|
Posted on 09/28/2003 11:11:05 AM PDT by atc
Inside the Islamic Mafia
Bernard-Henri Lévy exposes Daniel Pearl's killers. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 10:18 AM PT
I remember laughing out loud, in what was admittedly a mirthless fashion, when Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of Osama Bin Laden's most heavy-duty deputies, was arrested in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Straining to think of an apt comparison, I fail badly. But what if, say, the Unabomber had been found hiding out in the environs of West Point or Fort Bragg? Rawalpindi is to the Pakistani military elite what Sandhurst is to the British, or St Cyr used to be to the French. It's not some boiling slum: It's the manicured and well-patrolled suburb of the officer class, very handy for the capital city of Islamabad if you want to mount a coup, and the site of Flashman's Hotel if you are one of those who enjoys the incomparable imperial adventure-stories of George MacDonald Fraser. Who, seeking to evade capture, would find a safe house in such a citadel?
Yet, in the general relief at the arrest of this outstanding thug, that aspect of the matter drew insufficient attention. Many words of praise were uttered, in official American circles, for the exemplary cooperation displayed by our gallant Pakistani allies. But what else do these allies have to trade, except al-Qaida and Taliban suspects, in return for the enormous stipend they receive from the U.S. treasury? Could it be that, every now and then, a small trade is made in order to keep the larger trade going?
One hesitates to utter thoughts like these, but they recur continually as one reads Bernard-Henri Lévy's latest book: Who Killed Daniel Pearl? Everybody remembers?don't they??the ghastly video put out on the Web by Pearl's kidnappers and torturers. It's the only live-action footage we possess of the ritual slaughter of a Jew, preceded for effect by his coerced confession of his Jewishness. Pearl was lured into a trap by the promise of a meeting with a senior religious demagogue, who might or might not have shed light on the life of the notorious "shoe-bomber," because of whom millions of us must take off our footwear at American airports every day, as if performing the pieties required for entering a mosque.
What a sick joke all this is, if you study Lévy's book with care. If you ever suspected that the Pakistani ISI (or Interservices Intelligence) was in a shady relationship with the Taliban and al-Qaida forces, this book materializes the suspicion and makes the very strong suggestion that Pearl was murdered because he was doing his job too well, not because he was a naive idealist who got into the wrong car at the wrong time. His inquiries had at least the potential for exposing the Pakistani collusion and double-dealing with jihad forces, in much the same pattern the Saudi Arabian authorities have been shown to follow?by keeping two sets of books, in other words, and by exhibiting only one set to Americans.
Like a number of those who take a moral stand on this, Bernard-Henri Lévy was a strong defender of Bosnia's right to exist, at a time when that right was being menaced directly by Serbian and Croatian fascists. It was a simplification to say that Bosnia was "Muslim," but it would also have been a simplification to say that the Bosnians were not Muslims. The best resolution of this paradox was to assert that Bosnia-Herzegovina stood for ethnic and cultural pluralism, and to say that one could defend Islam from persecution while upholding some other important values at the same time. I agree with M. Lévy that it was a disgrace at the time, and a tragedy in retrospect, that so few Western governments took this opportunity.
But now we hear, from those who were indifferent to that massacre of Muslims, or who still protest the measures that were taken to stop the massacre, that it is above all necessary for the West to be aware of Islamic susceptibilities. This plea is not made on behalf of the pluralistic citizens of Sarajevo, but in mitigation of Hamas and Hezbollah and Saddam Hussein. One of the many pleasures of Lévy's book is the care he takes to show the utter cynicism of the godfathers of all this. He quotes by name a Saudi lawyer who specializes in financial transactions:
"Islamism is a business," he explains to me with a big smile. "I don't say that because it's my job, or because I see proof of it in my office ten times a day, but because it's a fact. People hide behind Islamism. They use it like a screen saying 'Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!' But we know that here. We see the deals and the movements behind the curtain. In one way or another, it all passes through our hands. We do the paperwork. We write the contracts. And I can tell you that most of them couldn't care less about Allah. They enter Islamism because it's nothing other than a source of power and wealth, especially in Pakistan. ? Take the young ones in the madrassas. They see the high rollers in their SUVs having five wives and sending their children to good schools, much better than the madrassas. They have your Pearl's killer, Omar Sheikh, right in front of their eyes. When he gets out of the Indian prisons and returns to Lahore, what do the neighbors see? He's very well-dressed. He has a Land Cruiser. He gets married and the city's big-shots come to his wedding."
