Saturday, August 20, 2005


Al Qaeda Loves Our Unpatriotic Media by Cliff Kincaid (hat tip LGF):
...the New York Times, CBS, and other news organizations have joined with the ACLU in demanding that the Pentagon release more sensational photos and videos of Iraqi prisoner abuse. The inevitable result of such disclosure, according to General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that Islamic terrorists will exploit the material and kill Americans. Do our media care?Our media will rally around a reporter who goes to jail to protect her sources. But when the Pentagon tries to keep potential propaganda material from falling into the hands of the enemy, the media are in court with the ACLU against the Pentagon. ... “It is probable that Al-Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill which will result in, besides violent attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support, and exacerbation of tensions between the Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and Coalition forces.” ... Actually, it won’t just be Al Qaeda. Our own media will endlessly exploit the photographs.
To folks who think the media is being objective, Charles of LGF poses an absolutely BRILLIANT question: "Suppose Western media really was deliberately trying to subvert democracy and aid terrorism. How would the coverage differ?"

The answer is obvious: the coverage wouldn't differ, at all. The fact is that most the MSM is - for all intents and purposes - just like al Jazeera: an ally of our enemy.

BTW: there was a time in this country when sensitive stuff, like these photos, was kept locked up for decades (until their release became less problematic) - and the media didn't whine about it then, either!

Friday, August 19, 2005


My mom is an old-time commie (literally) and is opposed to the Iraq War. If I was YOUNG enough to VOLUNTEER (as Casey - God Bless his soul - was!), and IF I my earthly existence came to an end during our noble campaign there, and IF she tried to use my death to advance her anti-war idiocy, and if she tried to to pin her anti-war angst on me, THEN I'd tell her - from one world to another - to shut the eff up! Which is EXACTLY what I think Casey is saying to his mom from way up there in Heaven. God Bless Casey Sheehan. Goddamn Cindy Sheehan. She is a traitor. To her country, and to her son. There. I said it.


Frontpage/Frank Gaffney:
One year ago, prisoners at the New Folsom State Prison – a maximum-security facility outside Sacramento, California – reportedly began plotting terrorist attacks against three National Guard facilities, the Israeli consulate and several synagogues in the Los Angeles area. The attacks are believed to have been planned for the fourth anniversary of September 11th or the Jewish holidays. According to ABC News, a law enforcement report has determined that the plotters intended “to kill everyone at the target[s],” potentially resulting in dozens of casualties inflicted on innocents as part of the jihad (holy war) the prisoners were determined to wage against the United States. The frightening thing is that the would-be assailants were not terrorist adherents to the political ideology of Islamofascism when they went to jail. They became Islamists while in prison – thanks to the sort of recruitment opportunities afforded clerics usually selected by Saudi-backed Muslim-American organizations.
Did FDR let NAZIS recruit spies in USA prisons during WW2!? I think not. We should BAN all Muslim clerics from ALL our prisons for the duration of the war. RTWT.

JURY AWARDS 229 MILLION TO "VIOXX WIDOW" - more tort reform anyone!?

Sheesh: 229 MILLION?!?!? This is outrageously weird and stupid anf outta control. Besides, no matter what the jury may FEEL, Merck did nothing wrong. Almost all medicine has side-effects.

MAYBE THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT, NOW, MANY AMERICANS NOW SEEM TO WANT AND EXPECT MEDICINE WITHOUT ANY SIDE-EFFECTS - JUST AS MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO EXPECT A WAR WITHOUT CASUALTIES! Repeat: sheesh! This is an expression of insanely unrealistic expectations - expectations which are nothing short of "utopianistic" - which is a by-product of Leftist-thinking (so-called).

[The BBC reports the figure is a total of $254 MILLION!! There are 3800 lawsuits now pending against Merck on VIOXX.]



BBC: At least one missile has been fired at a US Navy ship docked in the Jordanian port of Aqaba, officials said. The rocket missed the USS Ashland, but hit a nearby warehouse killing one Jordanian soldier and injuring another. In a second attack minutes later another missile, also launched from Jordanian soil, was fired at an airport in Eilat, in neighbouring Israel.

It's time to give King Abdullah an ultimatum: go after the jihadists in your nation, or we will!

MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHY RECAP: how widespread sociopathy arises from widespread endogamous polygamy and misogyny - and what can be done about it

Read my previous posts on the subject HERE and HERE and HERE. The facts in these posts make a pretty convincing case: these practices - the ethos which empowers them, and the social conditions which arise from them - are at the core of Radical Islam.

The ethos which has produced these anti-social social organizing principles enables and reinforces jihadoterror against the "infidel," for if you must marry within the family to retain property, and if you can reclaim honor by murdering a female family member, then you can certainly commit genocide against "infidels" with a clear conscience.

IMHO: We must force the backward nations which still permit the practices of endogamy, polygamy and misogyny to pass laws prohibiting them, and thereby begin to transform them from tribal societies based on xenophobia, to modern societies based on the rule of law and respect for the individual.

The internatonal communtiy could pressure these backward nations by withholding loans, insurance, and free-trade agreements from any country which allows endogamy, polygamy and misogyny. And we should also insist on an arms embargo, too. After all: these archaic practices are indefensible.

This aggressive but non-military plan is consistent with the UN's Declaration of Universal Human Rights. This document holds that ALL HUMANS EVERYWHERE are entitled to their innate, UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. Just as we should intervene internationally to stop genocide or slavery, so to must we intervene to halt these archaic sociopathic anti-humane practices. As free people, we have a duty to liberate our tyrannized brothers and sisters everywhere. As potential victims of jihadoterror, we have a duty to protect ourselves and and children.

AND, YUP: this should include Iraq. And Saudi Arabia, too! And Jordan. The whole lot of 'em!

Thursday, August 18, 2005


The Arabs prefer endogamous matrimony -- that's marriage with first cousins or second cousins. (In fact, refusal to marry cousins (or regret at having done so) is one common reason that many Arab Muslim women become victims of "honor killing.")

In most societies - thoughout all of human history, most people think that the "in-law" relationship is the most troublesome in their lives; (it's one of the most popular and enduring sources of humor; America's most popular TV comedy in decades - EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND - was based on it). WELL: Because of the preference and prevalence of endogamous matrimony many Arabs are so inter-married that NOT ONLY are they everybody's in-laws,
every Arab is his own in-law! No wonder they're so effin' nuts! Heh!


Chamberlain gave away part of Czechoslovakia - the Sudatenland - to "Herr Hitler" for "peace in our time." This infamous bit of appeasement failed - as appeasement always does.

Has Sharon made the same blunder?

Many think so. I think not. I think Sharon is merely redeploying military assets where they will be more effective and "economical" in advance of a future military crisis - one that might be precipitated by a preemptive strike by someone against Iran, or a by a major hubristic offensive against Israel by "HAMAS/HIZ'B'ALLAH/Islamic Jihad/al Aksa Brigades" - (and ALL the other terrorist groups which Abbas and the PNA have failed to disarm!) - and perhaps instigated by this seeming "appeasement."

In that sense it might be seens as militarily shrewd, and it might evolve into a military coup de grace, for if it the Gazans fail to establish the rule of law, then this unilateral withdrawal will certainly lead to a unilateral withdrawal from ONLY PARTS OF the West Bank and to complete control by Israel of all of Greater Jerusalem. And then the game is over. So-called "Palestinian Arabs" will have all the territory they will ever have, and they can do whatever they want with it. And if that includes attacking Israel, then Israel will demolish them, UTTERLY, as they have demolished every other Arab nation who has ever made war against them. But this time, it will be seen as an INTERNATIONAL war, and this time Israel can walk away from the debris, because they won't have to take-charge of the territory after the dust has settled. It would make Operation Defensive Shield look like a walk in the a park.

I pray that I am wrong, and that the moderate Palastinian Arabs take charge and establish the rule of non-sharia law in Gaza, and that this leads to a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues.

But there is NOTHING that the Palestinian Arabs have ever done that makes me think or feel that this even remotely likely. And IT BODES VERY BADLY that there seems to be consensus that Gaza must be JUDENREIN, while it's considered "fine & proper" that Israel be 20% Arab/Muslim. This immoral and anti-Semitic asymmetry reveals that Israel's neighbors are NOT likely to ever become "good neighbors." (I believe that Israel will only have peace with the Arabs when it is as safe for Jews to live in Arab nations as it is for Arabs to live in Israel.)

