Jewish Boy Beaten In Paris

That's right. By fifteen people. Into a coma.

Oh, and the article also reports:

In related news, the results of a survey conducted recently in Britain and
published in the Sunday Telegraph revealed that Muslim youth in the United
Kingdom are increasingly radicalized.

The report noted that radical Islamic leaders operating in the UK are having far greater success than in the past in attracting young Muslims to their causes. The researchers who conducted the survey warned that the trend is so severe that they fear the number of British Muslims willing to participate in terrorism may have increased significantly.

Welfare states have a way of reducing populations to a deadening materialism, and every such nation generates those who, having retained a sense of something higher in human life, rebel against the established order. In America, many of these--ironically--are those who call for a still more expansive welfare state. In Europe, Muslim youths are increasingly becoming radicalized against this materialism, but they aren't fighting with folk songs and large protests; they're fighting with metal rods. And unlike American conservatives, like myself, who call simply for limited and decentralized government, they call for theocracy. It will be interesting to watch the interactions between a materialist/multiculturalist society and a violently intolerant religious minority.

Having almost completely vanquished an amicable domestic conservatism, will Europe fall prey to a barbarous foreign one?

The Right Ideas

Oliver Kamm writes today in The Guardian--that's right, Britain's premiere lefty publication--that the world is safer today than before the advent of George W. Bush. (!) Read the whole fascinating and thought-provoking article.

I agree with his basic analysis that the 9/11 attacks moved Bush's foreign policy philosophy in a better direction, but his execution was poor. In my estimation, Bush has been correct in believing that there is, as Kamm notes, a fundamental link between terrorist organizations and the regimes which harbor and aid them, as Hussein's indisputably did. Kamm adds, and I agree, that he was correct to understand that the Islamist radicals do not hate us because of our role in the region, but because our society's liberties, our tolerance of different moral systems, identifies us with Satan in a very real way. (It's not mere hyperbole, as when a tenured university professor calls Bush "Satan" while watching Keith Olbermann and sipping cognac. But I needlessly imperil myself.) His philosophies rightly led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but poor execution and mismanagement led to problems in both places--however, in fits and starts, both states are making progress under a renewed and rethought American offensive.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have taken almost every angle possible on the war in order to gain political points. They have abused the president abroad--a big no-no---demanded a draft, visited Islamic autocrats for a pleasant chat, tried to retreat because the Iraq War is immoral, tried to retreat because we should only do what's strictly in our best interests, tried to retreat on a timetable regardless of position on the ground, tried to ignore any progress and play up the defeats, and tried feebly to get the president to maybe say he might possibly at some time potentially withdraw our troops from Iraq once they captured Congress because they knew that actual retreat would be political suicide, as opposed to talking about retreat. (Whew!) Ascendant in the polls though they are, it does not vindicate them from their shameless politicking of America's national security. Despite the good intentions of the pacifist and the anti-war protester on the street, the behavior of Democrat congressmen has been an absolute disgrace. The crowning glory was Harry Reid declaring the surge "lost" before it had begun.

On Boumediene

George Will defends the Court's decision in the case, PowerLine's Scott Johnson criticizes Will.

Nothing makes a citizenry, or a faction of the citizenry, angrier than when the nation's unlected highest court makes a decision with which they disagree. However, Supreme Court decisions must be criticized in a cautious and moderate way, an independent judiciary being necessary to the maintenance of freedom in any democratic system of government. Not having studied law, much less constitutional law, I am also hesitant to criticize the decisions of five justices who are among the most intelligent and thoughtful law experts available in this country.

But everyone else is doing it, so why not give it a shot? George Will's main objections to the critics are that there have been worse decisions, the majority justices are intelligent people, the decision is to provide only the right to request a hearing, and the right of habeas corpus is important to the restraint of governmental power. All of these are true, but they are also irrelevant in different degrees.

The habeas right is very important in the restriction of government, but it has never before been applied to prisoners of war and/or non-citizens. To do so makes little sense. Even granting that POWs and non-citizens have this right, the Constitution provides for a suspension of the habeas right for just such a time as this. The fact that five intelligent Supreme Court justices made this decision is no defense, considering that four also opposed it vehemently. Seven justices were responsible for the disastrous Roe case. The fact that the case provides merely the right to request a hearing, and not a hearing per se, will serve to moderate the consequences of this ruling, it's true, but the right to request a hearing is still a right to a hearing, provided one chooses the right court. (And there's always a sympathetic court.) It does not change the fact that people who have never been accorded Constitutional rights, and with good reason, have been accorded Constitutional rights in a way that will have serious negative consequences for our nation's security.

George Will does make one other point--that military tribunals allow hearsay evidence and evidence produced under compulsion. Well, they aren't courts who hear the cases of citizens charged with committing a crime. They're courts designed to deal with cases having to do with military personnel and prisoners of war, and thus have proper jurisdiction over the detainees at Gitmo. What's more, their fairness is well attested.

