Is Clemons Serious a Muslim President in Our Times?

By Con George-Kotzabasis

And at the end a reply by Steve Clemons of the Washington Note

 If Obama  has a Muslim advisor and America has a Muslim Ambassador to the UN then the corollary to this is, if Clemons follows his logic rigorously, that America whilst is engaged in a mortal fight with Islamist extremists in a long war, could also have a moderate Muslim, like Zalmay Khalilzad, as president.

Is Clemons, as the impresario of the liberal left, staging a burlesque comedy of American politics, hoping the hopeless, that it will have box office success in the present circumstances? (Read the November elections.) But I guess it’s a great virtue and “knightly” intellectual bravery to be optimistic in the most pessimistic circumstances.

Dear Kotzabasis — In this presidential race, we have had competing the first viable female candidate, the first African-American candidate, and the oldest to ever to run as his party’s nominee — This is historic. Yes, if we had a Muslim president, a gay president, an Asian-American president, a Jewish president, a Hispanic president — in our future….America would be well off I think if the person in question could prevail over the challenges of the day.

Thanks much for your attention, which is always dramatic, and appreciated.

best, steve clemons

vvvvvvvv

Who Has the Right to Declare War?

Reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Now to Say Never Again

By George Williams

On Line Opinion June 18, 2008

 Professor Williams with the typical lawyer’s chicanery and the arrogance of historical and political ignorance argues that Parliamentary approval should be the prerequisite for the declaration of war. To do so however is to deprive the sagacious right of statesmen to make the decision for war and give it instead to the “swirl”, to use Paul Keating’s word describing his colleagues in the Senate, of mediocre politicians.

War being an instrument of last resort is not made by a lightly populist decision, as Williams implies, but by a well –informed resolute and wise leadership that leads its people to war as an absolute necessity when a nation is threatened or attacked by a deadly irreconcilable enemy.

Williams’ proposal is neither intellectually and historically wise, nor does it have the depth, prudence, and firmness of statesmanship. It’s instead the proposal of an unreconstructed political wimp pontificating from his left-leaning academic chair and echoing the constant refrain of the illusionist pacifists of “No to War”, as if the world was and is a loving circle of holding hands.

Your opinion…   

 

Diplomacy’s Endgame with Iran

A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Steven Clemons

Cheney Winning the Inside Battles Again

Washington Note, June 09, 2008

Diplomacy is eminently the best way to resolve conflicts. But beyond a certain point the art of Talleyrand becomes completely ineffective and to continue it with an irreconcilable determined enemy is not only a barren exercise but also extremely dangerous, as one has to fight this enemy in the future when he will be much stronger at an immensely higher cost.

In the case of Iran, diplomacy has reached its barren point. The Ahmadinejad regime should be clearly given the option of immediately ceasing and dismantling its nuclear program or stand facing an indetermined force de frappe at an unspecified time. And it should be made crystal clear to the regime that this attack would be targeting the higher echelons of the government, the military, and its religious leaders. This threat against its triumvirate leadership could steer an existential turmoil in the latter that could lead to a “palace revolt” against the Ahmadinejad leadership replacing it with a moderate one which would yield to the demands of the international community.

Your opinion…

WILL HUMAN GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS NEGATE ECO-BALANCING FORCE OF NATURE?

A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

A Cool Look at Professor Aitkin’s Global Warming Scepticism By Dr. Geoff Davies

On Line Opinion, May 16, 2008

 It would be impertinently impetuous and stupid for a layperson like me to argue with an expert in the field as Dr. Davies is. I am however a skeptic. It might well be scientifically true that human “greenhouse emissions are the cause of the present warming”. But in my opinion the crucial scientific question is whether these negative human actions have the power to trump the positive natural forces of the Universe that determine the intra and inter relations of the planets and the sun in their state of equilibrium. It’s this axiomatic question that the supporters of climate change, like Davies, must answer first.

