Most recent blog entries

David Petraeus: Neoconservative Hero?

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:11:00 GMT

Here's corroboration of the report indicating a distinctly Arabist outlook on the part of Gen. Petraeus, who seems to view Israel as a root cause of problems, even American problems, in the Islamic world. It comes from the CENTCOM chief's own testimony before the Senate yesterday. Setting up "a number of cross-cutting issues that serve as major drivers of instability, inter-state tensions, and conflict," factors that "can serve as root causes of instability or as obstacles to security," he began with Israel. He said in his prepared statement:

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR.

Does he mean by "enduring hostilities" the fact that the Islamic world wants to eradicate Israel?

Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations.

Isn't it amazing that the Israelis don't just let the "neighbors'" rockets just keep falling?

The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.

Funny, last time I looked the US was allies with Israel ...

Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

As in: Darn it, Uncle Sam, that country is still there! Can't you do something about that? The umma is restive. Thought outside the box: Maybe those "partners" just aren't on our side.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.

Anger, anger -- has this man never, ever heard of jihad -- and specifically, the jihad against Israel, a once dhimmi nation subjugated by Muslim invaders that has since been restored to sovreignty?

The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Goodbye, Israel, goodbye problem with Iran? Hmm. Maybe that's why the past two administrations have seemed so unconcerned about Iranian nukes.

Wonder if Gen. Petraeus will elaborate on this perception of the world through umma-eyes when, later this spring, he delivers the Irving Kristol Lecture for 2010 at the American Enterprise Institute.

Dear Mayor of Monschau

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:35:00 GMT

Dear Mayor Margareta Ritter (margareta.ritter@stadt.monschau.de),

I have had the pleasure of visiting your exquisitely beautiful German town, the second member of my family to do so. The first was my dad, who, as a member of the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron in Gen. Bradley's Army, had, with time out to recuperate from wounds incurred at the Battle of St Lo, fought across nothern Europe from D-Day plus 2 until reaching Monschau by the end of 1944.

I only bring this up because I read this morning that you have declared Geert Wilders, who recently weekended in your town, "not welcome" in Monschau. "People who, just like Mr Wilders, encumber the Dutch integration debate with right-wing populism and who want to ban the Qur'an, comparing it to Mein Kampf, are not welcome in Monschau," you are quoted as having said.

I protest. First of all, it is not "right-wing populism" with which Wilders "encumbers" the integration debate. It is with facts about sharia (Islamic law), a totalitarian and supremacist legal and religious system. He takes these facts to the public arena, a place where fears of Islamic retribution have to date silenced this essential, civilizational conversation. Another fact he brings, however discomforting to multicultists such as you appear to be, is the similarity between Mein Kampf and the Koran. You may declare Wilders -- and all of his thousands of Dutch supporters -- persona non grata in Monschau; that won't make sharia or those Koran-Kampf similarities go away.

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you have now found a new totalitarianism to submit to. But I protest your decision to make Monschau off limits to Wilders, a defender of liberty against totalitarianism -- the same liberty my dad was in and around Monschau to defend long ago against a similarly supremacist totalitarianism. I have a strong hunch he would say that, so long as you are in office, liberation wasn't worth the effort.

Sincerely,

Diana West, USA

Is Petraeus an Islamic Tool? Part 2

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:36:00 GMT

Last June, I noted Gen. David Petraeus's MoveOn.org-like take on Guantanamo Bay -- close it because it causes us problems and violates (unspecified) Geneva Conventions -- and his willingness to attribute to the Palestinian war on Israel "justifications" for the existence of Hezbollah.

Now this from Foreign Policy (via Judeosphere):

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue.

Read: further Israeli concessions.

The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

Mind, this was supposes to be a military briefing, not an OIC event.

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations.

Imperial General Time.

Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

Q: Since when does the US supreme commander ensure that US military doctrine conforms to Arab perceptions? A: Since now.

The Foreign Policy piece includes an update:

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

So, Petraeus did propose to put Israel under his purview, but to Mullen, not to the White House. The report goes on:

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. ... Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message....

