"A word about what we should not do"

This from the Trump Campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

This. Not just yet another abomination slipping from the Provocateur in Chief's mouthpiece, but a formal, written statement published on his official channel. 

This. After the Paris and San Bernardino shootings, after Marine Le Pen's victory in French regional elections, after Obama's speech, after the rise of Ted Cruz in Iowa polls, after a call from Holocaust survivors to welcome refugees in the US...

This. Even in the US, people usually hide behind masks to make such hatemongering calls.

"What is going on" is that radicals once again set the agenda, and Donald Trump is playing their game.

"What is going on" is that France and the United States send the worst message to the world.

"What is going on" is that yes, the leaders of our democracies are weak. 

Francois Hollande is weak. Unlike after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, he chose the nationalist / military only path to pose as a strong leader days ahead of elections poised to boost the extreme right, and of course it backfired.

Barack Obama is weak because there's not much he can do: his predecessor already weakened America and democracy worldwide, and he failed to keep a majority to support him at home. No wonder the first half of his address to the nation* fell flat.

But Barack Obama is not weak when he remains clear (NSA discrepancies notwithstanding) about what America should not do, and that was the second half of his speech. America will stop being America if it follows the wishes of her most radical extremists, which happen to be exactly what ISIS wants.

I'm not sure a majority of Americans got that part of the message.

What I'm sure of, is that ISIS needs friends like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Donald Trump.
blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* "Address to the nation by the President" (White House - 20151206)

The Sand Curtain, Two Years Later (or is it 20?)

Islamists being among the fiercest enemies of democracy, you certainly can't defeat them with a permanent denial of democracy, particularly when they've claimed some level of legitimacy in elections. So if no true supporter of democracy can be fully satisfied by Egypt's sudden demorsification, one can hope lessons from Algeria have been learned.

Regional and global terrorism feed upon this kind of shell games and actually, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb celebrates the merger of the islamist movement that was prevented from winning the 1991 elections in Algeria* with a global franchise whose main theorician and now main leader happens to come from Egypt. And people like Ayman al-Zawahiri loves to have enemies like Hosni Mubarak or Adbelaziz Bouteflika (not to mention the Saudi ruling family, Bibi Netanyahu or, even better, George W. Bush**).

So today, as Abdelaziz Bouteflika reaches the end of his rope, Mohamed Morsi the end of his luck, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan the end of his imposture***, the moment has come to make very clear the point that was at the core of the Egyptian revolution, before the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked it: "we reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism"****.

And again, this should not become a debate about religion, but about politics. And again, secularism is the only way of securing both democracy and freedom of religion. One of the best illustrations is the ban of Burqa in France - a case I discussed with Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawi back in June 2009*****.

Egypt cannot secure its democracy until it states clearly the separation of State and religion (of course the same could be said about any country, be it Iran or Israel). And ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood will have to chose between democracy and illegality.

blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)


* from Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) and Groupe Islamique Arme (GIA) to Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (GSPC) to Al Qaeda au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI)

** see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism":

Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. (...) For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment. His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success. Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country. And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party. George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism".

*** see "Turquie : la révolution silencieuse" (20070723 on my French blogules):

Turkey: the Silent Revolution Coupled with the rise of extreme right nationalism (14% for the MHP) and the strenghtening of Kurdish nationalism (again over 20 lawmakers for the DTP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan's triumph (the AKP claimerd over half of the votes) only leaves twenty something percent of the vote to the main republican party. And when one sees this CHP cling to a caricature of edulcorated kemalism, one can wonder if Turkey has not turned its back for good on its ideal of secular democracy. As expected, the pressures from Western Christian fundamentalists on Turkey only beefed up islamists and nationalists, marginalizing the true heralds of a model democracy.  Erdogan won because of his economic results and because of the irrelevance of his opponents. And if he remains hindered by an aging military clique, his islamist revolution is well under way, and time is on his side (like demographics). Turkey is asserting itself as a new model combining economic modernity and religious archaism where woman is progressively sidelined, where the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV) can freely spread its creationist theses, and where change is implemented from the bottom up through socio-religious pressure more efficiently than through a law that will eventually be altered - if not the letter of the law, at least the acts. Turkey's candidacy for EU membership is now taking the turn that all the enemies of democracy wanted: a forum - La candidature à l'Europe prend désormais toute la saveur qu'attendaient d'elle les ennemis de la démocratie : un forum - amplifier for all the hatred and fears they've been knowledgeably feeding for years. European voters must reject this parody of a debate, punish those who deliberately pour oil on the fire, and refuse the 'clash of civilizations' imposture. Let's send to our Turkish friends a message of exemplary nature by rejecting as anti-democratic the return of religion in the political debate. Starting with the debate about the integration of Turkey in Europe.