I challenge anyone to give me any CONCRETE example of anything in the last 12 years of "Palestinian Arab"-Israeli conflict that makes them believe that the unliateral withdrawal of Jews from Gaza might lead to "more better" negotiations. I think that it is more likely that the West Bank and Israel are targeted by INCREASED jihadoterrorist attacks - perhaps like those just experienced in Bangladesh: a series of HUNDREDS of bombs all set-off simultaneously.

We shall see. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005


The Democrat-Left made the USA cut & run from Vietnam. They want that to happen again. This time, they think they can get away with it as long as they preface it with "we support the troops." Like hell they do! A mother who exploits her heroic son's death for her own political agenda is Leftist scum. But then... that's redundant! So I'll just call Sheehan scum. Anti-Semitic, paranoid scum.


WASHINGTON - (DALLAS MORING NEWS/KRT - hat tip SEAN HANNITY): Four out of every 10 Mexican adults would migrate to the United States if they had the means and opportunity to do so, according to a poll released Tuesday. And two in 10 Mexican adults say they'd be willing to live and work illegally in the United States, the Pew Hispanic Center reported in what is believed to be the first snapshot by U.S. pollsters of Mexicans' views on migration.

That's ASTOUNDING! Forty percent (40%!) want to move to the USA - and 20%! would come here ILLEGALLY!

HEY: I got a SIMPLER SOLUTION for them Mexicans. Why don't they just simpy abolish their sysem of government, and their laws, and adopt the US Constitution and our federal criminal and tax code!? After all, they have good natural rescources and good hard-working people. All they need is a functioning representative democracy, good checks and balances, and a real free-market system. ALSO: They would have to privatize a lot of state-owned socialstic companies, too.


I think they should and could aim higher - AT HOME! If they did, they would transform their nation from a backward corrupt outpost of demogogic socialism into a little USA - with better food, great music and warmer weather! I say, "VIVA MEXICO: a TRULY democratic and capitalist Mexico!"


BBC: "Officials say more than 300 explosions took place simultaneously in 50 cities and towns across the country including the capital Dhaka. An outlawed Islamic group, Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh, says it carried out the attacks."

Is this a trail run for a round of attacks in major cities in the USA using bombs and/or gasoline tankers and gas stations (as the FBI and I think is possible)?! (MORE ON THE POSSIBLE GASOLINE CONNECTION HERE and HERE.)

Tuesday, August 16, 2005


... why did they lie about it for 18 years - coming clean only AFTER they were caught!

And is anyone shocked that the IAEA will side with Iran (according to news reports - see below)?! YES: as shocked as Renault upon discovering that there was gambling at Ricks!

Here's a good article from the ARAB TIMES.


To all the Lefties who denied that Michael was ever in it for the money -- (and saw him as an honorable husband, despite the FACT that he never asserted that Terri would have wanted to die rather than live as a brain-damaged person UNTIL AFTER he collected money in a suit in which he promised to care for her for the rest of her life, AND despite the fact that he was cohabiting with another woman) -- there's this item (hat tip DISCARDED LIES):
CLEARWATER - Michael Schiavo has asked a court to waive the two-year statute of limitations on filing a medical malpractice lawsuit against one or more of his deceased wife's caregivers. Terri Schiavo, 41, died March 31 after her feeding tube was removed after a seven-year court battle. Schiavo's attorney in this case, Mark Perenich, said he was not able to discuss the proposed lawsuit behind Tuesday's request for an extension of the two-year statute of limitations.
I think that this proves that from the get-go, Michael was in it for the money. As soon as he won his first lawsuit - for money that SUPPOSED to go to Terri's lifetime care - he wanted her dead. Getting the courts to force doctors to murder her took more time and money than he had hoped. So now he has to sue again. $cum.


IHT:Intelligence analysts warned the Clinton administration in 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would make him an even greater danger as he sought to expand radical Islamism "well beyond the Middle East," but the government did nothing to stop the move, newly declassified documents show.

Er... um, the government was run by Clinton, then - (and Maddie - who clinked glasses with Kim Jong Il, and Berger - who stole classified documents, and Gorelick - who built the "wall"). Clinton was too busy with interns to bother with Binladen, I guess.



THE ANCHORESS linked to and commented on an article in NEWSDAY about the books Bush is reading on his sumer vacation. Quite astutely, she observed that most of the "intellectuals" interviewed for the story were shocked at the books, and what they say about Bush. Her insights are RIGHT-ON; CHECK'EM OUT!

I can only add this observation: most people confuse loquacity with intelligence. Bush isn't loquacious; people who overvalue loquacity think this means Bush is dumb. But if loquacity really was an important characteristic, then we'd elect USED-CAR SALESMEN president - guys who could sweet-talk you into believing they're GREAT and have trustworthy characters, and that the LEMON you're looking at is AWESOME!

A president like that might talk pretty, but as president he'd get us into a heap of trouble and leave behind a mess.

I guess that explains the Clinton Era.

UPDATE - 8/17: BETSY has insights, too. As ever...


Bill Maher on Larry King (Hat tip KJ at NRO):

We don't know what he'd [John Roberts] do if he had to rule on Roe versus Wade, but at least he has a shot, I think, at becoming the kind of justice that is not in the hip pocket of the right wing. Having said that, ladies, get your abortions now. If you need one, go now!... I am more sympathetic on the abortion issue than I am on most right wing socially conservative issues, because you know, you don't have to be religious to be against abortion. I do sort of understand what they're saying. If you've ever seen a sonogram, you know, you could see something that's emerging as a human being in there. And we are sort of reaching in and killing it. I'm just not against that...

I'm a board member of PETA. And this [caller] is exactly right, and I'm glad he raised the issue. It's despicable the way we treat animals in this country. And it's part and parcel to our general lack of compassion for things that don't affect us directly.

Er... um, treating animals badly is immoral but it's okay to reach-in a kill an "emerging human"?!?! Yipes! Maher's views on "humane treatment" of animals and of fetuses is as awful and as immoral and as unprincipled and as irrational as his stand on the war in Iraq. Of course, this is TYPICAL of the Left. And it's why the Left is USELESS: Immoral and confused thinking (like Maher's/like the Left's) can NEVER yield effective analysis or policy.


BBC: Violent clashes between Syrian Kurds and police have erupted in the northern town of Ein al-Arab, according to a human rights organisation. The Arab Organisation for Human Rights in Syria said rioting broke out after Kurds were prevented from showing their support for a banned separatist group. There are more than 1.5 million Kurds in Syria, who often complain of harassment by the security services. In June, a popular Kurdish cleric was found dead in eastern Syria. Many Kurds blamed the government for his death.

The Kurds were long a thorn in the side of Saddam; (this was why the Kurds were the victims of his chem weapons). Since the NO-FLY ZONES were instituted by Clinton and Blair in the late 1990's, the Iraqi Kurds have had autonomy - and liberty and the prosperity which liberty produces. The Syrian Kurds may want the same thing, and this could lead to the toppling of Assad and his Baathist tyranny. Which would help Iraqi security. (I hope this is the case, and I hope we and the Iraqis are helping the Syrian Kurdish "rebels/insurgents/militants" (HEH!). As the wise man says: FASTER PLEASE!

Welcome ANCHORESS readers! Welcome JAWA REPORT readers!


Leftists like Cindy Sheehan seem to forget that oil is what the world economy runs on - and that the world economy is not "corporations ripping off consumers", but people making a living and trying to keep-up or improve their quality of life. Without oil, there'd be no quality of life (as we know it) and no economies worth anything, ANYWHERE! Everyone in the whole world would get poorer and everyone's quality of life would get worse. In every way.

Cindy Sheehan, and her fellow travellers on the Left, conveniently forget that it was president Carter who - in his SOTU in 1980 (ten months before the election he lost to Reagan) - who first enuciated the US policy on Persian Gulf oil, an enuciation so slear it was dubbed The Carter Doctrine. And it has been our nation's policy - in a bipartisan way (until now, that is) - ever since. Here's what Carter said:

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil. This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened. Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

If Cindy were intellectually honest - and if she wasn't an anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic Left-wing wacko - then she'd admit that part of what Bush is doing in Iraq is fulfuilling the words and promises of Jimmy Carter. That's why we went to war in 1991 against Saddam; it's why we kept troops in Saudi Arabia from 1991 until last year. And it's why the region is still of vital NATIONAL SECURITY VALUE TO THE USA. So when Lefties like Cindy Sheehan say it about oil, we should say: yes, IN PART IT IS. Oil is a vital commodity and since 1980 we have justifiably defended the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.

