The Myth of Moderate Islam

By Patrick Sookhdeo
July 30, 2005

The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family’s ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased’s journey to paradise, though in Tanweer’s case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ‘a hero of Islam’.

Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of Islam. Since 7/7 many have made statements to attempt to explain what seems to them a contradiction in terms. Since the violence cannot be denied, their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that ‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ His boss, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.

But surely we should give enough respect to those who voluntarily lay down their lives to accept what they themselves say about their motives. If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?

On 8 July the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled ‘Islam, Faith and Power’. The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) should be established throughout the world. All is supported with quotations from the Koran. It concludes with a veiled threat to Britain. The bombings the previous day were a perfect illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is widely read and distributed across the UK.

By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence, for the Koran is like a pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to justify offensive jihad.

You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the classic one being Q8:59-60, which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to fight non-Muslims, ‘Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies’ (A. Yusuf Ali’s translation). Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik’s book The Quranic Concept of War is widely used by the military of various Muslim countries. Malik explains Koranic teaching on strategy: ‘In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.’

If you permit yourself a little judicious cutting, the range of choice in Koranic teaching is even wider. A verse one often hears quoted as part of the ‘Islam is peace’ litany allegedly runs along the lines: ‘If you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind.’ But the full and unexpurgated version of Q5:32 states: ‘If anyone slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people.’ The very next verse lists a selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and create ‘mischief’ (or in some English translations ‘corruption’) in the land, punishments which include execution, crucifixion or amputation. What kind of ‘mischief in the land’ could merit such a reaction? Could it be interpreted as secularism, democracy and other non-Islamic values in a land? Could the ‘murder’ be the killing of Muslims in Iraq? Just as importantly, do the Muslims who keep quoting this verse realise what a deception they are imposing on their listeners?

It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).

So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war’. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.’ A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.

In the words of Mundir Badr Haloum, a liberal Muslim who lectures at a Syrian university, ‘Ignominious terrorism exists, and one cannot but acknowledge its being Islamic.’ While many individual Muslims choose to live their personal lives only by the (now abrogated) peaceable verses of the Koran, it is vain to deny the pro-war and pro-terrorism doctrines within their religion.

Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the fringes of Muslim society in Britain, nor following an eccentric and extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather that they came from the very core of the Muslim community and were motivated by a mainstream interpretation of Islam?

Muslims who migrated to the UK came initially for economic reasons, seeking employment. But over the last 50 years their communities have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities, mimicking the communalism of the British Raj. As a Pakistani friend of mine who lives in London said recently, ‘The British gave us all we ever asked for; why should we complain?’ British Muslims now have Sharia in areas of finance and mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and much more. This process has been assisted by the British government through its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed some Muslims to consolidate and create a parallel society in the UK.

The Muslim community now inhabits principally the urban centres of England as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms a spine running down the centre of England from Bradford to London, with ribs extending east and west. It is said that within 10 to 15 years most British cities in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations, and will be under local Islamic political control, with the Muslim community living under Sharia.

What happens after this stage depends on which of the two main religious traditions among Pakistani-background British Muslims gains the ascendancy. The Barelwi majority believe in a slow evolution, gradually consolidating their Muslim societies, and finally achieving an Islamic state. The Deobandi minority argue for a quicker process using politics and violence to achieve the same result. Ultimately, both believe in the goal of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own affairs and, as the finishing touch, everyone else’s affairs as well. Islamism is now the dominant voice in contemporary Islam, and has become the seedbed of the radical movements. It is this that Sir Ian Blair has not grasped. For some time now the British government has been quoting a figure of 1.6 million for the Muslim population. Muslims themselves claim around 3 million, and this is likely to be far nearer to the truth. The growth of the Muslim community comes from their high birth-rate, primary immigration, and asylum-seekers both official and unofficial. There are also conversions to Islam.

The violence which is endemic in Muslim societies such as Pakistan is increasingly present in Britain’s Muslim community. Already we have violence by Pakistani Muslims against Kurdish Muslims, by Muslims against non-Muslims living among them (Caribbean people in the West Midlands, for example), a rapid growth in honour killings, and now suicide bombings. It is worth noting that many conflicts around the world are not internal to the Muslim community but external, as Muslims seek to gain territorial control, for example, in south Thailand, the southern Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine. Is it possible that a conflict of this nature could occur in Britain?

Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this.

Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ‘exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ‘double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.

The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:

1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
2. Separation of religion and state.
3. Democracy as the best form of government.
4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.
5. Equality for women.
6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.

This tempting vision of an Islam reformed along such lines is unlikely to be achieved except by a long and painful process of small steps. What might these be and how can we make a start? One step would be, as urged by the Prince of Wales, that every Muslim should ‘condemn these atrocities [the London bombings] and root out those among them who preach and practise such hatred and bitterness’. Universal condemnation of suicide bombers instead of acclamation as heroes would indeed be an excellent start.

Mansoor Ijaz has suggested a practical three-point action plan:

1. Forbid radical hate-filled preaching in British mosques. Deport imams who fail to comply.
2. Scrutinise British Islamic charities to identify those that fund terrorism. Prevent them receiving more than 10 per cent of their income from overseas.
3. Form community-watch groups comprising Muslim citizens to contribute useful information on fanatical Muslims to the authorities.

To this could be added Muslim acceptance of a secular society as the basis for their religious existence, an oath of allegiance to the Crown which would override their allegiance to their co-religionists overseas, and deliberate steps to move out of their ghetto-style existence both physically and psychologically.

For the government, the time has come to accept Trevor Phillips’s statement that multiculturalism is dead. We need to rediscover and affirm a common British identity. This would impinge heavily on the future development of faith schools, which should now be stopped.

Given the fate of some earlier would-be reformers, perhaps King Abdullah of Jordan or a leader of his stature might have the best chance of initiating a process of modernist reform. The day before the bombings he was presiding over a conference of senior scholars from eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and, amazingly, they issued a statement endorsing fatwas forbidding any Muslim from those eight schools to be declared an apostate. So reform is possible. The only problem with this particular action is that it may have protected Muslim leaders from being killed by dissident Muslims, but it negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued in March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an apostate. Could not the King re-convene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also? This would extend the self-preservation of the Muslim community to the whole non-Muslim world.

Such reform — the changing of certain fairly central theological principles — will not be easy to achieve. It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that it can co-exist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century.

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity (ISIC).

The Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity is an independent non-profit academic institute, on the cutting edge of the study of Islam, Christianity and Muslim-Christian relations. In the contemporary context of increasing tensions between Islam and the West, it aims to present an objective, robust and rigorous understanding of the relevant issues and their implications for Islamic and western societies.

Founded in 1989, ISIC has provided research and publications on various aspects of Islam including its sources, history, Islamic law, Muslim minorities in the West, Muslim-Christian relations and non-Muslims in Muslim-majority societies.

ISIC staff include academics from the Middle East and Asia who are dedicated to helping the public understanding of the intricate world of Muslim-Christian relations and the current resurgence of Islam.

ISIC is committed to human rights, religious freedom, equality and respect for all and stands against all forms of discrimination and incitement to hatred.

Read more...

And now for something completely different...

Read more...

Dance, Monkeys, Dance!

"No one is out to get you. It's just that... people are monkeys."
-Stan Brakhage

Read more...

Abbas says unity effort 'back to zero'

By Karin Laub, Sarah El Deeb and Maggie Michael
September 23, 2006

Accusing the Islamic militant group Hamas of backtracking, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned on Saturday that his efforts to set up a national unity government that is acceptable to the West are "back to zero."

Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said Friday he would not lead a coalition that recognizes Israel, dealing a blow Abbas' attempts to form a power-sharing government between his ousted Fatah group and Hamas.

On Saturday, Hamas officials suggested that Abbas had oversold the emerging coalition to the international community, portraying it as more conciliatory toward Israel than it was meant to be. Despite Abbas' pessimism, Hamas insisted a deal could still be struck.

Abbas is to meet with Hamas leaders in Gaza on Monday.

The latest setback comes at a time of growing tensions between Hamas and Fatah, particularly in the Gaza Strip, where some Fatah members have accused Hamas of involvement in the assassination of a Fatah-allied security chief last week. If the rival factions fail to reach agreement, more violent confrontations appear inevitable.

Abbas, who was elected separately, has few other options. As president, he could dissolve the Hamas government, but a new government would also require - and likely be denied - approval by the Hamas-controlled parliament. Palestinians would likely balk at early elections, having gone to the polls just nine months ago, and Fatah has no it would win this time.

Earlier this month, Hamas agreed in principle to share power with Fatah, hoping a broader coalition would end the crippling international boycott of the Palestinian Authority. The two sides agreed that the new government would strive to set up a Palestinian state alongside Israel, implying recognition of the Jewish state.

At the United Nations in New York earlier this week, Abbas said the new government would recognize Israel, prompting angry denials by Hamas. On Friday, Haniyeh offered a long-term truce with Israel instead.

After meeting Saturday in Cairo with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Abbas told reporters that there was "backtracking" on the negotiations for a unity government. "Sadly, we are back to zero," he said.

Palestinian legislator Saeb Erekat, who accompanied Abbas, said that Hamas had pulled back from previous agreements. Erekat noted that a new Palestinian government - not Hamas as a group - would be expected to recognize Israel.

"The carrot (for Hamas) is improving the Palestinian situation," he said.

However, Hamas fears it will lose popular support if it softens its hardline positions too much and becomes indistinguishable from Fatah. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Palestinians don't want Hamas to recognize Israel, perhaps as a matter of pride, even though two-thirds also want Abbas to negotiate a peace deal with the Jewish state.

Ahmed Yousef, an aide to Haniyeh, suggested that Abbas misrepresented the platform of the emerging coalition in order to secure international support. The U.S. has said it expects any Palestinian government to meet three international demands - recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of previous agreements.

"Abu Mazen was in a bind," Yousef said, referring to Abbas. "With good will and good intentions, he wanted to lift the siege, so he said what he said. We are still with what we agreed upon. We have no choice but to form a national unity government. It is the way out of our internal crisis."

Hamas has struggled during six months in power, largely unable to pay the salaries of 165,000 civil servants, the backbone of the Palestinian labor force. After reaching the tentative agreement on a unity government, Abbas promised the government employees would get their first full salary at the start of Ramadan, which began Saturday. Abbas has received some foreign aid, particularly from the EU, to alleviate some of the greatest hardships.

However, with the coalition deal falling apart, workers weren't paid Saturday and it was not clear when they would be.

Haniyeh had little to offer his people in a televised Ramadan speech Saturday. "It is true that our conditions are tough and bitter," he said. "But we affirm that we are a strong-willed people, obstinate in the face of attempts to mold us or bring us to our knees."

Related atricles:

• January 4, 2005 - Abbas condemns militants' rocket attacks
• October 17, 2005 - Abbas condemns killing of Israelis
• October 27, 2005 - Abbas condemns bombing
• July 18, 2005 - Abbas to halt militant attacks "at all costs"
• August 28, 2006 - P.A. spokesman condems Gaza "thugs"
• August 30, 2006 - Abbas attacks Palestinian rocketeers

Read more...

We the Sheeple? Why Conspiracy Theories Persist

By Edward Feser
September 20, 2006

Conspiracy theorists allege that the events of 9/11 are not adequately explained by the "official story" fingering Osama bin Laden and his network as the culprits. What really needs explaining, though, is not 9/11, but the existence of such conspiracy theorists themselves, whose by now well-known speculations about what "really happened" that day are - not to put too fine a point on it - so mind-numbingly stupid that it is mystifying how anyone with a functioning cerebrum could take them seriously even for a moment.

The problems with such theories have been pretty thoroughly exposed by now. Here is just a sample: If the aim of the conspirators was to motivate the American people to go to war, why wouldn't the crashing of airplanes into the World Trade Center suffice? What was the point of secretly placing explosives throughout the towers - no small task - and thereby risking exposure? If the government was really willing and able to orchestrate such a massive conspiracy here at home, why couldn't or wouldn't it also carry out the far easier task of planting evidence of WMD in faraway Iraq? If the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes were faked, how did the government find people capable of so perfectly mimicking the voices of the victims, and how did they acquire the detailed knowledge of their personal lives that would enable the hoaxers to deceive so many of the victims' loved ones and friends? If it was really a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, why do so many eyewitnesses report having seen an airplane crashing into it? If it was also really a missile, and not an airplane, that crashed in Pennsylvania, then why did eyewitnesses report seeing an airplane in that case too? And what really happened to the airplanes in question and their passengers? If even a third rate burglary like the one committed at the Watergate hotel couldn't be kept secret, why hasn't someone, anyone involved in this massive plot, or with knowledge of those who were involved, come forward to reveal what he knows? And so on and on.

Of course, conspiracy theorists have tried to provide answers to some of these difficulties for their case, but the "answers" are even more ridiculously far-fetched and unfounded than the original theories themselves. Nor do they have any good answer to the central problem with all 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is this: Everything that happened that day has a ready explanation in terms of bin Ladenist aggression together with two implacable forces of nature: government incompetence and the laws of physics. (Check out the recent book Debunking 9/11 Myths, or this useful website, if you really have any doubts.) There is simply no need to posit a government conspiracy in order to explain the evidence. Meanwhile, the conspiracy theories themselves face all sorts of difficulties, as we have seen. So why even bother with them in the first place? Haven't these people (a few of whom are philosophy professors and scientists) ever heard of Occam's razor? Haven't the less learned among them - mouth-breathers of the sort who, while they could never understand a word of Noam Chomsky's serious scientific and philosophical work, still think he's "cool" and enjoy reading about him in the liner notes of Rage Against the Machine albums - at least seen this?

The standard view of pop psychologists is that the reason people are attracted to conspiracy theories is that such theories provide reassurance that catastrophic events never happen for trivial reasons. Hence (it is said) the reason so many people think Oswald didn't act alone in the Kennedy assassination is that they just don't want to believe that JFK was murdered by some lone nutcase; it had to be part of something bigger and more meaningful. Similarly, we are told, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are just sensitive souls who can't face the awful truth that a guy in a cave somewhere was able to bring down the twin towers and set the Pentagon ablaze.

I think this sort of explanation is, in the present case anyway, pretty obviously false. Al-Qaeda, not to mention the global Islamist movement of which it is a part, is far more than a guy in a cave. It is (or at any rate was in 2001, before being seriously degraded by American military action and anti-terrorism measures) a vast and well-funded international network led by intelligent and sinister ideologues with a flair for the dramatic, and who see themselves as part of a centuries-old jihadist tradition. If you want a grand conspiracy led by James-Bond-movie-style bad guys, look no further. And yet the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will hear none of it. The reason they reject the "official story," then, cannot be because they'd rather believe that something big was behind 9/11, because the "official story" just is that something big was behind 9/11.

Furthermore, people inclined to believe in conspiratorial explanations tend to do so even when there really isn't anything to be "explained" in the first place. For example, the conspiracy at the heart of The Da Vinci Code wasn't posited to account for some catastrophic event à la the JFK assassination or 9/11; it's just a plot device for a bad novel (albeit one inspired by crackpot "scholarship"). Yet thousands seem hell-bent on believing that something like it must really be true of the Catholic Church.

A clue to the real attraction of conspiracy theories, I would suggest, lies in the rhetoric of theorists themselves, which is filled with self-congratulatory descriptions of those who accept such theories as "willing to think," "educated," "independent-minded," and so forth, and with invective against the "uninformed" and "unthinking" "sheeple" who "blindly follow authority." The world of the conspiracy theorist is Manichean: either you are intelligent, well-informed, and honest, and therefore question all authority and received opinion; or you accept what popular opinion or an authority says and therefore must be stupid, dishonest, and ignorant. There is no third option.

The Enlightenment Connection
Crude as this dichotomy is, anyone familiar with the intellectual and cultural history of the last several hundred years might hear in it at least an echo of the rhetoric of the Enlightenment, and of much of the philosophical and political thought that has followed in its wake. The core of the Enlightenment narrative - you might call it the "official story" - is that the Western world languished for centuries in a superstitious and authoritarian darkness, in thrall to a corrupt and power-hungry Church which stifled free inquiry. Then came Science, whose brave practitioners "spoke truth to power," liberating us from the dead hand of ecclesiastical authority and exposing the falsity of its outmoded dogmas. Ever since, all has been progress, freedom, smiles and good cheer.

Now this is, as magicians Penn and Teller have elegantly summed up 9/11 conspiracy theories, bullshit, a historical urban legend on par with Washington and the cherry tree. The picture of the Middle Ages accepted by most people, including most "educated" people, is in fact little more than an ideologically driven construct, a holdover from the Reformation and Enlightenment eras and the various anti-Catholic propagandists active therein. (See here for a few examples of widely accepted myths about the Middle Ages, and here and here for a more accurate picture of the medieval world.)

Still, the standard Enlightenment narrative has had a powerful influence on the way modern people understand the relationship between authority, tradition, and common sense on the one hand, and science and rationality on the other. We tend reflexively to assume that the popular or received wisdom, especially if associated with some "official" source or long-standing institution, is always ripe for challenge, and also that if some independent thinker or writer takes an unconventional position, however extreme or counterintuitive, then there simply must be something right in it, or least worth listening to. "Innovator" and "iconoclast" are among our favorite terms of approbation, and "questioning authority" and "thinking outside the box" are applauded even by many self-described conservatives. By contrast, "unoriginal" and "conventional" are treated as if they were synonyms for "unintelligent" and "unthinking."

The picture of science that has gone along with this tends, accordingly, to portray it as in the business of overthrowing long-standing opinions and common sense in general. We used to think the earth was at the center of the solar system, but Copernicus showed that the sun is; Einstein revealed that whether two events are simultaneous is, contrary to common sense, relative to who is observing them; and so forth. The history of science, as popularly understood, is thus a story of daring individuals constantly challenging current orthodoxies and authorities, and constantly being proved right.

Now as the philosopher David Stove has argued, the modern tendency toward hyper-skepticism seems largely to be the result of a massive overgeneralization from a mere handful of cases where common sense turned out to be mistaken. Another philosopher, Michael Levin, has given it a name: the "skim milk" fallacy, the fallacy of assuming, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, that "things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream," so that common sense can in general be presumed to be mistaken. To be sure, where phenomena remote from everyday human experience are concerned - the large-scale structure of spacetime, the microscopic realm of molecules, atoms, and so forth - it is perhaps not surprising that human beings should for long periods of time have gotten things wrong. But where everyday matters are concerned - where opinions touch on our basic understanding of human nature and the facts about ordinary social interaction - it is very likely that they would not, in general, get things wrong. Biological and cultural evolution would ensure that serious mistakes concerning such matters would before too long be weeded out. The detailed reasons for this are complex, but when spelled out they provide the basis for a general defense of tradition and common sense of the sort associated with thinkers like Burke and Hayek.

Moreover, the popular image of scientific practice described above simply doesn't correspond to reality. Thomas Kuhn certainly had his deficiencies as a philosopher, but he was a good historian of science, and his famous description of "normal science" - on which ordinary scientific practice is in fact very conservative, with scientists working within and developing a general theoretical picture of the world that they have inherited from their teachers and rarely think to challenge - is surely correct. Indeed, it has to be correct, since it is really just not possible to treat authority, tradition, and common sense as if they were in general and in principle likely to be wrong. For in forming our beliefs we must always start somewhere, and have nowhere else to start except the general picture of the world we have inherited from our parents, society, and people who due to special experience or study have more knowledge of a subject matter than we do. Of course, we can and do often criticize some particular part of this picture, but the very criteria we appeal to in order to do so typically derive from other parts of it. What we cannot coherently do is question the inherited picture as a whole, or regard it as if there were a general presumption against it.

Even very radical shifts in worldview typically presuppose a deep level of continuity between the view that was abandoned and the one that comes to be adopted. Hence the Protestant who converts to Catholicism (or vice versa) does so on the basis of religious premises both traditions have in common. Hence the secularist who rejects Christianity as a whole typically does so on the basis of scientific and moral principles that developed out of the Christian tradition itself. (See here, here, and here.) And hence the conspiracy theorist who claims to believe that the government and the media are in thrall to some purportedly sinister force or other (the military-industrial complex, the Mossad, or whatever) invariably bases his theory precisely on materials drawn from these sources (such as newspaper accounts and television news broadcasts, and even the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission reports, which JFK assassination buffs and 9/11 fantasists, respectively, comb for evidence to support their case).

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion
This is, in fact, part of why the medievals had the respect for authority that they did. They by no means believed in following authority "blindly" - indeed, Thomas Aquinas regarded the argument from authority as the weakest of all arguments. But they did think that the fact that some authority has said something gave us at least some reason to think it is true, even if that reason might often be overridden by other, better reasons to conclude otherwise. That is to say, they acknowledged that it is simply a necessary feature of the human condition that our starting point in coming to know about the world must always be what we have inherited from some authority or other - parents, church, scholars, government, or whomever. Such authorities might not always have the last word, but they cannot fail to have the first word. And to reject the mindless view that authority as such is always to be questioned is not to embrace the equally mindless view that authority is always to be trusted. It is rather just to take the sensible middle ground position that authority has an unavoidable and necessary place in our lives (intellectual and otherwise) even if it is something fallible that we often need to be cautious about.

At some level, everyone knows this, even if some people pretend to think otherwise. The secularist who chides religious believers for having faith in what the Church teaches will also tell them, in the very next breath and with no sense of irony, to shut up and trust the experts where scientific matters are concerned. That there are philosophers and theologians who can present powerful and sophisticated justifications of religious belief is taken to be no defense of the average believer - he ought to "think for himself," says the secularist. And yet while the average secularist couldn't give you an interesting explanation or defense of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, or evolution if his life depended on it, the fact that there are experts who can do so is taken by him to justify his own faith in their findings. As the philosopher Christopher Martin has noted, the real difference between medieval and modern people is not that the former believe in the need for authority and the latter don't - in fact both medievals and moderns believe in it and act accordingly - but rather that the former admitted that they believed in it, while the latter pretend they don't.

This pretense of contempt for authority per se is by no means a mere foible. It can lead to very serious intellectual errors, as it does in the work of such apostles of the "hermeneutics of suspicion" as Marx and Nietzsche. For the former, all moral, legal, religious, and cultural beliefs, practices, and institutions are "really" mere expressions of the interests of the dominant economic class within a society; for the latter (and especially for such contemporary Nietzscheans as Michel Foucault), they are "really" just expressions of a more general "will to power." As such, they are to be regarded with distrust, and indeed (on at least some interpretations of these doctrines) as having no objective validity whatsoever. Authority, tradition, and common sense come to be regarded as something to be constantly unmasked and undercut rather than consulted as necessary, though fallible, sources of wisdom. Indeed, they come to be regarded as something positively hateful and oppressive, from which we must always feel alienated.

Such doctrines are notoriously difficult to formulate in a way that is both coherent and interesting. If interpreted as universal claims, they undercut themselves - Marxism and Nietzscheanism themselves turn out to be just two more masks for some sinister interest or other, with no objective validity. If instead they are not interpreted as universal claims - that is, if it is held that either Marxism or Nietzscheanism alone constitutes objective truth and ought not to be regarded with suspicion - then they seem arbitrary and question-begging. If, to avoid these problems, they are softened into the more modest claim that people often believe in or promote various moral, religious, or political ideas out of self-interest, then they become trivial. Everybody has always known that. And from the fact that someone somewhere might have a selfish motivation for believing or promoting some claim, it simply doesn't follow that that claim is false or even doubtful. To think otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy of "poisoning the well." If our believing that the earth is round benefits globe manufacturers, it would be stupid to conclude from this that it must really be flat after all. Similarly, if our believing that 9/11 was caused by a bunch of jihadist fanatics acting without help from any government conspiracy somehow benefits the Bush administration, that is simply no reason whatsoever for doubting that it really was so caused.

I would suggest, then, that the post-Enlightenment pretense of hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense as such, and especially the extreme form of it represented by the likes of Marx and Nietzsche, is what really underlies the popularity of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving 9/11. The absurd idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se and a contempt for the opinions of the average person, has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the rational default position. And it also explains why even mainstream outlets like Time and Vanity Fair, while by no means endorsing the views of the conspiracy theorists, have tended to treat them with kid gloves, as if they were harmless and well-meaning eccentrics instead of shrill and hate-filled crackpots. The belief that extremism in the attack on authority is no vice has a powerful appeal even for suit-wearing journalists and media executives (especially if they are liberals), even if they have too much sense to follow it out consistently.

Yet no civilization can be healthy which nurtures such delusions, for they strike at the very heart of a society's core institutions - family, religion, schools, political institutions, and so forth - and replace the (sometimes critical) allegiance we should feel for them with a corrosive skepticism. Conspiracy theories are only the most extreme symptom of this disease. Less dramatic, but in the long run more dangerous, is the relentless tendency of the Western intelligentsia to denigrate the Western past and present, massively exaggerating the vices of their own civilization and the virtues of its competitors, and putting the worst possible spin on the motives and policies of its current leaders while minimizing or excusing the crimes of its enemies. This would be dangerous under the best of circumstances. It is doubly so while we are at war with enemies who know no such self-doubt and self-hatred.

Read more...

Interview: Former Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Iyad Allawi

We need to recreate Iraq
20 September 2006
Iraq’s former prime minister answers questions from Dr Ali Wajeeh

Question: The militancy is still a major problem in Iraq. Why didn’t you make a success out of your endeavour to end this ongoing violence, that also threatens Iraq's unity?

Allawi: During the period of the interim government, of which I was prime minister, militias were dismantled. Some by enforcing law, others by finding alternative solutions to their members. Irrespective of whether or not these solutions were economical, like in matters of creation of jobs or political integration into the transformation process in Iraq, the government was moving rapidly towards building non-sectarian institutions, loyal to the nation, loyal to Iraq.

I believe in dismantling militias but not getting them integrated in the army, police and law enforcement institutions. We worked very hard during the period of the governing council to create Law 91, which dismantles militias. The individual members were to join civil government departments, private sector and some following a process of rehabilitation were to be absorbed by various security and military forces. This is what we did in the interim government.

Question: Do you think it is better for Iraq to be relying on foreign powers to help it in security matters? Do you agree with the view that Iranians have penetrated Iraq?

Allawi: As far as Iran is concerned, I am not a party to information that Iran supports some of these militias. It would be extremely helpful and constructive if Iran boycotts or pressurises Iraqi leaders who advocate or command militias. This goes for other countries as well.

Question: Are you still wary of the likelihood of converting Iraq from its current structure to be a religious Shia state, as the Iranian model?

Allawi: I think there should be a new Middle East based on the principle of moderation, recognising the right for peace, stability and progress for its entire people, respecting sovereignty and not interfering in internal matters.

The region needs an arc of moderation. This arc of moderation should be economically oriented. The leaders and political forces in the region should encourage the formation of such an arc. Such a concept was in mind when I suggested the Sharm El Shiekh conference. I had initial and total support from King Abdullah of Jordan, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who kindly hosted the conference, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia (then the Crown Prince) and other leaders of the Gulf countries. There was support from Iran and Syria. Without such understanding or similar action, the region will face turbulence, and violence will continue giving way to more extremism and terrorism.

Iran should address and resolve sensitive issues in the region with its neighbours and beyond. This is in the interest of Iran on a long-term basis. There should be no big guys and small guys; there must be equal guys. This will make the region a safer place for every one including Iran. Suspicions must be obliterated. A fair regional security understanding must be established.

I am against sectarianism and don’t believe in theocratic governments. These are ingredients for disaster in our troubled region.

However, I strongly believe in our Islamic and Arab culture, tradition and values. Unfortunately, the non-existence of a solid arc or arcs of moderations is giving way to increased violence, sectarianism, extremism and terrorism.

We want the economy to be the force for moderation. As fully developed nations of the region needs a civilized bill of rights, for now, rather than full fledged democracy. Things are reversible still. However, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan are the test for the wills. Will we mess up or will we succeed?

Question: What do you think about the new plans which proposed federation as the best manner for Iraq? Do you think Iraq is going to be fragmented into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states?

Allawi: No, we believe that reconciliation, rule of law and nation-building on non-sectarian basis should precede. And even considering a federation. Federalism based in the south and/or centre on a sectarian divide, God forbid, will breed trouble, violence and terrorism. It will also export itself outside Iraq. We have to recreate in Iraq a strong sense of unity, a sense of identity and a sense of nationalism, a strong feeling of belonging to Iraq regardless of ethnic or religious background. We have to recreate the integration of Iraq with its Arab and Islamic environment. This I believe will be the route towards national unity. The Kurds want a unified Iraq. They want to belong to Iraq, they do not want to be subjected to chemical warfare and genocide.

Question: About the decision of Masoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan region, regarding adoption of a new flag instead of the Iraqi flag ... do you think it is a step towards separation? And what about your bloc in the parliament? Are you going to adopt the calls for changing Iraq’s flag?

Allawi: Mr Barazani, whom I respect, believes in what I have said. We spoke twice over telephone at length and he is going to write a letter to parliament, addressed to the five groups, explaining a way that, with honour, he will have an agreed Iraqi flag at full mast over Kurdistan. To change or not to change the flag is a decision for the parliament despite our own reservations on the elections and parliament.

Question: Why didn't you attend the sessions of the Iraqi parliament? Was Speakership an issue?

Allawi: It is not a matter of Speakership, it is a matter of a parlaiment based on a sectarian division. The government has to have a structured view on how to move forward; so is national unity and reconciliation. We need to recreate Iraq out of this mess. We need a structured view on how to move forward with national unity and reconciliation. We need to recreate Iraq.

Question: What about the national reconciliation initiative which was released by the current Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki?

Allawi: Reconciliation is a process of building trust, ensuring equal rights for citizens, and ensuring rule of law and justice for all. Reconciliation is not a slogan or a word. It is deeds. We support Maliki’s initiative but we want to see action. We need to know more importantly who is reconciling with whom (apart from terrorists who should be dealt with fiercely)?

Why debaathfication is still ongoing? Why are militias ruling the streets? What is the policy on insurgency? I encountered some extreme insurgents. Some are not insurgents anymore and are in government. Those who refused to negotiate were dealt with and removed from the streets further securing our cities.

Question: What is the future of Iraq? Do you think Iraq can settle down without the Ba’ath cadres? Do you think Iraq might be vulnerable to a coup?

Allawi: Not yet, the government has to decide. It must establish a police. Here again deeds are of the essence. Amongst the issue of causing grave consequences to Iraq is the application of debaathification. Coups are null and void and are finished in the Middle East as a phenomena that have coloured politics in the region in the forties to the ninetees of the last century. Coups are bad and counter-productive. It cannot happen.

A military unit that rebels will not only face the Iraqi army and police but also the multinational forces and militias too. Some Baathists I spoke to in the presence of senior representatives from the coalition said that they deplore coups and conspiracies and they want to be part of the political process as people.

Now sectarianism is proving to be even deadlier than coups, so here you are. However, I think this vicious accusation is a pretext for more purges and excuses for militias to remain controlling the country.

Question: Corruption in Iraq has reached unbelievable levels. Who do you think is behind such corruption and for how long do you think Iraqis will bear the deterioration in all fields of life in Iraq?

Allawi: Corruption is a phenomenon that has existed in varying magnitudes, and as law and order prevails, as more national non-sectarian institutions are built, the more the economy is liberalised to the benefit of the people, the less will be the corruption.

Read more...

Abizaid: No troop reduction in Iraq

By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel
September 20, 2006

The top American commander in the Middle East said Tuesday that continuing violence in Iraq coupled with delays in forming an effective government and viable security forces will prevent any reduction of U.S. troops before next spring.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command, said that six months ago he would have predicted that two U.S. brigades, about 7,000 soldiers, could have been withdrawn by now. But deteriorating conditions scuttled those plans.

"We clearly did not achieve the force levels we had hoped to. Why is that? Part of it is that the sectarian violence got worse and part of it is the development of the security forces," Abizaid said.

Earlier this year, Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, told the White House that he hoped to withdraw substantial numbers of troops by fall. But after carrying out small reductions early this year, the Pentagon has increased the numbers of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq to 147,000, an increase of about 20,000 since June.

As conditions have worsened for Iraqis, the war also has grown increasingly unpopular with Americans and looms as the major issue in November's elections.

Abizaid, who was in Washington for meetings with Pentagon officials, defended the recent decision to move troops from other parts of Iraq to Baghdad, saying stabilizing the capital was "the most important military priority." Rising numbers of slayings and attacks prompted the moves.

On the current number of troops in Iraq, Abizaid said: "I think that this level will probably have to be sustained through the spring, then we will re-evaluate."

Casey said late last month that it would take a year to 18 months before Iraqi troops are ready to assume the bulk of security functions.

Asked if he needed more troops to defeat the insurgency in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, Abizaid answered: "Where would you like to get them from?"

"There are 500,000 people in the American Army," Abizaid said. "It is important that the American force as a whole be managed in such a manner that it can deal with the military problem in Iraq and Afghanistan and unforeseen problems that may arise, say from Iran."

Read more...

Article: Bush Would Send Troops to Pakistan

September 20, 2006

President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview scheduled for air Wednesday afternoon.

Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

But Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, told reporters Wednesday at the United Nations that his government would oppose any U.S. action in its territory.

"We wouldn't like to allow that at all. We will do it ourselves," he said.

A January airstrike on suspected al Qaeda figures on the Pakistan border provoked protests by tens of thousands of Pakistanis and complaints by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who said U.S. officials launched the attack without consulting his government.

Bin Laden's followers killed nearly 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States and its allies overthrew Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which had allowed al Qaeda to operate within its territory -- but bin Laden slipped the U.S. noose and is believed by many to be hiding in the rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border five years later.

Pakistani authorities recently signed a peace agreement with pro-Taliban tribal leaders in the country's restive northwest after two years of clashes with the traditionally autonomous tribes that left more than 600 Pakistani troops dead. But Aziz told CNN earlier this month that top terrorist leaders like bin Laden would have "no immunity" under the agreement.

"This notion that anybody who has a record as a terrorist will get safe haven -- we would not even think of doing that," he said.

U.S. and NATO troops are now battling a Taliban resurgence in southeastern Afghanistan, and both Afghan and Pakistani officials have accused each other of not doing enough to capture pro-Taliban militants sneaking across the border.

Bush: Ahmadinejad 'knows the options before him'
Bush on Wednesday also defended his decision not to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations this week, telling CNN that Ahmadinejad "knows the options before him." (Watch President Bush explain why he takes Ahmadinejad's words seriously -- :27)

The U.N. Security Council has called on Iran to stop its uranium enrichment efforts, which the Bush administration says are aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to produce fuel for civilian power plants, and it has so far refused to halt enrichment.

Bush said the United States has agreed to talks with Iran "only if they verifiably suspended their enrichment program.

"He knows the options before him. I've made that very clear," he said. "In order for there to be effective diplomacy you can't keep changing your word."

European negotiators are trying to reach an agreement with the Iranians that will stay the threat of U.N. sanctions against Iran for flouting the Security Council's demand while talks toward a permanent resolution continue. But Bush said that "time is of the essence," and he is concerned that Tehran is "trying to buy time" in the dispute.

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday -- Bush in the morning, Ahmadinejad in the evening.

Bush addressed the Iranian people directly during his speech, telling them that Americans "respect" their country and that they "deserve an opportunity to determine your own future.

"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said. "Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."

The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic ties since 1979, when Iranian militants, who had overthrown the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammed Palavi, seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Bush labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" in 2002, along with Iraq -- which the United States invaded the following year -- and North Korea.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad criticized what he called the "abuse" of the Security Council by "hegemonic powers." He mentioned the United States by name only once during his speech, but criticized major powers he said "seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats.

"All of our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors," he said. "Why, then, are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy."

The White House said Bush did not watch the Iranian leader's speech. Asked whether he found anything encouraging in it, the president said, "Not really."

Ahmadinejad's speech was more restrained than previous addresses in which the Iranian president has questioned the existence of the Holocaust and called for the Israel's eradication.

Referring to those comments, Bush said, "My judgment is you've got to take everybody's word seriously in this world.

"You can't just hope for the best," he said. "You've got to assume that the leader, when he says that he would like to destroy Israel, means what he says. If you say, 'Well, gosh, maybe he doesn't mean it,' and you turn out to be wrong, you have not done your duty as a world leader."

The president is not the highest authority in Iran, which is an Islamic republic led by religious clerics.

Read more...

Article: Abbas: PA gov't will recognize Israel

By Khaled Abu Toameh
September 19, 2006

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will tell US President George W. Bush on Wednesday that the proposed Palestinian unity government will recognize Israel's right to exist and previous agreements between the PLO and Israel," PA officials told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza City on Tuesday calling on Abbas not to succumb to American "dictates" regarding the unity government and to work toward resolving the financial crisis in the PA.

"President Abbas will make it clear that the political program of the unity government will clearly refer to the Arab peace plan that was declared in 2002 and which is based on a two-state solution," said one official. "He will also tell Bush that Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh promised that the unity government would honor all the agreements that were signed with Israel." The officials expressed hope that the US administration would change its negative position regarding the unity government following the planned meeting between Bush and Abbas.

"If the US wants to strengthen President Abbas, it must accept the unity government idea because there is no other alternative," another PA official told the Post. "I don't think the Palestinian public will accept a coup against a democratically elected government."

The official confirmed reports in the Arab media that Washington had threatened to boycott Abbas and his Fatah party if they went ahead with plans to join the Hamas-led government. "The US apparently doesn't understand that a national unity government with Hamas is the best solution to the current crisis in the Palestinian Authority," he added.

Abbas's meeting with Bush comes amid increased tensions between Fatah and Hamas supporters that are threatening to thwart Abbas's efforts to establish a unity government.
Hamas leaders accused Abbas and his Fatah party of inciting PA civil servants against the Hamas-led government. On Monday, hundreds of civil servants prevented Haniyeh and his aides from entering the building of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Gaza City. In response, the PLC decided to suspend its sessions until further notice.

Tensions have also been running high between the two parties since last Friday's assassination of General Jad Tayeh, a senior General Intelligence Service officer, outside the home of Haniyeh in the Shati refugee camp. Tayeh and four of his aides were killed in an ambush set by a group of masked gunmen.

Hamas officials said the assassination was part of settling accounts between rival PA security branches in the Gaza Strip. Fatah, on the other hand, claimed that Tayeh was assassinated by Hamas members because of his role in uncovering the smuggling of weapons to Jordan on the part of Hamas.

Read more...

Article: What To Do About Iranian Nukes

By Ivan Eland
September 19, 2006

In June, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China offered to provide goodies if Iran ended its nuclear program and threatened economic sanctions if it did not. Negotiations would not start until Iran suspended its enrichment of uranium. Although this was a bold take-it-or-leave-it deal by the six powers, Iran left it.