The dhimmi-hostage message carried by Gen.Petraeus being that Israel building 1,600 apartments in Jerusalem places US troops' lives in danger in the wider region (Iraq and Afghanistan). Such appeasement, this time at the expense of the Israelis, will only embolden all of our jihadist enemies to make more and more outrageous demands. The story continues:

Israel didn't.

Well, thank goodness.

When Vice President Joe Biden was embarrassed by an Israeli announcement that the Netanyahu government was building 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem,

He should have gone and cut a ribbon on the project

the administration reacted. But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus's Mullen briefing: "This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace."

Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

How about Israelis continuing to breathe? Is that okay?

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. ...

Here's a plan Gen. Petraeus should be able to get behind: A new battle strategy, maybe a Kilcullen special, for him to join forces with Iran to once and for all nuke Israel and its genocidal apartment houses out of existence. That, according to his own lights, is sure to keep American troops safe in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heck, it would win the war -- or at least the jihad.

Updated: Meanwhile, Back in Afghanistan ...

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:42:00 GMT

Shinwari tribal elders arriving to pick up their US booty, I mean, convene a shura: Quick, Mohmand subtribe or Alisher subtribe? Or Khogyani, perchance? And does it make any difference to US national security??

----

Been a while since I posted about Afghanistan, having been focused on potentially hopeful developments in Europe -- specifically the potentional for reverse Islamization as manifested by Geert Wilders' recent political successes in the Netherlands. Remember, the fate of Europe (repeat after me) matters more to the US than the fate of Afghanistan. That's because an Islamic Europe of the possibly near future is of far deeper, graver concern to the future of Western-style liberty than whether an Islamic narco-kleptocracy in South Asia functions at some minimal level according to Western lights. The only thing important in Afghanistan are the lives and limbs of somewhere on its way up to 100,000 American and allied troops there. As Gen. Paul Vallely points out: "Jihadists with small arms and IEDS in faraway places cannot harm the United States so there is no reason to order massive armies that require large and extensive bases and massive logistical support to fight them on their home turf. But that is the essence of failed “counterinsurgency” (COIN) strategies that have bewitched US military political leaders." Pull the troops out to fight jihad better and smarter, and presto, roughly, we can try to forget about Afghanistan.

Or do we really just want a lot more of this? From the New York Times:

JALALABAD, Afghanistan — Six weeks ago, elders of the Shinwari tribe, which dominates a large area in southeastern Afghanistan, pledged that they would set aside internal differences to focus on fighting the Taliban.

I remember that. It was hailed as a big deal, "the first time an entire Pashtun tribe" of 400,000 members had declared war on the Taliban -- and they were gonna get $1 million bucks "in development" for their trouble directly from US commanders.

It never sounded like a good bet, despite the rousing proclamation "that the Shinwari tribe stands unified against all insurgent groups, specifically the Taliban,” as the tribe agreeed. From that January story:

But the Shinwari elders did not merely declare their opposition to the Taliban. Although they declared their allegiance to the Afghan government, they directed at it a nearly equal measure of fury, condemning “all the corruption and illegal activities that threaten the Afghan people.”

“We are doing this for ourselves, and ourselves only,” said Hajji Kafta, one of the elders. “We have absolutely no faith in the Afghan government to do anything for us. We don’t trust them at all.”

Sensing opportunity — and wanting the agreement to stick — the American officers decided to bypass the government entirely and pledge $1 million in development aid directly to the Shinwari elders. ...

Which sounded like a good deal -- for the Shiwari elders. That was then. Here's the rest of today's article:

This week, that commitment seemed less important as two Shinwari subtribes took up arms to fight each other over an ancient land dispute, leaving at least 13 people dead, according to local officials.

In other words, now US foreign policy is enmeshed in Pashtun, Shinwari subtribal enmity. And how does that keep America safe again? How does that stop the spread of sharia by violent (terrorism) and non-violent (immigration) means?

The fighting was a setback for American military officials, some of whom had hoped it would be possible to replicate the pledge elsewhere. ...

