Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/26/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/26/2010According to Pakistani government officials, the suicide bomber who killed more than forty people on Christmas Day was a woman dressed in a burqa. The jihadess exploded herself in front of a UN food distribution center, in a crowd that consisted mostly of women and children. Police are investigating the crime.

In other news, after a meeting between the Portuguese finance minister and Chinese leaders in Beijing, the Portuguese ambassador to China says that the Chinese will help his country by buying more Portuguese debt. Meanwhile, Sweden is having the coldest December in 110 years.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, DF, El Inglés, Esther, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, TV, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

The Unification of Russian Islam

When discussing the Islamization of the West, France is usually cited as being the worst-off of the Western democracies. It has an estimated Muslim population of 10%, perhaps as high as 15%, and the demographics of the situation — a very low birthrate among the native French, and a baby boom among the Muslim immigrants — do not bode well for the future of France.

If we expand the definition of “the West” a bit, it becomes necessary to add India and Russia to the list of Most Islamized Western Nations. India has the largest, oldest, and most intractable “Islam problem” of any Western democracy. The Muslim minority in India is over 150 million (13+% of the population) and is growing relative to the Hindu population. India lives under the constant threat of terror attack. Its citizens experience deadly bombings and other forms of violent jihad with mind-numbing regularity.

Russia is a special case. Its Muslim population is estimated at 10% to 12%, and its demographic situation is worse than that of France, so that Russian Islam is expected to grow rapidly. If present trends continue, Muslims will comprise a majority of the Russian military within a couple of decades.

Islam in Russia


However, as analysts often point out, Islam in Russia is different from virtually anywhere else. The most fanatical Osama-loving terrorists and their sympathizers are confined mainly to Chechnya, Dagestan, and other small republics in the southern Caucasus. To the extent that these ethnicities have migrated to Moscow and other parts of Russia proper, the problem of Islamic terror has spread, but its practitioners are still mainly from those Caucasian ethnic groups.

A large part of the Muslim population in Russia is Tatar. The Tatars are a Mongolian ethnicity, and have been in Russia for almost eight hundred years, since the they first conquered the Eastern Slavs. When Ivan the Great threw off the Tatar yoke two and a half centuries later, the Tatar Muslims became subordinate to the Orthodox Christians of Holy Russia, and have retained that status ever since, except for a brief atheist interregnum between 1917 and 1991.

Western analysts have generally regarded the Tatar brand of Islam as mild and innocuous, especially compared with the virulent versions found in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia. Since the Tatars are estimated to number between seven and eight million, or around half of Russia’s Muslim population, this cuts the percentage of “problem” Muslims in half, making the scope of the issue roughly the same as it is in the Netherlands.

Except in the case of the Caucasus, the Legacy Media have consistently downplayed the danger of radical Islam in Russia. An article from April 2007 in The Economist is a case in point. It calls the increase of Russian Islam “a benign growth”, and describes it in glowing terms such as only the MSM can provide. The subhead tells us:

Russia’s fastest-growing religious group is its Muslims. But they are not much like their counterparts in other countries

Below are some further excerpts from the article. I’ve bolded certain names, for reasons that will become apparent later on:

…Russia has more Muslims than any other European state (bar Turkey); and the Muslim share of the population is rising fast. The 2002 census found that Russia’s Muslims numbered 14.5m, 10% of its total of 145m. In 2005 the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, put the number of Muslims at 20m. Ravil Gaynutdin, head of Russia’s Council of Muftis, talks of 23m, including Azeri and Central Asian migrants.

Already you notice the standard Islamic tactic of inflating for propaganda purposes the number of Muslims within a given country. Because “Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion” (everybody knows this, and the media keep repeating it, but how do we know it’s true? Statistics can always be traced back to the OIC or CAIR or MPAC or similar organizations), the number of Muslims has to be revised continually upwards.

Moreover, the Muslim population of Russia is rising even as the country’s overall population falls. Many Muslim communities long predate Russian rule. Shamil Alyautdinov, the imam of the newest and most dynamic of Moscow’s four mosques, insists that the very word “minority” should not apply to a faith “which emerged on Russia’s territory far earlier than Christianity did”.

Aside from the Caucasus, there are now two concentrations of Muslims in Russia. One is in Moscow, swollen by labour migration, where they may number 2m. The other is in the faith’s old bastions: Bashkortostan and, above all, Tatarstan (see map), where a revival of the faith has been overseen successfully by a wily regional president, Mintimer Shaimiev. In several parts of the Caucasus, old-style compacts between local rulers and “tame” clerics have alienated young people; but in Tatarstan they still seem to work quite well.

[…]

But in general Islam’s resurgence in Tatarstan’s capital, Kazan, has been peaceful. For the first time since Ivan the Terrible conquered the place in 1552, the city’s Kremlin houses a mosque, its minarets vying with nearby Orthodox Christian onion domes. Ramil Yunusov, its Saudi-trained imam, gets on fine with the local Orthodox clergy. Just 25 years ago, says Gusman Iskhakov, the mufti who heads the Muslim Spiritual Board of Tatarstan, the region had some 20 mosques. Now there are around 1,300.

This is the MSM’s story, and they’re sticking to it: Everything is fine; Islam in Russia is cool and hip and friendly and modern, just as Yuri Andropov was. OK, so there’s a bit of radicalism here and there, but nothing the FSB can’t handle.

And, yes, the number of mosques in Tatarstan has increased from 20 to 1,300 in just a quarter of a century. That’s a 6400% increase — more than 18% per year — but we’re not supposed to worry about it. After all, since the Orthodox Christians have been building all those churches for centuries, it’s only fair — right? Now it’s Islam’s turn.

Rafael Khakimov, an adviser to Mr Shaimiev, uses the term “Euro-Islam” to describe the faith that has evolved in what was for long the world’s northernmost Muslim outpost. Wherever he turns, Mr Shaimiev likes to present a benign image. Accompanying Mr Putin round the Middle East, the Tatar leader shows Russia’s pious Muslim face, a tactic that underpins the Kremlin’s Middle East diplomacy. In February the Saudis gave Mr Shaimiev an award for services to the faith. But when they are talking to west Europeans, the Tatar authorities like to present themselves as more open-minded than most other regions of Russia.

This is what everybody has been hoping for — “Euro-Islam”. It’s what Tariq Ramadan has been peddling in the swanky European salons of the academe and the media for the last decade or so. The cultural elite have resigned themselves to Islamization, so the benign version of Islam is supposed to make the process easier to accept. Just take your Percocet and slather on the Vaseline — and then lie back, close your eyes, and think of Euro-Islam.

Many people in Arab countries, says Mr Shaimiev, have never lived on equal terms with other cultures, and their teaching doesn’t suit the needs of the Tatars, who have. His government has opened its own religious schools and universities, to propagate its preferred form of Islam.

So the madrassas of Tatar Islam — Euro-Islam — are different from those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This, too is supposed to reassure us. We’re meant to believe that their students are being taught Sharia Lite.

Among the politically active Muslims of Moscow who lobbied for Imam Stepanenko, the mood is different. For one thing, there is a row between two contestants for official favour: the cautious Mr Gaynutdin, and Talgat Tadjuddin, a feisty chief mufti who in 2003 proclaimed a jihad against America.

Notice that a Muslim who declares a jihad is described as “feisty” — evoking the image of a lovably cantankerous old rogue, who maybe makes a spot of trouble now and then, but is quite all right, really. I mean, he only declared a jihad against America, after all, and not — whew! — Europe.

If we fast-forward nearly four years to the end of 2010, we hear a slightly different tune coming out of Russia. Among the ululating voices are those of Ravil Gaynutdin and Talgat Tadjuddin. The “cautious” and “feisty” imams are still front and center, although the variant transliterations of their names makes them a bit harder to identify.

Here’s what Asia News has to say:

Russian Islamic Leaders Against the Kremlin

The chief mufti attacks the State guilty of hindering the unification of the Muslims of the Federation and condemn those religious leaders who are working as puppets to quell the community’s presence in the country.

Moscow (AsiaNews) — The leaders of the Russian Muslim community have launched a strong attack against the authorities in the country. The head of the Council of muftis of Russia, Ravil Gainutdin, accuses the state of wanting to obstruct the unification of Muslims and attempting to “suppress Islam” in the Federation. He has also described as “puppets” and “squalid people,” those mufti who work in government institutions.

This is a somewhat more confrontational — dare we say “extremist”? — message. Three and a half years later, and Mr. Gainutdin is now on the attack. Does this mean he has graduated to the status of “feisty”, like his esteemed colleague?

Not entirely. It seems that the two muftis have been singing from the same hymnal all along, and were just playing good cop/bad cop with the gullible media droids. That feisty-versus-reasonable shtick was just for the rubes:

The project of unification of the Russian followers of Muhammad dates back to 2009. Then, Gainutdin said in an interview with Radio Liberty, “the mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin had proposed to merge the three central organizations of the Muslims of Russia.” “After studying the idea — continued the religious leader — I together with the leader of the Caucasus Muslims, Berdiyev, met him. We created a working group to structure this unification. But the government did not approve of our decision. They claimed Talgat Tadzhuddin’s idea was not in line with government policy”.

The new goal is a single, unified Islam throughout the Russian Federation. Chechens, Tatars, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, and all the others, in it together for the good of the Ummah.

Mr. Gainutdin is clear: any clerics who resist his call for Islamic unity are “puppets” of the Islamophobes:

Gainutdin’s charges against the State are also motivated by the recent creation of the fourth muftiyat (Islamic Council), the “Russian Association of Islamic agreement” designed precisely to prevent any process of unification. “The new ‘pocket muftis’, who oppose the growth of Islam are mere puppets” says Gainutdin. “These puppets, like those who work in government, for example, the Islamophobic Grishin (the director of the Presidential Administration in charge of relations with Islamic organizations, ed), will not hesitate to suppress Islam in Russia … which is already taking place,” he added.

This charge of disloyalty aimed at the “pocket muftis” is a serious one. Under sharia law, it is very close to a declaration of takfir against them, which is a form of apostasy, and carries the death sentence. This is serious business.

The last paragraph provides a hint as to what might be causing all this newfound “feistiness”:

Commenting on the recent clashes between Nationalist hooligans and mostly Muslim immigrants from the Caucasus, Gainutdin emphasized the existence of tensions in the capital home to more than two million Muslims. He also pointed out the need to build new mosques in Moscow, where the faithful are forced to pray, for lack of space, “in the streets, on tram lines, and even in the courtyards of churches.” “This humiliation, this discriminatory policy against civil rights continues, before the eyes of Muslims around the world.”

Mr. Gainutdin is reminding the oligarchs who rule Russia that he has two million troops under his command in Russia’s capital city. This is a warning to Vladimir Putin to shorten the chain on his nationalist “hooligans”, or face the consequences. Judging by the roundup of young nationalists over the past week or so — the last I heard, a couple of thousand of them were in preventive detention — Mr. Putin has gotten the message.

It seems that Islam in Russia is not the mild and relatively harmless institution that we all thought it was. Russian Muslims are flexing their muscles and pushing for unity.

For some reason, they seem to think that tomorrow belongs to them.



Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

A Dangerous Lie

“The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals
of Islam.”

In the video below, the prominent atheist activist Sam Harris points out that not all religions are the same. He explains exactly why Islamic fundamentalism is inherently dangerous, especially when compared with the forms of fundamentalism that emerge in other religions:



Hat tip: DF.

The Death-Throes of a Failed Culture

This review of a book written by an Egyptian-German scholar was published last month in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

“The Decline of the Islamic World”
by Wolfgang Günter Lerch

A startling analysis from the pen of a Muslim scholar

November 17, 2010

Where does the hate of the Islamic world for the West come from? Is it from the false policy of the Americans, the unfortunate Iraq war, the fighting in Afghanistan, or the unsolved Palestine problem?

The German political scientist Hamed Abdel-Samad, himself a Muslim and from Egypt, has an answer which will not make most Muslims happy: In Islam, he sees a declining culture which is, so to speak, striking out blindly before it dies.

But how can you say that? Is Islam not the only religion that is growing, and not just because of demographic developments? For instance, does it not attract many in Africa who do not (any longer) practice other religions? Isn’t it Islam that gives an impression of aggressive strength which makes many people afraid?

In his book The Decline of the Islamic World: A Prognosis, the author comes to a completely different conclusion. The title was a conscious choice. When he first came to Germany, Abdel-Samad read Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West. At first, the opinions he had brought from home about the “decadent” West were confirmed in this classic of cultural philosophy. Spengler’s elitist, alabaster-like language was hard to understand, so he put the book aside. When he picked it up again later — intellectually better prepared for it — it became clear to him that Spengler’s analysis applied perfectly to the condition of his own Islamic culture.

Abdel-Samad is following a line of criticism of radical Islam already marked out by the Pakistani dissident Ibn Warraq, now living in the West, and/or Abdelwahhab Meddeb, the Tunisian-French author. All in all, though, he is milder than his predecessors, advocates for an Islam without sharia and jihad.

He sees the Islamic world as an uncreative culture which today does not offer humanity a single innovation. In contrast to the first three centuries of its history, when it enthusiastically absorbed everything foreign and created a society that was intellectually creative, and developed a religious pluralism that accepted individualistic, even hedonistic life styles, Islam is now in a state of cultural regression. Invocation of the golden age of Islam — strengthened by the consciousness of superiority that is inculcated in every Muslim — contrasts with the permanent sense of being offended, and with the collective complexes resulting from being outstripped by the West — the European-American culture. One of the outré chapter titles in his book is “I am Muslim, so I am offended.” According to Abdel-Samad, the radicalization that is called Islam today is not a new phenomenon, but a reappearance of constantly recurring waves of religious-theological rigidity which find fertile ground in an unenlightened, authoritarian image of God and an authoritarian exercise of power in religion and politics. Obedience, not individual thought, is the first duty of the faithful. For men as for women — but far more for women — sacrifice is the entire Islamic culture — petrified in intellectual barrenness.

The miseries of the present are lamented, but blamed on conspiracies of the West. Modernization means buying what the West has created, but rejecting the scientific, secular way of thinking that made it possible. Egyptian schoolbooks evaluated by the author speak volumes about the reflexive search for a scapegoat in the outside world. In justification for this attitude and in complete ignorance of the intellectual processes that have taken place in Europe since the Renaissance is the claim that Muslims are just taking back what they had once given to Western culture. The author does not deny the negative effects of Western (to be sure also Ottoman) imperialism on the Arabs, but notes that they are only too prone to self-exoneration.

Abdel-Samad’s prognosis is grim. If the Islamic world does not reform, it threatens to disintegrate, to do away with itself. After petroleum, no one will be interested in it anymore unless it finds its own way out of its self-inflicted weakness: which is the cult centering on authority and obedience, and rooted ultimately in an untouchable divine law. It extends from the concept of God, through the patriarchal family and the restrictive but mostly hypocritical sexual morality, all the way to the state and its leadership.

Critics will accuse this author of one-sidedness and generalizing. He polarizes, and that is intentional. In fact , he says nothing about the Islam of the Sufis, who shaped this culture over centuries, and little about the rationalistic traditions and reform movements. Then, too, the world of Islamic states, between Morocco, Turkey and Malaysia, should be differentially evaluated in many respects. But a sore point has been touched. It pains many Muslims and will make some indignant. And the West is on friendly terms with countries in which this “Islamic system” is carried out almost to perfection.

Venezuelan Dictatorship for Dummies

Our South American correspondent BG suggested that we republish the following post by Miguel, the founder of the Venezuelan Resistance blog site The Devil’s Excrement.



Hugo Chavez is building up his Dictatorship one step at a time

December 24, 2010 — from The Devil’s Excrement

Venezuelan Dictatorship for Dummies


(Thanks @inti for sending the cartoon and Rodrigo @sin_mordaza for making it)

Slowly Hugo Chavez is building up his Dictatorship. He has been planning ahead all the time.

Lost the Constitutional referendum? He quickly had himself an Enabling Law that allowed him to legislate in 2008 everything but his own reelection by decree, thus voiding what the “people” had voted for. He dealt with his reelection by holding an illegal referendum that would allow him to run in 2012 and forever if necessary, he had the Supreme Court ready to approve it in an another subtle but illegal decision that denies the very essence of our Constitution and democracy.

Then, in the face of the 2007 referendum defeat, he rearranged electoral districts so that he could win the National Assembly even in defeat. It almost worked, except that he did not cheat enough and lost more popularity than he imagined he would in the intervening two years. In the end, he did not manage to obtain the super majority that would have allowed him to have the Assembly approve him any Bill he wanted.

Thus, he made a three step maneuver, one for the present, one for the immediate future and one for a year and a half from now.

For the present, he had the lame duck National Assembly approve a succession of Bills that change the social landscape in a dramatic fashion, from the Banking Bill, to the Science and Technology Bill, to the Telecom Bill, to the Media Bill, to the University Bill, Chavez legislated precisely what the majority that voted against him did not want. It was undemocratic, unfair and much of it illegal.

Then, to take care of the immediate future, he had the same National Assembly approve him an Enabling Bill that it is not only undemocratic, the old Assembly was legislating beyond its own mandate and violating the mandate of the new one, but gave Chavez essentially Dictatorial powers, just when the people voted clearly to limit or stop his powers. It was, and is, a legislative coup d’état that makes Hugo Chavez Dictator for eighteen months and castrates not only the newly voted Deputies, but the voters that asked for Chavez to be stopped. And these voters were a majority in the September Parliamentary election.

And as if this was not enough, that same Assembly approved a Bill for Political Parties that prohibits anyone elected under the slate of a political party, to vote differently than that party in the National Assembly. Talk about totalitarian control. Deputies have no conscience, no independence, no criteria, they have to vote in the manner in which the party and its hierarchy says.

So much for Chavez’ “participatory Democracy”! What a farce!

The question is at this time, why was this approved? What card is Chavez playing long term, that he wants to make sure that not a single one of the Deputies elected under his party and that of the PCV (Communist Party) can turn against him?

Since he does not have a super majority (two thirds of the Assembly), that can’t be it. He does not need them to convoke another Constituent Assembly, he can do that on his own. He does need them to approve another Enabling Bill, but what use is that instrument six months before a Presidential election?

It does insure him a majority in the Assembly, but once again, what use is that? If Chavez is facing a sure defeat in 2012, not having a majority will almost be an irrelevant question. But the eighteen month timing has to have a key ingredient in it. Simply control rebellion within his own ranks?

In the face of the 2012 elections, Chavez has to deal two possible scenarios: That he could win or that he will go down in defeat. If he can win, he will go forward with the election. He will risk it all to obtain even a marginal victory that would give him the appearance of democracy, the same way he has claimed to be a democrat in the last few years. And if all fails, he will just not hand over power and end the travesty once and for all. Dictator for life!

Fidel’s heir indeed!

In the same manner, if the election looks tough, he will call for a Constituent Assembly that will stop the upcoming Presidential election and allow him to rule until the whole process is completed. He will use the redistricting to have a majority in the Constituent Assembly. He will legislate at will and play it by ear to make sure he can be the first President under the new, more controlling and more limiting Constitution.

Either way, Hugo Chavez would have built himself his Dictatorship one step at a time under the watchful eye of all of those fake organizations that have looked the other way as he trampled over the Venezuelan Constitution and its people over the last few years.

All done one step at a time and under the banner of democracy.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/25/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/25/2010Christians all over the world were under attack on Christmas Day, mostly by Muslims. Violent episodes occurred in Nigeria, the Philippines, Iraq, and other countries. And Christians weren’t the only religious groups targeted by Muslim bombs — two houses belonging to Shi’ite Muslims were blown up in Baghdad, presumably by Sunni terrorists.

In other news, in 2010 for the first time ever China has matched the number of space launches by the United States — fifteen. Meanwhile, health authorities in Britain warn that another flu epidemic is about to begin, and will include the notorious swine flu strain.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, DF, JD, Nilk, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

With Thankful Heart and Joyful Mind

No Happy Holidays!Merry Christmas to Gates of Vienna readers!

Make sure not to have any happy holidays. In fact, my advice is to ban the word “holidays” from your thoughts this Christmas.

If someone is offended by the dreaded C-word, hand him a cup of thoroughly enhanced eggnog, and all offense will soon be forgotten.

Something to enhance your Christmas listening enjoyment: Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss — The Wexford Carol.



(Hat tip: Prospero)

Our email is still down, so bear with us if you’ve sent a message in the last 24 hours and received no reply.

For our readers Down Under: Happy Boxing Day! Or do you have Boxing Day in Australia?

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/24/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/24/2010The news feed is sparse tonight for two reasons: (1) Our webmail has been down for five hours or so, and (2) it’s Christmas.

That last post I wrote was not very Christmassy, so I’ll have to try again in the morning. In the meantime: Merry Christmas, everyone!

A chairman of the Ulema Council in Indonesia says that Christmas decorations put up by Indonesian Christians are “excessive and provocative”, and that Christians need to show more restraint to avoid hurting the feelings of Muslims.

In other news, a DMV in the U.S. Virgin Islands has denied a driver’s license to a Muslim woman who refused to remove her veil for a photo. CAIR is on the case.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Gaia, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JP, McR, Nilk, SF, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

The Emergence of Horizontal Command Structures

Taliban fighters


We — the major Western powers, led by the United States — have been officially at war for the last nine years. It is not an all-out war, but there has been plenty of shooting and killing, and we have taken thousands of casualties.

Above all, it has been an expensive war. It’s hard to calculate a cost-benefit ratio for it, given that our objectives are so vague. If we were simply seeking conquest, we could measure success by the amount of territory gained, and say that our victory had cost us $50 million per square mile. Or whatever it actually cost.

But our goals are more nebulous. Besides killing hopped-up terrorists, we:

  • train police, soldiers, and administrators,
  • build schools and sewage treatment plants,
  • repair highways and bridges, and
  • write sharia-based constitutions.

Given this metastasis of mission, a pragmatic analysis becomes that much more difficult to carry out. Our overall aim is to avert new terror attacks, and since we can’t tell how many such attacks our overseas contingency operations have actually forestalled, there’s no way to tell how many billions of dollars each non-occurrence has cost us.

And who is the enemy?

We have officially decided that we are making war on “violent extremism”. Yes, that’s right: we aim to kill or capture “violent extremists”.

We can all agree that they’re violent — they are, after all, trying to kill us — but what, precisely, are they “extreme” about?

Do they enjoy extreme sports?

Do they eat extremely hot food?

Are they perhaps extreme hedonists?

When pressed, our leaders occasionally acknowledge that something called “Islam” is involved with all the extremism and violence. Or maybe not: Attorney General Eric Holder, when grilled during a congressional hearing, adamantly refused to say the I-word. However, if enough “Allahu akhbars” fill the air during a murderous attack, a military or national security official may sometimes grudgingly admit that “evil people who have distorted and hijacked the great and peaceful religion of Islam” may have been responsible.

Never before in history has such a powerful nation amassed such incredible firepower and spent such great treasure for such amorphous and poorly-defined goals. No wonder we’re still at war nine years later — and being blown up by the “allies” on whom we have lavished so much attention, training, and cash.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


A few days ago I discussed the fact that Western cultural and political leaders have cut themselves off from complete and accurate information about their own societies. By imposing a priori ideological constraints on information, they have foreclosed the possibility of gaining a true understanding of what is happening within their own populace in the face of Islamization.

The corollary to this fact is that the most crucial part of the current information war is being fought in a semi-clandestine fashion at the lowest levels via horizontally-linked distributed networks. Necessity requires that our most dedicated information warriors bypass official channels, since those channels deny the very premises on which the info-war is fought.

A mirror of this process is now underway in the shooting war in South Asia. The United States, in its dedicated effort to kill “violent extremists”, has developed successful techniques for taking out commanders at the highest levels of the Taliban leadership.

According to the standard doctrinal template applied to counterinsurgency operations, this should have damaged the enemy and dramatically impaired his effectiveness. Unfortunately, “cutting off the head of the snake” has not reduced the Taliban’s offensive capabilities as much as the model would predict. The disappearance of the vertical lines of command has resulted in the emergence of horizontal command structures. Although these groups lack a centralized command, they are able to mount simultaneous attacks over a wide area.

Before I suggest why this might be happening, take a look at this article from AKI:

Pakistan: ‘Butcher of Swat’ Was Striking Ceasefire Deal When He Was Killed by US Drone

Islamabad, 22 Dec. (AKI) — By Syed Saleem Shahzad — Notorious as the “Butcher of Swat” in the Pakistani military circles for his merciless nature, Al-Qaeda commander Bin Yameen (also known as Ibn-e-Amin) was ready to strike a ceasefire deal with the Pakistani security forces to divert fighting to neighbouring Afghanistan when he was killed last week in an attack by US drone aircraft.

Yameen, the chief of operations in northwest Pakistan’s Swat Valley and the chief of the Tora Bora Brigade, one of the six brigades in Al-Qaeda’s Shadow Army called a meeting of other insurgent commanders but his movement was tracked by American intelligence.

[…]

Bin Yameen’s death has indicated a strange dimension in the South Asian war on terror theatre where American drones have successfully eliminated the big number of the vertical command of Al-Qaeda and its affiliated group leaders, but has developed a new situation in which thousands of freshly trained men have split in to small cliques, after the killings of their commanders. This is the most little known aspect behind the much boasted American drone strike successes in the AfPak war theatre.

A recently trained group of the surviving total 400 Swat militants under Bin Yameen in the Khyber Agency are likely to face the similar fate. They are oblivious of their commanders intention to strike a ceasefire deal with Pakistan, which would have diversified strategies in the region making it difficult to figure out by the international intelligence cartel operating in the region. [emphasis added]

In other words, the same type of battle will continue, but without central control or direction. It will be fought by the same kind of mujahideen, only these lower-level cadres are indifferent to — and possibly unaware of — any attempt to control them from above.

[…]

This trend of the disappearance of the vertical command structure among the militants, deepened in 2010, and the emergence of the little known horizontal commands has become so significant throughout the region it appears that it could create an identical situation of 2007 and 2008 when the Pakistani army conducted military operations in Lal Masjid Islamabad and Swat areas at the simultaneously while scattered groups unleashed opened fronts all across the country. Amid this process, former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and Pakistani security forces suffered a record number of attacks. However, this time militants are gathered all around the border regions and there is a threat that chaos shall spread throughout Pakistan and into Iran and Afghanistan.

[…]

Bin Yameen was a rebel and defiant but still Pakistani security forces communicated with him before he was killed in drone strike. This was one of the several communication channels which security forces opened with the militants allowing for a relatively calm during the month of Muharram. The talks were close to arriving at a ceasefire deal when Yameen was killed.

So Bin Yameen was part of the elaborate symbiotic South Asian ecosystem which includes tribal leaders, independent jihad fighters, the Taliban, and elements of the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency). That fragile web of relationships has now been shredded, and a decentralized spontaneous jihad by lower-level operatives is continuing without any direct chain of command.

And, most importantly, this outcome was previously unknown and unanticipated by our military.

Could it have been known? Could the persistence of venom in the “headless snake” have been predicted?

Maybe; maybe not. But we completely foreclosed any possibility of predicting the enemy’s likely behavior by denying our analysts at every level the tools to examine the ideology and motivations that guide the mujahideen of the Taliban.

When you fight “violent extremism”, you can’t get a handle on what is going on inside the head of an “extremist”. In order to understand what makes him tick, you’d have to be familiar with the Koran, the hadith, the sunna, and the basic tenets of sharia law. You’d need a good grasp of the deadly political ideology known as — gasp! — Islam.

All of these horizontally-organized groups share this ideology. They know exactly how it works. They pass around the same audio and video tapes reminding them of why they fight, and what their deen requires of them. They are awash with weaponry and explosives bought with opium money from North Korea, Iran, and God knows who else. They don’t need orders from headquarters to coordinate and carry out attacks. They are aware of what has to be done, and how to do it.

An understanding of all this is fairly routine within the horizontally organized information networks of the Counterjihad. But it is not clear at the top levels of the U.S. military command, because our commanders have deliberately made themselves opaque to any information that would permit them a deep understanding of the enemy. They cannot examine jihad. They cannot investigate Islam. They cannot even say these words without risking their careers.

This is a failure of mind-boggling proportions. We have spent nine years and a gazillion dollars to fight an enemy whom we cannot possibly comprehend.

The horizontal networks of the Counterjihad could teach our military and political leaders a thing or two about what motivates and energizes the horizontal networks of the Swat Valley. But I doubt we’ll ever get the chance.



Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

Le Manifeste de Paris

Assises Internationales sur l'Islamisation


Last week’s rally in Paris resulted in a manifesto of purpose crafted by the alliance of groups that took part in the event. The document has been published in several languages at Riposte Laïque. The English version is below.



The Appeal of Paris — December 18th, 2010
December 23 2010

The ‘Islamization’ of Europe Conference, which took place in Paris, on the 18th December 2010, is a founding act. For the first time, orators coming from the whole of Europe shared one same platform to denounce the Islamic conquest at work on our continent. At the end of the Conference, the thirty-two parties, organizations, associations, websites and news blogs which supported this initiative agreed, beyond their different political orientations, on a common manifesto:

We rise up against the aggressive proselytism of Islam, against the occupation of public space by muslim prayers, against the financing of mosques with public funds, against the development of the halal food market, against the fate reserved by Islam to women, as opposed to our principle of equality between women and men and, in general, against any advance of Islam on the soil of Europe,

Faced with the ‘Islamization’ of Europe, we reaffirm our unfailing attachment to our multimillenial civilization, its values and traditions,

We invite all the peoples of Europe and the world to preserve the future of our children and grand-children, by rising up against any attempt to replace the laws of their countries — a legacy of their history and a guarantee of social balance — by rules imported from abroad and incompatible with them,

We invite them to defend the European citizens’ freedom of speech, the free debate and free vote on this subject matter,

We invite them to pursue their political or editorial actions to oppose the increasing demands of Islam as they would oppose any kind of totalitarianism,

We invite them to reject any sectarianism or jealous claiming in the fight against ‘Islamization’, for any dissension would be detrimental to the people and the country,

We invite everyone to join an association or party that leads this fight, in accordance with one’s own political sensitivity and to bond with individuals, groups and countries in order to set up strong network. That’s the only way to resist the sexist, homophobic, Islamic totalitarianism, which aims, by using demographic dynamics and intimidation, to suppress a humanist civilization. We reject obscurantism, superstition and blind submission of Man to morbid and disgraceful principles.

In this day and age, we have founded a free association of independent organizations. We are a team. We have a fight. In this day and age, we launch a European movement of resistance, based upon the defence of our civilization faced with a new totalitarianism.



Hat tip: Jano.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/23/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/23/2010The California flood-and-mudslide stories were the big news for me today. I spent a couple of hours browsing news articles and videos, but I forgot to save any of the links. Check Fox or CNN to see some amazing photos and footage.

Parcel bombs exploded at two embassies in Rome today. Anarchists (or possibly Greens) are alleged to be responsible for the exploding packages, which injured two people at the Swiss and Chilean embassies.

In other news, the Chinese have taken exception to criticism by the Vatican of the state-sponsored Chinese Catholic Church, calling such interference “imprudent” and “dangerous”. At the same time China says that it is willing to protect its investment in Europe by bailing out bankrupt EU nations if the current crisis causes more failures.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, DF, Esther, Insubria, JD, LL, McR, Salome, Steen, TV, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

In Demand Everywhere

ESW Copenhagen Nov. 2010


Someome at Politically Incorrect has noticed the extensive media coverage that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has garnered over the last few weeks, culminating in the article published yesterday in Wienerin.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this brief piece from PI:

The New Figurehead of Islam Critics

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff really ought to be downright grateful to Veronika Dolna, the editor of the leftist Viennese magazine NEWS. Since Dolna covertly attended one of the 39-year old’s seminars in November, 2009, and subsequently entered a complaint of “hate crime” against the daughter of a former diplomat, for her everything has been on an upward trend. Berlin, Washington, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Paris — since then, she has been in demand everywhere as a speaker. And to cap it all off, now a multi-page report on the self-declared feminist in the Austrian women’s magazine, WIENERIN. May it continue like this in 2011!

From our point of view, of course, Elisabeth’s heightened media profile has been a real boost for the cause. It has catapulted a well-informed critic of sharia into a prominent position as a spokeswoman for the movement, where she can utilize her eloquence in two languages to bring our message to a wider audience.

Not quite the result that NEWS expected. Now Veronika Dolna gets to learn the meaning of the phrase “unintended consequences”. Can anybody tell us what that is in German?



Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009   Dec   5   Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
        11   Heckling the Counterjihad
        14   Whose Law?
        17   Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010   Mar   11   A Mother and an Activist
        20   An Austrian “Hate School”
        22   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
        29   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
    Sep   9   “Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
        16   “Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
        17   The Truth Does Not Matter
    Oct   11   Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
        16   Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
        20   A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
        21   BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
        22   Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
        23   Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
        24   Raising Our Voices
        25   Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
        27   Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
        27   A Bit More Media Attention?
        28   We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
        30   Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
        31   Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
    Nov   2   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
        6   Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
        8   ESW in the WSJ
        10   “The Left is Very Much the New Far Right”
        11   Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial
        17   Elisabeth’s Voice: An Update
        15   The New English Review Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
        20   Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
        20   The ESW Defense File
        23   The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1
        27   The Time That is Given Us
        28   ESW at Trykkefrihedsselskabet
    Dec   5   An Oasis of Civilization in a Desert of Barbarism
        22   An Unusual Hobby

Human Rights Everywhere!

We posted earlier this month about the Australian Human Rights Commission and its fight against “cyber-racism” — that is, content posted on the internet that offends members of minority groups.

As a follow-up, we then reported on an enquiry made by our New Zealand correspondent Aucklander with the Australian Human Rights Commission concerning its policies on cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia.

In the intervening weeks since then, Aucklander has exchanged a series of emails with human rights officers in Sydney. Concerning his encounter with Australian bureaucracy, Aucklander has this to say:

I think I have a usable answer at last from the Australian HRC, via two replies. My basic concern was whether the rules will only apply to real racism or also to criticism of religion. They seem to have answered that ‘no, it’s still ok to criticise religion’ — or at least that’s how I read it. But I understand your point about the UN moving towards making blasphemy illegal worldwide. A definite threat to be noted.

You’ll see that they didn’t even try to answer my last question:

  5.   I realise that this is a fairly new area for the HRC, and also that actual threats against any people should not be legal. So how does the HRC view an incitement to hit disobedient wives, as contained in one religious doctrine? Why is that legal?

No response, so it seems that inciting domestic violence in a religious text is OK with the Australian HRC. Perhaps one of the Aussie GoV members could pursue this further. I might take it up here in New Zealand.

To recap the original post, this is the initial email Aucklander sent to the Australian Human Rights Commission:

From: X
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 2:02 PM
To: New Complaints
Subject: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia

Dear HR Australia

I am interested in how you deal with cyber-sexism. Since you are actively against cyber-racism, why are you not also be dealing with cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia? As a feminist and supporter of homosexual friends I am deeply offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals.

While I am opposed to racism (in fact there is absolutely no scientific proof that different ‘races’ exist), there has been a tendency lately to claim that opposition to certain religious doctrines is ‘racist’. It is clearly not, as religion is a doctrine and not a genetic trait.

Please give me your definition of ‘race’ and of ‘racism’, and assure me that religious doctrines are absolutely not considered racial characteristics, so that if someone opposes a religious doctrine or practice online, they will not be committing ‘race crimes’ in your books.

If you are wondering why I am asking this question from New Zealand: I have gay friends in Australia and am concerned that under your laws, if they dared to comment online on anti-gay religious doctrines, they could be deemed offensive and ‘racist’! The same could apply to women opposing sexist religious doctrines publically online.

As a secularist, I am also interested to know how you ensure that enforcing people’s human rights regarding religion does not interfere with others’ rights to secularism and atheism? If it is someone’s right to state that non-believers are somehow inferior (easily found in many religious texts and frequently stated publically, online, by believers), would an atheist have the same right to call a believer inferior? If not, why not?

Many Regards,

X
Auckland, NZ

He received this response:

From: Complaints Info
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:18 PM
To: X
Subject: RE: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear X,

I refer to your email enquiry sent on 3 December 2010, which raises concerns about “cyber-sexism”, “cyber-homophobia” and religious doctrines.

I note that you say that you are offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals. You raise various questions relating to the racial discrimination and the relationship between racial discrimination and religious doctrines. Please be aware that in terms of your questions I am only able to advise you on our jurisdiction.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has a specific jurisdiction when it comes to the issues it can deal with. Its role is to consider claims of discrimination on the basis of a person’s race, sex, age or disability within specific areas of public life. The Commission can also consider claims of human rights breaches relating to one of the international covenants scheduled to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, which can only be made against the Australian government. We can also look at claims of alleged discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion, sexual preference, criminal record, political opinion, social origin or trade union activity in employment.

Religious discrimination and Sexual preference discrimination

Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRCA) discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference and religious beliefs are only covered in the area of employment. Further information about freedom of religion or belief can be found on our website at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/religion/index.html.

The Commission has put out some publications that may be relevant to your concerns. You can access this information at the following link:

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/gay_lesbian/index.html

Racial discrimination and Racial Hatred

Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA), the Commission’s Complaint Handling Section can consider claims of discrimination and of racially offensive behaviour (racial hatred), which occurs in “public” and is based on the race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin of a person.

The following links have further information which should provide the information you requested in relation to racial discrimination and the racial hatred provisions:

humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/guide_to_rda/index.html
www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/racial_hatred_act/index.html
www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/publications/cyberracism_factsheet.html

State and Territory Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunity Agencies

Under some of the State and Territory Anti-discrimination laws, the coverage in relation to religious beliefs and sexual preference discrimination may be broader in terms of what the Commission can deal with. Please see the following links for more information on the relevant State or Territory’s laws and contact details.

If you have further questions about the Commission’s laws please contact me via the Complaint Information Line, on 1300 656 419.

Regards,
Penny De Paoli
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Information Service
Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: everyone, everywhere, everyday

Aucklander’s follow-up email:

From: X
Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 4:39 PM
To: Complaints Info
Subject: Re: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia – Details please

Dear Penny

May I please have more clarity on the following:

1.   Is Christianity considered a ‘race’? Is Islam considered a ‘race’? Your webpage implies that HRC at least considers Islam a ‘race’ by placing a link to the ‘Muslim women’s art project’ on the ‘racial discrimination’ page. I make an essential distinction between unchosen genetic characteristics (e.g. skin colour) and religious ideology, which is a matter of choice. Does the HRC not make that distinction? If some religious groups are considered ‘races’ by HRC, please define which religious groups are.
 
2.   Your web-page states HRC can take action ‘if you are offended or insulted because of your race by a website, or material on a website’. If you do consider some religious groups ‘races’, some religious zealots would be ‘offended or insulted’ simply by someone saying that god doesn’t exist.

For example, if an Australian complains on a website about what they consider sexism or homophobia in a religious ideology, could he or she face charges of cyber-racism? I think the public deserve to be informed if there is such a threat to critics of religious ideology.
 

3.   If religious groups are considered ‘races’ but atheists are not, please explain why. Religious texts online are full of discrimination against atheists, so if religious groups are ‘races’, then atheists deserve the same protection against ‘cyber-racism’.
 
4.   I realise that this is a fairly new area for the HRC, and also that actual threats against any people should not be legal. So how does the HRC view an incitement to hit disobedient wives, as contained in one religious doctrine? Why is that legal?

Regards, X

And the final reply from the Australian Human Rights Commission:

From: Complaints Info
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 5:13 PM
To: X
Subject: RE: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia – Details please [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear X

I refer to your further email to the Commission, containing a number of questions, to which I will respond in turn.

1.   The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the RDA) covers race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, and in some circumstances, immigrant status. Christianity and Islam are religions, and therefore would not fall within one of these grounds. Courts have found that Judaism and Sikhism falls within the term ‘ethnic origin’.
 
2.   The RDA states “It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

If a person feels that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their race or ethnic origin in an area of public life, it is open for them to lodge a claim with the Commission.
 

3.   It does not appear that Atheism is a “race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin”, so therefore, claims of discrimination on the basis that a person is an atheist may not be considered under the RDA. It is arguable that ‘atheism’ could be argued to be a belief, which could bring into play the human rights jurisdiction. Please note that the Commission can only consider such claims against the Commonwealth government.

More information about this can be found on our website, particularly our Federal Discrimination Law publication. Our website is www.humanrights.gov.au.

Should you have any further queries, please advise by return email or call our Complaint Information Line on 1300 656 419.

Regards,
Rebecca Gieng
A/g Supervisor
Complaint Information Service
Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: everyone, everywhere, everyday