Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 9:12:41 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Karen Hughes A ‘listening tour’ turns to capitulation By Diana West Sept. 30, 2005 jewishworldreview.com \| Karen Hughes, stay home. The president's confidante has been on a "listening tour" to "start a conversation with the rest of the world" — namely, the Muslim world, beginning with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — but there were too many times when she just didn't know what to say. A Washington Post anecdote from day one captures the disconnect. Asked in Egypt whether she was going to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, the opposition party banned by Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak with deep roots in terrorism and a catchy motto ("Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope"), Hughes "turned to an aide and indicated she was not sure of the answer. The aide whispered back, and Hughes replied, 'We are respectful of Egypt's laws.'" I guess that means no, but the non-denial denial is open to interpretation. Maybe she wanted to meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, but couldn't. Or maybe she didn't want to say something as harshly non-conversational as "no" because the popular MB might be elected one of these days. Or maybe she just didn't know. But worse than not knowing what to say is saying too much. Or saying the wrong thing. Or even saying anything at all. Hughes committed all of the above, a faux-pas trifecta, after meeting with Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the academic center of Sunni Islam. It was a "wonderful meeting," she explained, because the two of them were able to talk "about the common language of the heart." Oh, brother. Is this an Under Secretary of State or a sorority sister? Hughes burbled on about the leadership of Al-Azhar "in speaking out against extremism, against terrorism, (which) is not in keeping with the tenets of Islam" — natch. The sheikh "made the point that all divine religions are built on a spirit of love," she said, "and (that) it is important that all of us work together to fight extremism, to fight terrorism." What a guy. Hearing Hughes talk about Sheikh Tantawi, you could almost forget what he said in 2002, as translated from a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), when he called on Palestinian Muslims to "intensify the martyrdom operations against the Zionist enemy" — men, women and children — and described the barbarous slaughter as "the highest form of Jihad operations" and "a legitimate act according to (Islamic) law." Maybe that's the "spirit of love" Hughes was gushing about. Then there was what Sheikh Tantawi said in 2003, also reported by MEMRI, when he called for jihad against U.S. forces in Iraq. "Jihad is an obligation for every Muslim when Muslim countries are subject to aggression," he explained. "The gates of Jihad are open until the Day of Judgment, and he who denies this is an infidel or one who abandons his religion." This he said during a sermon at — where else? — Al-Azhar. I juxtapose Hughes' hearts-and-flowers assessment with the hate-and-fanaticism reality for a reason. Obviously, the resources available to me — the invaluable MEMRI Web site — are available to the State Department. I find it difficult to believe that Hughes or her advisors were unaware of the jihadist incitement Sheikh Tantawi is prone to, even though he's also on record with contradictory statements. Why did the Bush administration determine that this meeting was in the best interests of our nation? If the war on terror — always a PC punch-pulling moniker — is turning into the accommodation of terror, maybe it makes sense to make nice. There is, actually, a long tradition of such accommodation between the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world, and it is contained within the blighted history of "dhimmitude." This is the term coined by historian Bat Ye'or to describe the institutionalized inferiority of non-Muslims (dhimmi) under Muslim rule. Hughes' paying tribute to the likes of Sheikh Tantawi is dhimmi behavior. As is, frankly, the whole "listening tour" — an ill-conceived campaign to improve Uncle Sam's "image" with a Muslim world whose opposition to a viable Israel and a free Iraq is hardly skin deep. Personally, I'd like to see a "like it or lump it tour." But that, of course, would mean keeping up the fight.

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 9:20:20 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Press continues to slant its Iraq coverage in anti-U.S. ways NH Union Leader ^ \| 9/30/2005 \| Clifford D. May Guest Commentary TO THE Washington Post they were simply "gunmen." The New York Times non-judgmentally called them "armed men." The elite media fastidiously avoid such harsh words as "terrorist" — even to describe those who, last week, rounded up five Iraqi teachers from outside their school, dragged them into a classroom, lined them up against a wall and shot them to death. The Post was quick to inform readers that "no children were hurt in the attack." Are we to regard that as restraint on the part of these "gunmen"? The Times noted that "the killings appeared to have been motivated more by sectarian hatred than any animosity toward the (teaching) profession." Is that meant to be reassuring? In a bygone era, reporters would have let readers know in no uncertain terms how thoroughly they despise and condemn those who massacre teachers in a schoolroom. Nor would they have minced words in regard to those who blow up civilians or ritually decapitate "infidels." But today, most big-league journalists see it differently. The Reuters news agency loftily insists that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Other media moguls will tell you that it is their professional obligation to remain disinterested regarding this war and those fighting it. At key moments, however, that neutrality seems to wear thin — in a perverse way. For example, the Post ran the story of the slaughter of the Iraqi teachers not on the front page but on page 19. On page 1 was what the editors evidently judged a more consequential story: It was about Iraqis "scorning" Americans. "Baghdad's Karrada district," readers were told, "was one of those neighborhoods where residents showered flowers on U.S. forces entering the capital" in 2003. (Interesting: How many times have you heard that Iraqis did not celebrate the American intervention against Saddam Hussein?) The story goes on to say that "car bombings and other insurgent attacks, as unknown in Baghdad before the invasion as suicide bombings were in London until this summer, have killed more than 3,000 people in the capital since late spring." The implication is that those who order attacks and those who detonate bombs — in Baghdad and London — are less to blame than those Americans who interfered with Saddam's fabled stability. The story notes, too, that "kidnapping and other forms of lawlessness since the invasion" have altered the lives of "Baghdad's comparatively liberated women." Striking a similar — if even less subtle — note on "Meet the Press" last weekend, Times columnist Maureen Dowd argued that Sen. Hillary Clinton "is going to have to answer the question about why she voted for an invasion that ended up curbing women's rights." Is it possible that these veteran journalists don't know that Saddam Hussein murdered — according to Human Rights Watch — 300,000 Iraqis? Among those butchered were both men and "comparatively liberated" women. Children, too, by the way. Kenneth M. Pollack, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton, has noted that Saddam would "gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents . . . drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him . . . behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime." Do commentators such as Dowd believe that such acts did not "curb" women's rights? Would the Post argue that gouging, raping and beheading don't qualify as "lawlessness"? Alternatively, would they contend that barbarism in pursuit of stability is justifiable? If so, why not propose the U.S. military adopt such tactics? And why cavil about Abu Ghraib? For decades, too many correspondents covering the Middle East failed to report Saddam's worst atrocities — sometimes because they knew little beyond what the dictator's flacks told them, sometimes to protect their local staffs, sometimes to avoid getting kicked out of the country or tossed into jail themselves. But what can be the excuse for so many media heavyweights continuing the cover-up now — overlooking documented history, soft-pedaling the murder of innocents by Saddam loyalists and al-Qaida invaders, and shifting blame from terrorists to those fighting them? This isn't neutrality. It's moral vacuity. Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 9:29:20 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 32591

Grand Jury Indicts Two N.Y. Mosque Leaders ...................................................... www.jihadwatch.org ^ \| September 30, 2005 Two New York mosque leaders charged with conspiring to support terrorists. Amazing how they could have risen to the leadership of a Muslim religious center while so thoroughly misunderstanding Islam. Funny thing: the same thing happened in Lodi, California. And all over the world, as we document here every day, we see Islamic clerics -- people who have dedicated their lives to studying and living out the religion -- at the forefront of terrorist movements. And yet so many people refuse to see what is right in front of their faces: maybe they aren't misunderstanding Islam at all. Aref and Hossain update from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist: ALBANY, N.Y. Sep 29, 2005 — A federal grand jury has handed up new indictments charging two leaders of an area mosque with conspiring to support terrorists, the U.S. Attorney said Thursday. The superseding indictment returned Thursday also charges Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain with attempting to provide support to Jaish-e-Mohammed, an Islamic extremist group based in Pakistan that is on the State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. Aref also was charged with making a false statement when he answered "none" to an immigration question asking him to list any organizations to which he had belonged. He also was charged with making false statements to the FBI when he was arrested in August 2004 and denied he was a member of the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan. At the time, he also denied knowing Mullah Krekar, believed to be the founder of Ansar-al-Islam, a radical Islamic fundamentalist group. Aref, 35, who is the imam of the Masjid As-Salam mosque, and 50-year-old Hossain, a founder of the Albany mosque, have been free on $250,000 bond since shortly after their arrest in August 2004. Each originally was charged with money laundering and supporting terrorism. They were arrested after a yearlong FBI sting using an undercover informant. The initial 19-count indictment accused them of working with an FBI informant who posed as a part-time arms dealer and proposed that Hossain hold money from the sale of a shoulder-fired missile that would be used to kill a Pakistani diplomat in New York City.