Ultimately, the flow of oil will be best protected when the region is stable and democratic. This - OF COURSE - cannot happen until jihadists and tyrants, who would love to use "energy blackmail" to help achieve their totalitarian aims, are vanquished. YES: When the tyrannies from Gibraltar to the Khyber Pass are vanquished then the world's oil and gas supply will be protected and the world safe.


TRIBUNE INDIA: While militants struck in the heart of Srinagar today, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Pakistan in no uncertain terms to dismantle its entire infrastructure of terrorism as its “half-hearted” attempts to curb terrorism will not suffice. ... “If violence continues, then our response will be hard... extremism is a challenge which requires a united response from all of us,” he asserted while delivering his second Independence Day address from the ramparts of Red Fort.

Can someone please ask Cindy Sheehan (who last night, on the Chris Matthews show HARDBALL, said she was EVEN ALSO opposed to the Afghanistan War) to please tell me what the Indian conflict with jihadoterorrists in Kashmir has to do with Zionism/PNAC/Israel/BusHitler/Halliburton!? Or could it be that the jihadists really do have a proactive and global plan to re-establish the Caliphate under Wahhabist sharia and to kill or convert anyone and everyone who gets in the way? Er ... um...DUH!

MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHY CONTINUED: polygamy, household size, and population growth

There're 2 more interesting charts in THE ECONOMIST's "POCKET WORLD IN FIGURES", 2005 Edition; Profile Books; London; 2005.

One is "BIGGEST HOUSEHOLDS" (on page 88), and another is "FASTEST GROWING POPULATIONS" (on page 17).

Of the 50 nations with the biggest average household size HALF are mostly Muslim nations - or nations with signficant Muslim minorities. The other half of the nations on the list are almost all African - and NORTH KOREA (and few nations in the South Pacific). Number's 1 & 2 - Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - average more than 8 people in each household; #3 Pakistan averages just over 7/household; #9 Jordan averages over 6/household; #38 Bangladesh averages just over 5/household; #45 Afghanistan averages 5/household.

Of the 20 nations with the fastest growing populations, 15 are mostly Muslim or have significantly large Muslim minorities. Qatar is the fastest growing population - growing at a rate of 9.6%/year! Syria is #19, and growing at 3.68% per year. (CONVERSELY: of the 20 SLOWEST growing populations, only one is Muslim: Afghanistan.)

These two demographic values (hosuehold size and population rate of increase) are related: large households are large because the women in the household are giving birth to many babies - and that OBVIOSULY causes that nation's population to increase!

What is not so obvious is why most of these fast "growing/large household" nations are Muslim. Could it be that POLYGAMY tends to increase the size of each household? That seems very likely. If a man has three wives and each has only two children with him (the average in the USA/household), then the household size - and population growth will be three times greater in the polygamous Muslim nation than the secular Western nation.

If Muslim nations adopted monogamy - this would reduce the size of each household, increase the wealth of each household/person, and reduce the rate of population growth of each mostly Muslim nation. These results would improve the QUALITY OF LIFE for all the citizens of these nations.

And it would increase the individual value of each woman, each wife.

I think that this would reduce "honor killings" - and this would increase the VALUE OF EACH LIFE in these cultures, which would reduce the appeal of jihadoterrorism.

I think that polygamy and misogyny are both expressions of jihadofascism, and I believe that if Muslim nations adopted monogamy and greater empowerment of women that this would eliminate a major "root cause" (or ENABLER) of jihadoterrorism: the systematic dehumanization of half their people - the women; (as I have previously blogged: an ideology which blesses "honor killings" of female family members is certainly going to permit murder and terror of "infidels".) If and when Islam eliminates the former, it can eliminate the latter.

UPDATE: Here are some links to a few articles about Muslim misogyny and its link to polygamy, "honor killings" and jihadoterrorism:

A few of these links are to articles written BEFORE 9/11. Here's an excerpt from one:

