Casting the first stone.

Note: Imus did everything possible to help Harold Ford get elected to the Senate. It was sickening to hear the treacle about his beloved Harold. Harold was a no show after the Ho show.

Someone advised Imus to vist Al Sharpton. Are you kidding me? The fox went into the hen house, and the hen ate the fox. Buchanan gets it right.

The Imus lynch party
Posted: April 13, 2007 World Net Daily
1:00 a.m. Eastern

In the end, it was not about Imus. It was about us.

Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?

Cards on the table.

This writer works for MSNBC, has been on the Imus show scores of times, watches Imus every morning, and likes the show, the music and the guys: the I-Man, Bernie, Charles and Tom Bowman.

And Imus is among the best interviewers in our business. Not only does he read and follow the news closely, he listens and probes as well as any interviewer in America. Because he is a comic, people mistake how good a questioner he is.

Is "Imus in the Morning" outrageous? Over the top at times? Are things said every week, if not every day, where you say, "He's going too far"? Yeah. But outrageousness is part of the show, whether the skits are of "Teddy Kennedy," "Reverend Falwell," "Mayor Nagin" or "The Cardinal."

And when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "tattooed ... nappy-headed hos," he went over the top. The women deserved an apology. There was no cause, no call to use those terms. As Ann Coulter said, they were not fair game.

But Imus did apologize, again and again and again.

And lest we forget, these are athletes in their prime, the same age as young women in Iraq. They are not 5-year-old girls, and they are capable of brushing off an ignorant comment by a talk-show host who does not know them, or anything about them.

Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.

Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.

Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?

And hate is what this is all about.

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.

What was the term the I-Man used? It was "hos," slang for whores, a term employed ad infinitum et ad nauseam by rap and hip-hop "artists." It is a term out of the African-American community. Yet, if any of a hundred rap singers has lost his contract or been driven from the airwaves for using it, maybe someone can tell me about it.

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

Answer: The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is – a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.

Whatever Imus' sins, no one deserves to have Al Sharpton – hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives – sit in moral judgment upon them.

"It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves," says Sharpton. It says something about America that someone with Al's track record can claim the role of national censor.

Who is next? And why do we take it?

I did a bad thing, but I am not a bad person, says Imus. Indeed, whoever used his microphone to do more good for more people – be they the cancer kids of Imus Ranch, the families of Iraq war dead now more justly compensated because of the I-Man or the cause of a cure for autism?

"We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality," said Lord Macaulay. Unfortunately, Macaulay never saw the likes of the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson.

Imus threw himself on the mercy of the court of elite opinion – and that court, pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree.

Hail the conquering heroes. A tale of two headlines.

We live in an age where words no longer have meaning. Shame is gone. Moral relativity and Jerry Springer have won. The two stories from this morning's Telegraph tells the dismal tale about what is next for the fab fifteen, and a hint about the consequences of their moment in history. I add the photos of real heroes from a less enlightened era.

Real Heroes

Tobruk, Libya. 25 April 1953. Group portrait of five Victoria Cross winners, members of the Australian and New Zealand Coronation Contingent, in the Tobruk War Cemetery, during their brief stay while on their way to England to attend the coronation of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. They are, left to right: Private (Pte) F. J. Partridge VC, (Australia); Pte E. Kenna VC, (Australia); 215003 Sergeant J. D. Hinton VC, (New Zealand); Pte R. Kelliher VC, (Australia); Sergeant R. R. Rattey VC.

The Fab Fifteen, post ordeal
(I feel sorry for the three on the right)

MoD: Captured crew can sell their stories

By Emma Henry and agencies
Last Updated: 10:17am BST 08/04/2007

The 15 British service personnel held captive in Iran have been given official permission to cash in on their 13-day ordeal by selling their stories to the media.

The Ministry of Defence said it had taken the unusual decision because of the "exceptional circumstances" surrounding their situation.

It means that the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines can now look forward to five or six-figure payouts.

