| August 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Earlier today I posted about how President Musharraf is banning foreign students from maddrassahs in Pakistan where they're being taught to hate non-Muslims:
Mufti Naeem said foreign students were still reeling from the impact of the government’s decision.
“These last few days have been like a living hell for us,” he said.
Commenter Tsar Lazar responds:
Ahhh, the price of jihad! Strange how jihadis seem eager to give their lives, but when it comes to their student aid, well…
Bingo. It's interesting how the teachers in the madrassas can't bear to give up their profits from foreign students, all the while they are teaching those very students to blow themselves up. This perfectly underscores my argument that the society that trains people to be terrorists, cannot withstand any rigorous costs of doing such actions, and will quickly stop producing new terrorists once we impose costs on them for doing so.
Tsar Lazar continues:
Why haven’t we seen the West’s MSM talking about the “living hell” that the widows, orphans, and other survivors of the London bombings are undergoing? Where are the vivid articles about the victims of the killings of non-Muslims in India by Islamic “warriors” over the past week?
Indeed, the MSM seems to have undertaken an intense course in Muslim apologetics. An article in the New York Times by Warren Hoge and datelined July 30 summarized a report by the UN on the ignoring of rape reports by the Sudanese government. The article is well done, and makes the points well. Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly important fact that Sudan is one of the hardest-line Islamic countries in the world is noted only by its absence. Also skipped is the fact that the women whose rapes are ignored are either Christians or native animists living in camps after being dislocated by the Muslim-dominated government military’s offenses against their homelands in southern Sudan.
Anyone who knows the Qur’an knows that this kind of treatment of non-Muslim women is not only allowed under Islamic law but is actually commended by Muhammad himself in Muslim tradition. The fact that “Under Sudanese law, the report said, a pregnant unmarried woman who cannot prove she has been raped can be charged with adultery, a capital crime. To convict a man of adultery, the testimony of four witnesses is required” is true; what is NOT mentioned is that this is not Sudanese law, it is Shari’a, or Islamic law taken directly from the Qur’an. But mentioning that, of course, would be too close to the truth for American Muslims who would, no doubt, protest about the Times‘ “prejudicial” coverage.Unfortunately, the MSM seems to be aiding and abetting Jihad all across the board even in the face of the half-hearted actions of Islamic governments like Pakistan.
Excellent observations.
The Russian government has banned ABC:
Basayev interview: Russia bars ABC
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Moscow is barring journalists from U.S. television channel ABC from working in Russia after the channel broadcast an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
Accreditations for ABC's reporters would not be renewed and, in the meantime, they would be banned from talking to Russian officials, it said.
Free speech advocates have repeatedly criticized President Vladimir Putin's government for restricting the Russian press, but this appeared to be the first action against a major Western media organization.
"ABC is now unwelcome to contact any Russian state organizations or bodies," a Foreign Ministry statement said.
It said broadcasting the Basayev interview "was a clear case of helping to propagandize terrorism" and accreditations for ABC workers would "not be renewed."
This gives rise to all sorts of interesting discussions. Was ABC "helping to propagandize terrorism"? Of course. MSM does that all the time. They refuse to call terrorists and beheaders by their true names, instead calling them "insurgents" and "militants". From Daniel Pipes:
...today's broadcasts strive toward impartiality. For instance, a memo distributed to Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff cautions against using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," because these "can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict." The conceit that members of the press have no stake in the outcome of war is terribly wrong; just imagine how television talk shows would be after these same terrorists took over. (They did not flourish under the Taliban, to put it mildly.)
...when pressed about the appropriateness of broadcasting the enemy's view, producers assert they are doing a public service by exposing these. Is freedom of speech, they ask, not premised on the open marketplace of ideas? And does that not imply having faith that an informed citizenry will discern the sensible from the wrong-headed?
Yes and no. Freedom of speech means speaking one's mind, without fear of going to jail. It does not imply the privilege to address a television audience.
Further, while unfettered free political speech is critical to debate taxation rates, school curricula, abortion, or for whom to vote, it makes no sense to promulgate the enemy viewpoint when a country is at war. Even though the great majority of viewers, listeners, and readers will be repulsed by the views of extremists, no less surely will a small minority find these attractive and compelling. We saw, for example, how the prominent exposition of Osama bin Laden's ideas in 2001 inspired suicide bombers, including several of the London terrorists. If bin Laden and his ilk can convince just a tenth of 1% of Israeli Arabs, one thousand new suicide bombers have been formed.
Is this wise public policy?
The distinguished historian Conor Cruise O'Brien thinks not. When he served as the Irish minister of posts and telecommunications in 1976, he imposed a ban on interviews with Irish Republican Army terrorists and Sinn Fein members, arguing that it was necessary to prevent them from spreading their message. For the same reason, the Russian foreign ministry expressed its "strong indignation" after America's ABC television last week interviewed Chechen terrorist leader Shamil Basayev.
The ideal solution lies not in creating censors' bureaus to pass judgment on television content but for media executives to accept their responsibilities in time of war. On their own initiative, they should exclude the enemy's apologists and advocates. Lively debate does not require such people; patriots with sharply differing views can also make sparks fly.
Am I arguing against freedom of speech here? Here's the test to find out:
Yesterday I blogged on Pakistani President Musharraf's excellent move to ban foreign students from studying in his country's madrassas, so as to limit his country's production and export of terrorists.
Tonight we have news of the madrassas' reaction:
One of Pakistan's largest madrassas, or religious institutions, has turned to foreign diplomats in a bid to overturn a recent ban on foreign students.
...Madrassas became a centre of attention after reports that a London bomber had studied in one of them.
Jamia Binoria has over 100 foreign students, many from Europe and the US.
"We will do whatever we can to help them complete their education," the school's Mufti Naeem told the BBC.
"But if the government says its decision is final, there is not much we can do."
Madrassa leaders say they have also contacted one of Pakistan's top lawyers, Sharifuddin Pirzada, to explore the possibility of challenging the government's expulsion decision in the Supreme Court.
Reeling
Mufti Naeem said foreign students were still reeling from the impact of the government's decision.
"These last few days have been like a living hell for us," he said.
This is a bulls-eye in the fight against Islamofascism. As I have been saying, the way to destroy terrorism is not merely to arrest and or kill the terrorists and their immediate leaders; it is to impose severe costs on the civilian communities which give birth to them, in every sense of the word -- so as to reduce the production of terrorists to replace them. Actions such as this one by Musharraf impose a substantial penalty on the Islamofascist community in Pakistan -- uprooting people from their midst. It is an example of the kind of cost that such societies must be made to pay. These civilian populations will fold under pressure. They're not really fighting for anything. It does them no immediate good to produce killers of women and children. Imposing rigorous blow-back on them for producing such killers will, in my opinion, quickly show them that doing so is a failed strategy.
