And a warning in Berlin, that the Europeans have been ignoring for far too long. The biggest problem that liberal societies face in this war is how to properly confront a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.
[Update a few minutes later]
Geert Wilders on trial. This is a travesty, and a display of the true Islamaphobes are — those who betray western liberal values by shutting down any criticism of the most intolerant religion of all.
…from an Iranian president at Yale.
Ronald Reagan was castigated by the bien pensant for calling the evil empire what it was. When the Iranian people attempted to cast off their brutal and tyrannical government, Barack Obama acted as though it was inconveniencing his futile diplomatic efforts.
…of “diplomacy“:
Ahmadinejad understands perfectly well that confronting Iran is out of sync with the “new era of engagement” that is the trademark of Obama’s foreign policy. “Engagement” looks like this: The president of the United States keeps talking about “extended hands” and “open doors,” and the president of Iran keeps building nuclear weapons. As recently as September 19, even Secretary Hillary Clinton told Christiane Amanpour, “We’ve said to the Iranians all along…we still remain open to diplomacy. But it’s been very clear that the Iranians don’t want to engage with us.”
Ahmadinejad, therefore, took the opportunity provided by the U.N. to slam the door once more in President Obama’s face. While he lectured about the “lust for capital and domination” and “the egotist and the greedy,” the American U.N. delegation sat stoically in their seats. They had instructions to tough it out until Ahmadinejad really got offensive — though what would count as sufficiently offensive was never publicly announced.
The tripwire turned out to be Ahamdinejad’s suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job. “The U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.” With that, the Obama representatives finally hauled themselves out of their seats and put engagement temporarily on hold.
Not for long, though. These fools will soon be knocking at the door again.
[Update a while later]
Is Israel already starting to attack Iran?
I rarely link to Mark Whittington any more, because I see no need to give him the traffic for which he seems to troll, but I’ll make an exception in this case, because it’s so blatant and stupid:
Rand Simberg, like many commercial space advocates, has attacked the Iran Nonproliferation Act (now including Syria and North Korea) as being ineffective and harming commercial space operations.
I have never “attacked,” or even criticized INKSNA, nor do I know anyone else in the commercial space community who has, so he is either making this up out of whole cloth, or he doesn’t understand the difference between INKSNA and ITAR. I guess the latter interpretation is more likely, and more charitable, since he understands little about space and technology policy in general.
[Afternoon update]
Mark has updated his post to continue his fantasies about me:
I suspect that he will play Clinton-like word games by saying not “attacked” but rather “expressed reservations” or “was dubious about” or even “mildly amused by.” Since it seems so important to him, I’ll give him that.
I have done none of the above. I have rarely, if ever, discussed INKSNA prior to that piece yesterday. He needs to adjust his meds, either up or down.
La Paglia is AWOL in the real war against women.
…why do the perceptions of violent Islamists suddenly matter when it comes to the movement of the mosque but not to the original placement of the mosque?
Heads they win, tails we lose.
Some thoughts and perspective.
…or we’ll chop off your head. I think that the Australians should arrest and jail this guy for incitement to violence, but they won’t. Because they’re the real Islamaphobes.
[Update a while later]
In reading the rest of the article, I see that the monster is living in Lebanon, and beyond the reach of the Aussie government. But I wonder what they’d do if he was still in Sydney?
…and all we have…
…for who is and is not a “moderate“:
It isn’t the snarky first part of this statement that is interesting; that’s banal, and while revealing in its own way, it’s de rigeur for the sort of people we’re talking about to on the one hand demand no one reach conclusions on the basis of necessarily limited information when it comes to them and their mascots, but who feel free themselves to rush to entirely unsupported conclusions regarding their opponents and targets, and express them in the snarkiest way possible, all the while holding the self-conception that they’re stalwarts defending civil discourse. Of course, one commenter doesn’t control anything, any more than I “create the narrative” (If only!). But this comment will be a useful example for how those who do set the terms of debate do so, and a facet of the mindset behind it.
Be that as it may, the truly interesting part is the expressed definition of what qualifies as a “moderate Muslim.” Alchemist expressed what I suspect a lot of people on that side of things believe, without fully articulating it even in their own minds: For them a “moderate Muslim” is simply anyone who isn’t trying, either directly or indirectly, to kill them.
This truly does reflect having two standards, however. In normal discourse, this isn’t generally the standard for moderation: David Duke isn’t considered moderate just because he himself never engaged in a lynching and had learned how to express himself in such a way that it’s virtually impossible to find a statement where he openly and clearly encourages violence or terror. Yet people can get in trouble with the widely-respected SPLC for example,simply sharing a stage with him in a debate. We understand he’s not “moderate” in spite of the suit and tie, and the carefully couched statements.
Rauf is no moderate in my book. But then, I think that moderation is overrated. Goldwater had it right when he said that extremism in defense of liberty was no vice.