... everything the world has learned in the past decade about why some countries develop and others stay mired in poverty shows that women can make all the difference. National standards of living improve -- family income, education, nutrition and life expectancy all rise, and birthrates fall -- as women move toward equality, ... When women's influence increases, these experts explain, it strengthens the moderate center, bolstering economic stability and democratic order. Women might serve as powerful assets in the West's attempt to counter Islamic radicalism. ... for the past 30 years, Islamic extremism has flourished throughout the Middle East. As women have been pushed out of the political and economic spheres, their traditional moderating role has declined. "This is the warriors' time," said Fouad Ajami, director of Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. "The warriors, the martyrs -- they're all men. In this moment of history, with the world of the Arabs and the larger world of Islam on the boil, the whole question of women and women's progress is shelved." Angry young men, many of them unemployed, have seized the public arena from Algeria to South Asia and filled it with hate, intolerance and the abuse of women, Ajami said. "This is the class that is most hostile to women," Ajami said. "If this class dominates the Islamists, feminism and modernity are doomed." "The issue of gender is so crucial to progress and modernity," he said, "But if the cult of the martyr and the children of the stones on the West Bank, if that's the dominant cult, then what little place there was for women is shrinking."

[From an article by Barbara Crossette, and published in The New York Times - Sunday, November 4, 2001 - three weeks after 9/11.]

In this post - and my prior one on gender imbalances in Muslim countries - I have tried to argue that widespread misogyny and polygamy have had (and continue to have) a profound effect on socio-economic conditions in Muslim nations (probably as much a negative effect as anything else - the barbaric and backward practices derived from Islam's anti-female cultural attitudes contribute to their nation's poverty and ignorance) and their tolerance of tyranny, AND to their propensity for domestic and international violence. If and when Islam banishes polygamy and punishes misogyny, then Islam can end jihadofascism and jihadoterrorism.

UPDATE: click here to read more about misogyny in Saddam's Iraq.

UPDATE: CLICK HERE FOR AN ARTICLE BY AYAAN HIRSI ALI ON MISOGYNY IN ISLAM - FROM TODAY'S WSJ! EXCERPT: In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance. I have argued - in this post and a prior one - that Islam's cruel gender discrimination shows up in demographic data, and that this is a root cause of jiahoterror, arguing that if Muslims believe it is good to murder female family members, then of course they can commit terror agaisnt "infidels."


And... ROGER L. SIMON AGREES: "Women's rights are the very center of the War on Terror. In fact I would argue Islamofascism at its core is more than anything else an expression of rage against women and that Islam itself is not much better on that score."

Monday, August 15, 2005

THE KKK AS A "SOUTHERN INSURGENCY" - and the "Iraqi insurgents" as KKKlansmen

The analogy is sound: the jihadoterrorists in Iraq (and elsewhere) are essentially like the KKK was after reconstruction; they're tyring to reinstitute tyranny. The insurgents are the reactionaries - as those who support them, or excuse them. More on this analogy from VARIFRANK (hat tip Dr. Sanity). RTWT. [Aside: this analogy brings added depth to today's annoucement that David Duke endorses Cindy Sheehan.]

Sunday, August 14, 2005


Al-Qaida terrorists are plotting to drive fuel tankers into petrol stations in London and US cities in the next few weeks, according to press reports citing a US government report.The leaked report purportedly from the US Department for Homeland Security claims Osama bin Laden's henchmen wish to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, with an orgy of mass casualties and catastrophe in a bid to derail the US economy.

The London Times has reproduced the actual warning HERE. The attacks are supposedly planned for the 9/11 anniversary and are perhaps to continue through 9/19.


The Economist publishes a fascinating little booklet with all sorts of fascinating facts and figures about a variety of things. It's titled, "POCKET WORLD IN FIGURES", 2005 Edition; Profile Books; London; 2005.

I just got one. I found an interesting chart on page 24 - a page titled, "Men and Women." The chart I found most interesting is one of three on the page; it's called, "Most male populations." It's sub-titled, "Number of males per 100 females."

Of the thirty (30) nations on the list (being the thirty with the greatest IMBALANCE, with far more men than women - and far more than might be expected if there were no intervention - 20 of them are predominantly Muslim (or with a very large Muslim segment of the population).

The most imbalanced is (at #1) the UAE [189 males per 100 females], followed by Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia [117 males /100 females], and then non-Muslim Guam, followed by #8 Jordan, followed by non-Arab - but Muslim Brunei, Sri Lanka, Libya, and then non-Muslim Polynesian & Papua, followed by Muslim (but non-Arab) Afghanistan, followed by India (which has a very large Muslim population), and then China [where we KNOW they practice female infanticide - 106 males/100 females], then Muslim Bangladesh, non-Muslim New Caledonia, then Muslim Pakistan, Muslim and European Albania, non-Muslim Nepal, then Cote d'Ivoire (which has a significant Muslim population), and then Taiwan and Costa Rica and Fiji, then Muslim Gaza and Muslim West Bank, Muslim Iran, Muslim Malaysia, and Muslim Yemen [103 males/100 females] .

