Month: August 2008

Islam, anti-semitism and France


We all remember the caricature of the last Messenger which appeared in European newspapers, some times more than once, as an act of solidarity with the Danish publishers where the cartoon originated. The worldwide reaction of Muslims ran the entire gamut of emotions from anger to demands that the offending cartoon be retracted to calls for the resignation of the cartoonist and/or the editor of the newspaper. European publishers insisted on their rights to a free press saying they would not be intimidated by any reaction no matter how violent or incendiary. Other publications printed the offending cartoon as an act of solidarity with the Danish publications. Sometime later, newspapers again published the cartoon, in my opinion, as an act of provocation hoping to get a reaction from Muslims which would be prominently displayed across the front page of newspapers around the world, but the basic premise of freedom of the press to publish a cartoon even if billions of people found it offensive was always the reason given for the cartoon’s publication. Editors, reporters, et.al all cited the right to a free press to publish unfettered any and everything deemed by them relevant to find its way on the printed page, no matter how many people it upset, no matter which religion was attacked.

Advance a short time later to 2008 and we find this headline.

Satirist sparks uproar with Sarkozy son Jewish jibe

and this one.

Cartoonist gets death threats over Sarkozy ‘Jew” quip

From the former headline:

A French newspaper satirist has sparked a feverish tug-of-war over free speech and anti-Semitism with a biting column on the engagement of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish heiress.

Published on July 2 in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the piece cost the 79-year-old Sine, a veteran cartoonist and anarchist writer whose real name is Maurice Sinet, his job after he refused to apologise.

Since then it has unleashed a torrent of op-ed articles, blog entries, petitions and counter-petitions as French writers, politicians and armchair commentators line up to vilify or defend him.

A lifelong provocateur whose previous targets have included Muslim fundamentalists and gays, Sine finally went to the police after a website published a call for him to be murdered, his lawyer said on Sunday.

Explaining what the uproar is all about, the second link writes.

L’affaire Siné, as it is known, began a month ago when the cartoonist wrote a column in Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly, about the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 21, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain.

Sinet repeated an unfounded rumour that the son of the President planned to become Jewish and added: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.”

The remark caused fury amid claims that it alluded to age-old prejudices about Jews and money.

With the press speculating that Mr Sarkozy could sue Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, its editor, asked Sinet to apologise.

“I’d rather cut my balls off,” he replied.

He was fired and Mr Val said that his comments “could be interpreted as making a link between the conversion to Judaism and social success and that was neither acceptable nor defendable in court”.

What I find amazing is the swiftness with which some people found the material offensive and retribution for the offense demanded, and the call by people who said the press had the right to publish material offensive to Muslims supporting the firing of someone who made at best a passing remark about Jewishness. With regards to French Jews, or Judaism, the press does not have the right to offend and should be concerned with French-Jewish reaction, it’s just that someone forgot to tell Monsieur Sinet that. It’s interesting how the reaction to Sinet’s cartoon follows closely the reaction Muslims had to offending material in the past, including the call by some in the Jewish community for Monsieur Sinet’s death! Shades of Salman Rushdie perhaps?

Could this be?


First we hear of the hostility Iranians have towards the American way of life.  You’ve heard the chorus, ‘they hate us because of our freedom’ that always punctuates any discussion of east and west.  Hyperbole always seems to characterize such discussions and during times of international tensions, such exaggerations can have deadly consequences.  Here is a story which portrays a different picture than the one we’ve been seeing about Iran, and I doubt you will see it in many venues besides this one. It addresses two stereotypes that are common place about the Muslim world.

Two Christian pastors have returned to Martinsville after a year and a half of study in Iran, where they set out to learn and build trust and love between the people of both nations.

Husband and wife David Wolfe and Linda Kusse-Wolfe, both Quaker ministers, studied Islam and Iranian culture at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute in Qom, Iran, from January 2007 to May 2008. There, they found a “very hospitable, very gracious people” and made lasting friendships, Kusse-Wolfe said. “It was a really privileged look at a society many Americans don’t get to see,” she said.

*snip*

Before the trip, “we had people ask us, ‘Aren’t you scared to go over there?’” Kusse-Wolfe said. “I’m convinced the (Iranian) people would’ve laid down their lives for us.”

“We never heard an unkind word,” Wolfe said. The city of Qom has a “significant number” of English-speaking people, Kusse-Wolfe said, especially among university students. “They would almost immediately invite us home to meet their parents and share a meal,” she said. “There’s a saying in Iran that guests are friends of God. They really understand that.” Iran is “very diverse,” with communities of Christians, Jewish people and Zoroastrians, Wolfe said.

Some people were surprised to find out that the couple — and other Americans — believe in God, Kusse-Wolfe said. But by living their faith, they proved the stereotypes wrong.

“As we practiced our faith and shared with them, that opened a lot of doors. It meant we had integrity,” she said. Muslims consider Jesus an important prophet, and the people they encountered showed a great respect for the couple’s faith, she added. Muslims consider Christians and Jews to be “people of the book,” Wolfe said. “They believe that we all worship the God of Abraham, and they are all protected and have a place in Iran.” “Islam is a great monotheistic faith, very moral and ethical, with a deep sense of community and respect,” Kusse-Wolfe said. “What impressed me was their deep practice of their faith in God.” Explaining Christian beliefs to their Muslim hosts was educational for the couple, as well. “We’ve learned from having to explain what we believe,” Wolfe said. Kusse-Wolfe added, “My personal faith is certainly deeper, more joyful, more trusting now.” Before the trip, Wolfe was the chaplain at Memorial Hospital in Martinsville, and Kusse-Wolfe ministered at First United Methodist Church. “We’re significantly different people from having done this,” Wolfe said. “So what does this mean for our ministry? We don’t know yet.” They do know, however, that encouraging peace and understanding begins at home. “We could start by loving our Muslim brothers and sisters in our own towns. That would be a huge step forward for peace and friendship,” Kusse-Wolfe said. “Even if we disagree, we simply have to advocate for each other to live in peace.”

It’s too bad that most Americans don’t have the moral courage of the Wolfes.

What is Israel up to?


I first saw speculation about Israel possibly conducting a false flag operation and blaming Iran in order to get the US to retaliate, and thought nothing of it. However, I ran across an interview a former CIA official who was saying the same thing and decided the story might have legs. Here is the radio interview with Philip Giraldi.

Apparently a retired ex CIA officer is not the only one thinking this.

The top American military officer has warned Israel against orchestrating ‘USS Liberty Part II’ to provoke a US-led war against Iran.

The fact that American officials have to issue these types of warnings to an “ally” is frightening, and speaks volumes of the relationship between the two countries.

A dire prediction


“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times.

Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.

Even at today’s price, as you know, 14 airlines have gone out of business while others are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and most have curtailed service and laid off personnel. At double or triple today’s price, none could fly unless nationalized. A whole range of other industries would be quickly drawn into the quicksand. Ironically, war would push America into a form of socialist economy.”

So says William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy, describing what a post war with Iran America would look like, and it doesn’t look good.  My question is why would American politicians risk this catastrophic landscape knowing that Iran poses no threat to America, or for that matter America’s ally Israel, and that the same deception techniques used to enlist America in an Iraqi war are being used against Iran.

Unanswered questions


You’ve probably heard by now of the scientist who committed suicide after he learned he would be indicted for the anthrax terror attacks of 2001-2002, following 911.  That suicide (?) rather conveniently ties up some loose ends in an investigation of the terror attacks that until recently had gone nowhere, but which played a major role in the US going to war in Iraq.  You remember the headlines, don’t you? Media spoke of how the appearance of anthrax laced letters in the US postal system was Saddam Hussein’s way of waging biological warfare against America that would continue to even more disastrous levels unless we invaded his country right away.  Those attacks were just one among many Saddam could launch against our country that could conclude with a giant mushroom shaped cloud hovering over one of the major cities of America.

However that scenario over time became diminished, especially after it was learned that the one who initiated those mailings most likely was an American scientist who worked in a biological weapons grade laboratory on a military base.  False clues were strewn all along the landscape, some pointing to an Arab American employee of the lab and more prominently to a Dr. Stephen Hatfill. The Arab American Dr. Ayaad Assaad’s case is an example of the racism Arabs/Muslims face in 21st century America.  A well orchestrated effort was made to implicate Assaad in the anthrax attacks starting with an anonymous letter mailed to the FBI before the first victim became sick of exposure to anthrax, which suggested he might be hatching such a plot. He was quickly cleared of any involvement and the case languished for almost seven  years, despite highs and lows which featured another innocent man being accused and subsequently cleared of involvement. Several letters written magnifying an Islamic connection and spewing the usual anti-Israeli/American diatribes were prominently displayed for all to see the connection with terror and Islam.  Turns out all that was a lie as has been most everything else that has to deal with Islam in the West post 911.  But this is seven years later and with tremendous hindsight it’s brutally apparent these anthrax letters were used to scare an already frightened American public towards a policy it might not have considered otherwise.   Fellow blogger Xymphora writes about this latest development with some background I suggest you link to and read. Even with Ivins’ death, there are still unanswered questions like the ones posed by Xymphora, and my own, such as if there was a financial payoff for Ivins to gain through the development of a vaccine for anthrax why wasn’t that discovered sooner?  Why did he feel the need to make such a blatant connection with terror and Islam and Muslims?  What was his mental state back in 2001 as  well as his financial one?  Most likely the authorities will be quick to close the case now there appears so much supporting evidence to say Ivins was responsible.  Let’s hope they take their time and tie up all the other loose ends before doing so.

Think you’re not expendable?


Think again! The war party desperately wants to fight Iran and they’ll use any excuse to do so, no matter how flimsy, transparent, or false it may be. They were able to convince an unquestioning public to go to war in Iraq and tie that war to the black ops/psyops 911 and they’re cooking up equally sinister things for their war against Iran. Take a listen to some of the things they’ve considered already:

What strikes me about all this is this was a meeting held by some of the top American officials in government and one of them, even for just a moment, wanted to consider sacrificing Americans at the hands of other Americans in order to go to war against Iran. What if we alter the equation just a bit and sacrifice Americans at the hands of non-Americans, in other words, use Americans to provoke a response from a hostile enemy, knowing those Americans will be killed. This type of idea was thought of before during the Kennedy Administration in its war against Cuba and was called, Operation Northwoods and one could draw the conclusion, has extended to today and 911. An Administration intent on going to war will do anything, even sacrifice its own citizens, to realize that goal, even when a war is not necessary, nor in the best interests of the country. People who are so quick to give in to such urges need to be removed from office, never to return again.

America’s Brown Shirts


Paul Craig Roberts was on to something when he wrote in 2004 of America’s rise to fascism through right wing talk radio. The airwaves are filled with abuse against those who oppose the government of G.W.Bush and his policies.

Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.

Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU.

Talk radio’s “news stories” do not need to be true. Their importance lies in inflaming resentments and confirming that America’s implacable enemies are working resolutely to destroy us.

Using tactics that resemble the Nazi Brown shirt movement’s slogan, “All opposition must be stamped into the ground”, talk radio has made dissent unpatriotic and akin to treason, the punishment of which is death. Hosts have attacked people who oppose the wars on terror, and they have attacked liberals, multiculturalism, immigration, and just about everything else not in lockstep with current right wing philosophy and just about anyone else not a card carrying member of the Republican Party. Those politicians that right wing radio supports lend their voices occasionally to these efforts, calling the shows to be tossed soft ball questions by hosts or make unchallenged policy announcements to an eager fan base which finds its voice in the voice of the Right. Rallying the people to the cause of talk radio’s right wing hosts, talk show hosts are even applauded by those very politicians the brown shirts support. Witness this dialog between the sitting president Bush and Rush Limbaugh on the occasion of LImbaugh’s 20 year anniversary on the air.

THE PRESIDENT: President George W. Bush calling to congratulate you on 20 years of important and excellent broadcasting.

RUSH: Well, thank you, sir. You’ve stunned me! (laughing) I’m shocked. But thank you so much.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s hard to do.

RUSH: (laughing) I know, it is.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m here with a room full of admirers. There are two others that would like to speak to you and congratulate you, people who consider you …

… friends and really appreciate the contribution you’ve made.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

The divisive nature of talk radio has its own hazards for the American society in general. The latest victims of the polarization right wing radio fascism brings to American society were killed while worshipping on a Sunday morning.

Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by CNN affiliate WBIR.

“He felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets,” the affidavit said. “Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement … he would then target those that had voted them into office.”

Talk radio pundits will not accept responsibility for the actions of their brown shirts; America, unlike Nazi Germany is an extremely litigious society, but the responsibility is theirs. On any given day, a listener can hear between three to nine hours of talk delivered to bolster an Administration intent on waging wars throughout the globe, usurping the rights of citizens in order to fight those wars and withholding for itself the right to interpret, frame and enforce laws. Vigilantism at the top makes it much easier for the Jim Adkissons of the world to carry it out against fellow citizens.