Small details we should keep in mind about "secular" Muslim democracies: how secular do they want to be?

Turkey celebrated the 81st anniversary of its foundation, but the festivities were marred by an embargo that President Ahmet Necdet Sezer slapped on women with Islamic headscarves at a reception in his palace.

Most MPs from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) boycotted the reception, the top event on Ankara`s social calendar, after the staunchly secularist Sezer refused to invite wives who cover their heads.

Out of the 368 AKP parliament members, only about 20 -- including four ministers -- turned up at the presidential palace, NTV news channel reported.
...

Women wearing the headscarf are banned from attending universities and working in public offices in Turkey.

Erdogan`s government has vocally criticized the ban as a breach of religious freedoms.

But wary of attracting the ire of the army-backed secularist establishment, it has so far refrained from any moves to ease or scrap the restrictions.

Headscarf row mars Turkey's 81st birthday

A commentary by Fouad Ajami, on Osama's latest appearance:

In retrospect, it was inevitable that we would hear from Osama bin Laden on the eve of our presidential elections. He could have sent our way squads of homicidal "martyrs" -- or, as he has done, a reminder that he was still around, that he had outwitted and survived the pledges of our leaders to kill or capture him. This man of terror has always been a creature of the modern media: his "return" was a perfect piece of choreography. The timing, and the somber tone, coming together to assert once again the place of the man in this great standoff between radical Islamism and American power

When asked, I will tell anyone that asks that I am a Libertarian. The Libertarian view of government, taxes, Social Security, personal freedoms are spot on. Government should be limited in size and scope. The Income Tax is unfair and counter-productive. On many, many issues I am with the party. On very few I am against or conflicted. Abortion is one of these, I don’t want the government as an ally in the fight to stop abortions and protect life. Another is the Global War on Terror. I desperately believe that the future of the country is best served by Libertarian ideals. I have voted twice for Libertarian Presidential candidates (both times it was Harry Browne).

Now that there is no doubt of my Libertarian bona fides, I want to persuade my Libertarian brothers and sisters to forsake Michael Badnarik and vote for President Bush. On size and scope of government, Bush is wrong. On taxes, Bush is wrong. On personal freedoms, Bush is wrong. On Second Amendment issues, Bush is wrong. If he is wrong on all these issues, why would I ask you to vote for him?

First and foremost, Sen. Kerry (D-France) is worse on all of these issues. His Senate record shows him a fan of tax increases, massive government program (Government Health Insurance anyone?), and gun control. Add the fact that despite his recent pandering he voted for the Patriot Act. Sen. Kerry and his party are drifting, some say speeding, to the left. The left might appeal to some Libertarians but it shouldn't, for down that path lies totalitarianism and that is not the Libertarian dream. Your vote really matters no mater where you live. Imagine if even half of the 2000 Flordia Nader voters would have cast their ballots for Mr. Gore? As Bill Murray would say (paraphrasing) "Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! ... Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria".

The Libertarian Party actually thinks that their impact on the Bush vote is something to be proud of, even if it serves to put in a bigger enemy of freedom and Libertarian Ideals in office. Is 4 years of higher taxes, less freedom, weaker security and more terror worth your protest vote? If you think that the party is not targeting Bush voters, think again.

Finally, the most important reason. On the war and terrorism Bush is right, Kerry is wrong and Badnarik is dead wrong. This is the only thing that matters in this election year. The Libertarian plan is to withdraw from Iraq immediately. As hard as it is to fathom, this is a more extreme position than Ralph Nader. The Kerry plan to set a date certain, 6 months, to withdraw would make the Vietnam analogy complete. Right down to the final helicopter scene leaving the embassy. Nothing would be more damaging to the future security of the United States than the Kerry/Nader plans except the Badnarik/Libertarian plan.

No matter what happens tomorrow, Michael Badnarik will not be the President-Elect. Even if it were possible, it would not be a positive for the future of our country or Western Civilization. This election is a referendum on Western Civilization, should it continue to flourish or should we give the Islamic nutjobs a fighting chance to take it down. A vote for Kerry will send a message to Osama and his whackjobs that we are ripe for more terror and willing to give in. A vote for Badnarik is essentially a vote for Kerry. A vote for Bush just might keep them in their holes for another 4 years when we will have this discussion again.

I must admit that, as a person whose first spoken words were "mmm, beer good," I never understood the point of prohibition.

While some counties in states across the nation remain dry, the vast majority of communities have willingly embraced the intent if not the words of Benjamin Franklin, who wrote, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Not Westerville, where the cause of alcohol--for and against--has been a continual struggle.

Alcohol sales a frothy issue in dry town

While Mr. Arafat is recuperating in France with loving wife Suha by his side, the mean Mossad stormed his Ramallah offices and stole his red binder. Inside the binder, hidden between an old baby wipe autographed by Fidel Castro and a photograph of Mel Gibson as Mad Max, was Mr. Arafat's last will and testament. Reading the Palestinian leader's last wishes made me very sad, I've been crying all morning. Just like Barbara Plett. Crying and sobbing, and sobbing and crying.

3. That my most trusted advisors and fellow terrorists still on my payroll at that time, who have declared their willingness to become shaheeds for the cause of Palestinian independence, be called together by the executor of my estate, who will dutifully and without delay or mercy, execute them to help them achieve their lifetime goal.

4. That my wife Suha Arafat be given the keys to the safety deposit boxes I hold in various banks throughout Switzerland, France and Germany, which contains my lifetime accumulated "contributions to the cause of Palestinian independence" acquired from the beneficent generosity of naïve and well-intentioned western democratic countries, and which I have held in "trust" for the moment of declaration of independence of the state of Palestine. Unfortunately, since said independence has not yet taken place, Suha will continue to hold these monies "in trust" until Independence takes place or the money runs out, whichever comes first.

5. That my funeral be arranged by my good friend and lifetime colleague-in-arms, Fidel Castro, or, if he is not available, my equally good colleagues-in-arms-sales, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. All of my fellow dictators are to be assembled in the front row. Leaders of western democracies who donated money to my "trust" fund are to be seated in the second row. Everyone else will be charged $US 100,000 for the privilege of attending my funeral, with proceeds going to Suha's Mourning Fund.

FOUND! Arafat's Last Will and Testament

(nbl kelly)

An endorsement from the opinion editor of Lebanon's Daily Star:

One can fault the neocons for many things, but they, and Bush with them, are right that if Iraq is turned into a pluralistic system, given its centrality and potential political and economic power, it can become a commanding model for the Middle East and present a liberal alternative to the stifling ways of its autocratic brethren. Much as Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser turned Egypt into a fount for Arab nationalism in the 1950's and 1960's, though Egypt's history did not preordain it to such a fate, Iraq has the potential to offer Arabs and Iranians a substitute to militant Islam as a means of removing corrupt regimes. That would create the best antidote to terrorism. Moreover, once it becomes a truly independent Arab democracy, Iraq could help kick off an indigenous drive for Arab change, at a time when Middle Eastern liberals are utterly powerless to open up their systems.
...

Sure, if Bush wins nothing guarantees the president's attention span will allow him to stick to a democratic game plan in the Middle East. But Bush is stubborn, and though he's been taken to task for that of late, stubbornness is precisely what is needed to win in Iraq, though it must be accompanied by far more sensible policies than the ones pursued in the past 18 months. Indeed, success in Iraq is important enough to the Middle East and the U.S. that even the mere possibility that Bush might follow his liberal instincts is preferable to opening the door to Kerry's vacuity in that regard.

So, it's Bush for me, but damn his eyes if he discards the one thing that would make his term in office remarkable: the beginning of the liberation of a part of the world whose lack of freedom can yet kill many Arabs, and Americans

With the Cretin, Not the Shyster

(nbl jim russell)

The news that the FBI thinks bin Laden will try to enter India is disturbing. Interestingly, the report mentions that the FBI seemed to know about the then-impending bin Laden tape release-how did the FBI find out?

The report mentions that we're asking their permission for our troops to deploy there and coordinate with their own security services if he does cross over. Recently we've been treating India very poorly, to the detriment of our regional interests. Now we're asking them for a favor.

Why are we treating India so poorly? I think it's because we're being manipulated into doing so by China, which desires to draw India nearer to it.

M.D. Nalapat (the Indian analyst who, last year, brilliantly advocated moving the UN to Ethiopia) bemoans the turn for the worse that US policy has taken towards the Kashmir dispute since the Bush administration, especially Colin Powell's State Department, came into office. Musharraf has grown only more strident, belligerent and demanding in response to our rewarding these behaviors. More links and analysis after the jump.

Here's an idea whose time has come:

A group of Arab intellectuals wants prominent Muslim clerics known for inflammatory views tried by an international court on charges of encouraging terrorism, the intellectuals' U.S.-based spokesman said Monday, arguing that the clerics' governments haven't acted strongly enough against them.

The call appears largely symbolic, but likely will stir debate about inflammatory statements made by radical Muslim clerics in their fatwas, or religious edicts, and through the media and on the Internet. There is neither a venue nor any realistic possibility that clerics would be handed over for such prosecution.

Shaker al-Nabulsi, a U.S.-based Jordanian university professor, said about 3,000 Arab and Muslim intellectuals have signed the petition thus far calling for international trials. Iraqis, Jordanians, Libyans, Syrians, Tunisians and Persian Gulf intellectuals were among those who signed, al-Nabulsi said.

"The Arab regimes cannot put an end to these fatwas of terrorism; the international community can," al-Nabulsi told The Associated Press in Cairo in a telephone interview from his Denver home.

Among those the intellectuals want to see tried are Qatar-based Egyptian Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi, who has condoned attacks on American civilians in Iraq (news - web sites) and sanctioned kidnapping in wartime. Two prominent Saudi clerics, Sheik Ali Bin Khudeir al-Khudeir and Sheik Safar al-Hawali, also are mentioned.

