SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Oral Roberts who wrote (3643)2/3/2006 9:35:20 AM
From: Nicholas Thompson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
agree;; oh my say the Muslins they are trampling on our rights. Meanwhile they close churches , force Christians from several countries, slaughter thousands with few , if any, protest from the Muslim masses etc. and they wonder why the rest of the world does not trust them?



To: Oral Roberts who wrote (3643)2/3/2006 12:26:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
That pretty much summarizes the muslim moral authority for outrage. Thanks, reading it was a good thing.



To: Oral Roberts who wrote (3643)2/9/2006 11:05:59 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Moral Atomic Bomb
In the midst of a planetary intifada, let us stand by the moderate Muslims.

BY BERNARD-HENRI LEVY
Thursday, February 9, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

One can find these cartoons mediocre.

One can perceive in them, as I do, a certain similarity with the anti-Semitic and racist caricatures of the 1930s or '50s.

One can--and it would still be true--decide that depicting the prophet in this way, particularly with such dumb and obnoxious features, wasn't the brightest idea in the present context and amounted to tossing a lit match onto a powder keg.

Still, it is one thing to publish ludicrous cartoons in a newspaper that no one has heard of outside Denmark, but it is quite another to see these cartoons travel around the globe four months later, igniting a form of planetary intifada with enormous demonstrations, embassies and consulates set on fire, a priest shot dead in Turkey, four protesters killed in Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, not to mention the turning of Westerners living on Islamic soil into targets, mortal enemies threatened with death--expiatory victims offered to the white-hot, crazed and radicalized crowd.

So what made this demented scene, this planetary upheaval, possible? However you might look at the problem, it is hard not to see that insidious forces have brought these drawings to the attention of the Muslim masses. And it is hard not to link this provocation, the deliberate circulation of these cartoons, the quasi-home-delivery of a Danish paper that no one could have guessed had so many readers in the Muslim world, it is hard not to link this self-inflicted blasphemy, this calculated offense (calculated, mind you, by the organizers of the distribution of the cartoons), it is hard not to link this blasphemy to a new planetary configuration, itself determined by three recent and major events.

The diversionary tactic of a Syria which we never saw so concerned over religious matters, but which now turns out to be capable of anything--including infiltrating agents into Lebanon and sponsoring demonstrations in Damascus, where it is well known that nothing of the sort can happen without the explicit assent of the government--in order to reclaim its role as a great regional agitator and make everyone forget the involvement of its secret services in the murder of Rafik Hariri.

The hardening of Iran's Islamic Republic, ready to make all kinds of theological concessions (including a grand historic alliance of Shiites and Sunnis, which experts have been telling us for decades would be against nature) with the goal of heading up in the Muslim and Arab world the grand anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and antidemocratic crusade.

And then this tragedy in the Palestinian territories of the victory of an ideology whose themes (the call, based on the denial of the Holocaust, for the pure and simple destruction of Israel and the Jews) had up to now been in power only in openly dictatorial, sometimes even crypto-fascist, states. This ideology has triumphed for the first time in a long while through democratic decision and the sacred path of the ballot. Would we be witnessing, without this electoral sacrament of Hamas, Hebron crowds so sure of their right to hold any Westerner in the West Bank accountable for the offense? Would we be witnessing all these Fatah militants--were it not for the will to defy Hamas on the very terrain where it won--actually trying to outbid everyone else in the grotesque denunciation of the "French position," as manifested by the reprinting of the cartoons in an obscure Parisian newspaper?

These three events are linked as a triangle. There is between these three poles a veritable triangle of death, which is in the process of locking into place thanks to the cartoons affair-- and which, if it is successfully welded together, will produce not just symbolic heat, but, with an Iranian bomb, a fissile heat unlike anything we saw in the good old axis of evil.

And, faced with this triangulation in progress, faced with this formidable hate-and-death machine, faced with this "moral atomic bomb," we have no other solution than to counter with another triangle--a triangle of life and reason, which more than ever must unite the United States, Europe and Israel in a rejection of any clash of civilizations of the kind desired by the extremists of the Arab-Muslim world and by them alone.

The heart of this second triangle? First, the affirmation of principles. The affirmation of the press's right to the expression of idiocies of its choosing--rather than the acts of repentance that too many leaders have resorted to, and which merely encourages in the Arab street the false and counterproductive illusion that a democratic state may exert power over its press.

And second, in the same breath, the reaffirmation of our support for those enlightened moderate Muslims who know that the honor of Islam is far more insulted, and trampled under foot, when Iraqi terrorists bomb a mosque in Baghdad, when Pakistani jihadists decapitate Daniel Pearl in the name of God and film their crime, or when an Algerian fundamentalist emir disembowels, while reciting the Quran, an Algerian woman whose only crime was to have dared show her beautiful face. Moderate Muslims are alone these days, and in their solitude they more than ever need to be acknowledged and hailed.

