scaramouche

...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.

One more before I go: Don't miss this “Islamophobic” report from the Daily Mail about the hard-to-nail-down provenance of potential terrorists:

Potential Islamist terrorists in Britain are not religious extremists or illegal immigrants, a leaked MI5 report warns.

The internal study of hundreds of known and suspected radicals says it is difficult to identify those most likely to commit atrocities as they often have well-paid jobs and families and are 'demographically unremarkable'.

The Security Service report concludes that the vast majority are British nationals or in the country legally.

Slipping under the radar: The July 7 bombers arrive at Luton station to head for London for their suicide attacks. Future terrorists may be no easier to identify, MI5 warns

It says half are born here. The rest includes people who originally came to study or to join family or for economic reasons, as well as asylum-seekers who had fled oppressive regimes or violence. Many of these only became radicalised years after arriving.

Very few have come from highly religious households and most only practise their faith occasionally. The proportion of converts is above average.

Some are even known to have taken drugs, drunk alcohol and visited prostitutes.

But they are not especially prone to mental health problems or pathological personality traits.

They come from ethnic backgrounds as diverse as Pakistani, Middle Eastern and Caucasian.

Most have become radicalised in their early to mid-20s but a significant minority have not done so until later. Those over 30 are just as likely to have a wife and children as to be loners with no ties.

Radical clerics are also playing less of a role now in radicalising future terrorists, according to the 'restricted' briefing note, published in the Guardian today.

The research was carried out by the security service's behavioural science unit and involved analysis of several hundred people linked to violent extremism through activities ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain.

Overall they are 'a diverse collection of individuals, fitting no single demographic profile, nor do they all follow a typical pathway to violent extremism', the study says.

In other words, they emanate from what you could call "a broad strata of society."  And here's the impossible to swallow kicker:

MI5 praises mainstream Islam, stating there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

Riiiight.

posted by: scaramouche at 21:31 | link | comments |

Even cowgirls get a break: It's that time of year again--my annual end-of-August break. Barring the unforseen, I plan to be back in the saddle on the 30th. Happy trails to y'all until then.

posted by: scaramouche at 15:24 | link | comments |

Still clutching the blankie: Ezra Levant calls this Canadian Jewish News article about the HRC controversy “a surprising story” (since the CJN, an official mouthpiece of Official Jewry, is usually disinclined to wade into this type of controversy). I don’t know that I’d call it “surprising”; given the uproar over HRCs and how heavily invested the Jewish alphabet agencies (CIJA, CJC, CFSW, etc.) are in the system, it would be more “surprising” if the CJC failed to cover the kerfuffle (since it would end up calling its journalistic integrity into question). Also not “surprising”: despite their feeling the heat of exposure and calling for the anti-hate sections of the system to be revamped so that the likes of Elmo and his sock thingies don’t get to censor us, the Jewstablishment still refuses to drop their tattered security blankie—the “anti-hate” provisions that enable Jews to censor decrepit, incontinent Nazis and Aryan bloggers.

Two out of the three Jewish organizations most closely identified with the anti-hate system (the CJC and the B’nai Brith) have adopted what amounts to a Bob the Builder approach (“Can we fix ‘em? Yes, we can”) But one Official Jew—Wiesenthal’s Leo Adler—is adamant that the rickety apparatus must remain more or less as is:

…Leo Adler, director of national affairs for the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, agreed the federal human rights legislation could be improved, but he argued Canadians have chosen to adopt a European model of restricted free speech and not the more open American model.

Asked to comment on Levant’s argument that the process in itself is the punishment given the costs needed to defend against a complaint, Adler replied, “We live our entire lives under ABCs – agencies, boards and commissions – that govern different aspect of our lives.” Lawsuits, police investigations and other legal matters might require an individual to incur costs by hiring a lawyer, he said.

He said that every genocide, including the Holocaust, started with words. “We don’t want words that have the potential for causing these catastrophes.”…

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Holocaust didn’t “start” with words; rather, the “words” were harnessed to a specific political agenda by a megalomaniac who was obsessed with “the Jews” and how they were befouling the planet, and who took it upon himself to rid the world of the "scourge" so that the “pure” people—his people—could gain global power and rule for at least a millennium.

You would think someone who claims to be an expert in the Holocaust would know that.