There has been ample evidence that in Roman and medieval times the earth was warmer. Davies himself admits that there have been “fluctuations in the amount of heat received from the sun (due to the slow gyrations of the earth in its orbit around the sun”). It seems however that natural forces triggered their own “stabilizers” of cooling periods and the earth once again found its viable natural balance and avoided catastrophe or extinction. Further, Nigel Lawson, the former editor of the Spectator and Chancellor of the Exchequer, poses the up till now unassailable question that has not been answered by the climate “gloomies”.: “Is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature…from which a small departure in either direction would spell disaster?

When one chooses to go on the warpath one must be confident about his position and clear and undeviating about one’s goals. Dr Davies seems like a defeated “combatant” to have abandoned the field of battle and its original goal. It seems that he finds it difficult to prove his case and therefore his goal no longer is to demonstrate that greenhouse emissions cause global warming but to argue, by shifting his position and aims, that by stopping the “over-exploitation of the earth”, reducing “energy use and greenhouse emissions”, all of which are easily achievable according to him, the end result will be “to improve our lives”, save money, and “allow our grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a rich and fulfilling world.”

 With this new position Dr Davies has dropped the scepter of science from his hand and replaced it with the staff of the Greek seer Tiresias, predicting generations ahead the fulfilled life of “grandchildren” But forgetting that the threats to a happy future for mankind might not only arise from the over exploitation of the earth but also from the mutual deadly belligerence of men their religious dogmas and ideologies.

But wait for his zinger: “If we are causing global warming” by “a change in our lifestyle… for reasons other than global warming…it would mitigate that problem too. If not, no harm done” Hence, there is a great chance that by the Walpolean fairy of serendipity anthropogenic global warming will evaporate. But without for a moment daring to dispute the power of fairies, I continue to rest on the oars of my skepticism that global warming will bring in its wake disaster by escaping the countering equilibrating natural forces of the universe.

A reply by Dr. Davies and a counter reply by Kotzabasis

In my challenge of 17 May my intention was to broaden the view to see if there might be some common ground. Evidently Kotzabasis wasn’t capable of comprehending that.I’ll broaden it even a little more. If you don’t believe we can endlessly increase our use of Earth’s resources, the implication is that at some time we will have to change the way our economies work, and also stop the increase in population. If you also agree the Earth is showing many signs of over-exploitation (I include global warming, though you may not), then it suggests the time is now. Then, why would you spend so much energy arguing against “AGW”? Why not argue for (or work for) the change we must make?

Clive Hamilton on New Matilda says a better description of many objectors is “contrarian”. Do you just like to object and be contrary? If so, deal with your personal problem instead of spraying it around on everyone else.
If you think we CAN endlessly increase our use of Earth’s resources, I can only refer you to basic physics, starting with conservation of mass. (Note: I said “endlessly increase our use of resources”. I didn’t say “indefinitely improve the quality of our lives”. We can use fewer resources more cleverly than we do now and still live well.)
If you don’t see the Earth showing any signs of stress, I suggest there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I refer everyone to Clive’s article:http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics
He does a better job than me of giving a fair portrait of science, climate scientists and IPCC, and contrasting them with the shonky denialists, who of course always claim there’s a conspiracy to prevent them from publishing.

 

 

Posted by Geoff Davies, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:35:52 AM

 Dr. Davies

It was evident even to blind Fredie that you broadened your view since you felt you were “narrow” in your arguments to make your case on the original issue of global warming. It’s rather amusing to hear a scientist say that by broadening his view he was seeking to find “some common ground”. Scientists, as you know better than me, are not interested in seeking a common ground but in seeking the truth. And once they are confident that they are close to finding it they don’t deviate from their path. But you did! Without consciously realizing that by doing so you were weakening your original position. 

I can assure you I am no Hamiltonian “contrarian”. If you had read my first post you would have seen that. You just gave me the strong impression with your “broadening” post that you were no longer arguing like a scientist but like a seer or more precisely like an ideologue. And your current post with its “common ground” substantiates this impression.

