the MB is very influential to Muslims around the world. Fatwas—religious edicts—issued by MB mullahs (priests or pastors) are taken very seriously in the Muslim world. A 2004 Fatwa by MB Shiekh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, for example, proclaiming the religious duty of Muslims to abduct and kill Americans in Iraq was widely observed and cost many lives.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto is: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Americans tend to analyze such things through the lens of America’s tradition of tolerance of all faiths and of the separation of church and state. Observant Muslims do not think of themselves as Egyptians or Yemenis—for example--who happen to be Muslim, but as Muslims first and foremost. Their nationality and loyalty to any nation tends to be far down on their list, after being Muslim, family, tribe, clan, and other concerns, if it registers for them at all. When Muslim Brotherhood members speak of jihad and “dying in the way of Allah,” they are not engaging in pandering or politically correct rhetoric but expressing their duty and willingness to die killing anyone they consider the enemy of Islam.

It is, for Americans, a bizarre paradox that American Muslims, people who identify themselves as loyal Americans who happen to practice Islam, people who would not take up the call of Jihad, are different from Jihadist Muslims, from Muslims who support the MB. In fact, these American Muslims are seen as apostates, fit only for death, by their more radical co-religionists. In fact, Muslims not taking the path of Jihad are not truly observing the dictates of their religion, not the other way around."

This may be the best four-paragraph explanation of the Muslim Brotherhood ever written.

If you've go the time and dedication, take a look at this as well.

"Consider that the MB certainly considers all Americans to be infidels, fit only for slavery, conversion to Islam and Sharia, or death. This is not political rhetoric read from a teleprompter, but the life and belief and passion of all observant Muslims who follow MB philosophy. They particularly consider women to be nothing more than chattel, the possessions of men."

Those of you are curious should look into the status of women taken prisoner or captive in war, under koranic observances. Apparently, the misadventure involved in being taking captive suffices to dissolve the captive's matrimonial bonds, thus absolving those who enslave them from committing the serious sin of adultery as they enjoy a bit of rapine thereafter.

How convenient.

"Prominent MB thinkers have already been speaking of completely Islamicizing Egypt, and calling her archeological treasures such as the pyramids and statuary “idols.” This is significant in that Islam brooks no depictions of Muhammed, Allah, or photographs, statues or similar images, considering it to be idolatry. They would gladly do to Egypt’s priceless treasures what the Taliban did to Afghanistan’s priceless and irreplaceable Buddhist statuary: destroy it as contrary to the Koran."

One would think that the pyramids and all the antiquities of Ancient (and not-so-ancient) Egypt would be safe, being such a money-maker and tourist draw for the country. Certainly there are plenty of Egyptians, in and out of government, who understand the economic realities involved in the millions of Egyptians whose livelihoods are dependent upon the successful exploitation of these pre-Islamic treasures.

Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that those who do understand Egypt's economic realities are going to be any match for those who combine a madrassa-style education (i.e., nothing resembling science or reason) with access to modern weaponry and high explosives.

re: "Quick Takes, June 16, 2011"

MikeM. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") shares some quick takes.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: He Did WHAT?! Remember, gentle readers, the war over the Falkland Islands? You remember that Argentina seized the British Islands in 1982 and the Brits, plucky critters that they are, seized them back? Since taking office, one of the foremost elements of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been egregiously insulting our allies, and none more stupidly and regularly than the British. Last June, he backed an Argentinian call for “negotiations” over the islands (read: for forcing the British to give them to Argentina). And now, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of insulting the Queen with a clumsy toast, he has again backed a similar resolution. Oh yes, Argentina is more and more allying itself with our declared enemies in the region, so it’s a cinch that Mr. Obama would support them. Go here for the story."

&

"ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Smart Diplomacy Division. I was shocked, shocked! when I discovered that Mr. Obama and the State Department were—how should I put it? Naïve? Foolish? Abysmally stupid?—in their approach to Egypt and their assumption that everything would be just fine, because after all, the Muslim Brotherhood are really just a bunch of moderates who long for democracy. Right. Not so much. Go here to the Washington Post, which speaks of the current and ongoing battle for the future of Egyptian culture. Will Egypt continue to be a reasonably secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy with all that implies? “There is going to be a battle between two visions for Egypt,” the article quotes. Indeed. And the Islamists are heavy favorites as they will have no hesitation in murdering anyone who disagrees with them. Smart diplomacy indeed."

re: "Quick Takes, June 02, 2011"

Mike M. at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") makes a fairly damning assessment.

Money quote(s):

"ITEM: AG Eric Holder continues to investigate CIA personnel, who, acting on the specific advise of the Department of Justice, protected American lives during the Bush Administration. John Hindearaker at PowerLine (here) suggests that the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Obama is at war with America’s intelligence community. I agree. See if you do."

re: "Smart Diplomacy and Finger Bowls"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state") has some things to say about the state of U.S. diplomacy.

Money quote(s):

"The credibility of the State Department under Mr. Obama is so small that it may not be detectable by an electron microscope. In fact, American diplomats seem most adept at insulting and denigrating America in foreign capitals and convincing our enemies that they have nothing to fear from America."