**** see "Sand curtain" (2011/02)

"(...) Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and fundamentalists would love to step in to fill the ideology void. At this defining moment, most people on the street seem to reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism, but most people on the street prefer order to chaos, and uncertainty shouldn't last too long. Israel nervously watches as Jordanian and Egyptian regimes falter under popular pressure. Muslim friends who could turn enemies, with the benediction of Iran, whose own corrupt regime postponed its ineluctable fall by a few years by crushing popular uprisings at home. Unfortunately, these days, Israeli leaders seem to position themselves as a corrupt regime with some ideology. Not a dictatorship, mind you, but not a bunch of nice guys either. Barack Obama is a nice guy. Unfortunately, these days, the US leader doesn't seem to be in charge of foreign policy, so huge is the gap between what he says and what the US do. And the poor lad doesn't have one Gorbachev to call if he wants that sand curtain torn down... So what's ahead ? Probably trouble and uncertainties, but somehow this transitional period has started after WWII and independence wars, and we're closer to the end than from the beginning. Something new will emerge and eventually, something positive. Societies freed from political and religious deviances. Hopefully, the time has come for a true Muslim renaissance. Right now, most dictators across the globe must have gotten some kind of message. But even supposedly strong democracies should be thinking twice when they applaud successful local uprisings or self-determination processes like in South Sudan : what is a nation in this globalized world, what will be holding its members together in this networked millenium ? More than ever, each individual will reach for the universal (as a human being), and the personal (identity)."

***** following the post "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one" (200906)

To all Anders Behring Breivik wannabes

If Anders Behring Breivik is your hero, I've got some news for you :

- Anders Behring Breivik is not insane, granted - even if his lawyer is unsurprisingly walking that perennial defense line. But Anders Behring Breivik is a dangerous psychopath, and he must face justice.

- I've met you before. Of course, not likely face to face (who knows ?), but one of your likes, on some internet forum. You've been promoting the same kind of hate speeches : Islam is at war with Western Civilization, we must eradicate it from Europe, take the arms, clean the place... the usual clash of civilization imposture.

- Anders Behring Breivik is not a hero, but a loser who cornered himself in that deadend for fear of facing his own identity crisis, a fool feeding on hate diatribes cooked by the same kind of impostors who turn weak minds into terrorists in the Muslim world. You think people like Geert Wilders defend the Western World against the Muslim World but you don't realize that YOU are his real target, not the Muslims. How can you trust a man who doesn't even trust the color of his own hair ?

- Just ask yourself why you admire Breivik, and you'll probably find the same anger, despair, unsureness inside yourself. You're bragging about being a 'pure blood', but are you that comfortable with your own identity ?

- By the way : did you know that your parents were Africans ? Yes, we humans come all from Africa. Even I, a blondish, blue-eyed Caucasian, Western European to the nth generation, am a proud African. And did you know that civilizations bloomed first in the Middle East, that big chunks of the antique European heritage were saved by Muslim scientists ?

- Make no mistake : Islam is not the menace, but another victim of fundamentalism, the mother of all impostures*. Remember : the main enemy always come from within. So don't get fooled by XXIst century crusaders. Don't be your own worst enemy.

blogules 2011 (also in French : "Message personnel aux fans d'Anders Behring Breivik")

* see also "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"

---
UPDATE 201108 : "Andreas" actual ID recovered, link to the French version

Sand curtain

If protorevolutionary movements across the Arabo-Muslim world tend to remind me of the late eighties in Eastern Europe, this is completely different.

This time it's not about the regionwide collapse of a corrupt system and ideology with a top-down benediction from a pro-reform leader (Gorbachev), but about several grassroot movements challenging local dictators, corrupt regimes sans ideology.

Note that both Ben Ali and Mubarak were already ailing caids. Beyond their political deaths, what matters now is the removal of entourages controlling most of the power in each country.

Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and fundamentalists would love to step in to fill the ideology void. At this defining moment, most people on the street seem to reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism, but most people on the street prefer order to chaos, and uncertainty shouldn't last too long.

Israel nervously watches as Jordanian and Egyptian regimes falter under popular pressure. Muslim friends who could turn enemies, with the benediction of Iran, whose own corrupt regime postponed its ineluctable fall by a few years by crushing popular uprisings at home. Unfortunately, these days, Israeli leaders seem to position themselves as a corrupt regime with some ideology. Not a dictatorship, mind you, but not a bunch of nice guys either.

Barack Obama is a nice guy. Unfortunately, these days, the US leader doesn't seem to be in charge of foreign policy, so huge is the gap between what he says and what the US do. And the poor lad doesn't have one Gorbachev to call if he wants that sand curtain torn down...

So what's ahead ? Probably trouble and uncertainties, but somehow this transitional period has started after WWII and independence wars, and we're closer to the end than from the beginning. Something new will emerge and eventually, something positive. Societies freed from political and religious deviances. Hopefully, the time has come for a true Muslim renaissance.

Right now, most dictators across the globe must have gotten some kind of message. But even supposedly strong democracies should be thinking twice when they applaud successful local uprisings or self-determination processes like in South Sudan : what is a nation in this globalized world, what will be holding its members together in this networked millenium ?

More than ever, each individual will reach for the universal (as a human being), and the personal (identity).

blogules 2011

"Mommy, am I a...?"

"Mommy, am I a...?" is a simple but useful lesson for young kids, as well as for parents and educators.

Anila Ali, a friend, wrote this book for her daughter with Karen Gottlieb (co-author), and Marian Seiders (illustrations). All three taught in a Californian middle school : Anila, a Muslim, was born in Pakistan ; Karen is a Brooklyn Jew ; and Marian happens to be Christian.

The story of Aisha is about intolerance, stupid words and cliches that hurt. Hopefully, here, the usual mechanism is quickly defused because adults act responsibly. Unfortunately, in real life and in this post-9/11 world of ours, kids are not only often left to their own devices, but sometimes encouraged to cause more damage by irresponsible adults or worse, hatemongers who thrive on wounds that never heal. Even small misunderstandings and unfairnesses hurt, so let's spot their signs as early as possible.

If poor education can be a time bomb, sound education is one of the most precious gifts a kid can receive.

And this 23-page book is a very nice gift.


"Mommy, am I a ....?"
Avid Readers Publishing Group
Anila Ali (Author), Karen Gottlieb (Author), Marian Seiders (Illustrator)


blogules 2010

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").

State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine

Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.

A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.

Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.

A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :

Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".

Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)

Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".

Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...

The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.

Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".

The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.

A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.



* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").

** see transcript (NYT 20090604)

*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"

"Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama

Osama Bin Laden has got a sick sense of humor : Barack Obama would be "antagonizing Muslims"... that's according to a man who killed much more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").

Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.

Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.

Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.

Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".

Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".

President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.

Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".

And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.

Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."

Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.

But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.

Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...

You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.


* see "Next stop: Pakistan"

John, Ben, Barack Hussein, James, Thomas, and other beautiful American names

What do McCain and Obama have in common ? Any of the two would be the 15th US President with a Semitic name*.

Yep. Barack Hussein is as American as John, Joe or Sarah.

And Barack Hussein Obama is no more un-American than such radical terrorists as Benjamin Franklin or Abraham Lincoln. Maybe President McCain would arrest Bin Yamin Franklin for inventing a weapon of mass destruction collecting energy from lightning bolts, or Abraham for sporting such a suspicious beard...

Obama never made a mystery of the nature of his relationship with Bill Ayers, and repeatedly denounced his past actions. We have yet to hear from John McCain about his relationships with John Singlaub and his presence at the board of the sulfurous U.S. Council for World Freedom (not exactly the board of a charity at that time, ask any Nicaraguan).

"Who is Barack Hussein Obama ?" We know the answer, the man is quite open about his past, present and future, about what he knows and doesn't know, about what he did wrong and right, about where he stands and whom he stands for.

"Who is John McCain ?" I'm not sure John himself wants to face the answer.