Con George-Kotzabasis

 

 

Obama’s Oxymoronic Proposal to Parley with Sponsors of Terror

Hypocrisy On Hamas By James P. Rubin, former assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration

Washington Post, May 16, 2008

A brief reply by Con George-Kotzabasis

Two years is a long time in the life of terrorism! Rubin by giving us the answer of McCain to his question of two years ago that the latter was prepared to talk to Hamas and accuse him therefore with hypocrisy can only do so by disregarding this elementary fact. In these two years Hamas has not even shown a propensity to give the Palestinian people “security and a decent life and decent future” nor “democracy”, to quote Rubin (which incidentally was the rider of McCain’s answer.), and continues to engage unappeasably in violence and terror while it’s in government. In such conditions it would be oxymoronic now for any politician, such as Obama suggested and McCain denounced, to open the door of negotiations with a terrorist government while the door of the war on terror has not closed.

Strategically, politically, and morally, it would not only be dull-witted but also close to treachery for any government that has committed its armed forces to fight global terror at the same time to even hint that it is willing to start negotiations with rogue governments that back and continue to be inflexible in their support and sponsorship of terror.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now

TERRORISTS CLAIM THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE LOOSE GARMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Supreme Court judge Bernard Bongiorno, who is presiding over the biggest terror trial in Australia of the twelve radical Muslims (The “Dirty Dozen” bombers) who were allegedly preparing themselves to be holy martyrs in their jihad against Australia by killing innocent civilians, has been persuaded by SC (Senior Counsel) of the defendants, Jim Kennan and Mark Taft, that the alleged terrorists are being treated inhumanely by the authorities and are at a state of mental collapse.

Before we go into the ruling of the judge I think it would be appropriate to know few things about the two SC of the accused,. Jim Kennan, and MarkTaft. The former was a minister in the Kane and Kirner Labor governments in Victoria who held the portfolios of Attorney General and Transport in the mid-eighties. Melbournians will remember the Tramways Union strike in 1989 when trams had blockaded the metropolitan streets of Melbourne for more than a month preventing commuters coming into the city and threatening many small shops with bankruptcy. The strike lasted that long only as a result of Kennan being a weak minister as well as of the incompetence and languid state of his advisors. One example which I remember vividly, was his press secretary watching the Commonwealth Games with his feet on his desk whilst John Halfpenny ( the then Secretary of The Trades Union Council), who was leading the strike, was besieging with his goons the minister and threatening the livelihood of many small shop keepers. At the end of the strike, Jim Kennan was removed from the Ministry of Transport and was placed back to his Attorney General’s position. And Bernard Bongiorno was appointed to the Bench of the Supreme Court by the Brack’s Labor government in 2000. ( Birds of a feather flock together.)

The other SC Mark Taft was a member of the Communist Party following the footsteps of his father Bernie Taft, who, as the Victorian Secretary of the Party dissolved it in 1991 in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. But he dissolved the Communist Party not for the purpose of expressing his political mea culpa for the millions of peoples who were slaughtered by the Leninists doctrinaires Stalin and Mao, but for the purpose of conceiving its bastard sibling the Socialist Forum hoping that its members would become an influential part of the left of The Labor Party. In the latter goal the older Taft succeeded completely, while the younger Taft as a member of the executive of the Socialist Forum and as one of its foremost ideologues, second only to his father, was ideologically grooming many members of the left of the Labor party, among whom were the present Minister of Finance, Lindsay Tanner, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, of the Rudd Labor Government. Now that both SC Jim Kennan and Mark Taft have abandoned the heavy burdens of the public sector, which for both of them were a total failure, and have chosen to be lured by the entrepreneurial temptations of the private sector and gratify themselves with its rich tastes, they decided to open their appetite for the latter with the “aperitif” of being the defenders of the “Dirty Dozen”, in Australia’s biggest terrorism trial. But enough of this minuscule biographical diversion of our two attorneys of defense, and let us now deal with the “unprecedented “ruling of the presiding judge of the trial.

