Wednesday, August 30, 2006

"LE MONDE" SE SURPASSE !

Deux articles a imprimer, decouper et mettre sous verre dans l'edition electronique du journal "Le Monde" en ce mercredi 30 aout 2006.
Le premier est la chronique sur Zacharia Moussaoui ou Dominique Dhombres apprend aux foules du bon pays de France que le "20eme terroriste" n'est en fait qu'un illumine megalo devenu islamiste parce qu'ils sont de vilains racistes:

Trop fou pour faire un bon kamikaze..., par Dominique Dhombres

Zacarias Moussaoui est le seul à avoir été traduit en justice aux Etats-Unis pour les attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Le visage de ce Français d'origine marocaine est ainsi connu dans le monde entier.

Et pourtant ! Moussaoui a été arrêté un mois avant les attentats. La justice américaine lui reproche de ne pas avoir révélé la préparation de ces derniers. Il a échappé de justesse à la peine de mort et a été condamné le 3 mai 2006 à la détention perpétuelle. Il doit passer le restant de ses jours à l'isolement dans une prison de haute sécurité du Colorado. Il est persuadé que George Bush en personne se rendra dans le Colorado avant la fin de sa présidence pour le faire sortir de sa cellule, ce qui donne une idée de son état mental. Pendant son procès, il criait régulièrement "Mort aux Américains !" ou "Je suis Al-Qaida !".

Il affirme maintenant qu'il n'était pas le vingtième terroriste du 11-Septembre. Trop tard. Dans ses rêves de mégalomane, il se voyait en guerre avec l'Amérique. La justice américaine l'a pris au mot.

Le documentaire de Valentin Thurn diffusé mardi 29 août sur Arte raconte l'enfance difficile de Moussaoui, entre un père violent et une mère débordée, mariée à 14 ans, qui finit par s'enfuir avec ses quatre enfants. Pour le réalisateur, il est probablement schizophrène, comme son père et ses deux soeurs.

On entend au début du film la voix d'Oussama Ben Laden. "Zacarias Moussaoui n'a aucun lien avec les événements du 11-Septembre. J'en suis certain, car c'est moi qui ai chargé les 19 frères de leur mission. Je n'ai pas chargé le frère Zacarias d'être avec eux dans cette mission", affirme le dirigeant d'Al-Qaida. Le Français a peut-être été pressenti pour être un des pilotes, puis écarté en raison de son instabilité mentale. Il était trop fou pour faire un bon kamikaze... "Quand Zacarias est gai, il est adorable", raconte sa mère.

On voit l'adolescent sur une bande vidéo réalisée par un de ses copains. Ils sont en train de retaper un appartement. On aperçoit Fanny, sa petite amie. A cette époque, Zacarias n'est nullement religieux. Il boit de l'alcool, sort en boîte. Justement, son problème est qu'on lui refuse souvent l'entrée dans les discothèques et que le père de sa petite amie ne veut pas entendre parler de lui. Puis c'est le départ pour Londres, la rencontre décisive avec un des sergents recruteurs de Ben Laden.

La folie est une explication. Mais il reste une part de mystère. Comme sur cette photo d'identité sans cesse montrée où le visage apparaît totalement fermé.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le deuxieme article provient d'une "correspondante" a Washington, sondage du Pew Research Center a l'appui, toute pimpante et claironnant (Hosanna!) que le modele d'integration made in France est enfin rehabilite et nos bons musulmans bien de chez nous sont des mecs vachement cools si tu les compares aux "autres" musulmans:

Les musulmans français sont plus tolérants que leurs voisins européens

Critiqué par la presse américaine au moment des émeutes de l'automne 2005 dans les banlieues, le modèle français d'intégration est réhabilité par une enquête publiée par le Pew Research Center, l'un des instituts d'opinion les plus réputés des Etats-Unis. Selon cette enquête, réalisée au printemps auprès de musulmans de quatre pays européens et dont les résultats complets ont été publiés le 17 août, les musulmans de France n'ont pas de leçons d'intégration à recevoir de leurs voisins européens.

Le sondage montre que les musulmans européens partagent une même préoccupation pour le chômage dans leur communauté (83 % en France, 78 % en Angleterre) et s'inquiètent de l'extrémisme islamiste, seule une faible minorité approuvant les attentats-suicides (16 % en France).

Mais sur le plan de l'intégration, les Français se singularisent. Alors que la moitié des musulmans britanniques perçoivent "un conflit naturel entre le fait de pratiquer l'islam et le fait de vivre dans une société moderne", 72 % des Français musulmans n'en voient aucun (une proportion identique à celle enregistrée dans l'ensemble de la société française).

Les musulmans français sont aussi, avec les Espagnols, ceux qui ressentent le moins d'hostilité à l'égard des pratiquants de l'islam (39 % estiment que la plupart des Européens sont hostiles aux musulmans, contre 52 % en Allemagne).

Appelés à dire ce qui les définit le mieux, de la nationalité ou de la religion, 81 % des musulmans britanniques optent pour la seconde. Les musulmans français sont nettement plus partagés : 42 % choisissent la nationalité et 46 % la religion.

Ce résultat est assez éloigné de celui enregistré lorsqu'on interroge la population tout entière : 83 % des Français s'identifient d'abord par leur nationalité. Mais il est "remarquablement proche", souligne le Pew Center, de celui qui concerne les Américains dans leur ensemble (48 % se définissent d'abord comme Américains, 42 % comme chrétiens). Les moins de 35 ans sont cependant 51 % à se décrire comme musulmans d'abord.

Autre sujet d'étonnement pour le centre de recherches américain : le regard sur les autres religions. 91 % des Français musulmans ont une opinion favorable des chrétiens et 71 % une bonne opinion des juifs, ce qui fait d'eux une exception : seuls 32 % des musulmans britanniques, 28 % des musulmans espagnols et 38 % des musulmans allemands ont une bonne opinion des juifs.

Enfin, les musulmans de France expriment une "préférence pour l'assimilation", selon l'institut : 78 % d'entre eux estiment que leur communauté souhaite adopter les traditions nationales (contre 41 % en Angleterre et 30 % en Allemagne).

Selon le sondage, les Français, dans leur ensemble, n'ont cependant pas la même perception : 53 % d'entre eux estiment que les musulmans n'ont pas de véritable volonté d'assimilation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dormez donc, populations de France, Tout va bien !!!! Du grand journalisme d'investigation considerant que cet article n'est qu'une traduction abregee de l'etude suivante:

The French-Muslim Connection

Is France Doing a Better Job of Integration than Its Critics?
by Jodie T. AllenPew Research CenterAugust 17, 2006

When Muslim youth rioted in the suburbs of France late last year, commentators were quick to fault the French "color-blind" assimilation model. "The unrest in France's cities shows that social and policing policy has failed, as well as integration," read the headline on an article in the Economist magazine on November 12, 2005.

But findings from the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which included over-samples of Muslims in four European countries, suggest that the French model can claim some success, however mixed. Some aspects of that relative success are especially striking when compared with the attitudes and experiences of Muslims in Great Britain, where police last week foiled a home-grown plot by Islamic terrorists to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.

France is home to the largest Muslim population in Europe, an estimated 5 million persons primarily of Algerian and Moroccan extraction (since religion is not tabulated in France's census, no official estimate is available). Similarly, Muslims in Spain are largely of Moroccan extraction. By contrast, Pakistanis predominate among Britain's Muslims along with other ethnicities, while Germany's Muslims are primarily Turkish in origin.

Where European Muslims Mostly Agree

When you see your Muslim friends on a daily basis you don't think that relations with Muslims are bad. But if all you do is watch television, most of what you see are extreme examples of Islam. Islam is not the religion of terror. But people are afraid of terrorism and too often religion is mixed up in the debate. - Pierre-Etienne Issoulie, 22, architect, Paris.

It's true that relations are bad, but to go from there to saying who's wrong? I think everyone bears some responsibility. On the Muslim side, it's too much religion, religion, religion, and they don't want to open up to others. - Jeannine Pilé, 33, housewife and mother.

[All interviews cited in this analysis were conducted in France by reporters for the International Herald Tribune.]

French Muslims do share many opinions with their co-religionists in neighboring countries. Primary among them is concern about joblessness. More than half of French Muslims (52%) say they are very worried about unemployment among Muslims -- the primary complaint of last fall's rioters -- and an additional 32% say they are somewhat concerned. These levels are comparable to those expressed by Spanish, German and, to a slightly lesser degree, by British Muslims. (Curiously, among French Muslims, only 48% of those under age 35 say they are very worried about unemployment compared with 59% of their elders.)

Like Muslims elsewhere in Europe, the French also worry more generally about the future of Muslims in their country -- though, in this case, Muslims in France are significantly less worried than those in Great Britain. A majority (57%) is also at least somewhat concerned about the declining importance of religion among their co-religionists in France, though again, British Muslims are more troubled on this score with 73% sharing the worry. (In this, as in other questions in the survey, no significant difference is seen among the responses of French Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan or other ethnicity.)