Like the sainted Sunni "Awakening" in Iraq. Show them the money, replicate the pledge -- and then what? Your money's gone and so is the "pledge."

Questions for Shinwari tribal elders this week about whether the pact against the Taliban still stood went unanswered as the elders turned the conversation to their intratribal struggle.

In other words, don't bother us with unimportant things; we have a pointless, interneccine struggle to get on with.

“We promised to work with the government to fight the Taliban,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, an elder from the Mohmand branch of the Shinwari tribe. He added, “Well, the government officials should have taken care of this argument among us before the shooting started.”

“We are the same tribe, and we are not happy killing each other,” he said. “The provincial police chief and the governor should have taken care of this issue.”

Finally, the perfect candidate for Obamacare.

The dispute began about 10 days ago when the Alisher subtribe of the Shinwari laid a claim to land also claimed by another branch of the tribe called the Mohmand. The disputed area covers about 22,000 acres near the Pakistani border and about 20 miles from Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province.

Staking their claim, the Mohmand set up tents on the land, according to tribal elders. The government called on both sides to hold a peaceful discussion among tribal elders, known as a shura.

The Alisher repeatedly asked the Mohmand to remove their tents from the disputed land. After more than a week of discussion and no sign that the Mohmand were budging, the Alisher called the police.

The police arrived and began to remove the tents, infuriating the Mohmand, who became even more infuriated when the Alisher began to help the police knock down the tents. When some members of the Alisher began to burn the tents, the Mohmand attacked the Alisher, firing rocket-propelled grenades, mortar launchers, machine guns and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, according to local commanders and Afghan border police officers, who did not wish to be quoted by name.

Several Alisher elders alleged that the police had helped the Mohmand.

Alisher, Mohmand, Alisher, Mohmand...let's call the whole thing off.

“We heard that Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai and the local police chief gave arms to the Mohmand,” said Babarzai, a well-known Alisher poet in the area, who, like many Afghans, uses only one name. “We spent all of yesterday burying our dead. Now there are many widows in our tribe.”

The government of Nangarhar Province denied the accusation. “Gov. Gul Agha Shirzai would never do anything like that,” said his spokesman, Ahmadzia Abdulzai. “Our goal is always to bring the tribes together.”

A deputy interior minister arrived from Kabul on Thursday with several other dignitaries from the capital to attend funerals for those who were killed and to encourage peace.

Elders from the Khogyani, another local tribe, met with 100 elders from each of the feuding subtribes to participate in a a peace shura to defuse tensions.

“I don’t think the shura will work,” said Hajji Gul Nazar, a Mohmand elder who was not able to attend the shura. “The Alisher have lost people and have so many wounded, and lots of their tents were burned by our people, and motorcycles were burned, and cars. They must be waiting to take revenge on us.”...

Notice no one has mentioned what happens to the million bux.

And notice no one has a clue about the Big Picture.

US Representative Poe on Dutch Parliamentarian Wilders

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:59:00 GMT

On the floor of the House yesterday, Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, had this to say about Geert Wilders:

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech continues to be shouted down by the politically correct police. In the Netherlands, it is against the law to say something that offends someone else’s religion. That is why Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders is on trial for hurting people’s feelings.He made a movie about terrorists and radical Islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name hate. Now he is on trial for insulting Islam.

He is charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. Because Dutch law is intolerant of intolerance.The Dutch courts say even truthful insult speech is a crime. Sounds like the law has become the enemy of free speech and a protector of the radicals.

Geert Wilders boldly brings to the world’s attention the dangers of religious radicals who believe in hateful violence, and he gets in trouble for it. He ought to be commended rather than condemned and charged with a crime.

Freedom of speech is a universal human right, granted by God, especially if that speech is political, religious or truthful. A free people won’t tolerate intolerance for freedom for very long.

And that's just the way it is.

