100 comments posted · 4 followers · following 0
Once again the reportage is focused on Kenyan and Canadian authorities exercising due diligence, so characteristic of the Brave New World we live in. But not a peep is mentioned regarding this outrage in Somalia, which is of a kind now infiltrating into the West. Which is why the security precautions --the ones that the Somali-Canadian woman ran afoul of-- are needed in the first place.
And where does the money come from? Hawala transactions are hard to track, so it may be impossible to ever determine with absolute certainty whether the money is coming from extortion of the locals, from the Saudis or from misdirected aid money. But always, always try to follow the money. And if the trail can be found, send them the bill. That would be money well spent.
Well, lessee. Here's how I think I'd approach matters. I'd:
1) Believe the facts, as supported by observable or demonstrable evidence.
2) Believe the presentation of the facts based upon context and application of Occam's Razor.
3) Believe the presenter of the facts, based upon their credentials and credibility.
Mr. Obama seems to have garbled or mangled the facts that are required in 1), largely if not totally ignored the context of these "facts" as required in 2) and has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of credibility in the matters he spoke to in Cairo as required in 3).
On the other hand, Dr. Sultan has powerfully presented her arguments in 1), given her masterful use of context and reason as shown in 2) and lastly demonstrating her own credibility in 3) by her willingness to sustain the opprobrium of Moslem fanatics, these being in no short supply.
As a kid, I read Twain's "Innocents Abroad." I marveled at his descriptions of Moslem intolerance. I also marveled at his description of the dirt, squalor, bleakness of the Holy Land under Ottoman rule. Read chapters XL through L, time permitting. Nothing has changed with respect to Moslem "manners," "morals" and attitudes to non-Moslems.
With all due respect, if it's funding of jihad that we're to be solely concerned with, oil revenues to Moslem dictatorships dwarf all other sources combined. But there are other concerns. Why should we, non-Moslems, continue to retreat? And therefore why should we in any way tacitly agree that Moslem depredations and appropriations of lands and historical sites are a fait accompli? Are we to draw a line in the sand, a really, really serious line, only to watch Islam arrogance eventually overreach again? How long do we have before the "lifetimes of archeological and cultural sites in the Free World" are no longer in the Free World, but are part of dar al Islam? Do we then write them off too?
Safe access to cultural sites by non-Moslems is more than simple tourism. It is part of cultural survival. It is part of the greater human patrimony. And trust me, it is the learning experience of a lifetime, seeing the greatness of what was juxtaposed with the wretchedness of what is within dar al Islam.
Access to world heritage sites is more than just tourism. It's about human memory as experienced through history. The role of the pilgrim has traditionally been perilous, particularly in Moslem lands and we are reminded of this once again. But it is my hope that the disgusting comments of the Saudi sheikh will be a matter for the calling of Saudi ambassadors around the world into countless foreign offices of suitably outraged governments, not to share a cigar and a scotch but to have an explanation demanded of them.
On the basis of the evidence, apparently not.
Does this mean that the readers here can expect to be treated to reams of mindless cut-and-paste?
Actually, there is a footnote following the first table, indicating that the Mohammedan conquest of India may "be the bloodiest in history" according to historian Will Durant (1935). Then of course there is K.S. Lal's work (1973) that you are alluding to here, stating that between 60 and 80 million non-Moslems were killed during the 500 year long conquest of India.
But my question is essentially the same as yours: Why is the worst genocide in history included as a hard-to-notice footnote and not given pride of place in the table of enormities?