Terror Bombing in Sweden: Troops, Cartoons, a Widow, and Questions

I haven't written much about Sweden.

In a blog like this one, that's a good thing.

It looks like folks in Sweden, and folks here in central Minnesota, celebrate the Christmas season in about the same way. No big surprise there, considering how many Scandinavians live in this part of the world. I'm half-Norwegian, myself - and that's another topic. Sort of.

That explains why folks were doing a particular sort of shopping in Stockholm last Saturday.

Holiday Shopping: Snow, Festive Decorations, and a Botched Bombing

"Eyewitnesses have told of the moment an apparent suicide bomber blew himself up just a stone's throw from Stockholm's busiest shopping street on Saturday.

• Stockholm attack follows terror warnings (12 Dec 10)
• One dead after suicide bombing in Stockholm (11 Dec 10)

" 'We were scared to death,' said one local resident.

"The man died on the intersection of the Drottninggatan thoroughfare and Bryggargatan, a side street.

"An eyewitness interviewed by the Dagens Nyheter newspaper (DN) said something appeared to have blown up against the man's abdomen.

" 'He had no injuries to his face or the rest of his body and the shops around him were not damaged,' he said.

"The eyewitness, a paramedic identified only as Pascal, said he removed a 'Palestinian scarf' from the man's face in an attempt to free up his airways. Next to the man's body was a two-metre piece of metal piping...."
(The Local)

Good news: Only one person died. Bad news: somebody died.

Well, as we say here in Minnesota, "it could be worse."

A Wannabe Murderer, a Widow, and Lots of Questions

The wannabe mass murderer has been identified. He's Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly: a married man whose death left a widow and lots of questions.

Like whether someone else is likely to have a shot at killing holiday shoppers. That's not an unreasonable question, in my opinion. The impression I get from the news is that Swedish law enforcement and related officials are walking through a common-sense investigation. Which, as of Sunday, pointed to the bombing being a one-man act:

"Police said on Sunday they were treating bomb blasts in Stockholm as an act of terrorism by a lone attacker that followed an emailed threat referring to Sweden's troops in Afghanistan and to cartoons of Mohammad.

"Police stopped short of calling Saturday afternoon's blasts, which killed the suspected bomber and wounded two people, a suicide attack. A car blew up in a busy shopping area, followed minutes later by a second explosion nearby.

"Shortly before the blasts, Swedish news agency TT received a threatening letter referring to Sweden's presence in Afghanistan and caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad drawn by a Swedish cartoonist. The letter included digital sound files with a recording in broken Swedish and in Arabic....

"...TT said the letter promised attacks over Sweden's presence in Afghanistan, where it has 500 troops with the U.S.-led NATO force, and the cartoons drawn three years ago by Lars Vilks...."
(Reuters)

Those cartoons keep surfacing, metaphorically speaking: sort of like a dead muskrat in a pond.

That was Sunday. As of yesterday, it's pretty obvious that those Swedes who look after the country's security are still walking through that investigation.

"Some 200 possibly violent Islamic extremists live in Sweden, according to an intelligence report released Wednesday after the country's first-ever suicide bombing narrowly missed Christmas shoppers.

" 'The group of active members ... consists of just under 200 individuals,' the Säpo intelligence agency said in its 126-page report, based on data from 2009 and scheduled to be published before the weekend's attack in central Stockholm...."
(The Swedish Wire)

Swedish Muslims, Numbers, and a Comparison

Two hundred is a biggish number. Compared to Sweden's 9,074,000 or so citizens (As of July this year) , though: not so much. ("Sweden," The World Factbook, CIA (last updated December 8, 2010))
I'd compare the 200-odd hotheads in that group to the number of Swedish Muslims, but that'd take more digging than I've got time for today. The resource I used for Sweden's population says that 87% of folks living in Sweden are Lutheran. The other 13% are "other." That "includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist." If all 13% of folks in Sweden who aren't Lutheran followed Islam, that'd be around 1,179,000 people. Still a lot more than 200.

A Wikipedia article says that Islam accounts for about 5% of the Swedish population: around 450,000 to 500,000 Muslims. It's one of the articles that cites references, and five percent of 9,074,000 is about 453,700, so they may be right.

Let's say it's the lower number: 450,000 Muslims. Two hundred or so are in this group. That's 200/450,000, or 1/2,250 of Swedish Muslims.

Abstractions are - abstract. One way I have, for making numbers 'real,' is to use something I'm familiar with as a comparison.

This'll be useful for me: for you, maybe not so much. I share a small town in central Minnesota with about 4,000 other people. If one out of 2,250 of us were part of a nutcase group that wanted to kill people they didn't agree with - there would be two or three people in the group, depending on whether you round up or down.

That'd be a real concern for me and my neighbors: but it would not indicate that the folks living here are dangerous.

"They're All Muslims" - Let's Not Go There

The point? The wannabe murderer almost certainly killed himself for "religious" reasons. Maybe 200 other people in Sweden have the same sort of ideas sloshing around in their heads.