Justice Bongiorno being a practical judge and not an ivory tower one, was not satisfied of being convinced merely by the “theoretical” pleadings of the two SC that the defendants were treated inhumanely by the authorities, especially when they were shackled hand and foot while they were transported from prison to the Court locked in the steel compartments of the prison vans, and wanted to test this allegation in a practical way. So when he visited Barwon prison where the twelve were being held he had himself locked up in “the small steel compartment…in one of the prison vans… to get a better understanding of their treatment”. Convinced now “beyond a reasonable doubt” by his own “travailed” experience during his own “transportation” to Barwon prison that the alleged would-be terrorists were treated by the authorities brutally and inhumanely he issued his ukase to the latter that unless they stopped this “intolerable” treatment of the prisoners his honor would “suspend the hearing indefinitely and consider releasing the men on bail”.

Victoria’s Department of Corrections under this hovering threat expeditiously responded positively to the Jupiterian ruling of Justice Bongiorno and implemented most of his directions. In doing so it negated the possibility that some of the twelve defendants would jump bail and break away from the “forceps” of Australian justice and disappearing in a Muslim country. But it did so paradoxically at the expense of the Judge. As it deprived his Honor of the honorific that Muslims, moderate and radical alike, at least in Australia, would have bestowed on the Justice as an indelible sign of their gratitude for this service, i.e., giving the opportunity to their co-believers to escape from the unjust Australian terrorist laws, by replacing their traditional greeting of Salam with Bongiorno, for ever after.

What was most interesting and amusing moreover, was the forensic evidence of the psychiatrists whose painstaking analysis had found the defendants to be psychologically and mentally disturbed—as if people who were prepared to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent people for their messianic goals and in chase of the seventy-two virgins were not already incurable cases of mental disturbance–and “believed that their condition would deteriorate as the trial progressed”. Needless to say Justice Bongiorno was deeply influenced by this forensic evidence extracted from the “psychiatrist’s couch” and was a decisive element in his “extraordinary”, to quote him, ruling.

Thus we will be told as an entertaining and jovial story, that the twelve bearded fanatics who were “toying” with ideas how to blow up Australians, now that they are standing before the bar accused of planning this atrocity they have metastasized themselves into mere “naughty boys” playing among the skirts of the “libertine” legal profession and claiming from the loose garments of the latter their human rights.

Bongiorno Australia:Have a nice day

I rest on my oars: Your turn now.

Pride of Superiority is Hidden Behind Hijab

 By Con George-Kotzabasis

All veils in Muslim culture cover the “sexual abandon” and profligacy that womanhood embodies, and the temptation to man can only be stifled by not being able, at least temporarily, to see it. But in our modern times with the exodus of many Muslims from their own countries into the sexually promiscuous West the headscarf has a second life with a new meaning. It has become a sexually pure sublimated projection for Muslim women for their real oppression. In contrast to the apparently promiscuous women of the West, Muslim women can feel proud of their sexual “purity” and display it by wearing the hijab. Thus, being slaves in their own households they feel to be “queens” in the domain of the Western world.

Further, it’s a projection of their real inferiority, that has been rendered to them by the Words of Allah inscribed in the Koran, for an idealistic dud superiority. While Muslim men chase heavenly virgins since the earthly ones are evanescent, Muslim women pretend to keep intact their earthly vulnerable virginity by wearing the hijab.The pride of being sexually pure has an invaluable price, even if at the end, because of the nature of women, provided they are not sexually mutilated, has to be paid with a “promiscuous coin”.