But maybe what’s going on here isn’t merely a desire to “stop” the “words” that “start” the genocides. Maybe it’s also about someone whose bread and butter is the anti-hate industry and all the delightful perks that come with it (the accolades; the cushy government appointments; the lavish conferences both here and abroad, etc.) being bound and determined to hang on to what he believes are his entitlements.

posted by: scaramouche at 15:09 | link | comments |

Fishy finding: I’m not sure how much cyanide it takes to kill oneself; certainly, far less than the one quart bottle of the stuff found in the Denver hotel room of a late gentleman from Ottawa. And I’m not sure why a Somali Canadian would travel all the way to Denver, of all places, for the express purpose of offing himself; surely it's easier for all concerned to kill yourself at home. And I’m not sure why he would need such a large amount for the job—which could conceivably also be employed to kill vast numbers of people in, say, a jihadi terrorist attack—when a mere fraction would do. And I’m not sure if he bought the cyanide in Denver, or brought it with him across the border, since no one is saying. What they are saying is that there is not a shred of evidence that the dead guy was up to any mischief of the terrorist variety, especially none that might possibly involve the upcoming Democratic National Convention—so you can banish that thought from your suspicious mind right away. As the 29-year-old’s family back in Ottawa tells it, the purposeful cyanide-inhaler had no terrorist inclinations whatsoever, but was an, er, “schizophrenic”. That explanation was readily accepted by the Denver coroner, who has ruled that suicide was indeed what was going on here; the coroner is apparently persuaded that toting around vast quantities of cyanide for the purpose of committing suicide is something “schizophrenics” do.

Sounds plausible to me.

posted by: scaramouche at 13:11 | link | comments |

Selective vision: An editorial in the Toronto Star castigates the Taliban for promulgating “The Big Lie”:

Adolf Hitler knew that some people are quicker to swallow a big lie than a little one. So do the Taliban. In an "open letter" to Canadians this week, they claim we "came to Afghanistan to kill and torture the Afghans."

Really? When Canada first sent special forces into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, we went in self-defence.

The World Trade Center in New York was still smouldering from Osama bin Laden's strikes, and the Taliban were still playing host to Al Qaeda. Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who died. We deployed troops to help prevent another such strike.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was right to dismiss the Taliban letter as propaganda that won't affect Canadian policy.

Canadian troops and aid workers are in Afghanistan under a lawful United Nations mandate that declared the Taliban a threat to peace, to freedom, to the rule of law and to human rights. We are there at the request of Afghan leaders who, unlike the Taliban, were elected.

And while Canada and 40 allies are taking casualties – the Taliban killed 10 French troops yesterday in the worst allied loss in years – the Taliban are in no position to turn Afghanistan back into a state sponsor of terror. And that suits most Afghans, who suffered their misrule.

So the Taliban have turned to murdering unarmed Canadian aid workers and others in cold blood, and then blaming the victims. What was their crime? Bringing schooling to Afghan women and children? Building homes? Delivering medical care? Fresh water?

What part of Canada's aggression is our $1.3 billion aid program?

If the Afghan people decide Canada's presence is more trouble than it is worth, they are free to say so, through their leaders or opinion surveys. We will not stay a day longer than we are wanted.

But Canadians would betray the UN, the Afghan people, and our own principles, by being cowed by murderers, or seduced by their Big Lie.

Odd how the Star can see “The Big Lie” as it applies to Canada, but continues to embrace the stinking load of manure (Israel’s “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid,”  “land theft,” Jew as the “new" Nazis; Arabs as the “new” Jews, etc., etc., etc.) that Palestinians and their supporters keep shovelling. You would think that at some point even the clueless Lefties would twig to the fact that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban are essentially one and the same, and that, as kafirs, Canadians and Israelis share space in the same crowded, leaky canoe.

posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments |

The dawa's the thing: An Islam Online reader seeking guidance asks whether it’s okay for her daughter to take part in a school play. The reply: By all means let her participate, as long as she realizes she's not just play-acting, she's a girl with a mission:

…In the case you are discussing, a drama class monologue can be directed either way. A young woman can choose between acting a decent monologue that would be of use to herself and to her audience, or between staging for an act that would spread lust and convey corruption.

 

On a personal basis, and I am not giving a scholarly fatwa here, I am of the opinion that the young girl should go for it. But, what she would need to fix here is her intentions.

 

She would be of great benefit to herself and to her audience if she intents her act as a service of God. In this case, she does not necessarily need to preach or speak of religious matters. Just have her deliver a positive reforming message. She can dedicate her monologue to convey a social message, a moral message, a global message, and so on.

