Category Archives: Islam

Arab Universalism?

Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Terrorism

The Boston Globe assures readers that “in the Arab world, Zarqawi tactics bred disgust.”

“If you are fighting foreigners, how come you kill 5,000 [Iraqi goons have killed multitudes more than that] or other innocent civilians and only a few Americans?” asks Bashar al-Akhras, whose “father was killed in the November 2005 suicide bombings of three Amman hotels, claimed by Zarqawi as retribution for Jordan’s support of US policy in the region.”

“His extended family,” Akhras relates, “consists of hard-working Palestinians who live across the Arab world and are bystanders in the war between Al Qaeda and the United States.”

So Akhras disagrees with the Mayor of London’s favorite “progressive” theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi draws a sharp “moral distinction” between suicide bombings against ordinary Londoners (not good) and those against ordinary Israelis (perfectly good). He is not alone among Muslim ulama (scholars).

I’m eager to hear this lad extend his indignation and disgust to the slaughter by terrorists of all civilians—Jordanian, Iraqi, American, and Israeli.

It would be good too if the press avoided sweeping, unsubstantiated and unqualified generalizations.

Updated: The Death of A Devil (No, Michael Berg is Alive & Well)

Islam, Israel, Terrorism, War

Al Zarqawi was scum. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, another bottom feeder, sent him a letter, asking that he reconsider the wisdom of culling so many Iraqi Shia.
Al-Zawahiri had broached the topic by telling his murderous mate that, although it is necessary to bring “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement,” killing so many of them is probably not conducive to recruitment. Yes, the Shia are a handful, Zawahiri conceded. They aren’t kosher theologically, have cooperated with the Americans against Saddam and the Taliban, and, all together, have a history of “connivance with the Crusaders.”
If it were possible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia, Zawahiri’d be game, but it wasn’t.
So, Zawahiri is no fan of the Shia. But logistics being what they are, he thinks they ought to be forgiven—not slaughtered for—their “ignorance.”
Al Zarqawi, as we know, disagreed. And now he’s dead. I say good riddance. Many jihadists are grieving. So is Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas al-Zarqawi beheaded.
Berg said the following: “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that… I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace [toward Zarqawi].”

In some ways Berg is more evil than was Zarqawi: The latter had his own idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong and he’d, at least, fight for those he considered his clan. The former has no moral preferences, and no loyalties, not even to his poor son.

**
Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz offers an interesting observation:

“As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as ‘targeted assassination’ or ‘targeted killings.’ This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews,” writes Alan Dershowitz on the Huffington Post.

“When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: ‘targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.’ The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.

Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community?”

The rest of the post is here.

Updated: The Death of A Devil (No, Michael Berg is Alive & Well)

Islam, Israel, Terrorism, War

Al Zarqawi was scum. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, another bottom feeder, sent him a letter, asking that he reconsider the wisdom of culling so many Iraqi Shia.
Al-Zawahiri had broached the topic by telling his murderous mate that, although it is necessary to bring “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement,” killing so many of them is probably not conducive to recruitment. Yes, the Shia are a handful, Zawahiri conceded. They aren’t kosher theologically, have cooperated with the Americans against Saddam and the Taliban, and, all together, have a history of “connivance with the Crusaders.”
If it were possible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia, Zawahiri’d be game, but it wasn’t.
So, Zawahiri is no fan of the Shia. But logistics being what they are, he thinks they ought to be forgiven—not slaughtered for—their “ignorance.”
Al Zarqawi, as we know, disagreed. And now he’s dead. I say good riddance. Many jihadists are grieving. So is Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas al-Zarqawi beheaded.
Berg said the following: “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that… I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace [toward Zarqawi].”

In some ways Berg is more evil than was Zarqawi: The latter had his own idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong and he’d, at least, fight for those he considered his clan. The former has no moral preferences, and no loyalties, not even to his poor son.

**
Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz offers an interesting observation:

“As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as ‘targeted assassination’ or ‘targeted killings.’ This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews,” writes Alan Dershowitz on the Huffington Post.

“When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: ‘targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.’ The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.

Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community?”

The rest of the post is here.

Default Diplomacy

America, Iran, Iraq, Islam, WMD

Diplomacy, not bribery à la Bush, is a good thing, for sure, all the more so if it averts violent confrontation. The goal with Iran ought to be to get IAEA inspectors in there, and have them criss-cross the place—and keep doing so—as they did Iraq before Bush banished them (to wage war, in violation of international and every other law, including natural). Treat Iran’s nuclear facilities like CSI would a crime scene.

But let’s be perfectly clear on who is offering whom a way out. The package of incentives (and disincentives) made to Iran, a pivotal member of Bush’s “axis of evil,” contradicts the Bush Doctrine in every possible way, not least in ignoring the poisonous drip-drip of dissident groups urging action (and that’s a good thing: think Mr. liar-liar-pants-on-fire Chalabi).

By allowing them to front the Iran “deal,” the Europeans have lifted Bush and Rice from the blood-soaked Iraqi soil, dusted them off, and let them save what they lost in “Mess-opotamia”: face.

A way out for Iran? More like a way back in for America.