Twenty of the thirty nations with severe imbalances -- which cannot be explained by natural forces, but which are most likley the result of direct, human intervention -- are Muslim. Another indication that there is a connection between this imbalance and Islam is the fact that (according to another chart on the same page in the same booklet) of thirty (30) nations with imbalances which FAVOR women, only ONE (1) is predominantly Muslim or has a significant Muslim minority.

If there were no correlation between this imbalance and Islam then we would expect that there would be fewer Muslim nations on the chart which shows the nations with imbalances which favor men, and more on the chart which shows nations with imbalances which favor women. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there is some relationship betweeen Islam and gender-imbalances in the national populations which favor men.

Could it be female infanticide? Or "honor killings?" Some people think so - at leasst they think that the horrific practice is very widespread. These charts lend credence to them. ALSO: this imbalance may reveal what is at the core of the current "clash of civilizations." The propensity of certain nations and cultures and religions to produce disproportionately more terrorists, and specifically the propensity for Islam to produce jihadoterrorism might be related to the fact that their culture promotes the devaluation females and femininity and subjugates women - turning them into chattel, making them the property of husbands who have many wives.

This practice tends to DEHUMANIZE HALF OF THEIR NATION, AND HALF OF EVERY HOUSEHOLD. That cannot help but create a culture conducive to non-violent dispute resolution, in general. IOW: if it's alright to murder your own daughter or sister or mother or wife, then murdering a stranger who doesn't share your form of faith is EFFING EASY!

Then again, this may NOT be a "root cause" but merely a another symptom of a culture/religion which is very effed up.

[NOTE: in Indonesia (the world's biggest Muslim nation), "honor killings" are unknown, and there is NO imbalance. This further suggests that there is a connection between the imbalance and "honor killings" in the other Muslim nations on the list.] More on "honor killings HERE. And a very clear statement from American Muslim Women who utterly condemn "honor killings" can be found HERE. Another Muslim condemns them - on Islamic grounds - HERE.

These condemnations by Muslims are very GOOD. And they point the way to positive change. But they do reveal that even many Muslims agree that THIS IS A BIG , WIDESPREAD PROBLEM - one so large that it can be measured in the populations of Muslim nations (if my deductions are correct).

I think that if-and-when the widespread practice of "honor killings" stops, that jihadoterror will stop, too. IMHO, they are co-symptomatic.

FURTHER NOTE: There are 61 nations in the world with significant Muslim populations, and MOST of them do not have gender-imbalances in their populations, or a history of "honor killings" - or even an obvious propensity to produce jihadoterrorists, (at least not yet).

SO, there is NOT an inextricable link between Islam and either "honor killings" or jihadoterror. Which gives me reason to believe that this horrific practice can be wiped out without necessitating the wipe out of all of Islam, and that gives me cause for hope of a WIN-WIN victory in WW4, too. We will rid the world of jihadoterror when the religion of Islam rids itself of its fanatics.

I believe that unless-and-until the practice of "honor killing" is wiped out, we will be a world at war with fanatical Islam. When Islam can get itself free of this horrific practice, then it will have demonstrated the capability to reign in it's fanatical terrorists, too. We shall see. Up until now, I am NOT seeing nearly enough condemnation by Muslims of either "honor killings" or terror. So, we shall see. We shall wait and see. And while we're waiting, we have got to defend ourselves with everything we've got!]


UPDATE: the UN has taken very critical positions on gender-imbalance in CHINA and VIETNAM, but not in the Muslim nations listed above. This reveals that there is (a) consensus on the general issue -- that the statistics DO indicate an underlying social problem which can lead to other serious negative social conditions -- but also that (b) there is a pervasive bias at the UN which skews its efforts and diminishes its potential positive impact. [ASIDE: I GOOGLED a few variants of several keywords in the above essay, and found that there is MUCH written on China's population imbalance but very VERY little written about the much MUCH WORSE IMBALANCES which occur in Muslim nations. So, the propensity to ignore this issue goes well beyond the UN. It may reflect PC attitudes or FEAR of retribuition at the hands of the jihadoterrorists for "daring" to criticize Muslim nations.]