 

She would be greatly rewarded by Allah if she was able to touch hearts and change paths through a monologue about equality, brotherhood or Palestinians' rights to maintain their lands and dignity.

 

Maybe she can present the Palestinian cause from A to Z through her act. The same would be if she devotes it to the criticism of Western chaotic family system, out-of-marriage sex (depends on her age), or the disadvantages of drinking alcohol. Everything is possible…

 

Says someone who has obviously never sat through a kafir school play. It’s awfully hard to insert a discussion of Palestinian land rights and criticism of the Western family into, say, High School Musical or Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. And we wouldn't have it any other way.

posted by: scaramouche at 19:42 | link | comments |

“Healer” on hold: Has-been crooner Chris de Burgh, who claims to be able to heal the afflicted with a mere touch of his hands, has been trying to bring his healing powers to one mighty afflicted area, the Middle East. Too bad for him he’s been rebuffed by the mullahs, who have some very different ideas about how to “heal” the region (i.e. by excising the “cancer” of Israel). From the timesonline:

Chris de Burgh’s ongoing campaign to take his brand of schmaltzy love songs to the people of the Middle East hit a hurdle today.

His much-touted plan to play a live concert in Tehran has come unstuck with Iranian officials claiming they have yet to be consulted.

The Irish crooner, best known for his middle-of–the road classic Lady in Red, sparked amused headlines last year when he announced he had permission to become the first major Western artist to perform in the country since the 1979 revolution.

Pity he forgot to tell the Iranians.

According to a report from Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, the country’s ministry of culture is still waiting for De Burgh to request a performance permit. As a result, it said, he does not have permission to perform there.

The Iran concert, planned for a 12,000-seater stadium in the capital, would have been the latest episode in De Burgh’s recent love affair with the Middle East.

In May he released a Farsi reworking of his song The Words ‘I love you’ with Iranian band Arian. He has also now recorded a duet with a young Lebanese singer, Tina Yamout, who he discovered last year.

A spokeswoman for De Burgh was today looking on the bright side, pointing out that although permission has not yet been granted, it has also not yet been denied.

Hamas, Hezbollah, ayatollahs and the lugubrious song stylings of Chris de Burgh—that’s far too much for any one region to have to handle.

posted by: scaramouche at 13:34 | link | comments |

Why Israel is doomed: There’s no way you can survive when you reject your own narrative (and the truth) and embrace the narrative (and lies) of your enemy. From the Jerusalem Post:

The government took Ze'ev Jabotinsky out of the schoolbooks and inserted the [Palestinian] Nakba instead," Opposition leader and Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday in a special Knesset session during the summer recess.

Netanyahu was referring to Education Minister Yuli Tamir's decision to remove the writings of Jabotinsky from the curriculum.

Jabotinsky was the founder of the revisionist movement in Zionism before the establishment of the Jewish State, which advocated a greater Israel and in recent years has come to be seen as an overly 'hawkish' version of Zionism.

The Nakba, meaning 'catastrophe' in Arabic, is the term used by Palestinians to describe the defeat Arab armies suffered at the hands of Jewish paramilitary organizations during Israel's War of Independence…

Leftist Jews and their delusions are paving the way for Israel’s demise—a true “Nakba” for Jewry and all mankind.

posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments |

Useless UN: A New York Sun editorial comments on the UN’s haplessness re the Russia-Georgia conflict:

…Mr. Ban, according to his spokesmen, has been working the phones, although he could only talk to actors with cameo roles in the drama, such as President Halonen. It took Mr. Ban a week to get Mr. Saakashvili on the blower, by which time the Georgian had accommodated any American television anchor that would have him on. United Nations spokesmen say that Mr. Ban has yet to receive an audience with any Kremlin decision maker, though he did merit a meeting with the Kremlin's ambassador in Turtle Bay, Vitaly Churkin.

Marginalization at a time of war is nothing new for Turtle Bay, its champions say. The organization is mostly needed when it is time to reach and preserve peace. As Russia has demonstrated so far, it is planning to allow that time to come only once its military and diplomatic objectives are achieved, and even then it is sure to veto any resolution that would include even a comma that may indicate there is anything wrong with those objectives.

As Mr. Sarkozy's chances of sealing a deal that Russia would implement — rather than merely saying it accepts — dimmed, Europeans yesterday circulated to Security Council members a short resolution proposal. It demanded an immediate compliance with Mr. Sarkozy's ceasefire agreement, and specifically a Russian withdrawal to the lines it held prior to the onset of the hostilities. It also called to affirm Georgia's "independence and territorial integrity."