There's little reason to assume that all Muslims in Sweden should be shot on sight, or at least locked up, because "they're all Muslims." (February 15, 2008, December 29, 2007) A case could be built, using that sort of logic, for pointing to what Joseph Burgess did and advocating that all Christians be locked up because they're murderers. He killed people - apparently for "religious" reasons - too. (A Catholic Citizen in America (July 24, 2009))

There are days when I feel that it wouldn't take much of a shove for America, or any other Western country, to start locking up Muslims, Christians, and other terrorists - for the good of the nation, of course. Sounds crazy? So did what a think tank came up with, not all that long ago. (April 4, 2009, April 1, 2009, A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009))

One of the reasons that I'm rather concerned about how Muslims are treated in countries where they're a religious minority - is that I'm a member of a religious minority myself. Think of it as enlightened self interest.

One More Tangent: Security Cameras, "Privacy," and Getting a Grip

I don't know how most Americans feel about security cameras at intersections and in stores: but apparently quite a few folks in this country's dominant culture don't like them. At all.

It has to do with notions of "privacy," it seems.

As nearly as I can tell, these folks say "privacy," where I'd say "anonymity."

Privacy, Bank Codes, and a Door on the Outhouse

I think "privacy" is a good idea, by the way. A dictionary says it means "the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others." (Princeton's WordNet) A desire for privacy is part of why we put doors on the outhouse not all that long ago, don't generally have floor-to-ceiling windows in the shower today - and don't, for the most part, tell strangers how to access our bank account.

That sort of privacy make sense. Besides, it gets cold in the winter around here: so those outhouse doors served a practical function, too.

Now, about those cameras in the convenience store.

As I said, I live in a small town in central Minnesota. It's a little bigger than the places where 'if you forget what you did during the day, ask someone: they'll know.' But not by much. I love it here: but this is not a place where I can go out and not be noticed.

Or not go out and not be noticed. Not too long ago a neighbor asked if I'd been okay: that person hadn't seen me for a while.

Like I say, I love it here. But living in a town where a sizable fraction of the population know you by sight and many of those have at least a modest interest in your welfare - obviously isn't for everybody.

Some folks seem to prefer living among tens of thousands of other anonymous faces, where they could disappear and not be missed. Places like that, in my opinion, need security cameras to take up some of the slack when it comes to looking out for folks.

We've got those glass-eyed sentinels here in Sauk Centre, too: in some of the stores and at least one parking lot.

Here's what got me thinking about security cameras, "privacy," and the human condition:

"Police in Sweden are increasingly convinced the Stockholm bomber had an accomplice after fresh analysis of his suicide tape revealed the presence of a second person by his side.

"Experts who have scrutinised the recording say someone can be heard breathing in the background as Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly vows to kill innocent civilians.

"Almost a week after Abdulwahab blew himself up in a shopping street in Stockholm, injuring two people, detectives have also failed to find any trace of explosives in properties linked to the bomber, suggesting someone else could have made the bombs at an unknown location.

"Police hope that if the bomber did meet an accomplice in the days before the bombing, the rendezvous might have been caught on CCTV. Hundreds of hours of recordings from CCTV cameras in Stockholm and his home town of Tranas have been seized and are now being scrutinised by investigators. ..."
(The Telegraph)

Which brings up the subject of conspiracies, real and imagined - and that's another topic.

Related posts:

• Assumptions and stereotypes:
  • "Robin Hood, Hamlet, and Five Severed Heads"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (December 13, 2010)
  • "Who Needs Facts? Cultural Assumptions and Politics"
    (July 24, 2009)
  • "Pray for Neda: And Learn About the Real Iran"
    (June 26, 2009)
  • "Right-Wing Extremists Really Are Terrorists, Sometimes"
    (June 6, 2009)
  • " 'the Catholics are super-duper terrorists': Who Knew?"
    (April 1, 2009)
  • "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)
• Privacy/anonymity
  • "The Right to Privacy and/or Anonymity"
    (July 11, 2007)
  • "Security Cameras, Big Brother, and Good Sense"
    (July 9, 2007)

In the news:

• "Stockholm bomber: police fear accomplice is on the loose"
  Martin Evans, The Telegraph (December 16, 2010)
• "No need for higher terrorism threat level-Sweden"
  Edition: U.S., Reuters (December 16, 2010)
• "200 violence-prone Islamic extremists in Sweden "
  Politics, The Swedish Wire (December 15, 2010)
• "Stockholm bomb 'first in Christmas campaign' "
  Gordon Rayner, The Daily Telegraph, via The Vancouver Sun (December 15, 2010)
• "Police probe Stockholm blasts as act of terrorism"
  Edition: U.S., Reuters (December 12, 2010)
• "Witnesses tell of Stockholm bomb terror"
  The Local (Sweden's News in English) (December 11, 2010)

WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia, and Staying Alive

WikiLeaks is in the news again. More documents were dumped, more people's lives have been endangered, and it's anyone's guess what'll happen next.

