Sudan Defends Islam Against Blasphemous Teddy Bear

Sudan got around to charging Gilliam Gibbons. She's the British school teacher who blasphemed the prophet you-know-who, by - get this - letting a boy in her class suggest the name "Mohammed," which is his name.

Oops. By using you-know-who's name, I probably committed blasphemy, too. At least by Sudanese standards. Forget it. I don't live in Sudan, thank God. It's easier to write out "Mohammed,"¹ than dance around it.

A few more details about Gibbons' "offense" came up in "The New York Post" today.

• Sudan authorities say that she's guilty of inciting religious hatred. If she's found guilty (and how unlikely is that?), she'll most likely get 40 lashes. Unless Sudan follows Saudi Arabia's lead, and adds extra lashes.
• The name "Mohammed" was suggested by one of the class - a boy in her class named Mohammed.
  • It seems that giving the name "Mohammed" to a teddy bear is blasphemous, but giving it to a boy isn't: Unless young "Mohammed" is going to have lashed and/or stoned and/or beheaded parents soon.
• Gibbons is being charged under article 125 of the Sudanese legal code
  • This is significant, since it shows that Sudan uses a written legal code - this bizarre accusation isn't being made up out of thin air by some Sudanese official who forgot to take his medication
• Besides lashes, Gibbons may be facing six months jail time and a fine
• This imbroglio started when some of her pupil's parents complained about the teddy Mohammed.
• The British government is involved. Their officials are talking with Sudanese officials. (Let's hope no British officials are accused of blasphemy.)

The Sudanese government claims that being attacked for doing something that Muslims don't like is an isolated incident. Given all the people who have been hurt and killed, from the 1972 Munich Olympics to 9/11 and the present, that's a little hard to believe.

At least the recent attacks have been over genuinely spiritual values, like the naming of teddy bears.

The Teddy Bear Conspiracy

Sudanese clerics have earned more of my respect, by clearly stating what's going on. Here's the situation, from their point of view:

• Naming that teddy bear "Mohammed" is part of a larger Western "plot" against Islam.
• Naming the teddy bear was intentional blasphemy.
  • "What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam."
    "It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam."
    From a statement by the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas. (Ulemas: "the body of professional theologians who are regarded as the authority on religious law.")
• The Muslim Council of Britain urged the Sudanese government to intervene. (Which side the Muslim Council of Britain is taking isn't clear in "The New York Post" article.)

In a way the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas has a point. Western news media seems to have gotten over its reluctance to report atrocities committed by non-western societies, and that isn't making Islam look good. The fairly steady trickle of reports on lashings, stonings, and beheadings, in Islamic nations doesn't paint a flattering picture.

On the other hand, the recurring theme of women being lashed and stoned for peccadilloes suggests that contemporary Islam might be a tolerant and nurturing home for people who follow the practices and philosophy of the late Marquis de Sade.

Religion - or Culture?

It's easy to say that Islam is the common thread connecting burqas, beheadings, and honor killings. Particularly since the Muslims who commit these atrocities say that they're doing what Mohammed told them to, and are following the will of Allah.

There's something else that most of these expressions of sadistic jurisprudence have in common. They happen in "Islamic" countries in the Middle East and northern Africa.

The largest Islamic country in the world, in terms of numbers of Muslims, is Indonesia. That country's home to a little upwards of 200,000,000 Muslims. Even percentage-wise, Indonesia is more Islamic than America is Christian: 86% Muslim for Indonesia; 78% Christian for America, including Mormons.

Indonesia, a very Islamic country, isn't flogging women for not wearing a burqa, or beheading people for being insufficiently Islamic. In fact, the Bali nightclub bombing, back in 2002, is just one incident in continuing fight Indonesia has with Islamic groups like Jemaah Islamiyah, and Al Qaeda affiliates that want Indonesia to be an Islamic state like northern Sudan or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

There's no question, I think, that something is terribly wrong with places like Saudi Arabia and northern Sudan.

Living in Fast-Forward, Culture Shock, and All That

I don't think that the problem is necessarily Islam. Look at the map, and look at the relatively uniform culture of the countries in northern Africa and the Middle East. The impression I get is that these are places where men were living comfortably in a mosaic of tribes, living their lives in much the same way that their ancestors had since the time of Abraham.

Then, a few centuries ago, European colonial powers dragged them into the

• Age of nation-states
• Age of Reason
• Age of Enlightenment
• Industrial Revolution
• Cold War
• Space Race
• Information Revolution

To people still accustomed to burqas and Sharia, a world of Barbies and sports cars must be terrifying. It's no wonder that they go a little crazy, trying to adjust.