Fox's Beck, Krauthammer & Kristol: Wrong on Wilders (Much to Talal's Delight)

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:49:00 GMT

Murdoch and Talal, together, in Abu Dhabi this week: It's a long way from Rudy Giuliani's Big Dis in Manhattan

This week's syndicated column:

When Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol each from their respective Fox News perches branded Dutch political phenom Geert Wilders as beyond the political pale, it was shocking and outrageously so, and for several reasons.

One. I’ve grown used to Fox News and all other media ignoring not just the Wilders story but also the cultural story of the century, altogether – namely, the Islamization of Europe, something Wilders, a great admirer of Ronald Reagan and a committed supporter Israel, is dedicated to halt and reverse. The survival instinct of the Dutch, who, earlier this month gave unprecedented electoral victories to Wilders and his party, is a strong indicator that this civilizational transformation is not irreversible. But covering the Islamization of Europe, as readers of this column know, usually makes for bad news. And worse, at least according to the powers-that-be, even half-way competent reporting on the subject puts Islam in a bad light because it reveals exactly what happens to Western-style liberty when Muslims enter a non-Muslim host country in sufficient numbers to enact and extend sharia (Islamic law) over a heretofore Judeo-Christian-humanist society.

Better safe (politically correct) than sorry (subject to potential boycott or worse), our media prefer, frittering away precious powers afforded by the First Amendment. This motto seems to go double at Fox ever since Rupert Murdoch, for reasons unknown, sold what is now a seven percent stake of Fox’s parent company News Corp. to a scion of the sharia-dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. For the Fox commentators, supposedly punditry’s bulwark of Western values, to bring it up just to slap it down -- and without factual care (to say the least) -- was disappointing but also irresponsible.

Two. Readers may recall that I’ve questioned Talal’s ownership stake before (previous column here, post here). This week, much too synergistically, after Murdoch’s and Talal’s all-stars warned Fox viewers about the Wilders threat, in effect, to Islam in Europe, Murdoch was in Abu Dhabi, along with Talal and 400 other media executives, announcing that key components of the News Corp. empire were moving into the Islamic world, into the United Arab Emirates.

Remember the UAE, notorious for enslaving Bangledeshi boys as camel jockeys, for its support of Hamas? It was the UAE whose ministers and princes were hunting with Osama bin Laden, preventing the Clinton White House from taking a cruise missile shot at the jihad kingpin. It was the UAE that was one of three countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to recognize the Taliban. And it was the UAE’s Dubai Ports World that was thwarted in a pre-tea-party populist uproar about these connections and more (eleven of the 9/11 hijackers, including two UAE citizens, were deployed to the US from Dubai). The UAE is “not free” now, says Freedom House, and never has been. You get the picture. It is now complete with a macabre vision of a News Corp.’s Middle Eastern headquarters potentially rising into the skyline, the better to oversee, perhaps, Murdoch’s new 9.1 percent stake in Prince Talal’s Arab media company Rotana.

What impact does the Islamization of News Corp. have on “fair and balanced” news Stateside? I don’t know. But when one of the big bosses is a Saudi prince, it doesn’t exactly encourage reporters to doodle spoofs of the Danish Motoons on their notepads, let alone engage in “offensive,” PC-busting debate in the news room or on the air.

Three. Regardless of cause or effect, the fact remains that in classifying Wilders as a fascist (Beck), denouncing his views as “extreme, radical and wrong” (Krauthammer), and slandering him as a “demagogue” (Kristol), Fox’s opinion-leaders expressed themselves in terms that surely thrilled not just Murdoch’s Islamic prince-cronies, but also the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This is the organization driving the advance of sharia in the world, as, for example, at the United Nations, where it leads an endless campaign to outlaw all criticism of Islam – such as Wilders’ -- under the PC-sensitive rubric of banning “defamation of religion.”

Now, one thing you don’t want to do in this life is thrill the OIC, particularly on its smooth drive to extend sharia that is only now, according to OIC plan, unexpectedly blocked by Geert Wilders. But how it hurts to see Fox pushing in the wrong direction.