The Iranians, knowing they have the upper hand against a befuddled Bush administration in several respects, have sporadically and belatedly offered to freeze uranium enrichment, but have refused to do it as a condition for negotiations. But negotiations have been held anyway. At the same time, the United States has pressed Russia and China to fulfill their agreement to impose sanctions if the Iranians balked at the original incentives package. Any sanctions, however, are likely to be weak because both Russia and China have economic interests in Iran. The sanctions being talked about are a ban on exports of nuclear components to Iran and a ban on travel for Iranians working on that country’s nuclear program. Iran already has an extensive illicit network in the West for smuggling nuclear components, so a formal ban on Western sales is unlikely to have much of an effect. For security reasons Iran does not allow its nuclear scientists to do much overseas junketing, so the travel ban will be mainly symbolic too.

The only sanctions that would have any real effect on Iran would be in the oil sector. But Russia and China would oppose these vehemently. And so would the nervous Republicans trying to get re-elected in 2006 and 2008 amid already high oil prices. Any petroleum sanctions against Iran, one of the world’s largest oil producers, would cause the world price of oil to escalate. In addition, the history of economic sanctions indicates that, over time, loopholes and smuggling eventually greatly diminish their effect. The Iranians know this well because they have been under some form of economic sanctions ever since their revolution alarmed the West in the late 1970s. Thus, Iran is not exactly quaking in its boots over the new threat of Western sanctions.

Iran also knows that if the United States launches a military air strike against its nuclear facilities, it could retaliate against the United States by causing much trouble in two areas of substantial Republican vulnerability—Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could encourage friendly militias in those countries, now supporting their respective governments, to go into violent opposition. The Iranians have many friends in both places who are hostile to the United States. Although Iran would also be harmed by this action, it could close the Strait of Hormuz to petroleum shipments coming out of the Persian Gulf, thus causing the world oil price to skyrocket. But although seemingly irrational, an Iran under U.S. attack might choose to retaliate in any way possible.

Although the Bush administration would have a stronger hand in negotiations with Iran if it hadn’t become involved in the Afghan and Iraqi quagmires, it can’t cry over spilled milk. In addition, haggling over only temporarily freezing the Iranian nuclear program in order to allow negotiations provides no permanent solution to the problem.

The United States must make another bold offer to Iran, this time without the accompanying threats. In addition to the economic incentives provided by a full normalization of U.S.–Iranian relations and complete integration of Iran into the world economy, the United States needs to guarantee the Iranians that neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran. At this late date, with the recent invasions by Iran’s adversaries of Iraq and Lebanon, Iran may be too suspicious that such promises will be broken and elect not to give up its nuclear program. But at this point, it’s the Bush administration’s only option. In fact, the threat of military attack by the United States or Israel is what’s driving Iran to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.

If Iran remains intransigent, the United States will probably have to accept that Iran will likely some day become a nuclear weapons state. Although undesirable, this outcome would not be catastrophic because the United States has the most formidable nuclear forces in the world and could likely deter any strike from the small Iranian atomic arsenal. The United States successfully deterred a nuclear attack by radical Maoist China after that regime got nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Nuclear deterrence should also work in the case of a theocratic Iran.

Read more...

Pope's Comments on Islam's Violent Nature Spark Muslim Violence Over Pope's Comments

In an apparent attempt to prove Pope Benedict XVI correct, Muslims have taken to the streets in a burst of arson and murder. I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice the irony.

The event:
Faith, Reason and the University - Memories and Reflections

The reaction:
Pope's Islam Comments Condemned
Thousands Protest in Gaza City
Pope 'Deeply Sorry' for Muslim Outrage
World Muslim Bloc Dismisses Pope's Apology
Muslim Anger Grows at Pope Speech
Al-Qaeda Threatens Jihad
'Al-Qaida in Iraq' Warns Islam Will Prevail Throughout World
The Mujahedeen Shura Council: "you and the West are doomed"
Khamenei: US-Israeli Conspiracy to Blame
Khamenei: "the latest link in the chain of a crusade against Islam"
Militants Threaten to Kill the Pope
Mujahideen's Army Movement in Iraq Threatens Suicide Attack
65-year-old Nun Shot Dead
Nun Forgives Killers with Dying Breath
Baghdad Christian Killed Over Comments
Two West Bank Churches Firebombed
Five Palestinian Churches Attacked

Originally posted to This Fucking War on 9/19/2006

Read more...

118 Nations Gather for NAM Summit

Last week, 118 member nations of the Non-Aligned Movement gathered for it's 14th triennial summit in Havana, Cuba. Fidel Castro was elected chairman of the organization for the next three years, but due to health problems, was unable to attend. Fidel's brother, Raul Castro Ruz, accepted the position on Fidel's behalf.

Some of the topics of the summit were Israel's recent retaliation against Lebanon, a peaceful resolution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, UN Security Council veto power, and a condemnation of terrorism - with the exception of "the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self determination and national liberation."

Most speeches and resolutions contained veiled criticisms of the US, UN and Israel, but some US friendly nations, such as India and Pakistan, insisted that the summit was not anti-anyone.

The United States was invited to the summit, but the US administration declined to attend or comment on the proceedings.

14th NAM Summit Official Site

Additional Articles:
The News International - Nam Summit begins in Havana
The Washington Times - Anti-U.S. allies back Iran nukes
The Hindu National - NAM totally opposed to terrorism: declaration
CNN.com - Castro's brother lashes out at U.S. at summit
BBC News - Cuba summit sends strong message
alJazeera.net - Non-aligned states line up against US
The Taipei Times - Non-aligned summit wraps up in Cuba

Originally posted to This Fucking War on 9/18/2006

Read more...

All aboard!

Welcome to The Grey Train. I will be posting some personal observations on today's world. I will also be reposting my threads from MadTom's blog, This Fucking War, in order to allow people time to post comments on these subjects if they (you) wish.

All that I ask is for people not to be abusive of others, but I welcome comment from all sides of arguments and also reserve the right to refute all crackpot opinions which do not agree with mine.

Read more...