However the move could also expose them to criticism from others in the Armed Forces who have suffered as a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan but have not been allowed to profit in the same way

The MoD said they attracted similar intense media interest as someone who had won the Victoria Cross - the military's highest award for gallantry in the face of enemy fire.

"Serving personnel are not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organisations. However, in exceptional circumstances such as the award of a Victoria Cross or events such as those in recent days, permission can be granted by commanding officers and the MoD," the statement said.

____________________

Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings

By Gethin Chamberlain, Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:56pm BST 07/04/2007

Hardliners in the Iranian regime have warned that the seizure of British naval personnel demonstrates that they can make trouble for the West whenever they want to and do so with impunity.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: a PR bounce

The bullish reaction from Teheran will reinforce the fears of western diplomats and military officials that more kidnap attempts may be planned.

The British handling of the crisis has been regarded with some concern in Washington, and a Pentagon defence official told The Sunday Telegraph: "The fear now is that this could be the first of many. If the Brits don't change their rules of engagement, the Iranians could take more hostages almost at will.

British hostages freed.

The Iranians let them go. The Iranians squeezed the propaganda lemon dry. The news conference showed the Brits smiling in nice suits, bowing and chatting with their Iranian captors. They looked more like a visiting football team than British captives being returned.

The Iranians played it smartly. The Iranians won a real propaganda victory.

Things are not always as they seem. We need to wait for some answers. I find it hard to understand the hows and whys, but will listen with an open mind.

British hostages to be freed. Ahmadinejad kicks the ball down the road.

Iran 'to release British sailors'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf will be freed.
He repeated allegations that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they would be freed as a "gift" to Britain.

He made the announcement at a news conference, in which he also awarded medals to the commanders who captured the British personnel in the Gulf.

Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate.

Mr Ahmadinejad also criticised the US-led invasion of Iraq and Israel's war in Lebanon.

He used a news conference marking the Persian New Year to condemn the countries he said were behind "misery" and "destruction" in the world.

He said there did not appear to be anyone "to stand up and defend the rights of those oppressed".

He opened the news conference with references to the Islamic holy book, the Koran, then made a wide-ranging speech about the modern history of the Middle East, while attacking the West.

The invasion of Iraq was based on the false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he said, but even now "the occupation forces continue to stay there and people are still being killed".

Sky News has an interesting interactive chart of the power bases in Iran.

Sorry Independent, there was a botched raid, but under Jimmy Carter.

The Independent thinks they got it solved. American ineptitude in a botched raid and snatch of Iranian spies. Yea, yea, yea. Truth be told, it makes little difference at this time. Britain under the pusillanimous leadership of Tony Blair is prepared to sacrifice vulgar national interests to sentimentality. But before we fall into the Iranian trap of having a go at Blair and the British, we need to give the real credit to the most deserving. There was a botched US raid, but it was under the botched presidency of the very botched Jimmy Carter. The Iranians won that round and they seem to be doing all right again.

A very smug Iranian, Mr Larijani

This being reported in the Telegraph One of Iran's most senior politicians offered new hope for the swift release of 15 captured British sailors and marines, saying direct negotiations were underway and that the situation was "quite resolvable".

Tony Blair has responded by saying that the next two days will be "fairly critical" for diplomats in a Scottish radio broadcast this morning.

During an interview on Channel 4 News last night, Ali Larijani, chief of the Iranian National Security Council, indicated the fourteen men and one woman would not face a show trial.

And today, Iranian radio cited Mr Larijani saying that the British Government has started diplomatic talks with the foreign ministry in Teheran in order to "resolve the issue of the arrest of the British military personnel."

He suggested that Britain would need to send a diplomatic delegation to Teheran, admit that its Navy had made a mistake by straying into Iranian waters and guarantee that the error would not be repeated.

The Prime Minister said the remarks seemed to offer "some prospect but the most important thing is to get these people back."

No, Mr. Blair that is not the most important thing. Too bad the British have a Jimmy Carter for a PM, but they do and that is there choice.