* praise Juan Cole : "Barack Hussein Obama, Omar Bradley, Benjamin Franklin and other Semitically Named American Heroes"


---
Addendum 20081019
Praise also Colin Powell for not only endorsing Barack, but also setting the record straight about US Muslims (NBC's "Meet the Press" 20081019) :

see also Barack's reaction - ABC News "Obama 'Beyond Humbled' as GOP's Powell Says He'd Be 'an Exceptional President'" 20081019)

The Talk of the Toon

What game are Advanced Publications playing ?
"Hussein" painted as a Muslim and Michelle as a terrorist, congratulating each other by a fireplace where the US flag is burning under the portrait of Osama bin Laden... I'm sure this brilliant piece of NYC humor will make people laugh in Colorado Springs, CO, but is this caricature really supposed to help the Obamas take over the White House ?*
I'm not sure The New Yorker are supporting Obama as frankly as they did for Kerry 4 years ago. Kerry as a IRA fighter or worse, a "cheese eating surrender monkey" (the Simpsons / FOX cute name for Frenchman back in 2003) ? Oh my, that would have raised some eyebrows at the Club.
This would be satire if there were some distance to it. Like O'Reilly holding this cover and saying "while we're at it why not add a suicide belt for Michelle ?"
The editor's answers don't hold a second :
"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." The editor noted that the magazine includes two "very serious" articles about Obama -- a commentary and a 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago. (see AFP)
Seriously, everybody knows the power of image. The impact of one caricature relayed everywhere is ten billion times stronger than 15,000 words only a few will go through.
And regarding the people holding this "mirror" : I'm not a constant New Yorker reader but if I were I don't know how I'd take it.
Letters to the editor are probably going to outscore 15,000 words...


* not to mention help American Muslims be at last treated like other US citizens (as Juan Cole pointed out, "virtually no one is talking about how demeaning it is of American Muslims" - 20080715 in "Obama Caricature Offensive to Muslims").

3:10 to Yuma... and New York

Talking about Red Phone moments... let's consider the efficiency of Barack Obama's answering machine.

The Clinton campaign has been broadcasting an ad across the Lone Star state featuring a phone ringing at 3 in the morning ; a "Terminator I" scene with kids sleeping and a nuclear threat above their heads : "your vote will decide who answers the call". Brrrrr...

Here's Obama's answer : "In fact, we have had a red phone moment: It was the decision to invade Iraq. Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer".

1, 2, 3. That's called a strike out, Hillary. And without the help of Roger Clemens. Nor the help of Roger's helps. Nevermind the fact that that guy was born in Ohio and raised in Texas.

Barack is famous for his powerful tone but Hussein does have jug ears too, mind you. You want to be careful about what you say and the critics you use, which may be used against you.

John McCain recently experienced a similar knock-out answer. Obama considered the possibility to return to Iraq if al Qaeda were to come back there some time after the US withdrawal, and Senator McCain replied "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq (...), it’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq". To which Barack punched this final "I’ve got some news for John McCain, that is there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade".

Ouch.

Reminds me of a certain Cassius Clay. Beyond the loud mouth and the elegant dance on the ring, this young fella has quite a powerful fist.

And unlike Muhammad Ali, this guy won't even have to convert to Islam nor to change names in order to find peace.

Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong

Following Jon Meacham's article about "The Pope's Holy War'" (Newsweek 20060925) and the controversial Regensburg speech, I think it would be interesting to distinguish what was said from how it was said.
The HOW first : the Church's most eminent theologian and the man who knows best the value of the Word delivers a speech to experts, reading from notes he wrote by his own hand, and knowing perfectly all the world's theologians will fully understand the message. He mentions a text which may be obscure but clearly refers to the darkest period of Christianity (the Middle Age, Inquisition, the Crusades, religious hatred), a period which on the other hand can be considered as the Golden Age of Christian fundamentalism.
Moving on to the WHAT, now : beyond the critic of Islam through this highly controversial quote, the core of the message is about the reconciliation of reason and religion. In other words : under my rule, the Church will certainly not protect Darwinism and other sciences from the attacks of such revisionist theories as creationism or intelligent design.
Overall, the Pope delivered a crystal clear message to all religious scholars : I decided to redirect this Church away from moderation and back on its darkest tracks. I also send the following message to Muslim fundamentalists : let's help each other fulfill the main goals we share since we both want fundamentalism to become mainstream again across our respective flocks.
Pope Benedict XVI perfectly mirrors President Bush ; both the Church and the United States of America are led by fundamentalists, and both men share an almost similar hidden agenda. I would like the American people as well as the Christians to ask their leaders : are you really doing what is best for us or for fundamentalism ? how far will you go in the destruction of the values that made ourselves respected across the world ?

Red blogule to Dubya - "Islamo-fascists" don't enjoy a monopoly

Once again, George W. Bush uttered the "islamic fascist" expression. This time, it was all about a Heathrow plot uncovered at the most convenient time : Bush and Blair are said to have talked about this issue a couple of days earlier but didn't warn their partners, which means either they didn't care for them, or the emergency wasn't that critical. Anyway, Bush and Blair clearly needed a terror fix to go back up in the polls and to give some support to Olmert, also going down for his military failures. The message : war on terror is difficult but it has to be lead whatever the cost ; it's a noble cause, a moral one. Significantly, Jacques Chirac just used the term "immoral" to warn the US : not reaching a ceasefire agreement would be "immoral"... a clear echo to the messianic War on Terror propaganda.
This is not the first time Bush uses the "Islamic fascism" expression* ; in a typically Karlrovish move, he's counterattacking with the very words that are being relevantly** used against his Administration and now protégés.


* see "Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism" (20051016).
** see "Let's face it they're fascists" (20040527)

Red blogule to fundamentalists - bases are loaded

The disarmament of Hezbollah is under way thanks to... Hezbollah itself : the organization is methodically getting rid of its stocks of weapons over Israel. Tel Aviv's attacks are not meant to destroy Hezbollah but to make sure Eretz Israel has strong enemies for the decades to come and thus, to make sure Israeli fundamentalists remain in power. Paradoxically and just like Bush's counterproductive "War on Terror" helps terrorists recruit new followers, new waves of antisemitism will lead more Israelis towards the welcoming arms of their country's extreme right.
Whether from Iran, Israel or the USA, fundamentalists don't want peace : peace means living without fear nor coercion ; peace means opening up and accepting the world as it should be, diverse and tolerant ; peace means the irrelevance of fundamentalism.
Look at them cheer up all over the world : radical Sunnis and radical Shiites applauding each other's victories ; Amerikan New-Born Neo-Cons and Iranian radical islamists using each other as evil witches to be hunted in a sick medieval obscurantism remake...
US "diplomats" don't seem to care much when masses of pro-Hezbollah demonstrators hit the streets in Baghdad. They don't seem to worry when Israel ruins the heritage of Yitzhak Rabin and infuriates the whole world as well as Bush did back in 2003 with an unecessary war doubled by a provocative occupation... The White House's most radical wings are actually rejoicing.
I wonder when the US citizens will eventually realize their country is led by lunatics devoted to putting out fire with gasoline. It will take decades to repair the image of the country overseas (not to mention implementing actual peace) - but judging by the 2004 landslide victory of immoderate conservatism across Amerika, I don't believe the restoration of the values that made America respected to be a priority.

Red blogule to the reconstruction of Afghanistan...'s talibans

9/11 harmed all major airlines but two : CIA Airlines and United Terror. None can be dubbed "no-thrill" and in spite of what the former claims, only the latter is a low cost company with genuine Qaeda members as frequent flyers.
Code sharing allows Chechens and other exotic partners to flock in numbers in Somalia or Afghanistan, where Talibans rule again and whack entire families without much reaction from peacekeepers stretched to the limit by the Rummy Doctrine.
Terrorism is stronger than ever, thank you. US casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will soon reach 3,000 - not even one tenth of all deaths caused by this so-called "war on terror". Even in Paris, it's getting more and more difficult for a Muslim woman not to wear a scarf.
And the beauty of it is everything was planned from the start : for a majority of neocons who actually thought they would change the World for the better, only a minority of fundamentalists knew exactly what the said change for the better would mean.

White blogule to Dr. Wafa Sultan - moderate Muslims, at last

She comes from Syria but lives in LA.
She spoke out loud but quietly on Al Jazeera.
The kind of words I've been expecting for 5 years (and calling from this excuse of a blog for 3 years) : the key war is waged by radical muslims against moderate muslims, Middle Age vs XXIst Century. Time for moderate muslims to wake up and make themselves heard.
She's been threatened but it may be too late : media must make this kind of positions mainstream. Radicals cannot keep overflowing airtime with their hatred while they just represent a minority.
Since she dared a parallel between Jews and Muslims, she's been invited in Israel. Good point, but beware of traps, be careful not to weaken your stature within the Muslim community.

Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism

Last January, I already blamed the First Amendment for allowing the American National Socialist Movement (a.k.a. America's Nazi Party) to exist an even become a sponsor for the Adopt-A-Highway program.
Now Toledo, OH allowed this mob to march proudly through the city, provoquing a riot and even a curfew. As a result, more publicity than these Nazis could ever dream of - not to mention my blogules.
When I said "let's face it, they're fascists" last year, I was just noticing the similarity between the Mussolini definition of fascism and the Bush Administration's (ab/mis/)use of power. I knew Dubya's reelection would free the darkest sides of Amerika but never did I expect America's Nazi Party to become that bold.
Just a few days ago, Bush would mention for the first time "fascist islamists / fascist islamism". He didn't invent the expression, which perfectly suits the worst part of radical islamists. But still it shocked me to hear Bush using this kind of vocabulary at this stage. Now I know it was a clear signal. We're raising the level of terror threat, but we're also raising the level of permissivity. You may not have the toughest fundamentalist nominated for the Supreme Court, but be sure the country is yours.

Red blogule to Ayatollah Pat Robertson

Tell me the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists now that both are issuing fatwahs. According to Ayatollah Pat Robertson, killing Chavez wouldn't cost $200 bns and killing Chavez is "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop".
I don't think any craziness will stop soon either.
I'm just amazes me how Bu(ll)shites manage to make the weaker minds feel even more sympathy for such madhatters as Osama Bin Laden or Hugo Chavez.

Red blogule to President Cheney and his "unlawful combatants"

Hypocrisy is not Lobby Dick's middle name. You can easily translate Dubya's doubletalk by catching the not so innocent pieces of ultraconservative wisdom his VP keeps releasing with the precision of a Swiss clock. Who was there to put some (Halliburton ?) oil on the fire at the peak of North Korean tension last week ? President Cheney. Who is there to defend Guantanamo under fire ? Richard The Second.
According to the NYT, the man a heartbeat away from becoming the world leader of democracy said Guantanamo detainees do not qualify for treatment under the Geneva Conventions because they are "unlawful combatants" who have not "operated in accordance with the laws of war" because they don't wear uniforms and have targeted civilians.
Here are the facts, Mr Cheney :

• Yes, atrocities are also committed by American people because you told them not to abid to any laws. Refusing the Geneva Conventions and any other kind of accountability goes beyond "unlawfulness" : you are training outlaws and torturers and this administration brought the shame on your country like no other one before.
• Yes, terrorists did and do commit atrocities - against the American people but more fundamentally (indeed !)against moderate muslims who are now defenseless because of the illegal war you sold - these are the perfect target civilians who get killed while you, as usual, stay safe far away from the actual war.
• Yes, this can also be said about you : you are "unlawful", you have not "operated in accordance with the laws of war", you don't wear uniforms and your so called war on terror mainly targeted civilians (the fact that US soldiers die because of you doesn't hurt the feelings of your buddies : after all, you traded their big corporation losses for a massive public deficit).

You say you want to bring Osama to justice but I wonder what kind of justice USA can bring under the helm of a known promoter of torture and at a time when even paedophiles are acquitted.

Red blogule to the flushed Quran scandal

Tough times for journalists : you need bullet proof evidences and witnesses to publish anything in BC04 Amerika or else... you're to commit seppuku publicly, explain you told lies*, that you never meant to criticize Uncle Joe... er... Uncle Sam. Dubya's mob is as efficient as Stalin's : they can forge any untruth they want (hey, that got'em reelected) but if you can't have your own sources confirm their off the record leaks (which could get them fired) you're a bold liar. So you become the one responsible for fueling hatred within the Muslim world, you're the one carrying the scapegoat nickname (Rathergate) while the Karl Rove squad of forgers walks away, you're the one shooting a sick remake of sex, lies and videotapes in Abu Ghraib, you're the one bringing shame on Guantanamo, that pleasant resort for tourists from the Middle East...
I suppose the Quran was truly desacrated in Guantanamo but I can't prove it. But I know for sure America has been desacrated by its own rulers : Bush flushed the US Constitution down the toilet of History.

* Newsweek's mea culpa : "On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay."