Muslims do speak out

Some people, I hope they are few, complain that Muslims don't speak out about terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam.  Did we have a lot of Christians in the South who spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan?  How many southerners were as strong defending the rights of blacks as Atticus Finch of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird"  How many of us speak out against anybody who unfairly speaks ill of another person or group?

Like any very large group, Muslims have a diverse set of views.  Too often, like in other groups, the rigid dominate any discourse.  Iran under the Shah was a rigid dictatorship that allowed quite a range of freedom in non-political behavior.  Iran under the Ayatollahs is a rigid sort-of democracy that constricts freedoms in many non-political behaviors.  Unfortunately, it has become even more rigid and even less democratic since the election fraud of 2009.

As seen in the riots in Egypt, Muslims have a wide range of opinions of what government should be about, not all think that Shari'a law is a legitimate source of government.  Remember also that more people showed up to mourn the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi than took part in the attack or justified it.

See also "Exploiting the Prophet", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2012-09-22

One group of Muslims has set out to be a more open religious group that allows for more diversity and less gender or other sexual divisions.  It is Muslims for Progressive Values.  Among other practices prayer meetings are not segregated by gender and women do lead prayers.  They were supposedly changing their website on January 25th, but as of this posting it hasn't happened.  If the "Keep It Halal" video is not on the site when you visit, you might find it on YouTube at http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=44UsNBJE2ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D44UsNBJE2ho.

Libya - how to tell hot news topics

I've been watching Al Jazeera's Libya Blog for several weeks, always hoping that the end of Gaddafi was close. Sometimes the news has been sparse; sometimes the news comes flooding in. Sometimes I have gotten immediate access to the blog; sometimes I have to wait and wait for any items to even show in the window.

Today, after the death of Muammar Gaddafi, is one of those latter times. The little circle is going around and around in the corner of Firefox' window and the lower corner has "connecting to aljazeera.com…" I wrote the first paragraph and part of this before the loading of the page was complete.

I assume that aljazeera.net is so popular around the world, that its servers must be overloaded.

Whatever, let's hope for a long life for a free Libya.

P.S. A few hours after I wrote the above, access to Al-Jazeera is quicker. It must be because it is past midnight in that part of the world.

Attacks against the "sacrilegious"

I never understand why those who profess a theistic religion feel compelled to attack those who they consider "sacrilegious" or "blasphemous". If their God is so all-powerful and all-knowing, cannot He do something about this problem. Cannot this God just boom down from Heaven to these blasphemers to shape up?

I think the attackers themselves are insecure in their own beliefs and are the "sacrilegious" or "blasphemous" ones. They think beliefs different from their own are threat to their beliefs. They have the hubris to think they know better than God.

They also are the greatest threat to their own beliefs. Why would peaceful people follow their beliefs? Or why should peaceful people of any belief respect and tolerate the beliefs of the attackers?

Women's role in Libyan War bigger than you thought

See Libya's "War-Tested Women Hope to Keep New Power", Ann Barnard, New York Times, 2011-09-12.

Libya - More on the raspberry

It looks like Sens. McCain and Graham knew even less than they should have or were just looking for a way to fault Obama.  See "Libya - Three cheers and a raspberry".  And I ignored something I had known but forgotten.

McCain and Graham wanted the "full weight of American airpower", and I assumed any involvement would hinder the Libyan cause.  Well, it seems American airpower was used efficiently and without a lot of flash and weight.

"U.S. and NATO officials cited an intensification of U.S. aerial surveillance in and around the capital as a major factor in helping to tilt the balance…" and "… the United States established around-the-clock surveillance over the dwindling areas that Libyan military forces still controlled, using armed Predator drones to detect, track and occasionally fire at those forces."  - Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, republished in the Star Tribune, 2011-08-22

Libya - Three cheers and a raspberry

As I write this, it looks like the revolution in Libya is almost over.  May Gaddafi's fall not crush anymore people than have already been crushed by his 41 years of misrule.

The raspberry is for Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham for their statement that included:

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

One: would anymore airpower than was provided by NATO been needed?  One more set of airplanes might have made the skies over Libya more crowded and more dangerous for the crews.