Just to remind you:

AMERICA CAN'T DO A THING'
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 2, 2004

November 2, 2004 -- AMERICANS will certainly have 9/11 in mind when they vote today. But they should keep another date in mind, too — one almost exactly a quarter-century ago: Nov. 4, 1979. A clear path runs to 9/11 from the day of the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages.

The 1979 embassy attack came at a time when the administration of President Jimmy Carter was trying to prop up the new Khomeinist regime in Tehran.

Carter had decided to support Khomeini in the context of the so-called "Green Belt" strategy developed by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. That strategy was based on the assumption that the United States and its allies were unable to contain the Soviet Union, then expanding its zone of influence into Africa, the Indian Ocean region and, through left-leaning regimes, in Latin America. To counter that expanding threat, Brzezinski envisaged the creation of a string of Islamic allies that, for religious and political reasons, would prefer the United States against the "godless" Soviet empire.

The second stage in Brzezinski's grand strategy was to incite the Muslim peoples of the Soviet Union to revolt against Moscow and thus frustrate its global schemes.

The Bzrezinski strategy had been partly inspired by Helene Carrere d'Encausse, who, in her book "The Fragmented Empire," predicted the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a result of revolts by Muslim minorities.

When the Islamic revolution started in Iran, the Carter administration saw it as the confirmation of its assumption that only Islamists could muster enough popular support to provide an alternative to both the existing regime and the pro-Soviet leftist movements.

The Carter administration went out of its way to support the new regime in Tehran. A ban imposed on the sale of arms and materiel to Iran, imposed in 1978, was lifted, and a 1954 presidential "finding" by Dwight Eisenhower was dusted off to reaffirm Washington's commitment to defending Iran against Soviet or other threats.

Also to symbolize support for the mullahs, President Carter initially rejected a visa application for the exiled shah to travel to New York for medical treatment.

Just weeks after the mullahs' regime was formed, Brzezinski traveled to Morocco to meet Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Khomeini's first prime minister. At the meeting, Brzezinski invited the new Iranian regime to enter into a strategic partnership with the United States. Bazargan, concerned that the Iranian left might bid for power against the still wobbly regime of the mullahs, was "ecstatic" about the American offer.

The embassy raid came just days after the Brzezinski-Bazargan meeting in Morocco and, by all accounts, took Khomeini by surprise. It is now clear that leftist groups opposed to rapprochement with the United States had inspired the raid.

Khomeini saw it as a leftist ploy to undermine his authority. He was also concerned about the possibility of the United States taking strong military and political action against his still fragile regime.

Deciding to hedge his bets, the ayatollah played a double game for several days, waiting to gauge the American reaction.

According to his late son Ahmad, who had been asked to coordinate with the embassy-raiders, the ayatollah feared "thunder and lightning" from Washington. But what came, instead, was a series of bland statements by Carter and his aides pleading for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds.

Carter's envoy to the United Nations, a certain Andrew Young, described Khomeini as "a 20th-century saint," and begged the ayatollah to show "magnanimity and compassion."

Carter went further by sending a letter to Khomeini.

Written in longhand, it was an appeal from "one believer to a man of God."

Carter's syrupy prose must have amused Khomeini, who preferred a minimalist style with such phrases as "we shall cut off America's hands."

As days passed, with the U.S. diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras blindfolded and threatened with execution, it became increasingly clear that there would be no "thunder and lightning" from Washington. By the end of the first week of the drama (which was to last for 444 days, ending as Ronald Reagan entered the White House), Khomeini's view of America had changed.

Ahmad Khomeini's memoirs echo the surprise that his father, the ayatollah, showed, as the Carter administration behaved "like a headless chicken."

What especially surprised Khomeini was that Cater and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbarous act, appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the United States and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity.

Once he had concluded that America would not take any meaningful action against his regime, Khomeini took over control of the hostage enterprise and used it to prop up his "anti-imperialist" credentials while outflanking the left.