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 12:40:58 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

If the refuges are finally being allowed to return after generations forced to live in camps that is bad and it is good. At last they have a place where they may be allowed ot have nationality. It is bad because they have been taught from birth that Jews are bad and must be killed. This bodes poorly for the prospect of peace in the intermediate term. I am not sure what the difference between being forced a diet of hatred in the Palestinian Territories and being force fed a diet of hatred in a foreign refuge camp is.

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 12:46:14 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

As majority leader, Tom DeLay played a lead role in blocking US aid to the Palestinian Authority and conditioning its restoration on reforming the PA and fighting terror. He has supported foreign aid to Israel and backed pro-Israel resolutions on Capitol Hill. In 2003, DeLay was one of the co-sponsors of House Resolution 294 that expressed support for Israel as it fights terrorism. In his speech from the floor, DeLay said that "Israel's fight is our fight" and added that the point of the war against terror is not only to defeat terror, but also "to destroy terrorists." He opposed the US-led peace plan known as the road map, calling it a "road map to disaster," and has been a critic of the Sharon government's disengagement plan. In a 2003 speech at the Zionist Organization of America conference, DeLay said about his latest tour of Israel, "I didn't see any occupied territories, I only saw Israel."

To: Scoobah who wrote (10044)	9/30/2005 5:37:45 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Greater Palestine David Warren Online ^ \| September 28, 2005 \| David Warren Snip : It is also why the recent Israeli evacuation of Jewish settlements in Gaza has proved, and will continue to prove, a disaster far beyond Israel’s borders. The view of Hamas and Islamic Jihad has prevailed, in Arabic media -- that the Israelis were forced to retreat under the barrage of Islamist rocket and suicide attacks. The moral taken from it, is that terrorism works, and should be escalated to keep Israel and America retreating. A look around Gaza itself, since the evacuation, must add weight to the cart of discouragement. The public consensus of U.N. bureaucrats, embassy diplomats, and other foreign officers was that removing Israeli settlements could only help advance the “peace process”. Privately, most of those I have ever had any communication with, know better, and speak differently; which is why I tend to think of this whole international class as “professionally naïve”. Look around Gaza, after the Hamas-sponsored victory parades, with their exhibitions of weapons and psychopathic slogans and acts, and what is there to see? Since Israel's exit, the “joyous Palestinians” have desecrated then torched all the synagogues left behind, looted and destroyed all the greenhouses that philanthropists had bought up to provide new sources of employment, and stepped up cross-border attacks on Israeli targets within Katyusha rocket range. Worse, they have effectively stormed down the frontier with Egypt, creating what increasingly resembles a Somali-style free trade zone for weapons, and opening new and more intimate contacts between Palestinian terror interests and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Palestinian “terrorists of fortune” were already being fed through Syria into the Sunni Triangle of Iraq, where their corpses regularly wash up in considerable numbers after American and Iraqi offensives. But now there are also numerous reports from Lebanon, of Palestinian terrorists being inserted into the Bekaa Valley and other lawless districts, to do the work of the departed Syrian occupiers in fomenting Levantine chaos. Jordanian authorities are increasingly alarmed by Palestinian underground activities in Amman and elsewhere. And within the West Bank itself, attacks on Christian Palestinian settlements, such as the recent pogrom at Taybeh near Ramallah, suggest an accelerated breakdown of civil authority, to which the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces can only contribute. For two generations, Palestinian society was radicalized, by a psychotic leadership, at first in a secular, socialist, pan-Arabist direction, but more recently, and more successfully, in an Islamist one. Far from being contained by the counter-productive “peace process”, the Palestinian problem is now metastasizing throughout the region, like a long-nurtured cancer.