Andrew Bostom: "Qaddafi, Wilders and the Jihad against Switzerland"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:29:00 GMT

When Qaddafi's Libya is "satisfied" something is wrong.

Andrew Bostom has published an essential and timely essay at Pajama Media throwing the light of the ages, historically and Islamically speaking, on Qaddafi's declaration of jihad on Switzerland for its act of self-determination to ban construction of the tool and symbol of political Islam, the minaret. And yes, as the title of this post promises, he also sets the recent electoral successes of Geert Wilders into the context of European pushback against such outbursts of Islamic aggression and continuing demographic colonization.

Bostom's piece is mandatory reading, and particularly in order to appreciate the low-down depths to which the United States has sunk with its "apology" yesterday to Libya for State Department spokesman Philip Cowley's unfocused non-response to a question last month about Libya's declaration of jihad on Switzerland.

The AFP reports:

"Libya accepts US `apology' for Kadhafi joke"

TRIPOLI — Libya said on Wednesday it accepted the apology of a US official who had joked about Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's call for jihad against Switzerland and that normal ties would resume.

The foreign ministry said it was "satisfied" with the remarks made by US State Department spokesman Philip Cowley on Tuesday, adding that "it accepts the apology and the deep regret," of the State Department.

Slurp, slurp, slurp.

"As a result ... (Libya is willing) to resume mutual visits by officials from the two countries ... and to promote bilateral relations in all areas, in a manner of mutual respect," the ministry said in a statement.

Thanks be for that.

Earlier, a Libyan newspaper had called Cowley's apology and Washington's decision to send a top envoy to Libya in a bid to limit the diplomatic fallout from the incident a "victory" for Tripoli.

"Libya has won a victory in the battle begun by the US State Department's spokesman," daily Al-Fajr Al-Jadid said.

Crowley told reporters on Tuesday he regretted that his comments had become an obstacle to the improvement in US-Libyan relations, although actually stopping short of a full apology.

Diplomacy 101: Give a regret and they'll take an apology.

"These comments do not reflect US policy and were not intended to offend. I apologise if they were taken that way."

Sounds like an apology to me.

Libya formally objected to Crowley's remarks on February 26, a day after Kadhafi called for a holy war and economic boycott in response to Switzerland's ban on the construction of minarets.

What did he say?

Crowley had said at the time: "I saw that (jihad) report and it just brought me back to the day of September, one of the more memorable sessions of the UN General Assembly that I can recall.

"Lots of words and lots of papers flying all over the place and not necessarily a lot of sense," the US official added.

He didn't say anything! (Here, have a dog.)

Kadhafi took the comments as a personal insult. Libya first summoned the US charge d'affaires in Tripoli and Libya's National Oil Corp called in US oil firms to express "indignation" over the remark.

NOW, we're getting down to bizness. If only these "US oil firms" were drilling here at home in the good old USA they wouldn't have to be called in to talk to the likes of jihadis like Qadaffi .... Hmmmm.

NOC president Shokri Ghanem said the US firms in Libya, which include ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, had been advised of "the negative repercussions which such remarks could have on economic relations between the two countries."

US-Libyan ties have been improving since 2003, when Kadhafi renounced the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and agreed to compensate families of the victims of the 1988 plane bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The lifting of US sanctions in 2004 paved the way for US oil companies to return to Libya after being absent since 1986.

Joy. It also paved the way for the Lockerbie bomber to go home and live the life of Al-Reilly ...

Dhimmitude is plain disgusting.

Update: Ruth King has some choice words on the subject over at Ruthfully Yours.

Oh No, Not Again: Welcome to Our World

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:45:00 GMT

This sketch almost got a man killed. Sorry, Sharia-inspired assassins almost killed a man over this sketch.

Story -- not the picture, of course, because the MSM are chicken-dhimmis -- by the AP

STOCKHOLM — The point of a caricature depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was to show that artistic freedom allows mockery of all religions, including the most sacred symbols of Islam, the Swedish artist who created it said Wednesday.

Update: The essential backgrounder on the whole story at Gates of Vienna.