Good News/Bad News

First, the good news: National leaders around the world aren't as daft as one might fear.

Now, the bad news: Thanks to WikiLeaks' document dump, diplomatic relations between countries whose leaders are moderately sane and competent will be more difficult. Like it or not, there's a reason why diplomats don't broadcast what one leader wants another leader to say.

Worse, maybe, WikiLeaks may have helped some of the not-so-nice regimes around the world identify troublesome folks. Who will now quite likely be killed or squirreled away somewhere.

Freedom of Speech

Sweden isn't Sudan.

Which reminds me of a tired old joke. Two men, a Russian and an American, were discussing the relative merits of the United States and the Soviet Union. (This is an old joke.) The American said, "I live in a free country: I can stand on the front steps of Capitol Building and say 'I think the American President is an idiot.' " The Russian replied, "Ha! Soviet Union is a free country too: I can stand on the front steps of the Kremlin and say 'I think the American President is an idiot.' "

Seriously? I've made this point before: Not all countries are alike. Some have governments that put up with a certain amount of criticism. Others have a habit of making malcontents disappear. Or be sent somewhere for 'reeducation.'

Free Speech Restrictions: It's Not Necessarily Who You Expect

It'd be nice if all countries let folks speak their minds: but "nice" and the real world don't always overlap.

The former Soviet Union and Burma / Myanmar / Myanma aren't the only places where freedom of speech is restricted. Even some of the 'nice' countries have - in my opinion - regrettable sanctions against free speech. ("Libel Law Reform in UK: This Hasn't been Done Yet?!," A Catholic Citizen in America (November 13, 2010))

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a Snaky Metaphor

Good news/bad news again.

First, the good news: The Saudi king realizes that Iran is a threat:

"...'Cut off the head of the snake,' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, quotes the king as saying, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with General David Petraeus in April 2008....
(Reuters)

Now, the bad news: Saudi Arabia has lots of folks who give financial support to outfits like Al Qaeda.

"Devastating:" Yeah, I Think That Covers It

Here's what one fellow had to say about the latest WikiLeaks action:

"...'This is pretty devastating,' Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting and a former U.S. cyber security and counter-terrorism official, said in an e-mailed comment.

" 'It will constrain foreign leaders from being upfront and honest in their conversations with American diplomats and it will also make U.S. diplomats hesitant to put in diplomatic cables what they really think, for fear of it being leaked.'..."
(Reuters)

Like I said, there's a reason why diplomats don't broadcast what their leaders want said to another leader.

"Loose Lips Sink Ships"

My guess is that The New York Times and other news media have an explanation for (re)publishing WikiLeaks material this time. Offhand, I can think of a few more-or-less reasonable justifications:

• 'The people have a right to know!'
  • Yes: but now?
• 'WikiLeaks dumped this stuff on the Internet - we're just making a print copy'
  • Fact is, The New York Times and all are doing little but chronicle what's already happened
• 'If we don't publish, someone else will'
  • There's something to that
  • The New York Times is in the business of selling newspapers, after all

That's not an exhaustive list of possible explanations, of course.

One reason I'm writing this post - and providing an excerpt of a Reuters article - is that 'the cat's out of the bag.' Those secret documents aren't secret any more.

The damage has been done: what remains is to sift through the wreckage and see if there's anything to be learned.

If that "loose lips sink ships" quote sounds familiar: You know your WWII history. Or read my May 11, 2010 post.

'Enlightened Self Interest'

Whatever effect it has on relations between countries whose leaders want to cooperate - it's something of a relief to know that so many world leaders have a grip on reality.

It's one thing for someone to argue that a criminal who kills in the course of a bank robbery is no criminal - that the robber is a warrior in the people's struggle with plutocratic oppressors and their lackeys. Or whatever excuse is fashionable at the moment.

When one of these idealists is in the bank that's being robbed, and urges the robber to kill everyone - including the idealist? That person is, in my opinion, heroically dedicated to some philosophy. Or seriously disturbed. Possibly both.

The Saudi king's remarks about Iran show, I think, that the House of Saud has at least one fairly sensible member. I don't envy Saudi Arabia's leadership, by the way: they seem to be caught between religious crazies in their own country, Iran, and a not-entirely-sensible lot of neighbors.

Compared with being in that position: dealing with a Minnesota winter is a piece of cake.

Now, an excerpt from the news item that set me off this evening:

"Saudi King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program and China directed cyberattacks on the United States, according to a vast cache of U.S. diplomatic cables released on Sunday in an embarrassing leak that undermines U.S. diplomacy.

"The more than 250,000 documents, given to five media groups by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, provide candid, tart views of foreign leaders and sensitive information on terrorism and nuclear proliferation filed by U.S. diplomats, according to The New York Times.

"Among the revelations in Britain's Guardian newspaper, which also received an advance look at the documents, King Abdullah is reported to have 'frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program.'

" 'Cut off the head of the snake,"' the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, quotes the king as saying, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with General David Petraeus in April 2008.