Non-Muslims might consider the possibility that the insanely intolerant, violent, behavior of "Islamic" countries doesn't stem from Islam. The traditional cultures of many of these places were old-fashioned when Rome ruled the Mediterranean, and hadn't been forced to deal with outside ideas until the last few generations.

---

¹ Why not "Muhammed," or one of the other Latinized spellings? I'm using an Associated Press stylebook, and that resource says that "Mohammed" is the way that the Prophet of Islam's name is spelled in English. It's one of a number of commonly-used efforts to bring that name into a language that uses the Latin alphabet.

(Thanks to "The Sudanese Name Game" for steering me to "The New York Post" article, and to "American Islamic Congress Slams Sudanese Government over Teddy Bear Case, Demands British Teacher Be Freed Immediately")

Posts on "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror. Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Islam, Christianity, Culture, and Kooks

"The Islamic world" is a handy label for that swath of territory and people from Turkey to Indonesia.

As the followers of Mohammed preached and hacked their way across Asia and Africa, they set up quite a wide variety of "Islamic" cultures. I'm aware that I'm over-simplifying here: This post is long as it is, without going into detail on what's happened in the last fourteen centuries, since Mohammed's conquest of Mecca in 630.

(The founder of Islam has my respect, if for nothing else than for raising an army, marching on a city, conquering that city with minimal bloodshed, and then refraining from slaughtering the inhabitants. Such a high level of humanitarianism has been rare in human history.)

(And, about the spelling of the Prophet's name. There's a variety of ways to take his name from the Arabic alphabet and drop it into the Latin alphabet as used in English. I'm going to use Mohammed, since that's what the standard set in the Associated Press style book I use. Exceptions will be situations where I'm quoting from a source, or where I make a mistake.)

Islamic Unity??

Since Islam is a sort of roll-your-own religion, with no central authority to define what's so and what's not, there are many varieties of Islam. I'm going to take a glance at three "Islamic" countries, and "Christian" America, and try to make some sense of what's out there.

Indonesia is just over 86% Muslim, compared to

• 70% Sunni Muslim for Sudan
  (with 5% Christian - mostly in south and Khartoum -
  and 25% indigenous beliefs)
• 100% Muslim for Saudi Arabia

For comparison, America is about 78% Christian, if you include Mormons:

• 52% Protestant
• 24% Roman Catholic
• 2% Mormon
• 1% Jewish
• 1% Muslim
• 10% Other
• 10% None

Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country, in terms of raw numbers, and is more "Muslim" than America is "Christian."

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia owns and controls Mecca, and is virtually all Muslim.

And, in addition to being about as far away from each other geographically as any other two Islamic countries are, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are very far away from each other in terms of their on-the-street, practical, Islamic beliefs.

Islam: Saudi Style

She's known as the "Girl from Qatif." She's a 19-year-old who was raped by about a half-dozen men, and (so far) sentenced to 200 lashes and prison time. The Saudi Justice Ministry's latest story is that she's guilty of adultery. And that's why she'll be flogged.

It makes sense, since what passes for justice in Saudi Arabia is run by a collection of Islamic courts and judges appointed by the king. The royal opinion has access to the opinion of Saudi Arabia's Supreme Judicial Council. The whole mess uses Sharia Law as the foundation for their decisions.

A little oddity in this case: The Saudi Justice Ministry's current story is that the "Girl from Qatif" was with a high school friend, recovering a photo that showed the two of them together. "Then they were spotted by the other defendants as the woman was in an indecent condition as she had tossed away her clothes, then the assault occurred on her and the man," is how the Houston Chronicle reported the latest Saudi story.

That sentence of prison and lashes, that the 19-year-old got after an appeal? It was legal, according to the Saudi ministry, and followed the "the book of God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad."

Speaking of Mohammed, here's an example of

Islam: Sudan Style

A British school teacher has been sentenced to 40 lashes. She's guilty of a serious crime. She allowed her class of 7-year-olds to name a teddy bear "Muhammad." The vote was 20 for "Muhammad," 3 for other names.

British Embassy in Khartoum said that it still doesn't know whether the teacher has been charged. Formally, that is. "We are following it up with the authorities and trying to meet her in person," said the embassy.

I'm impressed at how laid back Sudanese authorities are, about getting around to formal charges. Not favorably impressed, but I am impressed.

The teacher was following a British National Curriculum course for teaching about animals and their habitats. The animal this year was the bear.

After naming the teddy bear, each student could have the bear for a weekend. They were supposed to record what they did with the bear. Then each account was put in a book, with "My name is Muhammad" on the cover.

This apparently is an insult to the prophet of Islam. And, more to the point, regarded as an insult by the prophet's lash-happy followers in Sudan.

Sudanese police now want to question the 7-year-old girl who brought in the teddy bear.

Posts on "British Teacher Home from Sudan: Gillian Gibbons, Muslim Clerics, and a Teddy Bear named Mohammed"

Islam, Indonesian Style

Since the Indonesian judicial system isn't based on Sharia Law, it wouldn't be entirely fair to use Indonesian court decisions as an example of Islam in action.

Christians have been executed in Indonesia: For example, the three Christians who were convicted of leading a militia that killed at least 70 Muslims during 1999-2002. After that, Indonesia sentenced a dozen Christian men to terms of up to 14 years: Because they beat two Muslims to death, and beheaded them. The nominal Christians were exacting vengeance for the earlier death sentences.

Christianity, American Style

America is less "Christian" than any of these three Islamic nations is "Muslim." And, America's judicial system, like Indonesia's, isn't based (directly) on a set of religious laws.

For both countries, I'm sure that the religious faiths of those who drew up the laws had something to do with what the laws dictate. I think, though, that America can take credit for putting more distance between traditional religious beliefs and actual judicial practice.

---

Religious Values: or Cultural Values?

Islam isn't the only religion where decisions about the faith are made on a regional or local level. Protestant Christianity is very democratic in the way that its lack of a central authority demands that groups decide for themselves what they believe.

In the case of large denominations, like the Lutheran or Baptist churches, we don't often see beliefs preached that stray very far from the dominant culture.

At the other end of the scale, we've got outfits like the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. (Not the Westboro Baptist Church of Westboro, Ontario, which has nothing in common with the Kansas outfit, apart from the name.) I discussed this outfit's notions about the American military being part of a homosexual plot in "Tolerance Only Goes So Far" and "Does Free Speech Include Disrupting Funerals?."

Then, there's the Ku Klux Klan, or KKK. They're not a religious group, but their beliefs include disapproval of the existence of Catholics and Jews in their neighborhood. Or anywhere, I gather. And, their habit of burning crosses has seared the idea into people's minds that they're a Christian splinter group.

I'm no expert, but it looks like "The Islamic World" is nowhere near being a unified entity. From Saudi Arabia, where religious fanatics seem to be running the judiciary, to Indonesia, where religious fanatics are trying to topple the government for not being Islamic enough, there's at least as much of a divide as between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who want to kill infidels in America, and elsewhere; and the infidels, who, by and large, would rather not be killed.

Certainly not for offenses like wearing pants.

The impression I get is that many of these "Islamic" countries are what America would be like, if the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka ran the show.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

No Casualties in Anbar - Violence Down in Iraq

Good news from Iraq.

Yesterday, for the first time since March of 2003, there were no military casualties in Anbar.

No American casualties, No Iraqi casualties.

None, zero, zip.

Joint Chiefs spokesman Major General Richard Sherlock made that statement Wednesday.

This looks impressive:

	Violence in and around Baghdad	down 59 %
	Car bombs	down 65 %
	Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs	down 80 %
	Casualties from enemy attacks	down 77 %
	Operations against Iraqi security forces	down 62 %
	Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons	down 72 %

I may be over-simplifying, or being naive, but this really does look like good news. For America and Iraq, at least.

Two things happened in Iraq this year:

• The Anbar Awakening - sheiks decided that Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't good for Iraq.
  (They were thinking about it before September, when Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha's assassination helped make up their minds.)
• The troop surge that peaked in June, 2007.

At the risk of being simplistic, I think that talking with the sheiks in Iraq, while making a determined effort to weed out terrorists who were beheading and blowing up Iraqis, may have resulted in today's good news.

Beheading Iraqis: Not Al Qaeda's Brightest Idea

What happens when you try to bomb and behead your way into the hearts and minds of a country?

In the case of Iraq, you get Osama bin Laden criticizing his followers. In a public forum. And, more to the point, a lot of angry, determined, Iraqi sheiks.

Taking a look at what doesn't make the headlines, it's obvious that American leaders and the rest of the coalition have much less time to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat than headlines suggest.

The commanding officer of Regimental Combat Team-6, Colonel Richard Simcock, recently said, "... we get all sorts of congressional visitors who are looking for the 'Anbar' story, and let me tell you what I tell them: we are winning, but we have not yet won." [emphasis is mine]

Colonel Simcock made that statement in "Interview with Col. Richard Simcock," on military.com: ("Benefiting the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard").

The Iraq he described, at least Fallujah and the rest of the Anbar Province, is not the bomb-ravaged, fanatic-infested, America-hating, hopeless case that we've heard so much about.

The Iraqis he deals with sound a lot like most of the people I know, here in America:

"Q -- What do the local citizens want -- either from their mayor or from us?
A -- They want the same things in Fallujah as we have in America; health care, education, and technology. They want good schools, markets with food and stuff to buy, along with electricity to run their computers, air conditioners, and businesses."

The assassination of Sheik Sattar Abu Rishi (also Latinized as Sheik Sattar Abu Risha) had an effect: but not the one Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) intended.

Colonel Simcock said, "... they are not intimidated. They saw it as a very tragic event.

"It had the opposite effect that AQI wanted. AQI's message was “Look what happens when you work with the Americans, you wind up dead.” That is not what I am getting from the sheiks that I work with in AO Raleigh, it is just the opposite. They are saddened, but they are angry and makes them work with more energy to get to the same end state that we are trying to reach."

---

I strongly recommend reading all of "Interview with Col. Richard Simcock." Particularly if you've just heard the latest car bombing scores.

---

Doing research for this post, I ran into some unfamiliar acronyms used by the American military, and their definitions, from mytroops.com and michaeltotten.com:

AQI	Al Qaeda in Iraq
AO	Area of Operations
IA	Iraqi Army
IP	Iraqi Police
ISF	Iraqi Security Forces
MiTT	Military Transition Team

Osama bin Laden: Something Old, Something New

Excerpts from Osama bin Laden's latest audio tape played on Al-Jazeera television yesterday: along with a still photo of the Islamic philosopher and apparent spiritual leader of Al Qaeda.

There was a surprise in the excerpts, and something that wasn't so surprising.

First, the non-surprise.

"It is the duty of the people of Islam in the Sudan and its environs, especially the Arabian Peninsula, to perform jihad against the Crusader invaders and wage armed rebellion to remove those who let them in," a translation and transcript provided by IntelCenter. (Hats off to the Boston Herald for telling where they got the information. IntelCenter monitors extremist Web sites.)

Bin Laden is talking about U.N. 'peacekeepers' in Darfur, trying to slow down the genocide there. This 'death to the peacekeepers' thing is hardly news. Bin Laden deputy, Ayman al-Zawhiri, did a jihad cal for Darfur in a September 20 video. Bin Laden
did about the same thing back in 2006, telling his followers to fight a proposed U.N. force in Sudan.

Another tape, another jihad: Not really news.

An article in the Sudan Tribune pointed out something unusual in the latest audio recording released by bin Laden. "In the sections of the message broadcast Monday, bin Laden took the highly uncharacteristic step of acknowledging that al-Qaida had made mistakes and chiding followers for not uniting their ranks — a reference to the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq.

" 'Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes,' " he said. "Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahideen have to correct their mistakes."

Osama bin Laden's very unusual criticism of his followers may be more than "the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq." It could be that Al Qaeda and company in Iraq did such an effective job bombing and beheading their way out of the hearts and minds of Iraqis, that bin Laden believed that a public reprimand was called for.

It's not good news for Al Qaeda, when an AP article says, "October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists."

Major General Rick Lynch pointed out that Shiites and Sunnis have joined Americans in defending Iraq: 20,000 "Concerned Citizens" in the past four months.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Bhutto, Bombs, and Curious Coincidences

The blame game has started, after the Bhutto Bombing in Karachi, Pakistan. CBS News said that it looked like Al Qaeda was gunning for Former (and maybe future) Prime Minister Benezir Bhutto, when they heard that she was heading back to Pakistan.

Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander and bigwig in his tribe's territory on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, said that he'd meet Bhutto with suicide bombers. That at least one suicide bomber had a blast in Karachi, an associate of his says the Taliban wasn't involved.

Bhutto thinks there may have been some combination of four groups involved in the attack:

• Taliban elements
• Al-Qaeda
• Pakistani Taliban
  (I'm not sure what the distinction is)
• "A fourth -- a group -- I believe from Karachi," she said

Sounds like the street in Karachi was a sort of shooting gallery, with bombs instead of BB guns.

Pakistani security types say that Bhutto should have stuck to their plan of flying to her speech by helicopter.

With 20-20 hindsight, it's obvious that a helicopter ride would have avoided the street-level attack. On the other hand, helicopters have been known to fall out of the sky, too.

It's 'way too early to know exactly what happened, but the Karachi police seem to be piecing together the evidence. There was at least one suicide bomber: a young man who first lobbed a grenade, and 22 seconds later blew himself up next to a truck.

The bomber's head landed near the rest of the wreckage, and was taken to a forensics lab. Karachi police hope to figure out who he was.

There was a police presence around Bhutto's convoy, including the van that helped shield her from the biggest blast. On the other hand, a broadcast news report said that there was a rather light distribution of police around the route.

Which might help explain why it took the convoy 10 hours to go through Karachi.

Bhutto didn't blame the Pakistani government, but said that individuals in the government might be involved. This isn't as crazy as it sounds. Karachi street lighting failed at sunset, and Bhutto's people couldn't call the national security adviser. Phone service wasn't working, either.

Sometimes conincidences are just that: "A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).

Sometimes, though, there are cause-effect links.

Pakistan isn't up to American standards of telecommunications, but they're not doing too badly in the major cities. And, one of the country's three international gateway exchanges is in Karachi - which shows that the major port city isn't a backwater.

Pakistan's national power agency, NEPRA, gives the impression that the Pakistani power grid is in pretty good shape. A claim I take with a grain of salt.

Just the same, I think it's odd that street lights go out and phone service failing in an Islamic country, just as the convoy of a woman who is likely to become president passes through town. With a light police presence.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Posts about Benazir Bhutto.

"Pope attacks Iran at Jewish Congress"

That's the TimesOnline's headline: attention-getting; calculated to raise fears.

Good heavens! The Pope attacking Iran?! What, oh what, is this world coming to? Maybe, just maybe, to a more reasoned, and reasonable, approach to world affairs in general, and the war on terror in particular.

Pope Benedict XVI got together with the World Jewish Congress, at the Vatican: this week, I think. While there, the Pope said Iran was "an issue of big concern" to him.

This is an attack?

Actually, it did get worse. The Pope said he was concerned about an increase in anti-Semitism in Iran. He apparently outlined a campaign using educational tools to work against the hatred shown by Iranian leadership towards Israel, and the Jews in general.

Educational tools? Shocking!

From a certain point of view, 'the Jews' are in with the Pope in this 'plot.' After an audience with the Pope, the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, Maram Stern, had this to say: "We thanked the Holy Father for everything he did for the Jewish people, and more importantly what he will do."

Ominous?

I don't think so, but then I don't think that there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy either running the world, or striving for total world domination.

In fact, I think that breaking into parts of the Islamic world with facts would be like getting oxygen to trapped miners.

The World Jewish Congress also discussed rising anti-Semitism in Europe, but I'd say that the big problems are in the Islamic world. Mostly because I tend to believe what people say, particularly when they're making speeches. Iran's president has made his attitude toward Israel, and those who support Israel, quite clear.

President Ahmadinejad may have good reason for his beliefs. Iran has the largest concentration of Jews in the Middle East, aside from Israel. About 20,000 Jews live in the country of the ayatollahs.

I suppose saying that means that I'm with the Pope on the "confrontation road with Moslems and Islam" that a Jordanian wrote of, commenting on the TimesOnline.com article. I can live with that. I do believe that a reasoned approach to sorting out the war on terror is not to find out what the most unreasonable people in Islam want, and then give it to them.

As to what President Ahmadinejad of Iran has said about Israel and the Jews, someone over in the United Kingdom collected statements made by Iran's President Ahmadinejad made about Israel.

I'm no expert, but there may be a touch of anti-Semitism here. More than a touch, in fact. See what you think of these samples.

• "Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."
  October 26, 2005
  (In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')
  NB The translation of this quote is debated and has also been read as "Israel must disappear from the page of history"
• "The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat. Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
  April 14, 2006
  (In a speech at the opening of the "Support for the Palestinian Intifada" conference on April 14-16 hosted in Tehran)
• "Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country."
  December 14, 2005
  (Speaking to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan)
• "The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan. …It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid."
  August 18, 2007
  (Address to an international religious conference in Tehran)
• "In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies."
• "The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan . . . Many Western governments that claim to be pioneers of democracy and standard bearers of human rights close their eyes over crimes committed by the Zionists and by remaining silent support the Zionists due to their hedonistic and materialistic tendencies."
  February 28, 2007
  (to a meeting of Sudanese Islamic scholars in Khartoum)
• "Zionists are people without any religion. They are lying about being Jewish because religion means brotherhood, friendship and respecting other divine religions…They are an organized minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organization."
  August 28, 2007
  (At a news conference in Tehran)
• "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."
  August 2, 2006
  (as quoted by Iranian TV)
• "[N]o Muslim nation would put up with this entity [i.e. Israel] in Islamic lands, not for one moment … If it's true that the [Europeans] committed a big crime in World War II, then they must take responsibility for it themselves, and not ask the Palestinian people to pay the price … Those countries that support this regime [Israel] were terrified at the suggestion that [Israel] should be relocated to their neighborhood. So why should the Palestinians and the countries in our region accept this entity?"
  (In a speech before an audience in the Iranian city of Qom, aired on television)
• "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."
  October 29, 2005
  (Marching in a demonstration alongside a crowd of students in Tehran)
• "Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world."
• "By the grace of Allah, we (will be) a nuclear power."
• "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
  April 19, 2006
• "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame."
  (as quoted by Iranian TV)

All thirty, with reader comments, are at "Ahmadinejad on Israel: 30 jaw-dropping quotes" (TimesOnline, UK, October 2, 2007)

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

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

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.

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report

First, I've got some philosophizing to get out of my system.

"Ownership or participation in ownership of a publication or broadcasting property is a sacred trust and a great privilege." ("The Standards of Ownership / Nelson Poynter's guide for the ownership of the St. Petersburg Times," August 6, 1947)

I wish that journalism lived up to such high ideals. Then, statements like, "it must be true: it's in the news," wouldn't be so grimly funny.

Even the most believable, perhaps especially the most believable, news reports should be viewed with deferred judgment.

For example: "Everybody knows" how wild and crazy rock bands are, so there's no reason to question news reports from 1981, which stated that Van Halen did thousands of dollars of damage to a New Mexico venue, just because they were given brown M&Ms, and their contract demanded a bowl of M&Ms with the brown ones removed.

According to an autobiography by one of the band members, the brown M&M restriction was there to make sure that promoters of Van Halen concerts actually read the contract. No brown M&Ms meant that a full system check of the facilities was necessary. A place in Colorado had tens of thousands of dollars of damage, because the floor wasn't strong enough to support the V.H. stage equipment.

Now, About the "The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq," that I call the General Jones report.

I had a little trouble with the report by General Jones. CBS News didn't name it, but gave this description: "The study, conducted by a 20-member panel led by retired Gen. James Jones, is one of several independent studies Congress directed in May. A copy of the 37-page report was obtained by The Associated Press."

I found a report which was

• Conducted by a 20-member panel
• Chaired by General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.)
• Directed by Public Law 110-28, enacted May 27, 2007

It didn't have 37 pages, though. The report I found was 153 pages long, including the cover sheet.

Maybe the report "obtained by The Associated Press" was some sort of special summary. It wasn't the "Executive Summary" in the report: that wasn't anywhere near 37 pages long.

Maybe retired General Jones was working with another 20-person panel, on a nearly identical project.

That's not likely.

My working assumption is that the "37-page" part of the CBS News report is one of those little slips that happen now and again, like the Van Halen M&Ms.

As with the GAO report, the report shows that Iraq has problems. Lots of problems.

My original plan, when I thought I'd have 37 pages to deal with, was to look over the whole report, and discuss it.

153 pages is too much for that: I don't have the time, and I doubt that you'd want to sit still, reading what I think about it.

So, after a quick skim, I picked one topic: Corruption.

On page 123, I found "Corruption" as a heading. "Corruption is a serious problem at many land prots of entry. This fact has not yet been adequately addressed," the report said.

Reading on, I think "not yet been adequately addressed" was an understatement. The problem is that the central Iraqi government can't collect tariffs, stop contraband, or expect their Department of Border Enforcement to work properly.

One of the issues seems to be that several Iraqi ministries bump into each other at land ports of entry: and try to out-maneuver each other for a piece of the action.

Then, there's the matter of kickbacks. The Ministry of Interior (MOI) isn't always as helpful as it should be, to put it mildly.

Iraqi and Coalition officials told members of the Commission that "personnel at the border crossings are often discouraged from doing their jobs 'too well,' lest they disrupt lucrative smuggling operations that benefit senior-level officers in the MOI."

To its credit, the Iraqi government has tried to fix the problem, even changing leadership in some areas.

One way of looking at corruption in Iraq is to decide that it's a cultural norm, something which Americans must accept as part of the rich heritage of the region: one mustn't be ethnocentric!

I don't buy that. Although parts of the Middle East have earned a reputation for corruption, they have quite a bit of competition for most-corrupt-country, globally.

A list of Transparency International's CPI, or Corruption Perception Index, is at Rediff.com.

According to the CPI, Finland is the least-corrupt country that was studied, with a score of 9.7 (out of 10). Bangladesh the most corrupt, with a score of 1.3.

Countries more-or-less in the Middle East had a pretty wide range of scores. This list is a sampling, I may have missed some:

• Israel 7.0
  
• Oman 6.3
• Bahrain 6.1
• Kuwait 5.3
• United Arab Emirates 5.2
• Jordan 4.6
• Saudi Arabia 4.5
• Syria 3.4
• Egypt 3.3
• Turkey 3.1
• Iran 3.0
• Lebanon 3.0
• Palestine 3.0
• Yemen 2.6
• Pakistan 2.5
• Kazakhstan 2.4
• Uzbekistan 2.4
• Iraq 2.2
• Kyrgyzstan 2.1
• Azerbaijan 1.8
• Tajikistan 1.8

(Syria is near the mid-point of the list, a score shared by China, Panama, and Sri Lanka.)

I said before that Iraq has many problems. That doesn't mean that I want to see America, and the other coalition countries which are still involved in Iraq, say, "good luck," and pull out before the wild collection of

• Decent, patriotic Iraqis
• Crazed religious fanatics
• My-tribe-first fossils who didn't notice the rise of nation-states
• The usual bunch of big-shot wannabes

...have a chance to thrash out a reasonable facsimile of a funcional national government.

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating. It was 11 years before the American colonies dropped what hadn't been working, and developed the Constitution that America has now. These things take time.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

Abu Sayyaf: What do They Really Want?

A group of Philippine terrorists called Abu Sayyaf is under attack by Philippine troops. Another "Muslim rebel group engaged in peace talks with the government, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front [MILF], admitted its rebels killed 14 marines during the clash in Al-Barka, accusing them of encroaching into a rebel stronghold," according to the Associated Press. The MILF said it didn't behead 10 of the 14 marines.

There are a couple of interesting points in recent news from the Philippines.

Beheading is a fairly common form of execution in Saudi Arabia, the heart of the Islamic world. Saudi clerics say this is okay, since the victims are criminals, but that Islamic groups beheading people for the publicity value aren't doing the Muslim thing.

It looks like terrorist groups are listening. The MILF denial that it was responsible for beheadings seems to indicate that beheading is no longer on the cutting edge of terrorist techniques.

Another point of interest is a video that hasn't been distributed yet.

Abu Sayyaf is distributing a sixty-two-minute video on the Internet, according to SITE, an American-based group of terrorist-watchers. According to SITE, an Abu Sayyaf spokesman gives an eloquent statement of the Islamic organization.

"The mission of the group is patterned after al-Qaeda and other Salafist movements, seeking the creation of a pan-Islam state, and as stated by Abdul Raziq Janjalani, 'Our only goal is to try to establish an Islamic state. We understand that establishing a Muslim State is not limited to Mindanao… We do not have any choice but to start with Mindanao. If we succeed, we will move to Visayas, then to Besoon, Allah willing, until we reach al-Quds [Jerusalem].'" (The Search For International Terrorist Entities (SITE)

It's not not likely that Abu Sayyaf will achieve their goal. They most likely have only a few hundred troops, with the number reduced after recent attacks by Philippine forces.

The importance of this video, assuming that the SITE report is accurate, is that it gives a very clear picture of what Abu Sayyaf, and quite likely other al Qaeda-related groups have as a goal: to establish an Islamic state from Mindanao (or wherever the group in question is) to Jerusalem.

If they succeed, the rest of us had better get used to calling that city "al-Quds." And making sure that we're sufficiently Islamic to keep our heads.

Muslims Fear American Attack, Global Survey Finds!!!

Maybe "winning hearts and minds in the Middle East" and the rest of the Islamic world isn't the most important goal for the States.

Maybe encouraging enlightened self-interest is.

Attitudes toward terrorism among Muslims, according to a Pew Institute Global Attitudes survey, are evolving in an interesting way.

Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, has lost support in many parts of the Islamic world over the last five years.

Support of bin Laden among Muslims,
2002-2007

• 20% - 01% Lebanon (suicide bombing "often or sometimes" justified from 74% to 34% in same period)
• 56% - 20% Jordan
• 46% - 38% Pakistan (some think bin Laden is hiding here)
• 59% - 41% Indonesia
• ??% - 57% Palestinian Territories

As with anything involving human beings, it's a complicated situation. Maybe it's significant that support for bin Laden is going down in Pakistan, Jordan and Indonesia, where suicide bombers have been blowing themselves up.

Being a target has a marvelously focusing effect on people's thoughts.

According to the news articles on the Pew Institute's report, many Muslims in Asia and the Middle East are concerned that, given the U.S. intolerant 'War on Terror' policies toward terrorism, their countries might be attacked by U.S. forces.