Lars Vilks — the target of an alleged murder plot involving an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane" — told The Associated Press he has no regrets about the drawing, which is considered deeply offensive by many Muslims.

Oh, please. There's a lot of things that deeply offenda lot of people, from smutty talk on the street to Rupert Murdoch moving key components of his empire to UAE Enough is enough -- isn't it?

"I'm actually not interested in offending the prophet. The point is actually to show that you can," Vilks said in an interview in Stockholm. "There is nothing so holy you can't offend it."

Certainly, that's one valid argument. There is a more particular argument to make, which is that we do not observe either Islamic prohibitions on imagery, or Islamic prohibitions on criticizing Islam or its prophet.

Vilks made his rough sketch showing Muhammad's head on a dog's body more than a year after 12 Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet sparked furious protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Whatever.

Vilks submitted the drawing to an exhibit at a Swedish cultural heritage center, which turned it down, citing security concerns.

Fear of Cartoon Rage, Swedish-style.

The issue went largely unnoticed until a Swedish newspaper printed the drawing with an editorial defending the freedom of expression.

Good for them. Haven't seen that in these here United States newspapers, despite the robust protections offered by our First Amendment.

The publication led to protests from Muslim countries, and briefly revived a heated debate in the West and the Muslim world about religious sensitivities and the limits of free speech.

It also led to numerous death threats against Vilks, who was temporarily moved to a secret location after al-Qaida in Iraq put a $100,000 bounty on his head in September 2007.

The 63-year-old artist told AP he has now built his own defense system, including a "homemade" safe room and a barbed-wire sculpture that could electrocute potential intruders. He also has an ax "to chop down" anyone trying to climb through the windows of his home, in southern Sweden.

Ah, give me the medieval life.

"If something happens, I know exactly what to do," Vilks said.

He said he believes the suspects in the latest alleged plot to kill him — seven people arrested in Ireland and a Pennsylvania woman held in the U.S. — were not professionals but "rather low-tech."

He said he had learned from American media reports that Colleen R. LaRose, who called herself JihadJane in a YouTube video, had visited the area where he lives, but he didn't know whether that was correct. "I'm glad she didn't kill me," Vilks said, with a half-smile.

Nalin Pekgul, a moderate Muslim and high-ranking member of Sweden's opposition Social Democratic Party, told Swedish Radio the threats against Vilks were unacceptable but added his drawing had profoundly hurt Muslims.

"A dog is unclean. To describe Muhammad as a dog is like saying you are unclean" to Muslims, said Pekgul, a Kurdish immigrant from Turkey.

Don't tell us about unclean when kafirs (non-Muslims) along with dogs, pigs, wine, and assorted bodily yuck have a standing condition of being "najis" or unclean according to the likes of Iranian Shiite Ayatollah Sistani.

An eccentric man with disheveled gray hair and thick-lensed glasses, Vilks referred to himself as "the artist" and described his life as a movie plot.

"It's a good story. It's about the bad guys and a good guy, and they try to kill him," he said.

Swedish winters are very long.

LaRose had discussions of her alleged plans with at least one of the suspects apprehended in Ireland, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official wasn't authorized to discuss details of the investigation.

Irish authorities said Wednesday those arrested there were two Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian and an American woman married to one of the Algerian suspects. They were not identified by name.

Swedish police have kept a close eye on threats against Vilks, but he doesn't have round-the-clock protection.

Vilks has said he was threatened shortly after an ax-wielding man on Jan. 1 broke into the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the 12 Muhammad caricatures that prompted the 2006 uproar. Westergaard locked himself in a safe room, while police shot and wounded the attacker.

At least three Swedish newspapers reprinted Vilks' drawing Wednesday, citing its news value and the defense of free speech.

That's the only way to keep free speech free.

Out-foxing Fox

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:56:00 GMT

Perhaps in response to major viewer push-back, Fox News ("fair and halal") pulled its video clips of the two evening slams on Geert Wilders that appeared last night, first by Glenn Beck and then by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. That's right: Fox pulled the videos from all Internet sight.

Well, not quite. Thanks to the invaluable Gates of Vienna, we can still watch the Beck outburst:

Oil Chic: Owning Western Media

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:36:00 GMT

Prince Talal has pals and they all have pockets filled with Westerners.

From the AP:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — With an economy based on pumping oil and landmarks that include one of the Mideast's grandest mosques, buttoned-down Abu Dhabi has little obvious in common with freewheeling media magnets like Hollywood or midtown Manhattan.

This week, the Arab emirate is hoping the world takes another look. The city-state, best known of late for bailing out its flashier neighbor Dubai, is bringing together some of the industry's biggest names for a summit that will temporarily shift much of the world's media and entertainment elite to a luxury hotel on the Persian Gulf. Headliners at the event starting Tuesday include News Corp.'s Rupert Murdoch and Google Inc. chief Eric Schmidt.

Murdoch yesterday announced, by the way, that in addition to buying into Prince Talal's Rotana media company, News Corp. has "further extended our presence [in Dar al-Islam] by announcing a strategic partnership between Fox International Channels and Abu Dhabi’s twofour54."

He's pretty much moving in. As Murdoch explained:

"First, we will move some of our satellite channels from Hong Kong to here. Second, we will establish a production office here for one of our documentary filmmaking companies. And third, we will headquarter the Middle Eastern operations for our global online advertising network business in Abu Dhabi as well."

Back to the AP:

The idea is to entice "the best and the brightest media minds," said Edward Borgerding, a former Walt Disney Co. executive who is now CEO of the state-owned Abu Dhabi Media Co., the event's host. But the gathering is also a coming-out party for Abu Dhabi, which has seen its own star rise as nearby Dubai's fades, serving as a reflection of the emirate's growing weight in the media industry.

As in most of the Arab world, the government here has long controlled much of the domestic media, running television networks, newspapers and radio stations, including one devoted to readings from the Quran. Censors routinely black out nudity and politically sensitive topics, and block access to hundreds of Web sites. A media law passed last year stifles the press and increases self-censorship, rights groups say.

Oh, is that what "rights groups say"? Thanks for mentioning. But there's more. A quick browse through a Freedom House report reveals there's also the fact that in the UAE there are no elections, never have been. Political parties do not exist, nor are independent human rights groups allowed to operate. Criticism of Islam is a "punishable offense, while women's rights are tenuous due to the sway of Islamic law. Little surprise, then, that female genital mutiliation is still "discreetly practiced" ... and on and on.

In other words -- the perfect place for Western media $ucklings to $eek $oothing $uccor.

Increasingly, though, the United Arab Emirates capital has been using its immense petroleum wealth to extend its media reach overseas, even as it shows little sign of easing restrictions on journalists or Internet users at home.

It has set up a company to bankroll Hollywood films, built an office park to house foreign news agencies, and spent billions to invest in microchips that power the electronic gadgets that increasingly serve as platforms for media consumption.

It is also partnering with established Western brands, including National Geographic and Comedy Central, to develop Arabic-language programming, and is splashing out on big-name concerts for eager audiences at home. Recent shows featured Rihanna, Aerosmith and Beyonce.

Always entertaining to see-no-sharia!

The investments are part of a broader push by Abu Dhabi's hereditary leaders to diversify the economy away from oil and provide a broader range of jobs for locals.

They serve another purpose too — to establish Abu Dhabi, the UAE's capital and the largest of the country's seven semiautonomous city-states, as a tolerant, cultured and internationally relevant Arab society.

The al-Potemkin city-state, courtesy its Western collaborators.

"We work to promote a more progressive point of view of this region," said Mike Fairburn, director of marketing and planning at Flash Entertainment, a government-created concert and events promoter. "A big part of popular entertainment is about challenging certain perceptions."

Abu Dhabi is not alone in its quest to become a regional media player.

Neighboring Dubai built its reputation on being a carefree business haven. Despite its well-publicized economic slump, the port city continues to host regional offices for hundreds of media companies, ranging from small ad agencies to international broadcasters such as CNBC and Showtime. And Doha, the capital of nearby Qatar, is home to the best-known group of Arabic satellite TV channels, al-Jazeera.

Abu Dhabi officials, however, insist they are creating something unique. A big part of that effort revolves around a project called TwoFour54, named after the city's geographical coordinates.

The project's sand-whipped office park in a rapidly developing corner of the city has already lured a number of international news agencies, including CNN, which also maintains an office in Dubai. The broadcaster is using its Abu Dhabi site to produce a daily news show for its international channel.

TwoFour54 also includes a media training academy primarily offering short skills-based courses, as well as production facilities and a venture capital arm to invest in promising Arabic media startups.

"We see ourselves ... as providing an environment that is supportive and conducive and stimulating for creative people to want to be here," said Wayne Borg, chief operating officer of TwoFour54.

You know, art for art's sake.

Other state-backed projects are aiming further afield.

Earlier this year, Abu Dhabi's Flash Entertainment bought a 10 percent stake in the parent of Ultimate Fighting Championship, the Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts producer that makes most of its money through pay-per-view sales and video game licenses.

Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi Media set up a film production and financing arm called Imagenation that aims to pump more than $1 billion into feature films over five years.

The company produced last year's family adventure film "Shorts" by director Robert Rodriguez, and has since announced co-production deals for a number of other movies, including the upcoming political thriller "Fair Game" starring Sean Penn.

The venture is symbiotic. Hollywood gets money it needs after funding sources like investment banks and hedge funds tightened purse strings amid the global meltdown. Abu Dhabi gets international cachet.

Isn't that the one about Faust??

"If you can just get the brand out there with the name Abu Dhabi in it, it promotes Abu Dhabi as a decent, legitimate business partner," said Christopher Davidson, a professor at the University of Durham who has written extensively about the UAE.

He said one goal might be to persuade a studio to set part of a major film in the city, though he added that freedom of expression remains a concern.

"The reality is it's still a traditional political system, and there are limits," he said.

It is difficult to gauge how much of its oil wealth Abu Dhabi is willing to lavish on the media business, which must compete with the government's plans to grow other sectors, such as technology, manufacturing, energy and tourism. Few details about the government's finances are made public, and none of the executives who agreed to speak with The Associated Press would discuss their companies' financial resources.

Davidson estimates the state will spend at least $2 billion to $3 billion over five years just on physical infrastructure and seed money for the media sector. But there is always more should things really take off.

"This is small change for Abu Dhabi," he said. "They can throw such massive resources at this."

News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal (kind of amazingly) put it this way:

"Why are the world's biggest media companies coming to one of the most closed media markets?" said Jim Krane, author of 'City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism' and a former journalist based in the U.A.E. with the Associated Press. "It's because that's where the money is."

The Journal also reported:

On the eve of the summit's opening day, News Corp.'s Fox International Channels said it was moving the Middle East operations of its global online ad network to Abu Dhabi and setting up an office here for its documentary-production arm.

The partnership comes after News Corp. last month said it would spend $70 million for a 9.1% stake in Arabic media giant Rotana Group, with an option to double that stake. Rotana is owned by Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, a large, longtime investor in News Corp.

"Abu Dhabi sits at the nexus--of East and West, of developing and developed, of our media present and our future," Mr. Murdoch said in videotaped remarks to promote the media summit last November.

Ironically, the renewed sense of interest in Middle East media comes as international media companies face rising criticism in the U.A.E. over its coverage of Dubai's debt crisis.

The Sunday Times, published in the U.K., was ordered off shelves in the U.A.E. on Nov. 29 after the paper carried a double-page graphic illustrating Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, sinking in a sea of debt. Its sister publication, The Times, was censored in the U.A.E. on Dec. 5 for a story that described Sheik Mohammed as a "benign dictator" and criticized his management of the economy.

Question: Has the Sunday Times or The Times -- both News Corp./Prince Talal properties not incidentally -- run anything similar to this cartoon and story since? I don't know the answer -- but I can guess.