Category Archives: War Commentary

Multicultural

This story is sadly all too typical (and yes, I expect the usual suspects to chime in and say that real Muslims aren’t really like that — they’re just a few “extremists”):

A kebab shop owner, asked on German TV what he would do if Sila were his daughter, replied: “I would kill her. I really mean that. That doesn’t fit with my culture.”

Well, I have to say that I wouldn’t be that thrilled if it were my daughter, either. But I am absolutely certain that my response would not be to kill her. It would never even enter my mind.

This reminds me very much of Mark Steyn’s story of true multiculturalism in British India:

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” – the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

Of course, it wouldn’t do the young woman who posed for Playboy much good if her murderer were afterward hanged. One would like to prevent it. But how to do so, without wiping out the belief system itself? We marginalized one just as vile (and sadly related, given the alliance between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Germany at the time), decades ago. What will it take to do so again?

Thoughts On Muslim Charity

…and fake “reformers”:

Sura 9:60 explicitly says that one category of Muslims to whom alms are to be given is those toiling “in the cause of Allah.” This passage is interpreted by classical Islamic scholarship to refer to those engaged in violent jihadist operations — a proposition for which I cite Reliance of the Traveller and the annotations to the official Saudi version of the Koran that interpret sura 9:60.

It is not an answer to this to say, as Ms. Qudosi does, “I am not an Islamic scholar.” She makes that concession, by the way, in order chastise National Review because “all it takes is a little bit of research and fact-checking to make sure you know what you’re talking about, rather than indulging in bigoted statements that ensure higher readership among a fringe audience.” But who is the one who has failed to do the research and fact-checking? I’d be delighted if Ms. Qudosi’s jihad-bleached version of Islam enjoyed such broad acceptance among Muslims that the interpretation I am writing about could be described as “fringe.” Unfortunately, it is accepted by millions of Muslims the world over, precisely because it represents the Islam of authoritative Islamic scholars and jurisprudents. Saying, “I’m not a scholar,” and putting your head in the sand rather than giving us a compelling reason why these scholars have it wrong may win you applause from Westerners desperate to be convinced, or from Muslims whose idea of “reform” is to pretend that the bad stuff is not in the doctrine. But it is not going to get you anywhere with the millions of Muslims who believe al-Azhar sheikhs and other scholars who’ve spent their lives studying authoritative sources like Reliance of the Traveller are a more reliable guide.

If it were only them sticking their heads in the sand, it would be one thing, but they insist that we all do.

“Unfit For Office”

I agree with Mark Steyn, about Lindsey Graham.

[Mid-afternoon update]

Iowahawk has gotten Senator Graham on the record, with his thoughts on war-time etiquette:

My experience has only served to underscore Miss Buelah’s perspicacity, for I have seen that convivial manners always provide a welcome lubricant to social intercourse; whether it takes place in a fraternity bunkroom, the JAG officers barracks, or the late-night well of the Senate.

Unfortunately, that could apply to a lot of the Republican party.

Only Because Yasser Arafat Didn’t Have Any

Seen on Facebook: “Barack Obama has launched more Tomahawk missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.”

Probably more Predator drones, too.

[Update a while later]

Credit where it’s due. A rare self-deprecating moment for the president. I think that even he, with all his ego, realized and realizes how ridiculous that award was, and how it may have been the last straw in finally discrediting it.

This is truly becoming farcical:

We bombed Qaddafi’s forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi’s forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians.So NATO may end up killing civilians.

In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi’s forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians.

Who’s on first?

Via Jonah Goldberg, who writes in his weekly G-File:

The New York Times reports that NATO has told the rebels that if they kill civilians then NATO will bomb them, too.

As a commenter in the Corner put it, this is reminiscent of that scene in Bananas where the operatives are talking en route to a hot zone:

“Any word on where we’re going?”
“I hear it’s San Marcos.”
“For or against the government?”
“CIA’s not taking any chances. Some of us are for it, and some of us are gonna be against it.”

More seriously, has there ever been a war where we’ve gone from taking sides in the fight to saying, “You kids play nice! Don’t make me come in there!” (Honest question, has there ever been a great power that has in effect acted like a schoolyard referee, making sure that both sides “fight fair”?)

It would be American exceptionalism at its finest. If the president believed in that sort of thing.

And we have a Secretary of State who thinks that Bashar Assad is a reformer.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

[Bumped]