Canada: a land of opportunity. Or, in the case of Maher Arar, a chap who sold us all a tale of woe about his torture in Syria--for the bargain price of $10.5 million--opportunism. For where else but in Canada could a fellow like Arar parlay his suffering into punditry status? Here he is in the Ottawa Citizen 'splaining why the U.S. (foolishly) backed Mubarak all those years. (Here's a hint: the Jews are involved, of course):
The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has mainly been guided by three objectives, namely: to guarantee the security of Israel, its main ally in the region, to fight against terrorism, and to prevent Islamists from reaching power. This explains why successive U.S. administrations have preferred the status quo in the Middle East.
Thanks, Maher. That's most insightful.
The U.S. is currently taking its licks from the likes of Arar and media lefties (and some righties, too) for daring to prop up the dictator Mubarak. But given the Arab's world's propensity for authoritarianism (a function of an Islamic mindset: see the Cairo Declaration of sharia-decreed "human rights"), can Arar honestly imagine that anyone--least of all the Egyptians--would have been better off with 30 years of Islamist rule, or 30 years of chaos (the only viable alternatives to 30 years of "status quo")?
Update: Also in the Ottawa Citizen--something of an antidote to Arar's blarney--Barry Rubin explains why "democracy" in Egypt is a non-starter:
Egypt is a poor country with limited resources and a very high population density. Any democratically elected government cannot deliver very much to the population. That means either before or after the balloting, the rulers of this new Egypt will be under tremendous pressure to turn to demagoguery, blaming everything on the West and Israel. Going to war becomes quite tempting. Indeed, this is what characterizes much Middle East history.
Furthermore, in comparison to other Arab countries such as Tunisia, most of the “moderate” and “pro-democratic” forces — not all of them — are pretty radical themselves. Egypt is also the only country where such people often look to the Islamists as allies...
The Muslim Brotherhood? Why, they're a benevolent group of humanitarians who give and give and give, expecting little or nothing in return. They're a small--minute, really--collection of devout Muslims who, having embraced "non-violence," are entirely benign. They're no threat to anyone, "experts" say, because they're so small and insignificant and, er, small. And furthermore...
They are the promised kiss of "freedom"
That comes when an election is "fair."
They are a harmless bunch of nice guys
Who only want to show that they care.
They are so tiny and so little and so wee.
The dearest thing they know
Is the sharee'.
And some day they'll know when the moment declares
That all the things that are
Are theirs.
Amid Reagan tributes, Obama seeks his magic--AFP headline
Perhaps the most ridiculous "ride" in recent history--Barack Obama trying to coast on Ronald Reagan's coattails.
To paraphrase a famous diss: Mr. President, you're no Ronald Reagan.
The Friday Magazine of the Canadian Islamic Congress has a link to this venenous piece of anti-Israel propaganda/tribute to the "global revolution" initiated by Tunisia and Egypt.
So glad the CIC is "moderate" and not, you know, in any way "extreme".
Arnold Ahlert writes:
If the result of the Egyptian democracy movement results in Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of the government–with acquiescence of the Egyptian people–freedom in the Western sense will be nowhere to be found. If the people willingly trade a secular dictatorship for a religious one, it will be a terrible development for the West in every respect but one.
Such clarity may be the only bright light in an otherwise darkened sky. If the uprisings occurring in the Middle East result in democratically elected religious tyrannies which openly express their hatred of the United States and their desire to destroy Israel, perhaps those long-deluded into believing ideas such as terrorism is a “law-enforcement problem,” or that massive Muslim emigration into Western countries is little cause for concern, or that Western accommodation to Muslim sensibilities must proceed without hesitation, will be snapped out of their delusion. Perhaps phrases like “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation” will be tossed on the ash heap of history where they belong. Perhaps an Israel completely surrounded by enemies will awaken Jewish liberals in both countries to the utter bankruptcy of their multicultural and morally relative fantasies.
Doubt it. More likely they will redouble their efforts to bring about "peace" and "justice" for the Palestinians (who suffer so because Israel has the chutzpah to want to exist). Also--falafels and tasty samosas for everybody!
The thing about Jewish liberals is that they're a lot like Islamists. They're immune to reason, prone to magical thinking, and adamant about the purity of their beliefs and intentions. Strip away their delusions and you remove their sense of purpose, their very identity--the reason it's delusional of us to expect any such epiphany.