Our Turtle Bay sources say that early on European diplomats were prepared to water down such wording to accommodate Moscow, while their American counterparts quietly proposed a tough resolution containing red lines that would force a Russian veto. Such a veto would help Washington to present the Kremlin as intransigent and uncooperative. It now seems that the Europeans, who are clearly frustrated by Moscow's unfulfilled promises, are ready for a Security Council confrontation, in lieu of a real one on the ground. At best, the council will now become a public relations instrument — a small achievement for a body aspiring for a real role in world affairs.

* * *

What it all adds up to is a lesson in world government: It's a chimera. Anyone who hopes that the United Nations would carry the day is either too complacent to chart an American policy or simply willing to let the Russians off the hook for a war. Let it be an instructive moment in respect of Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Burma, to name but a few crises that are not going to be solved on the shore of the East River. Anyone assigning the job of confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions to diplomats who would negotiate for years and then produce an unreadable and ineffective Security Council resolution is simply allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. No wonder Mr. Obama has, at least for now, dropped the council from his list of tools to handle Georgia.

I disagree that world government is a chimera. What’s chimerical (also comical) is the idea that the UN can be a force for good in this world. The prospect of a world government governed by Islamic law—as the UN is governed by the OIC, its largest voting block—is, alas, all too real.

posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments |

Fatah’s blinkers: Tarek Fatah is undoubtedly a brave man, a Muslim who speaks out against the imposition of sharia, and who has been denounced and threatened with death on numerous occasions because of it. And yet, despite his bravery, this most moderate of Muslims has several blind spots, as David Solway points out in his review of Fatah’s book for FrontPage:

…Fatah’s well-intentioned but problematic distinction between Muslims and Islamists, between a “state of Islam” (good) and an “Islamic state” (bad) and his belief that “Islamists…have ridden roughshod over Quranic principles and the Prophet’s message of equality” are not persuasive. All one has to do is read the Koran to put paid to his claim. His notion that “Equity and social justice run through every fibre and gene of the Muslim psyche” is a piece of untenable hyperbole that is deflated by Fatah himself when he later writes that “So deeply ingrained is the idea of replicating the so-called Golden Age of the Rightly Guided Caliphs that few are willing to consider the implications of what they are asking for,” or when he bemoans “the permanent gash in the Muslim psyche, a festering wound” brought on by the struggle for power. Which is it, deeply ingrained error or enlightenment?

One is puzzled by the contradiction inherent in his admonition that Muslims “stop chasing an Islamic State” on the one hand and his evident approval of the “Palestinian struggle for an independent and sovereign state,” which would be nothing if not Islamic, on the other. Also troubling is his appreciative quotation from a Pakistani historian who speaks of “the solemn averment that Islam spread peacefully in India” when the carnage visited upon the subcontinent by the invading Islamic armies is an order of magnitude higher than the Holocaust itself.

Fatah’s animus against the United States also seems rather facile and not altogether thought through. When he writes that “The invasion of Iraq was manna from heaven for Al-Qaeda,” it is clear that he has not been following the course of events or the evening News—nothing has weakened al-Qaeda more than the Iraqi conflict and it is now, as the Press has it, “on the run.”

For Fatah, the US is no different from the Mongol hordes led by the savage Hulagu who in 1257 invaded Baghdad and “pitt[ed] the Shia population against the Sunni caliph.” The fact that the “Sunni caliph” of 2003 was Saddam Hussein, himself a contemporary Hulagu, is a matter of no consequence. Nor am I sure what he is getting at when he denounces American fundamentalism equally with bin Laden’s species of fundamentalism; I cannot see even the faintest semblance of an equivalence between the two nor can I understand how American fundamentalism, whatever that may be, “poses a threat to Western civilization.”…

Moderates like Fatah are in a real bind. In order to retain their faith, they have to twist themselves into pretzels trying to account for its obvious internal contradictions, which entails an outright refusal to recognize the truth about Islam and its founder (as, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done—the reason she is no longer Muslim). Fatah is in a double bind, since, unlike that other notable moderate, Salim Mansur, he wants to retain his “street cred” with Leftists and Muslims, and thus refuses to see the pivotal role the U.S. and Israel are playing in foiling the jihad and the advancement of sharia. So, yes, kudos to Fatah for standing up to the seethers and for “getting it," sort of, about sharia; would that he “got” the rest of it, too.

posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments |