What we knew before 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist organization
- the clash of civilizations is an imposture
- George W. Bush is a stupid fundamentalist and a lazy president
What we have learned after 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist franchise
- the clash of civilizations is a profitable imposture
- Trutherism or 9/11 revisionism is a profitable imposture
- George W. Bush is a dangerous fundamentalist pretending to be a war president
blogules 2011
Showing posts with label al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label al Qaeda. Show all posts
20091114
al Qaeda and Amerika on trial
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed goes on trial in NYC, and GOP hardliners are angry.
Make that "scared". Because this is the kind of justice they don't feel comfortable with : fair justice, public justice... Justice, period.
What will be exposed is the process that leads to abomination : on one hand terror, on the other torture.
Because Mr. Mohammed is now more famous for surviving over a hundred waterboarding sessions than for his responsibility in 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration added insult to murder, betrayed the families of 9/11 victims, disgraced America and the very values they were supposed to defend.
That administration was recently confirmed as "repugnant to the Constitution" by Republican appointed judges.
Obama, who rejected as false the choice between security and ideals, appointed Eric Holder to clean the mess. Both share the same vision of justice* : not the twisted tool of a corrupt administration, but an independent power able to reach any other power, particularly administrations going rogue.
blogules 2009
* see previous episodes, including "We reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals"
Make that "scared". Because this is the kind of justice they don't feel comfortable with : fair justice, public justice... Justice, period.
What will be exposed is the process that leads to abomination : on one hand terror, on the other torture.
Because Mr. Mohammed is now more famous for surviving over a hundred waterboarding sessions than for his responsibility in 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration added insult to murder, betrayed the families of 9/11 victims, disgraced America and the very values they were supposed to defend.
That administration was recently confirmed as "repugnant to the Constitution" by Republican appointed judges.
Obama, who rejected as false the choice between security and ideals, appointed Eric Holder to clean the mess. Both share the same vision of justice* : not the twisted tool of a corrupt administration, but an independent power able to reach any other power, particularly administrations going rogue.
blogules 2009
* see previous episodes, including "We reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals"
20090627
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 :
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.
=> 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.
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 :
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").
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 !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.
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.
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").
20090604
"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"
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"
20080807
Driving Mister Crazy
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's Yemeni driver, enjoyed his 15 Wharolian minutes.
Bonus : 7 years in Gitmo Resort, and more to come.
Hamdan has eventually been found guilty of something. Amerika's justice simply could not let this pathetic figure walk away without losing what's left of its own credibility : this nobody symbolically won all previous bouts, including the fabled Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. For one good reason : this whole mock-up of a judicial framework was proven inconstitutional. And the only way to maintain him in the Guantanamo limbo was to label him "Enemy combatant" (turning his car into a Mobile Weapon of Mass Destruction with SA-7 missiles).
So Hamdan is guilty. For serving Dubya's partner* in his Good vs Evil crusade. For exposing the failures of freedom, justice, and democracy in a country that was supposed to disseminate freedom, justice and democracy**. For masterminding a plot against the cover-ups, lies and forgeries of an Administration that insulted the values of its nation.
So the driver will pay. But the madman who's been driving the USovA down the gutter of infamy shall remain un-prosecuted. In spite of all the recent "revelations" from former White House members who should have blown the whistle a long time ago. Yeah, Dennis Kucinich did mention impeachment but this masquerade was too little too late, and only an expedient for Nancy Pelosi to clinch a minor deal***.
Actually, I can't prove that George W. Bush was a member of al Qaeda but History will probably charge him for "engaging in hostilities against the US", "conspiracy", and "providing support for terrorism".
* see "Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism"
** both Dubya's experts in justice (Harriet E. Miers and Alberto Gonzales) should actually end up in jail, and his record consists of the disastrous handling of the cases of two underbrained misfits (Zacharias Moussaoui pairing with Salim Hamdan) and one former dictator (see "Smokescreened him out - Saddam 1-1 Slobodan - Red blogule to justice in 2006" 20061230).
*** in her own crude words, she even claimed to have saved the POTUS from self-inflicted torture ("We pulled the president's chestnuts out of the fire")
Bonus : 7 years in Gitmo Resort, and more to come.
Hamdan has eventually been found guilty of something. Amerika's justice simply could not let this pathetic figure walk away without losing what's left of its own credibility : this nobody symbolically won all previous bouts, including the fabled Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. For one good reason : this whole mock-up of a judicial framework was proven inconstitutional. And the only way to maintain him in the Guantanamo limbo was to label him "Enemy combatant" (turning his car into a Mobile Weapon of Mass Destruction with SA-7 missiles).
So Hamdan is guilty. For serving Dubya's partner* in his Good vs Evil crusade. For exposing the failures of freedom, justice, and democracy in a country that was supposed to disseminate freedom, justice and democracy**. For masterminding a plot against the cover-ups, lies and forgeries of an Administration that insulted the values of its nation.
So the driver will pay. But the madman who's been driving the USovA down the gutter of infamy shall remain un-prosecuted. In spite of all the recent "revelations" from former White House members who should have blown the whistle a long time ago. Yeah, Dennis Kucinich did mention impeachment but this masquerade was too little too late, and only an expedient for Nancy Pelosi to clinch a minor deal***.
Actually, I can't prove that George W. Bush was a member of al Qaeda but History will probably charge him for "engaging in hostilities against the US", "conspiracy", and "providing support for terrorism".
* see "Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism"
** both Dubya's experts in justice (Harriet E. Miers and Alberto Gonzales) should actually end up in jail, and his record consists of the disastrous handling of the cases of two underbrained misfits (Zacharias Moussaoui pairing with Salim Hamdan) and one former dictator (see "Smokescreened him out - Saddam 1-1 Slobodan - Red blogule to justice in 2006" 20061230).
*** in her own crude words, she even claimed to have saved the POTUS from self-inflicted torture ("We pulled the president's chestnuts out of the fire")
20070426
White, red and pink blogules to the World in 2020
The CER (Centre for European Reform ) and Accenture recently waged a debate about the World in 2020, partly fueled by Mark Leonard's essay "Divided world: The struggle for supremacy". The democracy vs autocracy divide sounds a little bit white vs black to me, and I may add a few other key structural changes within :
- America enjoying good demography dynamics but becoming more monolithic, more focused on itself, welcoming fewer influences from abroad. Growing old a different way.
- At the opposite of this Mainland Amerika, China is embracing its own diversity. Chinese imperialism is no more about spreading a unique monolithic model but about a much smarter pervasiveness, leveraging on all minorities instead of crushing cultural diversity (ie China intends to build the core of Koreanhood on its very soil, claims the Koguryo cultural heritage, and position the Korean peninsula as a motherland's satellite).
- What I call "Asianitude" keeps growing. Asian countries developping intra-asian relationships beyond the traditional bilateral relationships with Western countries, students and executives moving from places to places, a common ground and cultural identity, a sense of belonging to the same community at the individuals level...
- The Korean moment. Surrounded by ambitious giants (and a Japan dangerously returning to ultra nationalism and Showa-style fascism), seen as the herald of cultural diversity for other Asian nations, Korea has to cope with the collapse of North Korea. In what I call the Albania scenario, the people who used to live in a quasi sect are totally unprepared for a market economy : con men and gurus get the bulk of the values they received as a kick start in a new world.
- The turn of the millenium rise of fundamentalism (Christian in the US and Eastern Europe, Jewish in Eretz Israel and Islamist everywhere) may last if democracies keep electing leaders who put religion at the top of their not so hidden agendas (the collapse of Iraq, the rise of Iran as the regional threat, and the boost to fundamentalists across the globe were not collateral damage but the very aim of Bush's game). And while terrorists trained in Iraq blossom on new urban and suburban playgrounds, al Qaeda survivors and wannabes focus on rural Asia, Africa and South America.
- America enjoying good demography dynamics but becoming more monolithic, more focused on itself, welcoming fewer influences from abroad. Growing old a different way.
- At the opposite of this Mainland Amerika, China is embracing its own diversity. Chinese imperialism is no more about spreading a unique monolithic model but about a much smarter pervasiveness, leveraging on all minorities instead of crushing cultural diversity (ie China intends to build the core of Koreanhood on its very soil, claims the Koguryo cultural heritage, and position the Korean peninsula as a motherland's satellite).
- What I call "Asianitude" keeps growing. Asian countries developping intra-asian relationships beyond the traditional bilateral relationships with Western countries, students and executives moving from places to places, a common ground and cultural identity, a sense of belonging to the same community at the individuals level...
- The Korean moment. Surrounded by ambitious giants (and a Japan dangerously returning to ultra nationalism and Showa-style fascism), seen as the herald of cultural diversity for other Asian nations, Korea has to cope with the collapse of North Korea. In what I call the Albania scenario, the people who used to live in a quasi sect are totally unprepared for a market economy : con men and gurus get the bulk of the values they received as a kick start in a new world.
- The turn of the millenium rise of fundamentalism (Christian in the US and Eastern Europe, Jewish in Eretz Israel and Islamist everywhere) may last if democracies keep electing leaders who put religion at the top of their not so hidden agendas (the collapse of Iraq, the rise of Iran as the regional threat, and the boost to fundamentalists across the globe were not collateral damage but the very aim of Bush's game). And while terrorists trained in Iraq blossom on new urban and suburban playgrounds, al Qaeda survivors and wannabes focus on rural Asia, Africa and South America.
20060815
Red blogule to Amerika's "Freedom Agenda"
I listened to Dubya's I have a dream press conference yesterday. It's good to hear again about the need for an independant and free Palestine, but it's getting harder and harder to stand this voice and that surrealistic propaganda rap of empty keywords repeated on and on (blah blah terror blah blah freedom blah blah Iran nuke blah blah liberty blah blah freedom of worship blah blah strategy of freedom blah blah universal desire for liberty blah blah democracy blah blah tyranny blah blah unstoppable power of freedom blah blah amen). While munching their pizzaz, mesmerized Joe Sixpacks musta understood Hezbollah helped Saddam and Bin Laden destroy the Twin Towers back on 9/11. With such efficient History Bis 101 lessons, no wonder 50% of US adults now think Iraq had WMDs when the US invaded that country, up from 36% back in February 2005 (Harris polls mentioned by the CMD).
Freedom will prevail, yeah... Hezbollah, a state sponsored terrorist group, will be replaced by Qaeda wannabes, a cloudy mist of irresponsible people far more dangerous for the region, but that's OK because Israeli hardliners need a bigger threat at their doors. Olmert will be replaced by a madhatter even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu but that's OK because that's what Amerika needs too. The utterly successful Iraki model will be replicated in Lebanon but that's OK because that was the aim of the game... Sorry Beirut but Bush's speech is yet another bring'em-on-invitation to terrorists from all over the world to visit your country.
But the most surrealistic speech of the day was pronounced by Ehud Olmert himself : admitting his own failure, he dared say next time - because there will be a next time - , he'll handle war better. Talking about flattened Lebanon as a learning curve...
Last throes of sanity, anyone ?
More than ever, it's time for a regime change in both the US and Israel... but for the better, please.
Freedom will prevail, yeah... Hezbollah, a state sponsored terrorist group, will be replaced by Qaeda wannabes, a cloudy mist of irresponsible people far more dangerous for the region, but that's OK because Israeli hardliners need a bigger threat at their doors. Olmert will be replaced by a madhatter even worse than Benjamin Netanyahu but that's OK because that's what Amerika needs too. The utterly successful Iraki model will be replicated in Lebanon but that's OK because that was the aim of the game... Sorry Beirut but Bush's speech is yet another bring'em-on-invitation to terrorists from all over the world to visit your country.
But the most surrealistic speech of the day was pronounced by Ehud Olmert himself : admitting his own failure, he dared say next time - because there will be a next time - , he'll handle war better. Talking about flattened Lebanon as a learning curve...
Last throes of sanity, anyone ?
More than ever, it's time for a regime change in both the US and Israel... but for the better, please.
20060622
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.
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.
20060614
Red blogule to the US CENTCOM - paint it black
Sick and tired of listening to CENTCOM briefings with daily claims of a dozen so-called Qaeda members (half of which under 7 year-old "terrorists"), the US audience cheered the death of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a genuine thug with a fake al Qaeda label.
Now the propaganda experts feel strange : the non-event of this death exposes a disgraceful vacuum. The top bad guy (Osama Broadcasting Laden) remains at large and the US army in Iraq lacks a marketable target... Unless the Pentagon decides to go after al Sadr and thus officialize the civil war.
They'd better sponsor some other suicidal wannabe, give some other thug his Warhol's 15 mn of fame. Prime time, live or dead.
Now the propaganda experts feel strange : the non-event of this death exposes a disgraceful vacuum. The top bad guy (Osama Broadcasting Laden) remains at large and the US army in Iraq lacks a marketable target... Unless the Pentagon decides to go after al Sadr and thus officialize the civil war.
They'd better sponsor some other suicidal wannabe, give some other thug his Warhol's 15 mn of fame. Prime time, live or dead.
20060319
White blogule to David Gregory - Welcome to the House of Fun
NBC News' chief White House correspondent denounced Operation Swarmer in Iraq as a political show made up as a military action. 40 so-called Qaeda members were caught but released a few hours later, and witnesses doubt seriously about the violence of the offensive. I must confess I was a little bit surprised by the target (an area without any previous history of intense rebellion), the images of the Iraqi soldiers preparing for the battle (all smiles), the publicity made around the Operation and its timing. To me, this looks like vintage War Propaganda, Fallujah style*. Look how swiftly did the Red Army react, carpet bombing poor David "Stretch" Gregory with all their Weapons of Mass Disinformation and lobbying for his firing. For them, the mother of all battles since march 2003 isn't "Operation Swarmer" but "Saving Private Bush".
Just like Michael Moore, David Gregory can be a clown and his caricatural attacks can be used by the defense to turn around the proof of credibility gap. But I don't like the idea of the palace's buffoon being sacrificed as a scapegoat. The joke should remain on the Bush Administration.
* remember that old 2004 blogule "Red blogule to the bombing of Fallujah - Bombing, for image's sake - Bush is only targeting the US audience" (20040429) ?
Just like Michael Moore, David Gregory can be a clown and his caricatural attacks can be used by the defense to turn around the proof of credibility gap. But I don't like the idea of the palace's buffoon being sacrificed as a scapegoat. The joke should remain on the Bush Administration.
* remember that old 2004 blogule "Red blogule to the bombing of Fallujah - Bombing, for image's sake - Bush is only targeting the US audience" (20040429) ?
20060114
Red blogule to W's preemptive counterstrikes
"43" said he was open to a debate over Iraq... provided it only did "bring credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries".
So only he has a right to wage a dirty war at home, using all the illegal tools one dictator could dream of. And he denies politicians as well as medias the right to investigate, to use such terms as illegal eavesdroppings, abduction, torture or all of the above ?
This isn't what I call an open debate. Nor even a debate, for that matter. Actually, it rather looks like the denial of a genuine debate, the refusal to confront democracy, and once again, a shame for America.
I don't think history will "bring credit" to Dubya's democracy*. And I do think democracy's adversaries find a lot of "comfort" in seeing Amerika turn its back to its own values.
* Mercifully enough, Iraq will eventually move towards democracy. But this far, all major steps have been reached thanks to a lack of Bush doctrine : the UN made the first elections possible and the talks with insurgents are the only way of kicking Al Qaeda out of the country (yeah, those very foreign terrorists who came in after the US invasion).
So only he has a right to wage a dirty war at home, using all the illegal tools one dictator could dream of. And he denies politicians as well as medias the right to investigate, to use such terms as illegal eavesdroppings, abduction, torture or all of the above ?
This isn't what I call an open debate. Nor even a debate, for that matter. Actually, it rather looks like the denial of a genuine debate, the refusal to confront democracy, and once again, a shame for America.
I don't think history will "bring credit" to Dubya's democracy*. And I do think democracy's adversaries find a lot of "comfort" in seeing Amerika turn its back to its own values.
* Mercifully enough, Iraq will eventually move towards democracy. But this far, all major steps have been reached thanks to a lack of Bush doctrine : the UN made the first elections possible and the talks with insurgents are the only way of kicking Al Qaeda out of the country (yeah, those very foreign terrorists who came in after the US invasion).
20051208
White blogule to the Law Lords - find another al-Libi, Dubya
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the Lybian detainee who confessed in 2002 a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, did it under torture but in an Egyptian jail (back then, the C.I.A. would still outsource this nasty business).
In London, the Law Lords just ruled that evidence obtained under torture (even on a foreign soil) could not be used in British courts.
The US have used the "foreign soil" loophole since the Cold War and torture has been banned since 1640 in England.
Talking about cold wars and smoking guns... Amerika's Real Estate Agent Condi Rice just clinched a deal with Romania where 4 US military bases will be installed. This former Soviet satellite enjoys a view on the European Gulf (the Black Sea ? an epitome of the Bush doctrine : a major oil and gas hub and an environmental nightmare), locates in Europe but not yet in the EU (perfect timing as far as the European agenda is concerned), and happens to be neither too close from the Middle East (the Gaza Tigers can draft Roger Clemens, their stones will never reach the Constanta shores), nor too far (when the boys are withdrawn, their toys will remain nearby). Of course, today's EU members won't budge and The Company Airlines gets all the time slots they need.
In London, the Law Lords just ruled that evidence obtained under torture (even on a foreign soil) could not be used in British courts.
The US have used the "foreign soil" loophole since the Cold War and torture has been banned since 1640 in England.
Talking about cold wars and smoking guns... Amerika's Real Estate Agent Condi Rice just clinched a deal with Romania where 4 US military bases will be installed. This former Soviet satellite enjoys a view on the European Gulf (the Black Sea ? an epitome of the Bush doctrine : a major oil and gas hub and an environmental nightmare), locates in Europe but not yet in the EU (perfect timing as far as the European agenda is concerned), and happens to be neither too close from the Middle East (the Gaza Tigers can draft Roger Clemens, their stones will never reach the Constanta shores), nor too far (when the boys are withdrawn, their toys will remain nearby). Of course, today's EU members won't budge and The Company Airlines gets all the time slots they need.
20050828
Red blogule to counterterrorism in Korea
Judge Bruguiere warned Asian financial capitals : Al Qaeda may strike anytime soon. Hong-Kong, S'pore and Tokyo reacted more or less quickly but Seoul doesn't seem to realize Korea has soldiers in Iraq and a quite nice flock of Pakistanese fundamentalists around Itaewon's mosque. They don't seem to realize Seoul is a perfect hub for central asian terrorists the police cannot even dream of infiltrating.
Of course terrorists would have a tough time escaping the country safely and retaliation would easily strike the harmless bulk of these small communities, but they shouldn't care if they're ready to blow themselves up. I think the country could afford doing some research about this kind of stem cells too.
Of course terrorists would have a tough time escaping the country safely and retaliation would easily strike the harmless bulk of these small communities, but they shouldn't care if they're ready to blow themselves up. I think the country could afford doing some research about this kind of stem cells too.
20050420
Red blogule to the Red Army - I smell a Ratz
Astonishing ! Opus Dei defeated Orbis Tertius and George Louis II has eventually been overthrowned by Benoit XVI, a young ayatollah who may well rule till he turns 120 : smart Kardinal Ratzinger pretended to be sick a couple of years ago but you just have to see him radiate power over Saint Peter's Square to know he's here to stay. Besides, don't expect this florentine shadow to exhaust himself giving rockstar concerts all over the world or playing tennis at Castel Gandolfo with Wojtek Fibak (Boris Becker ?).
So what's the score lads ? The Church decided to protect his king with a tower and a dark horse, prefering a stalemate with fundamentalists instead of moving one step ahead in a world where Bush got reelected and Al Qaeda are experiencing new playgrounds (Mexico, South America, Central Asia...).
So "be not affraid", remain in the dark and keep faith in Benito XIV - oops put that back in Order before somebody notice, quick.
So what's the score lads ? The Church decided to protect his king with a tower and a dark horse, prefering a stalemate with fundamentalists instead of moving one step ahead in a world where Bush got reelected and Al Qaeda are experiencing new playgrounds (Mexico, South America, Central Asia...).
So "be not affraid", remain in the dark and keep faith in Benito XIV - oops put that back in Order before somebody notice, quick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