Two: have they considered that more U.S. involvement might have given more weight to Gaddafi's claims about "crusaders" and "colonialists".  Especially given that the U.S. almost always insists on being the leader of any coalition.

Three: don't they belong to the party that wants to cut the Federal deficit?  Bombs cost lots of money.  Money we don't seem to have for activities they don't like.

Who needs armies?

Who is going to invade the United States?  What would they gain by doing so?  Who is going to invade Europe?  Who is going to invade Russia?  Who is going to invade China?  None of these countries or regions have any serious military threats, yet they all have very large military forces.  Most if not all call these defense forces, but defense against whom?

North Korea feels or claims that South Korea and the United States are threats to its security.  Ironically, any threat to North Korea will be because of its own bellicose behavior.

Pakistan feels threatened by India with some cause.  They have had at least three wars since their independence from Great Britain.  Pakistan was founded as a religious state, and as such it has a bit of paranoia against the secular state it split from.  Ironically, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan.

Israel feels threatened by almost all of its neighbors, sometimes with reason, sometimes because of its own actions.  It definitely could use more imagination in the carrot department instead of overuse of the stick.

What need does Egypt have for a large army?  The large army led to a military dictatorship that, despite the downfall of Hosni Mubarak, still wields a lot of political power.

What need does Libya have for a large army?  Despite the antics of Muammar Gaddafi, Europe was content to buy Libyan oil without feeling the need to invade it.

These last two countries show one of the downsides of a military that is larger than any foreseeable threat. Someone in the military decides to overthrow the government, legitimate or not, effective or not.

This is one of the reasons many of the writers of the U. S. Constitution were leery of a standing army.  They saw how many of the European countries used standing armies for foreign adventures and control of the people.

Unfortunately, they were overridden and shown to be prescient about foreign adventures and control of the people.  Let's see, Cuba, Philippines, Iraq, Panama, Granada, and many, many more.  The Army was called out to put down many strikes.  General Douglas MacArthur and Colonel Dwight Eisenhower had brought out machine guns to forcefully breakup the unarmed Bonus Army camps in Washington DC.  The Bonus Army was made up of unemployed World War I veterans who felt they had been promised a bonus for their service.

I'm two degrees of separation from Muammar Gaddafi?

A couple of weeks ago I received an email supposedly from Aisha al Gaddafi, the daughter of Muammar Gaddafi.  I'll spare you the tale of woe about her fleeing Libya, but as you can guess it is really a plea that I help her get access to "Thirty Million Great Britain Pounds Sterling" in Barclays Bank London by transferring it to my account.

I'm supposed to "keep this conversation and business between you and I confidential for security and success".  However "I" includes me and "undisclosed-recipients".  I wonder how many people this group includes.

Needless to say, I'll forward this email to the Anti-Phishing Working Group .  I hope many others have already forwarded this, but I could be the first.

Was Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi really killed by NATO?

Given the destruction shown by Libyan State TV of the house that Gaddafi's son was supposedly killed in, how did Muammar Gaddafi and his wife escape unscathed?

Is it possible that Saif also called Aruba wanted out of Libya?  Is it possible that he was advising his father or others against continuing the war?  Is it possible that Gaddafi had his own son killed for his own reasons, but then he made the death look like NATO was responsible?

Will we never know one way or another?

A realistic look at war

My take on war is that the winner is the one with the most sustained resources.  The North had the industry and population to outlast the South.  The Allies had the industry out of reach of the Germans and the Japanese plus a much larger population.  This last component of resources was forgotten in Vietnam and in Palestine.  The Vietnamese had many more people willing to die for their cause than the U.S. did, despite the latter's greater access to industry.  The Israelis are aware that they are surrounded by a much larger population that does not share its interests; the more the Israelis make war, the more enemies they create.

You can find a much broader perspective on how war rarely accomplishes its ends in "War and Truth in Libya and Palestine", Tarak Barkawi, Al Jazeera English, 2011-04-28.

"My people love me!"

And from the following picture, we can see how enthusiastically they love Moammar Gaddafi.


From http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/live-blog-libya-march-27

This picture is used under Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)