The result of this decision will not be more humane treatment of prisoners of war. (And, despite mythology still prevalent today, the Guantanamo Bay facility is one of the most humane holding facilities in the history of warfare.) Instead, such prisoners will be shipped secretly to other nations for imprisonment and interrogation by far less civilized means, or they will simply be interrogated and killed quickly.

Is It A Phobia If It's A Reasonable Fear?

From UPI:

Arab leaders ended a summit in Syria Sunday by issuing a statement lamenting what they see as growing anti-Islamic sentiment around the world.

"The growth of ferocious attacks against Islam and the rise of Islamophobia are a deep source of concern, particularly given that the offenses to Muslims are increasing in countries known for their pluralism and acceptance of difference," said the final statement reported by Gulf Daily News.

These guys sure know how to work a Western crowd. Plead the words "ignorance" and "racism" while being something other than a white male, and you automatically win, facts be hanged. On the whole, it isn't remarkable that "Islamophobia" would be on the rise in the world's most pluralistic countries; those are the very countries most likely to be attacked, because jihadists cannot abide pluralism--and those Arab leaders who are crying out for pluralism aren't exactly paragons of that particular virtue themselves. Neither is it remarkable that anti-Islamic sentiment should be increasing, since the global jihadist network continues to plot, too often successfully, to kill as many infidels as possible in as many nations as possible.

What is remarkable, historically, is that Muslims have not faced exile and death in the Western nations that many (though not all) of their co-religionists attack. There is hardly even any move by them to declare unity with their fellow citizens. The first fact speaks to the commitment to tolerance that our nation has, honestly, taken the lead in championing, and that's a fantastic thing. The second fact speaks to the lack of cultural confidence that plagues America, especially in relation to Islamism.

Now, the title of this post may seem a bit inflammatory; I certainly don't mean that it's reasonable to think that all Muslims are terrorists or want Americans dead. But it is certainly not unreasonable to think of Islam as a whole as a violent religion, spread originally by the sword and with a long history of imperialism, especially considering the rise of jihadism across the world. The global terrorist network is a distinctly Islamic phenomenon, despite Hollywood's best attempts at portraying terrorists as either Communists or, even better, neo-Nazis. The Pope references Islam's history of conversion at swordpoint, and a Turkish priest is shot dead. A few cartoonists poke fun at Mohammed, and there are worldwide riots resulting in fatalities.

Maybe this is the reason why anti-Islamism is on the rise? (Nah...) LiveLeak has, by the way, restored the video to their website after beefing up security; Indonesians have called for the video's creator, Dutch MP Geert Wilders, to be killed. (h/t Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com)

Southfield, Michigan, Terrorist Arrest

(Via PowerLine)

Surprise! Southfield resident and former head of Michigan's chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Murthanna al-Hanooti, was indicted for working as a spy for Saddam Hussein. (What?! CAIR involved in militant Islam?!) Debbie Schlussel has the story, which you can read for yourself. Apparently the guy has a second family (including a wife) in Iraq.

Of note: Saddam paid for a trip to Iraq through al-Hanooti for several congressmen, including Michigan liberal congressman David Bonior. Sadly, there are also financial ties between al-Hanooti and Michigan Republican congressman Joe Knollenberg, whom Debbie Schlussel names "Hezbollah's Congressman." I was not aware of this fact, and regret that the rare Republican also sometimes engages with these murderous people.

Report Proves No Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda! (?)

At least, as PowerLine's Scott Johnson reports, that's what several major news outlets would have you believe.

But Stephen Hayes, contributor to The Weekly Standard and author of the book The Connection, begs to differ. With what evidence? Why, the report itself. As Scott Johnson writes, "If you have only learned of the report via reportage such as (ABC News and The New York Times), take a look at the report with your own eyes before drawing any conclusions about it." Verily. Here is the report; here is Hayes's post about it.

I'm not going to go into detail about the contradictions themselves, since Johnson and Hayes have done such a fine job of it already. But it seems that the main distinction that has not been made here by the news agencies is the difference between "ties" and "operational ties." Just because Iraqi and al Qaeda agents never conducted joint operations hardly means there are no ties between them. In fact, the report gives powerful evidence of cooperation between the two organizations. And, as Hayes points out, their short-term goals are extremely similar, so why not?

Beyond which, Saddam Hussein's ostentatious support of terrorism, whether cooperatively with al Qaeda or not, justified invasion under the Bush Doctrine, in principle if not in practice (which is a different debate altogether.) The idea that Hussein had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism is one simply dreamed up by anti-war (but mostly anti-Bush) folks after the fact. Atheistic Westerners loathe religious people, so I suppose it's easy for them to imagine that a secular nationalist government like Hussein's has the same loathing for jihadis. They may be forgetting that, whereas Westerners have the luxury to despise religious folks from the comfort of their studies in their enormous houses around San Francisco, California, Hussein and other such leaders kept power by encouraging and harnessing anti-Western emotions, just like al Qaeda, and shared with al Qaeda a violent hostility toward the West. The notion that cooperation between the two is philosophically impossible is absurd. Divergent philosophies never got in the way of marriages of convenience before (think Molotov-Ribbentrop).