Mr. Lévy is the author of "American Vertigo," published recently by Random House, and of "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" (Melville House, 2003). This piece was translated from the original French by Hélène Brenkman.

opinionjournal.com



To: Oral Roberts who wrote (3643)3/4/2006 12:08:46 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
The Bush visit to India heralds a new democratic alliance.

Saturday, March 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Critics of the Bush Administration often lament that its policies have alienated America's traditional allies and embittered just about everyone else. Everyone except, apparently, a billion or so Indians.

That's one lesson to draw from President Bush's visit this week to the Subcontinent, which also included stops in Kabul and Islamabad. Relations between India and the U.S. have improved steadily since Rajiv Gandhi took over from his assassinated mother, the repressive and inveterately anti-American Indira Gandhi, in 1984. But it's only with this Administration (which early on lifted Clinton-era sanctions on India) that the relationship has matured into a genuine strategic alliance based on shared interests in democracy, globalization and the war on terror. "We have made history today," said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the visit, and we can only hope he's right.

The most visible marker of this alliance is the deal in which the U.S. would sell civil nuclear technology to India. In exchange, India--a nuclear-weapons state and never a signatory of the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)--has agreed to open 14 of its 22 existing nuclear reactors to international inspections. The remaining reactors could be used for military purposes, including presumably to enlarge and modernize India's modest nuclear arsenal.

The agreement's details deserve more extended comment on another day, especially because they must be approved by Congress and the 44 member states of the Nuclear Supplier Group. But one thing is clear: The concerns posed by the agreement have little to do with the uses to which India puts the technology.

India is a liberal democracy and a responsible power; it is nonsensical to argue that the U.S. is guilty of "hypocrisy" by providing nuclear technology to India while denying it to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. The deeper question, however, is whether the world is prepared to also allow democracies such as Indonesia, Argentina or Taiwan to acquire nuclear weapons. Color us skeptical.

Still, there is no turning back India's nuclear-power status. Nor would it have been smart for the Administration to deny India's fast-growing economy an American source of energy supplies when one alternative would be a gas pipeline linking New Delhi with Iran. The U.S. is India's largest trading and investment partner; U.S. merchandise exports to India have more than doubled since 2001, and vice versa. This is a relationship that could blossom by removing every trade and regulatory barrier to it.

From the U.S. side, that means removing tariffs on Indian textiles, which can run as high as 29%, as well as U.S. restrictions on Indian agricultural produce. As a protected economy emerging slowly from its socialist past, India has even more to do: dramatically lower import tariffs, which average 20% and often go much higher on items like Scotch whiskey; remove all restrictions on joint ventures and foreign investment in agriculture, real estate and retail; remove set-asides for small businesses; liberalize the banking sector and remove caps on foreign investment in local banks, and create more flexible labor laws. Government approval should not be required for firing workers in companies with more than 100 employees.

We should confess here to having our own corporate stake in reform, and in many ways our experience in India illustrates that the country still has a long way to go to realize its full growth potential. For some time Dow Jones, the parent company of this newspaper, has been interested in publishing an Indian edition of The Wall Street Journal, either as a stand-alone product akin to our European and Asian editions, or in partnership with an Indian newspaper.

Until 2002, foreign investment in Indian news and current-affairs publications was forbidden. Yet the current, "liberalized" regime is hardly better. Foreign ownership is capped at 26%, while the principal "local" partner must own at least 51% of the paid-up capital. Foreign publishers are allowed to print what's known as a "facsimile" edition of their newspapers in India, but those editions can include only limited local content and no local advertising, all but guaranteeing their unprofitability. In addition, government regulations require that three-quarters of directors and all key business and editorial staff would have to be resident Indians.

These Byzantine regulations have so far dissuaded Dow Jones from expanding its footprint in India, and we are sure we're not the only company to have figured likewise. That's a pity for us, but we think it's an even bigger pity for Indian readers whose tastes in news and analysis might just be as globalized as the economy in which they are increasingly prospering. Let's hope that in the months and years ahead, the agreements forged this week will help India further shed its socialist past and open new opportunities for everyone.

opinionjournal.com



To: Oral Roberts who wrote (3643)4/22/2008 12:59:57 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
The land of my ancestors:

Salute the Danish Flag - It's a Symbol of Western Freedom
by Susan MacAllen

In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark . But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants.

The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.

The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.

Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism.

How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious.

Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.' 'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.'

'Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population.

A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.' 'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem'

'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark 's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.'

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws.

An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe . ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.)

If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark 's history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark , you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen . Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark , they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,' Hvilshøj says, 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.'

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law.

And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark , and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

>Thanks to Rudi for sending it to me.