This is Shakira Hussein’s irresolvable problem as a “Muslim secular feminist” as she claims to be. But the solution is very simple: Cast away this sublimation by throwing out the hijab and be a free woman.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now

The Art of Politics and War is to Know Thy Enemy

A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

The Holocaust Declaration by Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post, April 11, 2008

The art of politics and war is to “know thy enemy”. And once the enemy is revealed to be irreconcilable and unappeasable, in this case Iran , because of his apocalyptic and chiliastic nature as an irrational actor and therefore most dangerous, one has to destroy such an enemy before he becomes stronger. If preemption is not going to fall into a state of desuetude and finish up as a comical term losing all its seriousness, it must be used against the “centrifugist” regime of Ahmadinejad relentlessly and efficiently. It’s necessary therefore and timely that the Bush administration makes an open and unambiguous threat to Iran that if the latter does not immediately cease its nuclear program the U.S. will be targeting by an unspecified force de frappe the triangular leadership of Iran, i.e., the mullahs, the high officials of the government, and the higher echelons of the army, in a surprise attack. Only such a clear threat against Iran’s leadership may create a shifting of positions among the latter, and, indeed, a “palace revolt” against the Ahmadinejad regime. And if there are signs that this will not happen, then the U.S. will have no other option but to attack Iran.

Krauthammer’s proposal of the “Holocaust Declaration”, I’m afraid is impolitic. As in America and many other countries in the world many of their peoples still breath the poisonous vapors of anti-semitism, and hence, the “Declaration” will be seen by many as a Jewish stratagem and therefore politically will not become a rallying point.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now

IRANIAN NUCLEAR HEAT AUGURS NO END TO “COLD WAR”

2007: The Cold War Ends By Ali Ettefagh Postglobal, Washington Post, January 2, 2008

A response by Con George-Kotzabasis

The Iranian commentator Dr. Ali Ettefagh has laid Iran’s libido dominandi on his psychoanalyst’s couch and has given us his professional prognostic diagnosis that it’s rapidly finding its gratification not in the acquisition of nuclear weapons but in “common sense”, “stronger friendship, good neighborly conduct and removing doubt…(by ‘holocausting’ Israel?), in trade…and in the launch of an Egyptian –Iranian car”. According to Ettefagh, “stability and peaceful co-existence” is President’s Ahmadinejad’s agenda. He states, this is “the stark reality of today against the fog of yesterday”.

But the fog has not disappeared! And it’s behind it that Ahmadinejad’s regime is building its nuclear arsenal by which it will dominate the region and find ultimately its gratification in the establishment of the twelfth Imam Mahdi’s prophesy of a Caesaro-Ayatollah state, seizing the leadership of the Muslim world and posing a stupendous threat to the existence of Western civilization.

This is why a politically and historically prudent U.S. administration should have all options on the table.

Your turn now

NEW YEAR FAIRY TALES OF AN EDUCATED MUSLIM MASQUERADING AS REALITY

A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Domestic Issues Return To Spotlight
By Waleed Aly, The Australian December 27, 2007

The lawyer and commentator on political and Muslim affairs Waleed Aly argues in his latest co-ed like someone who has a brief as an undercover agent. To disseminate a false sense of peace in times of war purportedly to disarm those who are attempting to defend themselves from an external and internal deadly foe. Therefore the whole argument of his article is far from being disinterested, from a political and religious point of view.

He claims that there has been a “paradigm shift in the politics of the Anglosphere…September 11, the London bombings, the war in Iraq—are losing their political bite” and “politics has entered a post terror phase” (My emphasis). He continues, “Australians’ fear of terrorism was diminishing… Iraq barely appeared on the radar” during the election campaign and “the issues of the day are indelibly domestic in nature…Improbably 2007 may prove to be the year that the politics of terror passed into history”. But at the end of his piece he offers as a lawyer his professional and wise caveat—but only as an afterthought—and at the same time willy-nilly uncovers the falsity of his sense of peace and his “defusing” of terror, by stating more realistically that “of course one bomb would rapidly change all that…as I say, nothing is inevitable”.