The surprising show of weakness from Washington also encouraged the mullahs and the hostage-holders to come up with a fresh demand each day. Started as a revolutionary gesture, the episode soon led to a demand for the United States to capture and hand over the shah for trial. When signals came that Washington might actually consider doing so, other demands were advanced. The United States was asked to apologize to Muslim peoples everywhere and, in effect, change its foreign policy to please the ayatollah.

Matters worsened when a military mission to rescue the hostages ended in tragedy in the Iranian desert. The force dispatched by Carter fled under the cover of night, leaving behind the charred bodies of eight of their comrades.

In his memoirs, Ahmad nicely captures the mood of his father, who had expected the Americans to do "something serious," such as threatening to block Iran's oil exports or even firing a few missiles at the ayatollah's neighborhood.

But not only did none of that happen, the Carter administration was plunged into internal feuds as Vance resigned in protest of the rescue attempt.

It was then that Khomeini coined his notorious phrase, "America cannot do a damn thing."

He also ordered that the slogan "Death to America" be inscribed in all official buildings and vehicles. The U.S. flag was to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so that the faithful could trample it under their feet every day.

The slogan "America cannot do a damn thing" became the basis of all strategies worked out by Islamist militant groups, including those opposed to Khomeini.

That slogan was tested and proved right for almost a quarter of a century. Between Nov. 4, 1979, and 9/11, a total of 671 Americans were held hostage for varying lengths of time in several Muslim countries. Nearly 1,000 Americans were killed, including 241 Marines blown up while sleeping in Beirut in 1983.

For 22 years the United States, under presidents from both parties, behaved in exactly the way that Khomeini predicted. It took countless successive blows, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, without decisive retaliation. That attitude invited, indeed encouraged, more attacks.

The 9/11 tragedy was the denouement of the Nov. 4 attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

Remember how the grovelling worked for Bigley?

Britain's feeble response
British government shows weakness, helplessness in face of Iranian audacity
Shlomo Papirblatt Ynetnews
Published: 04.02.07, 14:47 / Israel Opinion

The abduction of the British marines and sailors by Iranian forces in Iraq's territorial waters – according to Britain – is beginning to look like one of Britain's and the West's most embarrassing moments: A blundering weakness and helplessness on the British government's part vis-à-vis the defiance and audacity coming from Teheran.

The story resembles a disparaging script written with the sharp talent of a BBC series. An Iranian marine force surrounds the boat of 15 soldiers who are on a regular patrol of Iraqi waters.

Under the threat of firearms they surrender unconditionally, they are taken away, moved to Teheran, displayed on TV and publicly ridiculed. A headscarf covers the head of the only female soldier and her announcement, which is undoubtedly coerced, attacks the forceful policies of Britain and the US in Iraq.

In addition, senior Iranian officials are making announcements as if they are planning to put the soldiers on a show trial, an act that defies every international law.

Limited response
Meanwhile in London, as well as in other European capitals whose foreign policies are united, weak protest against Iran is being sounded - protests that clearly won't budge a single hair on the head of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A complaint is being filed with the UN Security Council, but its recent resolutions are being treated as though written on ice during a heat wave. And that's it. This is where the boldness and response of those who sent the abducted soldiers to battle ends.

Is the initial instinct to fold and the helplessness against unflinching terror by an insane ruler once again working against the British government and its European allies?

I am not saying, heaven forbid, that the solution has to come from the arsenal of military responses at this point in time. There are other options, and they too are unequivocal in character.

Free on the streets of London
For example, it is well known that the Iranian ambassador is still walking freely on the streets of London, free to enjoy the theatre and excellent Indian restaurants, as are Iran's diplomatic representatives in other European countries.

They continue to come to work, according to rigid protocol prevalent between normal countries – as if it was such a country and as if nothing had occurred in the Persian Gulf. No one is threatening to take them to the nearest airport and to politely but firmly put them on the next plane back to Iran.

By the same token, Western diplomats are continuing to sip mineral water or grapefruit juice at cocktail parties in Teheran, and representatives of large European economic enterprises are rolling economic opportunities from side to side. Wouldn't a freeze on of all this activity hint to the sane people in the Iranian government that it's about time they do something about the radicals who are leading them by the nose?