"The leaked documents, the majority of which are from the last three years, also disclose U.S. allegations that China's Politburo directed an intrusion into Google's computer systems, part of a broader coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by Chinese government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws, the Times reported.

"The newspaper also said documents report that Saudi donors remain chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda, and that the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the U.S. military for years, was the 'worst in the region' in counter-terrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December.

"The newspaper said many of the cables name diplomats' confidential sources, from foreign lawmakers and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning: 'Please protect' or 'Strictly protect.'

"The White House condemned the release of the documents, saying their release could endanger the lives of people who live under 'oppressive regimes' and 'deeply impact' the foreign policy interests of the United States and its allies.

" 'To be clear -- such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government,' White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

" 'By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals,' he said.

"Security analysts tended to agree that the release of the documents was a severe blow to U.S. diplomacy, undermining the confidentiality that is vital for foreign leaders and activists to talk candidly to U.S. officials...."
(Reuters)

Related posts:

• "WikiLeaks: Again, Still"
  (October 22, 2010)
• "WikiLeaks, Real Journalists, and Common Sense"
  (August 13, 2010)
• "WikiLeaks, Killing People Who don't Agree, and Living in the Real World"
  (July 30, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Mainstream Media, Wikileaks, Reputation and Reality"
  (July 1, 2010)

In the news:

• "Saudi king urged U.S. to attack Iran: WikiLeaks"
  Arshad Mohammed, Ross Colvin, US Edition, Reuters (November 28, 2010)
• "WikiLeaks founder faces Swedish detention over rape case"
  guardian.co.uk (November 18, 2010)

Danish Newspaper's Cartoons Back in the News

It could have been worse. David Coleman Headley and and Tahawwur Hussain Rana / Tahawar Rana were caught and charged before they could carry through on their plans. From the looks of it, they wanted to help "commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005...."

The arrests have been a major news item today. Many of the recent reports seem to be ringing changes on this U.S. Department of Justice press release:

"Two Chicago men have been arrested on federal charges for their alleged roles in conspiracies to provide material support and/or to commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005, federal law enforcement officials announced today. There was no imminent danger in the Chicago area, officials said, adding that the charges are unrelated to recent terror plot arrests in Boston, New York, Colorado, Texas and central Illinois.

"The defendants charged in separate criminal complaints unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Chicago are David Coleman Headley, 49, and Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 48, also known as Tahawar Rana, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the FBI. The complaints remained under seal temporarily after the defendants' arrests, with court approval, so as not to compromise further investigative activity...."
(U.S. Department of Justice)

There's more - quite a lot more - to the DOJ press release.

The bottom line is that another terrorist attack - attacks, more likely - won't happen. Not on schedule, at least.

And that's good news.

The bad news is that some (a few, I trust) people who are convinced that they're following - and defending - Islam apparently still have that Danish paper on their hit list.

Freedom of Speech and Callouses on the Soul

I don't approve of terrorism. I think I understand some of the emotions and motives involved, but that is not the same as condoning terrorism, or excusing terrorists from responsibility.

A few years ago, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published a number of cartoons by a Swedish cartoonist. Depending on your point of view, they were clever, sophisticated, in poor taste, or a world-class example of intellectual jingoism.

They portrayed the prophet - which is unacceptable by itself, in some flavors of Islam - in a very, very unfavorable light.

But, that sort of in-your-face contempt for religious beliefs is protected by 'freedom of expression' these days, in Western countries where 'free speech' is valued.

As a devout Catholic living in America, I'm used to seeing and reading angry, disgusting, and clueless 'comic' references to my faith. It goes with the territory. I don't like, particularly when I'm forced to help pay the salary of someone who commits sacrilege. (August 5, 2008)

I've gotten gut-wrenching angry, sometimes. But I couldn't support a bunch of crazed Catholics who wanted to kill the governor: and would, if by some freak of probability such a group existed and I had information about them, cooperate with civil authorities. Yes: I'd be helping people who attack my faith. But I'd be following my faith by being a good citizen.¹ And, I think, helping people who didn't know all that much about Catholicism what my faith was really about.

I'd probably be even more emotionally worked up, if there weren't so many callouses on my soul. Some of the subcultures I lived in weren't just anti-Catholic - they didn't approve of any sort of 'organized religion.' Except maybe some very non-Abrahamic ones. After a while, you almost get used to it.

Which may be why this blog isn't anywhere near as vehemently anti-Islam as some 'real American' ones are. As I said, I don't condone terrorism: But I do have some idea of what it's like to follow a faith that most people in my country either doesn't care about - or are hostile toward.