Everything we know about al-Qaida's operations, as of those of Saddam Hussein, suggests that they combine the culture of a crime family or cartel with the worst habits of a bent multinational corporation. Yet the purist critics of "globalization" tend to assume that the spiritual or nationalistic claims of such forces still deserve to be taken at their own valuation, lest Western "insensitivity" be allowed to triumph.
And this in turn suggests another latent connection, which Lévy does not stress at all though he does dwell upon one of its obvious symptoms. The most toxic and devotional rhetoric of these Islamic gangsters is anti-Semitism. And what does anti-Semitism traditionally emphasize? Why, the moving of secret money between covert elites in order to achieve world domination! The crazed maps of future Muslim conquest that are pictured by the propaganda of jihad and that show the whole world falling to future Muslim conquest are drawn in shady finance-houses and hideaways of stolen gold and portable currency, in the capital cities of paranoid states, and are if anything emulations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion rather than negations of them. Lévy's reformulation of an old term?"neo-anti-Judaism" instead of the worn-out phrase "anti-Semitism"?is harder on the tongue but more accurate as regards the corrupt and vicious foe with which we are actually dealing. His book was finished before it became clear that the "resistance" in Iraq was also being financed by an extensive mafia, which offers different bonuses for different kamikaze tactics, as it was already doing in Palestine and Kashmir.
In a recent conversation, M. Lévy said to me carefully that he doubts the conventional wisdom of the Western liberal, who believes that a settlement in Palestine will remove the inflammation that produces jihad. A settlement in Palestine would be a good thing in itself, to be sure. But those who believe in its generally healing power, he said, have not been following events in Kashmir. Indeed, it is from the Pakistani-Saudi periphery that the core challenge comes. I don't think that anyone who follows Lévy's inquiry into corruption and fanaticism, and the intimate bond between them, will ever listen patiently to any facile argument again.
Saudi money, there's always Saudi money involved in Muslim terrorist acts around the world. It is a business, they pay for gaining hit men to do their dirty work, among other their other interests.
Saudi delenda est.
When push comes to shove....I suspect we have very few friends in the Islamic world...
Those that stand by our side today - will be at our throats tomorrow if the opportunity arises..
Semper Fi
Of course you're correct,Jonesie. But the Saudi Goverment don't necessarily pay the terrs to do "their" work. It's a protection racket. On the official level, the Saudis are paying the terrs off to leave them alone. Of course, on the private level in KSA, there is altogether too much windfall money. It allows a huge number of semi-literate, inbred-to-the-point-of-widespread-insanity, incredibly rich clymers who have naught else to do, hang around the mosques listening to mad mullahs trying to outdo each other in ferocity against the "infidel," and provide huge contributions for world-wide terror operations.
We are eventually going to have to expropriate Arab funds overseas, and seize and run their lands as oil colonies. It's going to boil down, within a century or so, to the West (us) doing it, or the CHICOM. Or perhaps the UN will be the next colonial power, allowing international administration of these jackass outfits. (Since the UN cannot even give out condoms and free lunches without massive corruption and mis-administration, this scenario has little appeal.
Islamic systems have simply not bred the capability for rational self-governance, acceptance of foreign cultures,and economic development into the Muslim mind, and in all likelihood, never will. Hard thoughts for an incredibly tough situation.
|
These are the types of idiots who still think FARC is about freeing the oppressed and sharing and love.
You know, "Mexifornia" rolls of the tongue so much more easily.
Yes, I see, the mafia comparison is spot on. But of all the primitive, barbaric, cultural and genetic dead-end sandbillies, why did they get all that oil?:)
Islamic systems have simply not bred the capability for rational self-governance, acceptance of foreign cultures,and economic development into the Muslim mind, and in all likelihood, never will. Hard thoughts for an incredibly tough situation.
Whenever a rational, secular Muslim tries to come along, he/she is perceived as an internal threat and often gets offed. This is going to be another very long haul.
Yasser Arafat has been accused of many sins during his long political career. Most of all, the accusations were connected with his implication in terrorist activities. In addition, it is rumored that Arafat is implicated in financial intrigues. Major General Aaron Ze'evi of the Israeli military intelligence stated during parliamentary hearings in the spring of the current year that the Palestinian leader's fortune was $1.3 billion worth. The general emphasized, Arafat had been receiving his income from certain Palestinian monopolies.
The spring statement from the Israeli general was simply perceived as interesting news. However, it has recently become known (against the background of the continuing crisis) how Yasser Arafat improves his financial well-being. The Daily Telegraph reported, IMF experts had audited Yasser Arafat's account and determined that the account had been filled with almost $900 million during 1995-2000. Later, the funds were invested in 69 commercial enterprises (so-called monopolies?) to provide the head of the Palestinian autonomy with stable income.
This information has provoked a very vivid reaction in European countries that have been rendering financial help to Palestinians. Spokespeople for humanitarian organizations demanded an extremely profound investigation either to confirm or to reject IMF experts' conclusion. Financial intrigues can hardly surprise anyone in modern times. A scandal is absolutely not good for Arafat at the moment, especially if it means a trivial criminal responsibility.
After the decision of the Israeli government to expel Arafat from Palestine, the Palestinian leader has managed to gain a lot of attention and win the support of the international community. All countries have denounced Israel's decision, even the USA. The United States did not wish to deal with Arafat, but it did not back up Ariel Sharon's impulse either. Several weeks later, American and European newspapers have stirred up a scandal around Arafat; experts of the Washington-based IMF have exposed auditing results at the proper time v these are all strange coincidences.
Arafat does not have a wide choice: either to pretend that nothing has happened, or to start making excuses trying to prove that the accusations are false. Yet, the Palestinian leader will suffer a political defeat in both cases. His image of a "martyr" and a "fighter for freedom" will be blurred. Needless to mention that Palestinians will perceive any accusations against Arafat as a personal insult. However, the European Union's opinion about the Palestinian leader may worsen considerably. Probably, European states will not be helping Arafat as much as they did before. What else do the Israeli government and the American administration want at this point? The final defamation of Yasser Arafat gives a lot of opportunities for them to look for a more acceptable Palestinian leader, although it is not known, if they can find one.
None of us Westerners wants to be perceived as bigoted, or even prejudiced. But my investigations of the actual creed of the Muslims are causing me a problem. I work with a few Muslims from time to time (Muslim Indians, Pakistanis, and various Arabs) and we function well together, with me respecting them as people and as professionals, and hopefully vice-versa.
However, I absolutely know they attend mosques that have raised money for terrorist groups. I absolutely know that they travel back and forth to the Middle East and Europe frequently on matters definitely not business- related. I have not avoided political discussions (which are uniformly civil and most polite) with them and they resolutely and universally (well, mine is a rather small universe) hold that the US and our foreign policy in regard to the Islamic world is being run by the "Jews," and that we should not favor Israel "over them." Furthermore, I have never, NEVER goddammit, heard an outright condemnation of the terrorists, their acts, or the persecution of Christians.
In short, at this time, I cannot bring myself to trust any Muslim. What I never discuss with them is the Koran, which I have read and reread in English, and of which any rational man would have to say, is filled with a bloody animus toward infidels, no matter how it is shined or spun.
So, Jonesie, it's a terrible thing. I am prejudiced. I pre-judge Muslims as hostile to my personal and national interest. I also judge them to be hostile to Western Christian Civilization, even though the few Muslims I know are certainly not above enjoying its benefits. So when the secular, rational Muslims break away and form the first protesting church of Islam, or take a stand against jihad, I'll support them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