It is incumbent on the leaders of the West to at least try, before they turn into a laughing stock.

A strategy to avoid casualties will not win a war. Blair exposing a losing hand.

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”
-William Tecumseh Sherman

It is coming. The British government, under Blair, is doing everything possible including groveling in humiliation in front of the mullahs to rescue their countryman. It is a mistake. Doing so will confirm everything the Islamists belief about the West. Blair has foolishly determined that the goal is to rescue the hostages. It should not be. The goal should be that no one, specifically the Iranians, will dare take the risk of pulling such a stunt again. Blair is out of his league against such men as Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Sometime in the future another leader will have to undo the damage. I hope I am wrong. I fear I am not.

Anyone seen Maggie Thatcher?

The Telegraph is reporting:

Ministers seek deal with Iran for captives

By Sean Rayment, Tim Shipman and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:28am BST 01/04/2007

Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.


The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Teheran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff.

The move, which was discussed at a meeting of Whitehall's Cobra crisis committee yesterday, came as Downing Street officials explicitly cautioned against hopes of a speedy outcome and said that families of the hostages should prepare for the "long haul".

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months.

The renewed search for a solution was given greater urgency when a senior Iranian official said that moves had begun to put the 15 British captives on trial.

Read the rest if you have the stomach

Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, announced: "Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been launched." In an interview with a Russian television channel, he said: "The legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face punishment."

Iranian Islamism challenges the West again. Is it part of a last gasp?

..."as soon as the Islamists come to power: All islamist regimes end up in dramatic failure. That some Islamists today turn violent and even suicidal, is only an indication of their failure to realise their plans. Eventually Muslims will have to wake up to the reality that they are no longer the masters of history, but a deprived and underdeveloped minority in the global community. Only when Muslims face this reality, they will be able to proceed."

Iran has its reasons for taking the British hostages.It is clearly not to impress the West. Is it possible that it is for their bigger goal of rallying Islam behind them? Iran is after all the bastion of Islamic purity. This article from Radio Netherlands

"Muslim reformers intellectually dishonest"
by Michel Hoebink
27-03-2007

Muslim modernist reformers are intellectually dishonest. Many are merely using religion as a means to mobilise people for their modernisation projects. That is the bold claim made by secular Syrian thinker Sadiq Jalal al-Azm. But he nevertheless admits that reform of Islam is badly needed.

He jokingly calls himself the 'official atheist of the Arab world'. Since the publication of his book Critique of Religious Thought in 1969, Sadiq Jalal al-Azm is one of the most prominent secularist thinkers in the Muslim world.

The now retired professor of European philosophy at the University of Damascus belongs to a generation of western-educated intellectuals who, contrary to their expectations, gradually saw the Muslim world turn more and more religious. Being an atheist became increasingly dangerous, but Sadiq al-Azm never felt the urge to leave.
He divides his time between Damascus and Beirut and universities in Europe and the US. He also spent a few months in the Netherlands, at the NIAS research institute in Leiden. In the Netherlands, he is a well-known figure because some of his work has been translated into Dutch and in 2004 he was awarded the prestigious Erasmus prize, together with two Muslim modernist thinkers: the Moroccan Fatima Mernissi and the Iranian Abdolkarim Soroush.

What is the difference between you and modernist reformers such as Fatima Mernissi and Abdolkarim Soroush?

"People like Mernissi and Soroush pretend to reform Islam from the inside. They reform Islam as good Muslims. The group to which I belong does not do this. I want to reform the thinking of Muslims too, but I never pretended to do this from inside Islam or as a Muslim. I never made a concession on this matter."

So they are pretending?

"Since the 19th Century, modernist thinkers have been haunted by rumours that they are not real believers, that they merely use religion as a means to mobilise people for reforms. And they even say so themselves: Until today, many of these reformers argue that, if you want to convince the people, you have to speak to them in their 'own language', that is to say: in religious terms.

This may be a valid argument, but it also reveals the instrumental way in which they think about religion.

I admit that it is easy for me to criticise them: I am a man of ideas, a public intellectual who is sometimes called upon to give his supposedly studied judgement on matters of public interest. I'm not involved in organising people and directing movements and so on.
Let me put it this way: In my view there is a division of labour in this effort of modernising Muslim societies.

Both approaches are valid. We need people who work on the inside and we also need people who work from the outside. But personally I think there is a certain intellectual dishonesty in this claim to reform Islam from the inside."

Can Islam be reformed at all?

"I think so, but it requires a departure from the literal text of the Koran. That's a radical step, because the Muslim masses cling to the idea that the Koran is literally true. But it is obvious that the literal text of the Koran simply cannot be applied in modern society.
Take for instance the corporal punishments prescribed in the Koran. Radical Islamists want to impose them, but they are a minority.

The majority of Muslims have split personalities on this matter: They insist that this is the penal law of Islam and at the same time they admit that it is inapplicable. What I propose is to resolve this contradiction and officially state that the shari'a corporal punishments are obsolete.

The problem is that most of my colleagues who claim to reform Islam from the inside do not address this problem, probably because they fear it will alienate them from their audiences. Modernists such as Fatima Mernissi keep playing this game of quoting texts of Koran and Prophetic Traditions in support of their case, implicitly assuming the literal truth of these texts. And if they do not find anything that supports them, they twist and torture the meaning of the text until it suits their demands.

But what about more radical reformers such as Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd who look at the Koran as a historical text and admit that it can no longer be literally applied?

People like Abu Zayd are more honest in asking the question: What can the Koran mean to us today, in light of modern scientific knowledge? But what annoys me is that they keep speaking in the name of the 'real Islam.' Historically speaking, Muslims are divided among hundreds of groups who all claim that they possess the 'real' or 'true' Islam.

As a critical intellectual you can't seriously claim that you possess the 'real Islam'. All you can say is: This is the way it makes sense to me personally."

Some people believe that religion is on the rise again in the whole world, and especially in the Muslim World.

"I think the process of secularisation is irreversible, in Europe and the US but also in the Muslim world. The present so-called revival of religion is just some sort of last spasm, a desperate effort to cling to something that in fact has already disappeared. In the Muslim world, Islamists present themselves as an alternative for western culture, but they do not really have an alternative: Their slogan 'Islam is the solution' is an illusion. Islam simply cannot solve the problems of the 21st Century.

That becomes clear as soon as the Islamists come to power: All islamist regimes end up in dramatic failure. That some Islamists today turn violent and even suicidal, is only an indication of their failure to realise their plans. Eventually Muslims will have to wake up to the reality that they are no longer the masters of history, but a deprived and underdeveloped minority in the global community. Only when Muslims face this reality, they will be able to proceed."

Iranians want trouble again . Give it to them.

Iran has said that British naval personnel seized at gunpoint in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters.

"The investigation, and confessions that we have, shows they have been arrested in Iranian waters," an armed forces commander told state radio.

The 15 captured British naval personnel were today reported to have been moved to Tehran as Iran raised the stakes in the escalating diplomatic crisis.

Many pundits are wondering who is behind it. Why? Why now? What do they want? Westhawk makes the observation that the incident is manufactured and...

Naturally, it is a risky business to manufacture international incidents to cover up bad news elsewhere. Perhaps a different junior officer with the British boarding party, under slightly different circumstances, might have chosen to resist capture. In that scenario, the day could have ended with a surface naval engagement, an air strike on an Iranian naval base, and lots of blood and oil on the water. Next would come statesmen on all sides pondering what must be done to protect their nations’ prestige.

Senior leaders in Tehran must now be wondering what trouble their president will blunder into next. And whether he or Iran will be able to wriggle out from the next incident without gunfire and explosions. Military escalation, even if blundered into, plays right into the air and naval power dominance of the Americans. From this perspective, President Ahmadinejad may be America’s best friend and Iran’s walking time-bomb.

Blunder or purposeful. It is time to bite on the bait. Punish Iran and use some steel teeth.