Two Chicago Men and 'Those Muslims'

I think it's a good idea to remember that, after wild reactions to anti-Islamic cartoons made Muslims look like out-of-control rioters - and Islam like a repressive and dangerously violent cult - the more sane and sober followers of Islam took stock of what they believed, and how they should react to insults. And came to the conclusion that

• 'Freedom of speech' was part of contemporary culture in many parts of the world
• Violent reactions to naughty cartoons made Muslims look silly
  • At best
• Following culturally-normative channels of protest were a better idea

I've posted about this before. (February 13, 2008)

As I've said often: 'Islam' isn't some great, homogeneous, monolithic block of people who all feel, think, and act the same way. It's prudent to remember that the loudest, most violent, craziest of any group aren't representative of the whole group.

Related posts:

• "Fitna Producer Geert Wilders: Alive and Well, and Facing Charges"
  (January 21, 2009)
• " 'Self-Satisfied Ignorance?' Eucharist, Quran, and Atheist Book Trashed"
  (August 5, 2008)
• "Freedom of Speech: It's Protected in America"
  (March 27, 2008)
• "Islam, Denmark, and Freedom of Speech: a Learning Experience"
  (February 13, 2008)
• "Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images"
  (September 19, 2007)
• "Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!"
  (September 18, 2007)
• "The Subway Project and 'Why Islam?' - Terrorists in the Subways! Or, Not"
  (July 23, 2008)
• "Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
  (July 21, 2008)

In the news:

• "Two Chicago Men Charged in Connection with Alleged Roles in Foreign Terror Plot That Focused on Targets in Denmark"
  The United States Department of Justice press release (October 27, 2009)
• "Danish intelligence: Planned attacks not imminent"
  The Associated Press (October 27, 2009)
• "Two Chicago Men Face Terror Charges"
  The Wall Street Journal (October 27, 2009)
• "Two charged by U.S. in plot to attack Danish paper"
  Reuters (October 27, 2009)
• "2 Chicago men accused of plotting terror attacks"
  WBBM780 (October 27, 2009)

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

---

¹Which makes being a Catholic in America really interesting these days. That 'be a good citizen' thing is one of the rules I have to follow, but I also have to obey God's law.

• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)
• "Elections and Citizenship, Catholic Style"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 24, 2008)

Still, in could be worse. Look what happened to Thomas More.

Britain's Separate-But-Equal Treatment of Islam: Is the Idea Better? Or Batty?

That was Then

"We can learn so much from Europe/England/Denmark" was a common attitude when I grew up. At least, in the academic sub-culture I lived in. The phrase, "we can learn so much from...." was actually used sometimes. The idea was that all the best ideas were from

• Europe in general, because of all that 'culture'
• England, because of their socialized medicine
• Denmark, because that country had legalized prostitution
  (thereby showing how open-minded and uninhibited they were)

'We can learn so much Sweden' was on the list, until word got out that the country was a world leader in suicide rates.

This is Now

We can learn so much from England: like how to promote humanism, multiculturalism, and, probably, terrorism.

That's what the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said in a report yesterday.

There's probably still something to learn from England's well-intentioned effort to make minorities feel at home by exempting them from the rules that Britons had to follow, and letting them (forcing them?) to set up ghettos, where they could do things their way: 'Don't do it!'

The United Kingdom's experiment with a 'separate-but-equal' approach to distinctions between people isn't going too well. That should be no surprise. Remember how well "separate but equal" worked in America?

An "International Herald Tribune" article had interview extracts from one of the RUSI report's authors, Gwyn Prins, including these quotes:

• "One reason that the United States does not suffer from homegrown terrorism is that it is the world's melting pot, where immigrants are Americans, salute the flag, and obey the constitution and the law."
• "The U.K. should have the self-confidence to do the same, but we don't."
• "We don't insist they learn English, that they fully and properly integrate into our society as a whole. So we have these ghetto societies where Islamist extremists can create a narrative of resentment and recruitment."

Prins is a specialist on international security at the London School of Economics. He's also good at pressing all the wrong buttons, at least for people in some circles.

• "The safety and security of our citizens is the government's main priority and the government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists."
  Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government

Britain's current Prime Minister is unquestionably aware that terrorism is an issue for the United Kingdom. The wisdom of his approach to the situation may be debatable. Last July, for example, he forbade government ministers from using the word "Muslim" and told his team to drop the phrase "war on terror."

I've got nit-picking problems with what the RUSI report writer said.

• "Melting pot," for example, isn't a good metaphor for America. I've traveled around enough to know that there are very distinct regional and ethnic cultures here. "Crazy quilt" might be a better way to describe what we've got.
• Saying that "the United States does not suffer from homegrown terrorism" is simply wrong. From the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, to a mosque-burning in Tennessee, America has had home-grown terrorists. The American terrorists, though, generally are people who don't like this country's habit of welcoming non-WASPs.

On the whole, though, I think that the British think tank identified an important point.

People moving to another country should expect to meet some qualifications. For example, I'd expect to learn German, if I decided to live in German, and expect that I'd have to learn German customs and obey German laws if I became a citizen there. In fact, I'd be a little disturbed if I found that I had to live in the "American quarter" of Düsseldorf, or some other area, and had "leaders" who discouraged me from learning German. I'm not talking about American military bases, with their transient populations, but what happens with individual immigrants.

That's not to say that ethnic neighborhoods are wrong: it's natural for people with preferences for, say, garlic or lutefisk to settle near each other.

But trying to be "multicultural" by allowing select groups to set up independent legal systems, and then maintaining de facto barriers to keep members of that group from getting jobs outside the ghetto, is crazy. It hasn't worked before, and I'd be astonished if it worked now.

---

More, about the RUSI report: Study criticizes UK's vulnerability to Islamic extremists "International Herald Tribune" (February 15, 2008)

Selected "Another War-on-Terror" posts about the 2007 Glasgow/London attacks in the United Kingdom:
"Arrests, Doctors and Terrorists: Keeping a Cool Head"
(July 2, 2007)
"Doublethink, Doctors, and Dumb Ideas"
(July 3, 2007)

Dead Armenians, Peeved Turks, and Congress

The American House of Representatives, in a remarkable display of international solidarity and moral rectitude, voted to join 21 other nations in recognizing the first major genocide of the 20th century.

Just one problem. The genocidal country is Turkey. And the Turkish government doesn't like to be reminded about one of the dying Ottoman Empire's last gasps. In fact, Turkey would just as soon have everyone accept the official Turkish version of events.

International Relations: Nothing's Ever Simple

Today, over two thirds of the cargo, and about a third of the fuel, heading for American forces in Iraq go through or over Turkey. And, Turkey provides water to U.S. bases in northern Iraq.

All of which makes the good will of Turkey important.

And, right now, a little hard to maintain, thanks to the House of Representatives doing something decent.

Turkey's ambassador to America is back in Turkey, for at least a week of discussions. At least, that's what a Turkish official said.

Background: The Armenian genocide in Turkey

1,500,000 of the 2,500,000 (Christian) Armenians in the Ottoman Empire just happened to die, unexpectedly, during WWI (1915-1916), with mop-up clusters of death running as late as 1923 or so.

Survivors say that it was a genocidal operation. Eyewitnesses say it was a genocide. So do scholars who study genocides.

If fact, genocide scholars give the Ottoman Empire credit for the first big genocide of the 20th century. Which makes Turkey an international trend-setter, considering genocidal operations of the 20th century.

Despite this claim to fame, the Turkish government, while admitting that Armenians died, say that there was no genocide, and resent statements to the contrary.

I've thought this is a little odd, since the current Turkish government is the successor of a string of coups and elections dating back to 1923. That's when Mustafa Kemal led Turkey out of the mess left by Turkey's Ottoman Empire.

Back to the Present

America went through something like this back in 2000, with the resolution going nowhere after the White House said that it would hurt American security. And no, I don't think this is evidence that the 9/11 (2001) attack was an American plot.

I do, however, think that it's ironic, and moderately disgusting, that in order to deal with Islamic fanatics, it's necessary to cooperate with a Muslim country's secular government.

Countries Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide,
One way or another

• Argentina
• Austria
• Belgium
• Canada
• Cyprus
• France
• Greece
• Italy
• Lebanon
• Lithuania
• The Netherlands
• Poland
• Russia
• Slovakia
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Uruguay
• Vatican City
• Venezuela
• Wales

A pinch of salt is appropriate when someone claims to be glad to admit mistakes, but in this case, I really am. In a previous post, "Ahmadinejad's Plan for Peace: Banish the Jews to Alaska" (October 7, 2007), I wrote that academics would probably regard the Armenian Exodus as a disputed claim. Researching today's post, I found that the Armenian Exodus is generally accepted as a real event.

Facts from

• Armenians Mark 92nd Anniversary of Armenian Genocide
• Fact Sheet: Armenian Genocide - U. of M. Dearborn
• French politicians pass Armenian genocide bill
• Turkey (CIA)
• Turkey Recalls Ambassador to U.S. Over Armenian Genocide Bill

Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images

Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist with a price on his head, showed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad to a seminar in Stockholm on yesterday.

Why that "Swedish Dog" term in the headline? It's how "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي refers to the Swedish cartoonist.

"Nobody has really seen this image and it has just become more and more impossible to show it, so I thought that ordinary people should be given the possibility to see it live," he told the 100 or so people at a seminar.

I wonder what number Mr. Vilks considers "nobody." The cartoon, or one very much like the famous one, is displayed on his website.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is offering upwards of $100,000 USD to anyone who kills Mr. Vilks. One of the under-reported aspects of this is how Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been corrupted. I'd have thought that more people would be shocked at how western they're acting: offering money, rather than appealing to jihadic zeal.

I hope that Mr. Vilks, and others involved in this cartoon's publication, take care of themselves. Islamic enthusiasts aren't particularly noted taking insults lightly.

Remember Theo van Gogh? A Muslim killed him after Mr. van Gogh made a film, "Submission," that followers of Islam didn't like. Muslims had good reason for disapproving of the film. At best, Muslim women in the film, whose "chadors and gowns are transparent," make the movie insulting.

However, Michael Moore has offended conservatives and some Christians in America, and he's still very much alive.

Back to Mr. Vilks and his appalling diplomatic skills.

An earlier post, "Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!" discussed the Swedish cartoonist's drawing and how some Muslims reacted. Happily, a group I hadn't heard of, Muslims Against Sharia, posted a comment on that post. I'm taking the liberty of quoting their comment.

"Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

"Muslimer mot Sharia berömmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjörn Larsson och övriga anställda på Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter för deras tapperhet och fördömer hotet från Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq. Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) för information som leder till gripande eller oskadligörande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi."

It's my opinion that Islam is going through a very interesting time in its history. Muslims have very serious decisions to make. But, that's for another post.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!

First, and very importantly: I'm not suggesting that Lars Vilks be killed. I'm not suggesting that any cartoonist be killed.

But others have a different point of view.

"Video: Al Qaeda Offers Bounty for Swedish Cartoonist" The guest author in this video clip has some very interesting point. WARNING: This video clip is from Fox News. It has not been passed by the editorial board of "The New York Times," and has not been approved by the ACLU. Viewer discretion is advised.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, has raised the price on Lars Vilks' head to $150,000 USD, provided certain conditions are met. Al Qaeda, Iraq, also offers additional $50,000 USD for the life of an editor involved in publishing the cartoon.

I agree that drawing a picture of a dog with Mohammed's face is in very poor taste. In fact, I'd call it tacky.

I can sympathize with the distaste Muslims feel at seeing such a cartoon. It must be like the revulsion I feel, as a devout Catholic, each time an "irreverent" anti-Catholic cartoon shows up. Particularly since "irreverent" is praise in this culture, when discussing 'critically acclaimed' work.

However, I'd never suggest that anti-Catholic cartoonists and editors be killed. In fact, I'm forbidden from that sort of action.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, and and other jihadist organizations, do not seem to have such inhibitions.

What's happening to Lars Vilks shows what we'll enjoy, if these religious fanatics have their way. It's obvious that cartoonists, and anyone else with opinions which deviate from what Islamic fundamentalists believe, will lose their rights to free speech: and, most likely, their heads.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Does Anyone Really Believe Censorship Isn't Happening?

Lars Vilks published cartoons, showing the prophet Mohammed (first strike) in a disrespectful way (second strike) in July, 2007. Now, Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering $100,000USD for the head of Lars Vilks (yer out!).

It reminds me of May, 2006, when Muslims were offended by other cartoons. Some headlines then were "Al-Qaeda Threatens 3 EU States over Mohammed Cartoons," and, showing great compassion, " Algeria cartoon publishers jailed." The latter news account said that "according to Algerian law, both journalists now face between three and five years in jail for 'insulting the prophet'." The article was quite calm. I'm glad the journalists didn't lose their heads.

The 2006 flap was over cartoons in a Danish paper, re-published in Norway and elsewhere. All twelve cartoons are displayed in the Brussles Journal's "Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute." The Journal's slogan is "defending freedom of speech in Europe."

As of early 2006, the imam's idea of ending the "cartoon dispute" involving Jywallands-Posten, the infidel paper which posted the cartoons was that "Jyllands-Posten admit that publishing the cartoons was wrong and make amends for it." In a way, the demand is very moderate, assuming that no beheadings are involved in making "amends."

As a devout Catholic, I'd be satisfied if all anti-Catholic cartoons were so restrained and polite as the ones the imams were fussing about.

Back to Lars Vilk.

Samples from the latest cartoon flap are displayed (as of today's date) at Wikipedia's "Lars Vilks Muhammad cartoons controversy"

I'll admit that portraying a Mohammed with a dog's body is quite disrespectful. But, as an American, I'm used to seeing over-the-top depictions of leaders and cultural icons.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has a different attitude. "Al Qaeda: $100G To Kill Swedish Cartoonist" was the way WCBSTV.com put it. "The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam and promised a new offensive in Iraq during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday."

While looking for these anti-Islam cartoons, I found a very helpful page. It included links to the "Swedish Dog," sites which published the 2006 cartoons, and a list of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Mohammad cartoons.

Here's an excerpt.

"Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي

"Islamic Studies دراسات اسلامية
14 سبتمبر, 2007
حرية التعبير والإساءة إلى رسول الإسلام
(The Arabic phrase after the date translates as
"Freedom of expression and offend the Prophet of Islam" (World Star Dictionaries, Translators and Encyclopedias, and Google translation service))

"http://www.vilks.net Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws.

"http://www.vilks.net الموقع الخاص بالفنان الذي رسم محمد ("The relative to site the artist who Mohammed drew" (systransoft.com)")

"http://www.vilks.net/?p=936 Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws."

And so on. "Swedish Dog" is repeated fairly often.

Reading "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي", remember that this, unlike sites and blogs which criticize Islam, is not a hate site, and does not promote violence or racism.

Meanwhile, is Australia, Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace, is a non-Muslim who disapproved of pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot being convicted of inciting "hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" Muslims.

The infidel preachers claim that "they had merely informed Christians about Islamic teachings, based on the Koran and other Islamic texts."

Wallace said that the finding against the pastors probably meant that Australians

It's hard to for me to verify any of this, since most of the online references to both Wallace and the Mohammed cartoons matter have been removed from the Web, or been re-edited.

Having grown up in a country which supports free speech, I have misgivings about censorship, and regard propaganda skeptically.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

UAE, Censorship, Shari'a Law, Freedom: So What?

I learned something about the United Arab Emirates (UAE) today.

An online discussion brought my attention to the UAE, in a roundabout way. A blogger, who apparently lives in the United States, but needs internet connections for the blog, started the discussion with these words:

"anybody noticed today that blogger is down its down for one day and im still waiting any body having the same problem."

Later, after establishing that "blogger" was usable from a couple points in America, Sweden, and the Sultanate of Oman, the blogger wrote this:

"its not opening the website in uae"

Later:

"maybey etisalat blocked it"

Still later, the blogger seemed to have found the problem. "ok guys i knew the probem its all about our damn intenet service provider their name is etisalat they are blocking all the damn websites i dont what the hell is wrong with them my brother computer has a kind of software that can bypass any website but this software does not work in my computer so i asked my brother if i coud use his computer daiy so he said yes i will try to emai this damn etisaat because bogger website has nothing illegal."

I took a look at the website, "Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid." Aside from the rather bright color scheme, I could find nothing objectionable. "Get into the world of making money online with a 12 years old kid that will teach you the best seo tutorials for optimizing your blog or website," is how the blogger describes the site.

Etisalat is the UAE's government-owned Internet provider. Their website shows a professional, family-friendly set of services.

Checking around, I found a GulfNews.com article, "Don't let your child roam the internet aimlessly" (July 27, 2007), quoting a parent with pre-teen children. "At the moment, the Internet connection we have is the Etisalat one and there are processes in place to stop some sites. They filter all the pornographic sites and the sites that could be harmful to children. I have peace of mind here [in the UAE]. In my home country we don't have this filter."

Sounds very nice. I'm the father of four, and I'm concerned about what my children are exposed to, too.

It's been four hours, so far, since that online discussion started. The blogger still doesn't seem able to get past Etilsalat.

Maybe they've got technical difficulties. It happens.

A little more checking about the UAE showed that it's a small country on the Persian Gulf, relatively wealthy, with a president, and what looks like a good, constitutionally-guaranteed set of human rights. The UAE even has a "moderate foreign policy."

Then, there's what the U.S. Department of State wrote about the UAE, regarding their 2006 human rights behavior.

"Authorities do not commonly screen private correspondence; however, there have been reports of censorship of incoming international mail. The government-owned Internet provider, Etisalat, regularly blocks internet sites that censors determine to be "objectionable" (see section 2.c.)."

"Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid" hardly seems "objectionable," unless a 12-year-old talking about search engine optimization and making money is wrong. Of course, there is that rather loud black-and-yellow design.

More excerpts from the same U.S. State Department page about UAE's human rights practices in 2006:

"The constitution prohibits torture, and there were no reports that government officials employed it; however, courts applying Shari'a (Islamic law) sometimes imposed flogging sentences on both Muslims and non-Muslims as punishment for adultery, prostitution, consensual premarital sex, and for pregnancy outside of marriage. On March 13, a R'as al-Khaimah court sentenced a woman to five years and 150 lashes for adultery, and on June 11 a man was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery with a maid. The law allows for capital punishment, and, unlike in previous years, capital sentences were carried out." (Emphasis mine.)

"The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government drafts all Friday sermons in mosques and censors private association publications (see section 2.c.). The law prohibits criticism of the rulers, and from acts to create [!] or encourage social unrest." (Emphasis mine.)

And, "Internet Freedom

"The government restricted access to some Web sites on the Internet. Internet chat rooms, instant messaging services, and blogs were monitored. Individuals and groups engaged in peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by email, without reports of government prosecution or punishment, although there was self-censorship apparent in many chat rooms and blogs." (Emphasis mine.)

I'm all for being tolerant and open-minded, but I'm not sure I like what I see in the UAE. They seem to have constitutional guarantees of human rights, and think that under Shari'a (Islamic law) it's okay stone a man to death for fooling around with a maid. I don't approve of adultery myself, but that seems a little harsh.

I know: it's not my country, and (following, for a very brief moment the principle of moral equivalence) if I can tolerate someone being forced to cover a provocative T-shirt, how can I possibly criticize monitoring chat rooms, blocking websites that a censor doesn't like, or stoning a guy for making out with a maid?

I may not have any business, criticizing the UAE's human rights scorecard.

But I do believe that there's something important to think about here. There will be terribly important decisions made in the next year or so, and I'm pretty sure that some people will question whether it is important to stop Islamic fanatics who want to impose their beliefs, and their laws, on us.

Given what's been going on in the United Arab Emirates, a "moderate" Islamic state, which would you rather live under: UAE rules, or USA rules?