"The report says that 'Muslims in Bangladesh and Morocco are almost unanimous in their concern' about the military threat from the US, with more than 90 per cent in each saying they were very or somewhat worried. So are 85 per cent of Indonesians." (Time Online)

I didn't find that quote, but it's a big document, 133 pages, and I might have missed it.

Economic status makes a difference, but not as might be expected.

"The Pew Institute report suggested that globally, economic growth and stability were closely tied to a sense of personal well-being. But there was little evidence to sustain theories that the economy might have a similar beneficial effect on support for terrorism.

"In Lebanon, economic confidence has plummeted following the military clash with Israel but Muslims are still less likely to support either bin Laden or Hezbollah.

Palestinian support for suicide bombing appears to be fairly uniform across all income levels." (Times Online)

In any event, I'm not sure that this report adds up to a practical criticism of the War on Terror. Here's one way to look at it:

Since 2002, many Muslims in the Islamic world:

• Stopped approving of terrorism, or at least bin Laden
• Became concerned that U.S. forces would attack their country

One way to interpret this information is that, faced with the prospect of the Great Satan America responding in kind to deadly attacks, "Death to America" became a somewhat less attractive slogan.

As I said before, anything having to do with human beings is complex. I'm not going to say that this proves that taking the battle to places that support terrorism is a good idea.

On the other hand, I don't think that this report shows that the U.S. policy of taking military action is ineffective.

Before 2001, U.S. policy was to treat terrorist attacks as a matter for the criminal justice system, and refrain from making a major military issue of such things. That changed after September 11, 2001.

Now, an increasing number of Muslims don't support al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and have actually become hostile toward what the Online Times called "violent extremism."

It's not so great a stretch of the imagination for me to imagine that both the jihadist's attacks on Muslim (or 'insufficiently Muslim?') targets, and the real possibility that the United States of America might do something besides assume responsibility for providing room and board to successful terrorists.

Information for this post is from the Times Online (UK) "Muslims are weary of bin Laden but still fear American attack", FOXNews.com's "Muslim Support for Bin Laden Falls, Poll Says, and Pew Global Attitudes Project's "Global Unease With Major World Powers" (and the 2.2 megabyte pdf-format full report The Pew GAP's report other heading is "Rising Environmental Concern in 47-Nation Survey" - Captain Planet would be proud!

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

New Opportunities in Terrorism: Fanatic Doctors

Two of the seven people arrested in the United Kingdom in connection with the weekend car-bomb attacks are doctors. Make that three of eight. Another arrest was reported while I was writing this.

SkyNews reports that one of the people in the flaming jeep that crashed through the front door of Glasgow's Blackpool airport the day before yesterday (Saturday, June 30, 2007) is Dr. Bilal Abdulla, a doctor at Royal Alexandra Hospital.

Another doctor, Dr. Mohammed Asha, was arrested on the M6 near Sandbach in Cheshire after British police raided his office.

As I wrote this, the arrest of a third doctor was reported.

Any one of these people may turn out to have nothing to do with the weekend effort to turn a nightclub and an airline terminal into infidel incinerators. It isn't easy to come up with an innocent explanation for Dr Abdulla being in Glasgow's rolling firebomb: at least not one that doesn't sound like it was made up by a defense lawyer from the States.

In fact, despite what British authorities have said, those car bombs may have been the work of misguided practical jokers or disgruntled soccer fans. That's not likely, though, judging from the way one of the Glasgow door-crashers kept shouting "Allah!" as authorities rescued him from the fire he set and the people who might have died with him.

However, assuming that the obvious explanation is the true one, at least one doctor is involved in the weekend's terror attacks. A doctor working as point man may bring the War on Terror to a whole new level.

To date, Islamic fanatics have blown people up, burned people alive, blown people up and incinerated the pieces, and, now and again, beheaded the odd infidel.

These are all brute-force methods of killing people.

Doctors have been connected with the War on Terror, or the War on the West, depending on your point of view, for years: Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Dr. Amin al-Haq, for example.

Now, with doctors willing to get up close and personal, we could see a new kind of terrorist attack. Not being a medical professional, I don't know what a doctor with evil intentions in a hospital could do.

I came up with something psychoactive in the staff water cooler, or death by medication after about a half-minute's thinking: and I'd guess that a real doctor could come up with something much worse.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "When a doctor does go wrong he is the first of criminals. ...we shall have horrors enough before the before the night is over ...." ("The Adventure of the Scarlet Band" (1892) p. 270 in "The Complete Sherlock Holmes" (Doubleday & Company))