To put events in Egypt into perspective (specifically, the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is too small and too unpopular to come to power post-Mubarak), Robert Spencer pulls a Peabody and takes a trip in the WABAC (pronounced "way back") machine:
Westerners watching the fall of imperfect, autocratic regimes in the Middle East are like Englishmen reading in newspapers of the abdication of the Tsar. All around us, fatuous liberals (like that excitable Yank, Woodrow Wilson) are venting their glee at the end of the Okhrana, the refusal of the Cossacks to fire on the crowd, the opening of the (rather mild) Tsarist jails, the release of political prisoners and their arrival in St. Petersburg. While comrades Lenin, and Trotsky, and Stalin mount the rostrum, the liberals assure us that they lack the support of the people. True, they are tightly organized, fanatically dedicated, and armed for combat. True, in the midst of chaos, they are the only group that clearly knows what it wants and how to get it. But surely an organization this fanatical, this out of touch with how the "real," modern world works, can never win the allegiance of millions of people. Once the autocratic system that has been repressing the popular will is removed, it will become clear that what the oppressed masses of this country want... is exactly what we modern Englishmen want: a little plot of land where they can grow their vegetables, their rights under Common Law, and a decent cup of tea.
A cold peace better than a hot war? You betcha. But that doesn't mean the underlying, endemic Jew/Zion-hate hasn't made 'em loco. Here's what I mean:
(JTA) -- Pro-Egyptian government counter-protesters in Cairo are screaming "Jew!" at foreign journalists, apparently spurred by Egyptian state TV accusations that Israeli spies are behind the protests.
"Egyptian state television has actively tried to foment the unrest by reporting that 'Israeli spies' on the unrest have infiltrated the city, which explains why many of the gangs who attack reporters shout 'yehudi!,' " Al Jazeera said in a report on its website Thursday.
The report documented increasing attacks on foreign journalists.
The Obama administration has condemned such attacks and called on the Mubarak regime to rein them in.
Thanks, Obama administration. That's very...helpful.
Surveying the current agita in Egypt, Sean Hannity gives it but good to his guest Anjem Choudary, an avowed Islamic supremacist who shared his certainty that sharia will prevail worldwide. It's a riveting bit of TV that sure beats Keeping Up With the Khardashians all to hell--call it Keeping Up With the Ikhwan, an Egyptian reality show that has at least one thing going for it: no Scott Disick.
Those with stronger stomachs than mine can also tune into Hannity on radio "moderating" a "debate" between David Horowitz and Shyster Cohen, a modern-day capo who is delighted to offer his professional services to eliminationist-minded Hamas. (Me, I couldn't bear to listen to more than a few minutes of the idiot capo prattling on about "the Zionists" and how awful they are.)
A congressional probe into the Fort Hood massacre, the results of which will be officially released today, has drawn some utterly predictable but crucial conclusions. (In a nutshell: if you ignore the sharia imperative and pretend Islam is all hearts and flowers, you will die, kafir). Here's the Politco write-up:
...In a report set for release Thursday by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the FBI is criticized for failing to notify the Army about alleged gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist views, while the Army lapsed in identifying and responding to his changing beliefs.
Commanders had the authority to discipline or discharge Hasan but, the examination found, the Defense Department did not teach them how to differentiate between soldiers practicing peaceful Islam and those who, like Hasan, had become radicalized.
The report, obtained by the AP in advance of a midday release by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chair of the panel, and Susan Collins (R-Me.), the ranking member, comes to similar conclusions found by other probes into the Hasan case. The central missed warning sign was that a terrorism task force led by the FBI learned of Hasan’s repeated interactions with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki but did not report its findings to the Army.
The Senate investigation also found that the Army has not done enough to improve how it identifies and handles soldiers who are believed to support radical Islam.
Also predictably, the Army is trying to cover its sorry arse:
An Army spokesman told the AP that it is continuing to work on bettering its monitoring of potential threats from within. “We will closely examine the report’s findings and recommendations,” said Col. Tom Collins. “The Army has already implemented numerous concrete actions that have made our soldiers, families and civilian employees safer. There is still more work to do, but the Army is committed to doing all we can to learn from this tragic event.”
The fact that he calls it a "tragic event" (making it sound like, say, a landslide and not an act of holy war) leads me to suspect that the Army, with its touchy-feely "diversity" bollocks, is still fairly clueless.