Winning The Hearts And Minds

I'm a bit behind here so both of these are from two days ago.

Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine Blog notes that al Qaeda's popularity is decreasing as a result of our occupation and destruction of their networks. Go figure. Allahpundit points out, meanwhile, that The New York Times, of all people, is reporting on the rise of secularism among the Iraqi youth.

I remember when we were preparing to invade Iraq and people were decrying our lack of understanding about the culture and terrain. "Desert Power," that's what we needed...didn't anyone read Dune?! The ignorance of that idea is laughable to this day, since our superior technology means that we're the only ones who can survive in the desert (water transportation and air power).

Now, about the issue of the various sectarian and ethnic groups, we truly didn't know as much as we should have. But there were two significant factors on our side. In the first place, Islamic culture has a great tendency to respect power. In our dealings with the Middle East, it is nearly always the case that displays of power accomplish things and displays of pandering move us backward. And indeed, our display of toughness in Iraq is showing the Islamic world that we aren't going away before al Qaeda does. In the second place, Iraq has a relatively highly-educated populace and is largely composed of Shi'a, the sect of Islam more closely associated with secular government. For example, Shi'a Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has repeatedly refused to make efforts to install himself as ruler despite his high standing in Shi'a Islam and his immense popularity; Ahmed Chalabi, formerly exiled leader of the Iraqi National Congress, is a Shi'a who explicitly espouses a secular government and who has done well for himself in the new system.

Americans need to take three moments. One, to rejoice in the incremental gains we are seeing in Iraq. Two, to remember the words of those who said the surge had been defeated before it began, who dishonored our soldiers, and who repeatedly threaten to negotiate with those whose only term is our death. Three, to mark the right box in November.

(Have I drunk the McCain kool-aid? You'll have to stay tuned! Every day is more exciting than the last, eh?)

Give Them a State! (Sarcasm Alert)

(Via Michelle Malkin)

Those wacky Palestinians are at it again, demanding blood for the irreverant cartoon published by Danes exercising their right to free speech:

In the Gaza Strip, controlled by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, a leader of a militants’ umbrella group called on Muslim faithful to attack Danish embassies and diplomats.

“Blow up the Danish embassies and kill the ambassadors,” Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), said at an open-air news conference in a Gaza square, where PRC members burnt a Danish flag.

“We urge (Islamist fighters) to track down those who printed the cartoons, those who drew them and those who published them and slaughter them immediately,” he said.

Haha! Oh, come on, they're obviously only joking! There is nothing to fear but fearmongering Republicans!

Danish police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent last Tuesday, accusing them of planning to kill a cartoonist who drew one of the images.

Err...oh. Well, at least the kids over there in Denmark seem to be having fun; it's the eighth night of rioting by Muslim youths in Denmark. Gateway Pundit has the story and video.

This Was The Danger

I'm on a tear this morning! Well, anyway.

This was always the danger, really. If we invade Iraq, whether it's successful or not, once things start settling down there, will Americans forget about the wider war on terror?

Americans need to remember that the Iraq War is not meant to be an isolated action by the United States. It is just one part of a larger battle against an ideology currently sweeping the globe. (By the way, one thing is for sure: although I have serious disagreements with John McCain about other things, he is dead on in the War on Jihadism.) The strategic strengths of an Iraq invasion were these: 1) it is a nation with large populations of both Shi'a and Sunnis. A functioning, moderately pluralistic democracy here would be a dagger in the heart of Sunni-Shi'a sectarian battles. 2) It, like Afghanistan, borders Iran. With a large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, we now have the capability of initiating a debilitating blockade against Iran if the necessity arises. What's better, the Iranians know that option is on the table for us. 3) It has a large Shi'a majority. Militant Shi'a theocracy has a very short tradition; the Iranian Revolution of 1979 played a major role in its advancement, and an allied Iraqi democracy could do serious damage to that movement. 4) Eliminating the Hussein regime took away an important safe haven and source of funding from jihadist militants. Moreover, an allied Iraq gives us an important base of operations for moving against other jihadist safe havens and sources of funding.

Islamic terrorism is difficult to keep fighting politically, because when you're winning, the problem seems to have gone away. It's only obvious when you're losing. We need to keep reporting what Mark Steyn wrote about in his important book, America Alone (Buy at Amazon.com): around the world, madrassas teaching violent Islamic radicalism are raising a generation of jihadists against Israel and the West. In many Western nations, Muslim immigrants are becoming less assimilated to their adopted nations' cultures and demanding enforcement of shari'a law. Parisians' cars are burning, and it isn't because of global warming activists.