"Fatwas issued by these sheiks play a key role in releasing the sadism of terrorists and their desire for death beyond any moral bounds and feelings of guilt," the group said in a statement to be delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan this week.

Arab Intellectuals Seek to Try Clerics

Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:

U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."

The official said the convoys are believed to include shipments of sensitive armaments, including equipment used in making plastic explosives and nuclear weapons.
About 380 tons of RDX and HMX, used in making such arms, were reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility, though the Pentagon and an embedded NBC News correspondent said the facility appeared to have been emptied by the time U.S. forces got there.
The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq.
In Moscow, the Russian government denied that its forces were involved in removing weapons from Iraq, dismissing the claims as "far-fetched and ridiculous."
"I can state officially that the Russian Defense Ministry and its structural divisions could not have been involved in the disappearance of the explosives, because Russian servicemen were not in Iraq long before the beginning of the American-British operation in that country," Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Vyacheslav Sedov told Interfax news agency.
Bush administration officials reacted cautiously to information provided by Mr. Shaw, who said details of the Russian "spetsnaz" forces' involvement in a program of document-shredding and weapons dispersal came from two European intelligence services.

Phyllis Chesler in Frontpage:

According to my informant, the prominent Roman journalist, Anselma Dell’Olio, last week, Shai Cohen, an Israeli diplomat, was invited to give a talk to students at the University of Pisa, a venerable institution which was founded in 1343 . Cohen was to speak on "Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. " Professor Maurizio Vernassa invited students from the History Department and from the Afro-Asian institutes. The invitation was no secret. Cohen entered through the main entrance of the Aula Magna of the Political Science Department.

According to Dell’Olio, "Cohen was greeted by a group of about 20 students wearing the Palestinian keffiah around their necks, shouting "Sharon assassino! Israel is a death dealer! Zionism is a crime against humanity!" Cohen was called a fascist murderer and other personal and far worse insults. The left-wing group then proceeded to shout him out of the University , literally and loudly threatened to pass from verbal to physical violence if he did not leave. Other students tried to calm things down and defended Cohen's right to speak, but they were unsuccessful, and the left-wing thugs shouted that no Israeli would be allowed to speak, that Israel has no right to exist and so on ."

The point: No national scandal ensued, except in Guiliano Ferrara's influential newspaper, Il Foglio, which has been publishing pieces about what happened in Pisa. The Dean of the University sent a tepid, delayed apology to Cohen. More important: The invitation to Cohen has not been re-scheduled. According to Dell’Olio, "A press release proudly bragging about "Pisa antagonista" successfully casting out the Israel heathen from the university and preventing the conference, appeared in Indymedia.

Terrorism on the Western Campus

Frequent LGF commenter Patrick O'Brien's Clarity & Resolve, besides being one of the most beautiful weblogs going, has one of the best names too. Between him and Stan's Logic and Sanity they've got the market on the best wartime virtues cornered. But not only is Patrick's weblog beautiful and well-named. It also features his writing and thought, and they make the superficially attractive attributes of his weblog pale. He's a superstar. His polemical skills and analytical insight, which I first encountered when reading his contributions to the excellent group weblog Israpundit, are uncommon. He brought all his enviable talents to bear when he wrote For Tomorrow's Gratitude. His skilful melding of lessons well-learned in a simple American childhood, grand historical overview, pragmatism, principle and insight remind me of Bill Whittle. Now, no one is Bill Whittle but Bill Whittle, naturally. But Bill's had a long, eventful life to hone his skills. Patrick's going places, because if he makes me think of Whittle now, watch out, world. If his picture's anything to go by, he's just getting started . I'll excerpt some here to tease you, but I really think you should read the whole thing, because it's a tour de force.

War, which is the assertion of one group's supremacy over another through mass bloodshed and material loss, is the most serious business known to man. It's as old as two small bands vying for the scant resources of prey, water, mates, and vegetation out on the savannah. With the advent of agriculture and the subsequent phenomenon of the city-state, and later the nation-state, the stakes were raised. Now it's about the world.

To read the rest-and there's much much more chewy tasty stuff-you're gonna have to follow that jump.

It's so nervewracking to meet your girlfriend's parents for the first time.

It's even worse when you're the first boyfriend she's ever introduced to her parents.

Do you even want to think about having both those things be true, and for your girlfriend to be from a traditional, nonwestern culture? Well, read on for a charming account by a Dutch-Canadian of his introduction to his Bengali girlfriend's parents.

Ami akta mayr shongay ghurchee jar shob athyo shojhon Bangla kotha bole, ar amee Bangla bujheena. That’s Bengali for, “I’m dating an Indian girl whose entire family speaks a language I can’t understand.�?

I recently made my way to New York City for the highly anticipated, and incredibly nerve-wracking, first introduction to my girlfriends’ parents. Normally, this wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but when a fairly traditional Indian girl introduces her parents to her tall, skinny, Dutch-Canadian boyfriend, things can get interesting.

Love is adorable, and it's always wonderful when things turn out well, which they do in this article. So go read it, ja?
[nbl to Dak Bangla Intelligence Scan for pointing me to this lovely piece]