From what source does Aly derive his knowledge that makes him feel confident that his analysis of events is correct and that the fear of terror is abating? It’s none other than the gut feeling of ordinary people who a lot of them in their somnambulistic complacency do not consider terror to be a great threat, and as a consequence are against the war in Iraq which presently is the template of global terror. Moreover, laymen who are not cognizant of the plans of the jihadists, like professionals in this field are, and therefore cannot make a prudent judgment on the issue of terror. It’s by this reading of the gut feelings of hoi polloi that Aly makes his prophesies. Disregarding completely the serious cogitations of professionals in the fields of anti-terrorism and war strategy. Who have gathered their information from concrete evidence about the plans and strategies of the holy warriors against the infidels of the West and the Great Satan America. In this Aly is like the artless trite person who is attempting to tell a scientist how to formulate his equations or, more cognate to Aly’s profession, of telling someone who studies law how to do his articles. One would have expected Aly as a professional not to have committed this ‘carnal’ sin by putting the ignorance of a freshman above the knowledge of a professional. Yet this is exactly what he does on the issue of terror and its continuous and conspicuous presence in our times.

The American think tank Strategic Forecasting in a recent study avers that with the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq members of the latter are preparing to move into Pakistan. And the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by the extremists is a fillip to the holy warriors of al Qaeda and its affiliates to move into the country and form a chain of command that would attack its present political status quo with the aim of overthrowing it and establishing an Islamist regime. Another savvy observer of the plans of the jihadists William Arkin of the Washington Post states that “beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan… to train counter-terrorism units”. Within this context of the intact ability of jihadists either as a group or as individuals to move in and out of countries to engage in their stealthy murderous war against both the so called apostate regimes of their own and against the infidels of the West, to state, like Aly does, that ‘2007 may…be the year that the politics of terror passed into history’, is the ultimate inanity.

Even as a ‘moderate’ Muslim he should know that the fundamentalist doctrines of Wahhabism and Salafism have been propagated for many years now constantly and with the intensity of religious fervor among the Muslim intelligentsia and the middle classes—both of which are the cradle of pretenders for Islamist political power. It’s because of this long “gestation” of terrorism that makes it inextinguishable in the short term. Furthermore, these doctrines have such a hold among the masses that make even moderate Muslims to be held in awe before the enormity and influence of their ideological power and hardly dare to challenge it. That is why we often see moderate Muslims jumping on the Wahhabi Salafi band wagon especially when it succeeds running like a juggernaut over the powerful infidels of the West, such as the U.S., or at least not to put any spokes in its wheels, and Aly may be of the latter category.

Further Aly knows full well, and he cannot fool anybody by hiding this fact, that there are radical Sheikhs and imams that preach the Wahhabi-Salafi doctrines to their followers and especially to young Muslims whose religious fervor makes them vulnerable to the “heroics” of martyrdom and to the chase of the seventy-two virgins. One of those Sheikhs is Mohammed Omran of Brunswick whom a Somali mother accused him of being responsible for her son’s abandonment of his family and going to Somalia to fight on the side of the Islamist extremists. Also The Australian reported on December 28, 07, that young Muslims in Australia go to the internet searching for information about fatwas and jihad from local and ‘ultramontane’ imams. And I would add that ASIO has reliable information that some Australian Muslims have gone overseas to join the Islamist battlefronts against the apostates of Islam and of course against the infidels of the West.

In the post 9/11 global political constellation, the trajectory of Islamist fanatic terrorism is developing a momentum of such magnitude that if it’s not going to be stopped by the civilized nations of the world it will threaten the existence of Western civilization. Only one with a fool’s cap or with a sinister agenda pertaining to the anti-terrorist laws of this country could  believe and inculcate that this trajectory of fanaticism will be entering in 2007 a ‘benign’ orbit of post-terror. And that the “spotlight” will “return” on “domestic issues”.  It seems that Santa has given a unique gift to Waleed Aly as a Christmas present: Aladdin’s magic lamp. All he has to do is to rub his lamp and the geniis of terror will disappear. But there is still the possibility that one terror ‘fairy’, among so many, will appear with “one bomb” and destroy Aly’s fairy tales masquerading as reality.

Your Turn now...