Not surprisingly, a majority of French Muslims (63%) sympathize with their youthful rioters -- but not much more so than do Muslims in Spain and Germany. Interestingly, British Muslims are significantly more tolerant of the French car-burners, with fully 75% offering their sympathy.

Common Attitudes toward Non-Muslims

Relations between Muslims and westerners may be bad between governments; I don't actually think they are bad between people. But the people don't really get a chance to get to know each other… I think the mass media has played a big role in this. It's not objective on either side, and that leads to false stereotypes. - M'hand Chabbi, 29, of Moroccan origin, works selling Moroccan specialties in a central Paris market

French Muslims share the view that relations between Muslims and Westerners are bad, a view prevalent elsewhere in Europe -- and in predominantly Muslim countries -- with the exception of Spain, where nearly half of the Muslim population rates relations as good compared with fewer than a quarter who call them bad. But while 58% of French Muslims view relations with Westerners as bad, far more (41%) view these relations as good than do British or German Muslims.
Additional points of similarity between French and other European Muslims include generally unfavorable opinions of the United States, of its war on terrorism and, to a lesser degree, of its citizens .

Also, like the great majority of Muslims in Great Britain and Spain (though less so in Germany) French Muslim sympathies in the Middle East lie with the Palestinians rather than with Israel. However, nearly two-in-three French Muslims (65%) worry about extremism among Muslims -- as do even more (70%) of British Muslims. And, like Muslims elsewhere in Europe only a tiny minority of French Muslims (16%) say that suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.

Voici La Différence

However, even on the hot button issues of the Middle East, French Muslims depart company with others of their faith both in Europe and in the Muslim world. For example, French Muslims are evenly split on the question of the effect of the victory by the radical group Hamas in this year's Palestinian election, with 44% saying it was good for Palestinians and 46% judging it bad. By comparison, British Muslims weighed in lopsidedly on the positive side (56% 'good' vs. 18% 'bad') as did Spanish Muslims (57% vs. 22%).

Moreover, joined only by German Muslims in Europe, the French are heavily opposed (71%) to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. British Muslims, in contrast, are evenly split on the subject. And while the majority of Muslims in all four European countries surveyed say they have little or no confidence in Osama bin Laden, French Muslims are virtually unanimous (93%) in their disdain. (By comparison, 68% of British Muslims submit a vote of no confidence in the Al Qaeda leader.)

Most striking, however, is the difference between the views that French Muslims hold about people of other faiths and the views held by Muslims elsewhere in Europe and in predominantly Muslim countries. French Muslims even top the general publics in the United States and France in favorable ratings of Christians (91% of French Muslims vs. 88% of Americans and 87% of the French take that view).

But what most distinguishes French Muslims from their co-religionists not only in the Muslim world but in Europe, is their attitude toward Jews. Fully 71% of French Muslims express a positive view of people of the Jewish faith, compared with only 38% of German Muslims, 32% of British Muslims, 28% of Spanish Muslims and still lower numbers in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. In this, Muslims reflect the view of the larger French public among whom fully 86% express a favorable opinion of Jews, a higher proportion than even than among the American public.

At Home in France?

There are a lot of Muslims who are much more open, who don't pray regularly -- that's what I see in France. What happens in other countries I don't know. From what I see it's half and half in France. There are some who are super-cool, who are not practicing, who are very open to France, and others who are less. - Wahid Chekhar, 34, actor

Most Muslims in France feel very French -- but they feel that the French don't see them that way, because they may look Arab or black…. Surveys suggest that Muslims are generally more conservative for example on issues such as sexuality and marriage... [But] the fraction of Muslims actively practicing their religion in France is only 10 percent, which is very similar to that of practicing Catholics. - Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, immigration specialist and research director, Center for International Studies and Research, Paris

By and large, Muslims in France do not seem to see themselves as surrounded by hostile natives. Just 39% say they think many or most Europeans are hostile toward Muslims -- considerably lower percentage than the 56% among the general French population who take that view. In Germany, where most Muslims are of Turkish descent, roughly half (51%) see Europeans as unwelcoming -- a view shared by 63% of the larger German public. This perception of welcome persists despite the fact that French Muslims are somewhat more likely than those in other European countries to report that they have had a bad experience attributable to their race, ethnicity or religion. Nearly four-in-ten Muslims (37%) in France report such incidents, compared with 28% in Britain, 25% in Spain and 19% in Germany. Younger French Muslims are more likely to report a bad experience -- 40% of those under age 35 compared with 31% of those age 35 or older.

But what most distinguishes French Muslims among others in Europe are their self-perceptions. Few Muslims living in France see a natural conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. Seven-in-ten French Muslims (72%) perceive no such conflict, a view shared by a virtually identical 74%-share of the French general public. In Great Britain, however, Muslims split evenly (47% see a conflict, 49% do not) while only 35% of the British general public see no inherent conflict between devotion to Islam and adaptation to a modern society.

Moreover, when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion.

On this one question, however, some evidence of a growing Islamic identity among younger French Muslims appears. Among those under age 35, many of them French by birth, only 40% self-identify primarily as French while 51% self-identify first as Muslim, while 7% say both equally. Among those 35 and older, 45% self-identify with their nationality, 36% as Muslims and 16% as both equally.

However, no such age differential appears on the question of whether Muslims in France want either to be distinct from the larger culture or to adopt its customs. Nearly eight-in-ten French Muslims (78%) say they want to adopt French customs. Those under age 35 are equally as likely to say this as are their elders. This high preference for assimilation compares with that expressed by 53% of Muslims in Spain, 41% in Britain and 30% in Germany.
All in all, one might conclude that, despite their problems -- prime among them joblessness among youth generally, not just Muslim youth -- the French need take no integrationist lessons from their European neighbors.

Notes

Special samples among Muslim populations were surveyed in France, Germany, Great Britain and Spain in the Spring of 2006. For the complete report, including a summary of the methodology. economic and demographic data on the countries surveyed, and complete topline results see The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other

2 All interviews cited in this analysis were conducted in France by reporters for the International Herald Tribune.

The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other. Europe's Muslims More Moderate
Released: 06.22.06
Introduction and Summary

After a year marked by riots over cartoon portrayals of Muhammad, a major terrorist attack in London, and continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Muslims and Westerners are convinced that relations between them are generally bad these days. Many in the West see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and as lacking tolerance. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy - as well as violent and fanatical.

A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West - they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity.

Nothing highlights the divide between Muslims and the West more clearly than their responses to the uproar this past winter over cartoon depictions of Muhammad. Most people in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey blame the controversy on Western nations' disrespect for the Islamic religion. In contrast, majorities of Americans and Western Europeans who have heard of the controversy say Muslims' intolerance to different points of view is more to blame.

The chasm between Muslims and the West is also seen in judgments about how the other civilization treats women. Western publics, by lopsided margins, do not think of Muslims as "respectful of women." But half or more in four of the five Muslim publics surveyed say the same thing about people in the West.

Yet despite the deep attitudinal divide between Western and Muslim publics, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey also finds that the views of each toward the other are far from uniformly negative. For example, even in the wake of the tumultuous events of the past year, solid majorities in France, Great Britain and the U.S. retain overall favorable opinions of Muslims. However, positive opinions of Muslims have declined sharply in Spain over the past year (from 46% to 29%), and more modestly in Great Britain (from 72% to 63%).

For the most part, Muslim publics feel more embittered toward the West and its people than vice versa. Muslim opinions about the West and its people have worsened over the past year and by overwhelming margins, Muslims blame Westerners for the strained relationship between the two sides. But there are some positive indicators as well, including the fact that in most Muslim countries surveyed there has been a decline in support for terrorism.

The survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project was conducted in 13 countries, including the United States, from March 31-May 14, 2006. It includes special oversamples of Muslim minorities living in Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain. In many ways, the views of Europe's Muslims represent a middle ground between the way Western publics and Muslims in the Middle East and Asia view each other. While Europe's Muslim minorities are about as likely as Muslims elsewhere to see relations between Westerners and Muslims as generally bad, they more often associate positive attributes to Westerners - including tolerance, generosity, and respect for women. And in a number of respects Muslims in Europe are less inclined to see a clash of civilizations than are some of the general publics surveyed in Europe. Notably, they are less likely than non-Muslims in Europe to believe that there is a conflict between modernity and being a devout Muslim. Solid majorities of the general publics in Germany and Spain say that there is a natural conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. But most Muslims in both of those countries disagree. And in France, the scene of recent riots in heavily Muslim areas, large percentages of both the general public and the Muslim minority population feel there is no conflict in being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.
The survey shows both hopeful and troubling signs with respect to Muslim support for terrorism and the viability of democracy in Muslim countries. In Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, likely in response to the devastating terrorist attack in Amman last year; 29% of Jordanians view suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified, down from 57% in May 2005.

Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria's Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.

The belief that terrorism is justifiable in the defense of Islam, while less extensive than in previous surveys, still has a sizable number of adherents. Among Nigeria's Muslim population, for instance, nearly half (46%) feel that suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes in the defense of Islam. Even among Europe's Muslim minorities, roughly one-in-seven in France, Spain, and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. Anti-Jewish sentiment remains overwhelming in predominantly Muslim countries. There also is considerable support for the Hamas Party, which recently was victorious in the Palestinian elections. Majorities in most Muslim countries say that the Hamas Party's victory will be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians - a view that is roundly rejected by Western publics (see "America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns over Iran, Hamas," June 13, 2006).

In one of the survey's most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries - 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.

But Muslim opinion on most issues is not monolithic, and there are some apparent anomalies in Muslims' views of the West and its people. While large percentages in nearly every Muslim country attribute several negative traits to Westerners - including violence, immorality and selfishness - solid majorities in Indonesia, Jordan and Nigeria express favorable opinions of Christians.

Moreover, there is enduring belief in democracy among Muslim publics, which contrasts sharply with the skepticism many Westerners express about whether democracy can take root in the Muslim world. Pluralities or majorities in every Muslim country surveyed say that democracy is not just for the West and can work in their countries. But Western publics are divided - majorities in Germany and Spain say democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries. Most of the French and British, and about half of Americans, say democracy can work in Muslim countries.


Overall, the Germans and Spanish express much more negative views of both Muslims and Arabs than do the French, British or Americans. Just 36% in Germany, and 29% in Spain, express favorable opinions of Muslims; comparable numbers in the two countries have positive impressions of Arabs (39% and 33%, respectively). In France, Great Britain and the U.S., solid majorities say they have favorable opinions of Muslims, and about the same numbers have positive views of Arabs.
These differences are reflected as well in opinions about negative traits associated with Muslims. Roughly eight-in-ten Spanish (83%) and Germans (78%) say they associate Muslims with being fanatical. But that view is less prevalent in France (50%), Great Britain (48%) and the U.S. (43%).

In many ways, the views of Europe's Muslims are distinct from those of both Western publics and Muslims in the Middle East and Asia. Most European Muslims express favorable opinions of Christians, and while their views of Jews are less positive than those of Western publics, they are far more positive than those of Muslim publics. And in France, a large majority of Muslims (71%) say they have favorable opinions of Jews.

Moreover, while publics in largely Muslim countries generally view Westerners as violent and immoral, this view is not nearly as prevalent among Muslims in France, Spain and Germany. British Muslims however, are the most critical of the four minority publics studied - and they come closer to views of Muslims around the world in their opinions of Westerners.

Other Major Findings

- Concerns over Islamic extremism are widely shared in Western publics and Muslim publics alike. But an exception is China, where 59% express little or no concern over Islamic extremism.
- Muslims differ over whether there is a struggle in their country between Islamic fundamentalists and groups wanting to modernize society. But solid majorities of those who perceive such a struggle side with the modernizers.
- Fully 41% of the general public in Spain says most or many Muslims in their country support Islamic extremists. But just 12% of Spain's Muslims say most or many of the country's Muslims support extremists like al Qaeda.
- Nearly four-in-ten Germans (37%), and 29% of Americans, say there is a natural conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society.

Roadmap to the Report

The first section of the report analyzes how people in predominantly Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries view each other. This section examines the positive and negative characteristics Muslims associate with Westerners - including Muslim minorities in four Western European countries - and the traits that non-Muslims associate with Muslims. Section II focuses on opinions about the state of relations between the West and Muslims. It also explores reasons people give for Muslim nations' lack of prosperity, attitudes to the recent controversy over cartoon depictions of Muhammad, and Muslim opinions on whether Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Section III deals with the opinions of Muslim publics as to whether they see a struggle in their countries between modernizers and Islamic fundamentalists, the concerns that Muslims and non-Muslims alike share over the rise of Islamic extremism, and Muslim views on terrorism and Osama bin Laden.

The report includes excerpts from interviews conducted by the International Herald Tribune in selected countries to illustrate some of the themes covered by the survey. These interviews were conducted separately from the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The bulk of the interviews are with Muslims.
A description of the Pew Global Attitudes Project immediately follows. A summary of the methodology can be found at the end of this report, along with economic and demographic data on the countries surveyed, and complete topline results.

About the Pew Global Attitudes Project

The Pew Global Attitudes Project is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys encompassing a broad array of subjects ranging from people's assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and important issues of the day. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, currently principal, the Albright Group LLC, and by former Senator John C. Danforth, currently partner, Bryan Cave LLP. The project is directed by Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, DC, that provides information on the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Global Attitudes Project is principally funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The surveys of European Muslims were conducted in partnership with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, another project of the Pew Research Center, which works to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs.
Since its inception in 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has released 14 major reports, as well as numerous commentaries and other releases, on topics including attitudes towards the U.S. and American foreign policy, globalization, terrorism, and democratization.
Findings from the project are also analyzed in America Against the World: How We Are Different and Why We Are Disliked, a recent book by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes, a Pew Global Attitudes Project team member and international economics columnist at the >National Journal.
Pew Global Attitudes Project team members also include Mary McIntosh, president of Princeton Survey Research Associates International, and Wendy Sherman, principal at The Albright Group LLC. Contributors to the report and to the Pew Global Attitudes Project include Richard Wike, Carroll Doherty, Paul Taylor, Michael Dimock, Elizabeth Mueller Gross, Jodie T. Allen, and others of the Pew Research Center. The International Herald Tribune is the project's international newspaper partner. For this survey, the Pew Global Attitudes Project team consulted with survey and policy experts, regional and academic experts, and policymakers. Their expertise provided tremendous guidance in shaping the survey.
Following each release, the project also produces a series of in-depth analyses on specific topics covered in the survey, which will be found at pewglobal.org.......

Sunday, August 20, 2006

QUELLE SURPRISE LE CHEF NOUS RESERVE-T-IL CETTE SEMAINE ?

August 22 : Does Iran have something in store?

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

THIS MAN IS A GENIUS

The Usual Suspects
(The Belmont Club wed. august 16 2006)

What's remarkable about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling, and Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze, the legendary fictional villain of The Usual Suspects on one subject. Part boogeyman and part urban legend, Soze was a near-metaphysical example of implacable retribution. Soze's presence exists entirely offscreen until the final scene, but his legend is created in a an early bit of movie dialogue.


Verbal Kint: He's supposed to be Turkish. Some say his father was German. Nobody ever believed he was real. Nobody ever knew him or saw anybody that ever worked directly for him. But to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew; that was his power. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. One story the guys told me, the story I believe, was from his days in Turkey. There was a gang of Hungarians that wanted their own mob. They realized that to be in power, you didn't need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't. After a while, they come into power and then they come after Soze. He was small-time then, just running dope, they say. (We see all of this in flashback) They come to his home in the afternoon, looking for his business. They find his wife and kids in the house and decide to wait for Soze. He comes home to find his wife raped and children screaming. The Hungarians knew Soze was tough, not to be trifled with, so they let him know they meant business.

(Flashback: Hungarian cuts one of the children's throats) They tell him they want his territory, all his business. Soze looks over the faces of his family. Then he showed these men of will what will really was.

(Soze shoots two Hungarians, then shoots his children and his wife as the last Hungarian watches in surprised horror) He tells him he would rather see his family dead than live another day after this. He lets the last Hungarian go, waits until his wife and kids are in the ground, and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids. He kills their wives. He kills their parents and their parents' friends. He burns down the houses they live in, the stores they work in. He kills people that owe them money. And like that, he's gone. Underground. Nobody's ever seen him since. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. "Rat on your pop and Keyser Soze will get you." But no one ever really believes. (We see a shadow-encased figure of Keyser Soze walking towards the camera in front of a huge tower of flame as Verbal speaks about the process of revenge.)

Agent Kujon: Do you believe in him, Verbal?

Verbal Kint: Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well, I believe in God -- and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.


The dramatic screen dialogue is matched by the mathematical precision of the game-theoretic concept of commitment for which Tom Schelling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.
The Nobel press release said in part:

"Schelling showed that a party can strengthen its position by overtly worsening its own options, that the capability to retaliate can be more useful than the ability to resist an attack, and that uncertain retaliation is more credible and more efficient than certain retaliation."

What this means is explained by notes from the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which summarizes Schelling's lectures. First described is the basic notion of commitment, which communicates to the enemy that you will do what you undertake. Commitment makes deterrence credible and credibility is the essential problem. "The most difficult part is communicating your intentions to your enemies. They must believe that you are committed to fighting them in order to defend" what you say you will defend for them to take you seriously. As Verbal Kint put it "to be in power, you didn't need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't." To accomplish it no matter what. Schelling taught that threats are more credible if you "burn your bridges or ships" thereby making it clear that you have only one option: fight. When the Hungarian mob invaded Soze's home to intimidate him into submitting, he simply killed his family first, illustrating Schelling's point that to truly be believed “you must get yourself into a position where you cannot fail to react as you said you would”. Such is this power that when the fictional Kaiser Soze demonstrated absolute commitment he ceased to be simply a man and became a force of nature.

Tom Schelling's key contribution was to establish on a sound mathematical basis the role of will -- expressed as commitment -- in war. Deterrence was not simply a matter of possessing advanced weapons. That was only half the equation. The other half was to establish that you were absolutely ready to use those weapons to your purpose. And given a choice between superiority in weapons and ascendance in will, weapons always came in second. Die Welt relates the experience of an Israeli officer who fought Hezbollah during the early 1980s. Israel had artillery, tanks, airplanes to Hezbollahs guns and knives. But Israel was a liberal democracy and Hezbollah a ruthless criminal organization. The overmatch in will made knives were more powerful than tanks because Hezbollah was willing to use them unhesitatingly. "Hezbollah’s barbarism is legendary. Gen. Effe Eytam, an Israeli veteran of that first Lebanon war, tells of how--after Israel had helped bring "Doctors without Borders" into a village in the 1980s to treat children--local villagers lined up 50 kids the next day to show Eytam the price they pay for cooperating with the West. Each of the children had had their pinky finger cut off."

None of the weapons in the IDF arsenal could level this disparity in will. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in a speech before the Harvard class of 1978 explained how weapons simply became "burdens" to those who lacked a belief worth fighting for. Authentic belief brought commitment; but relativism could only aspire to fashion. Schelling would have understood. His audience did not and Solzhenitsyn tried to spell it out for them.

No weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal.

The matchless power of inherited Cold War weapons was more than overcome by withering of the very mental attitudes which made them effective. Mark Steyn argued that as a result the West's power shrank in direct proportion to the effectiveness of weaponry because the laws of political correctness always diminished the will to use them faster than their increase in destructiveness. "We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another. ... The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been, and it never will be."

The near panic which gripped Teheran and Damascus in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom was not the result of the fear that America had found new weapons -- the lethality of those weapons were already known -- but that it had found unexpected the will to use them. Today even better weapons are there yet the American force in Iraq is regarded as having become totally impotent, not because it has become militarily weaker; through fixed airbases, experience, new weapons it has become immeasurably stronger than it was in 2003. But it's impotence is due entirely to the perception that it's will has drained away -- that it cannot use its power. That leaves American power weaker than had it never been used. As Tom Schelling taught commitments that are repudiated -- such as by those politicians who now say they were against OIF even before they voted for it -- destroy not only the current commitments but the possibility of future commitments. The cost of escaping one commitment “is the discrediting of other commitments that one would still like to be credited”.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn asked his audience whether man could live without faith and received no answer. Tom Schelling answered, without hearing the question, that man cannot not survive without at least the counterfeit of faith: something called commitment. In game theoretic at least. And as for Keyser Soze, of whom, "to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for", faith and fear run together until finally God is indistinguishable from the Devil. "Well, I believe in God -- and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze."

Friday, August 18, 2006

HEZBOLLAH

A 'political party' unveiled

Remember, Hezbollah is a political party within Lebanon... The problem is... that they're a political party with a militia that is armed by foreign nations," said President Bush earlier this week. "Political Party"? "Armed Militia"?

Hezbollah, which was established in 1982 as a terrorist organization, was finally designated in 1995 as such by the U.S. government. It was upgraded to the status of a global terrorist organization in 1997. Hezbollah's evolvement into a "political party" began in the 1980s. With Iran's generous assistance and guidance, Hezbollah established a network of educational and cultural institutions, as well as health and social welfare services. The latter included an Islamic health authority that operated pharmacies, clinics and even hospitals where thousands of people were treated every day. Hezbollah also established a construction company that not only built houses, mosques and schools, but also paved roads and even supplied water to Shi'ite villages. Particularly prominent in all of this was its contribution to the reconstruction of thousands of houses damaged in the battles with Israel in south Lebanon. Such activities bought the loyalty of the local population.

Hezbollah, like the PLO and Hamas, also maintained a Martyrs' Fund, which provided assistance to thousands of families of the dead, injured and imprisoned Shi'ites.

To maintain and expand its political-social activities in the Shi'ite community in Lebanon and elsewhere, Hezbollah needs large sums of money. The $100 million to $120 million it is said to receive annually from Iran, and the weapons and supplies from Tehran and Damascus, are just a drop in Hezbollah's bucket. Where did Hezbollah's fund come from? By the mid-1980s, Shi'ite Hezbollah loyalists in Western Europe had quietly and effectively infiltrated local Muslim communities with the subversive aim of converting them to Ayatollah Khomeini's version of Islam, and of eventually gaining control over those communities. Countless legal and quasi-legal institutions — including religious, cultural and economic groups — were established to conceal these dormant Hezbollah networks; to finance their activities; to serve as a source for future recruitment of European-based terrorists; and to provide financial support for their attack. Hezbollah's support comes from both legitimate and illegal resources. The legitimate channel includes charitable organizations operating worldwide, donations from individuals and proceeds from legitimate business.

Drug trafficking is a major money maker for Hezbollah, endorsed by a special fatwa by the mullahs. In addition to the production and trade of heroin in the Middle East and cocaine in and from South America, Hezbollah facilitates, for a fee, the trafficking of other drug smuggling networks. It cooperates, for example, with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) in Colombia and the "Abadan drug ring," a long-established Iranian drug network, allowing them to use the Hezbollah-controlled drug routes in Lebanon to transport heroin and opium from Iran and Afghanistan to Europe and North Africa.
Hezbollah's other illegal resources include: money laundering, illegal arms trading and smuggling; counterfeiting and selling currency (U.S. dollar — super notes) and goods (designer clothing and accessories); piracy of compact discs and DVDs; trafficking in humans; conducting elaborate import-export schemes with traders from India and Hong Kong to Ivory Coast, Belgium, and South and Central America. Hezbollah also extorts "donations" from Shi'ite, especially Lebanese immigrants in South and North America under the threat of physical harm or death.

Hezbollah operatives also generate huge profits from the theft and resale of stolen vehicles and baby formula; credit card, welfare, Social Security, and marriage, health care and insurance fraud; forgery of passports, drivers' licenses, and other forms of identification; arson; robbery; food coupon fraud; counterfeiting resident alien cards and drivers' licenses; telecommunications fraud, such as selling long-distance telephone access through fraudulently obtained services, and through cloning the identification of cellular phone subscribers.

The magnitude of Hezbollah's criminal operations serves not only to reap huge profits — estimated at $6 billion in 2001 — thus enabling it to buy its way to the Lebanese parliament and government, but also facilitates Hezbollah's infiltration into their targeted countries, weakening the countries' economies while furthering their terrorist agenda.

Hezbollah should also be identified and designated as a global criminal organization. And while it continued to fund the vast social welfare system it put in place, enlisting more martyrs to their cause, Hezbollah spent no money to protect the "civilian" population in Lebanon because it does not consider them as such. Instead of building bunkers to protect their own Shi'ite brothers and sisters, members of Hezbollah spent fortunes to build fortified bunkers to launch war, and calculated death and destruction.

That, according to Hezbollah and their paymasters in Iran, is a good thing because only death and destruction will pave the way for the return of the mahdi, the 12th imam and Shi'ite supremacy in the world. This is the Hezbollah the president calls a "political party."

Thursday, August 17, 2006

THIS MUST BE STOPPED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

Passport photograph of girl's bare shoulders rejected 'as it may offend'
(Via E-NOUGH)

A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.

The photograph was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

Because of the way the camera was set up, the picture came out showing Hannah's shoulders.

The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

A woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered.

Mrs Edwards, a Sheffield GP, said: "I was incensed. I went back home and checked the form. Nowhere did it say anything about covering up shoulders. If it had, I would have done so, but it all seems so unnecessary.

"This is quite ridiculous, I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected. It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness.

"It is a total over-reaction. How can the shoulders of a five-year-old girl offend anyone? It's not as if anything else was showing, the dress she wore was sleeveless, but it has a high neck."

Hannah had her first passport when she was three months old. Her mother and her father,
Martin, realised that it was due to expire during their holiday later this month and decided to renew it advance.

They aimed to complete the application on Saturday, the same day that Hannah was to be Sheffield Wednesday football team's mascot at Hillsborough stadium. Mrs Edwards was also on call from her surgery.

After the rejection at the post office, Mrs Edwards spent two hours taking Hannah for new pictures, filling in a new form and finding the necessary "responsible citizens" to endorse the photos.

"The people who had signed the original application were not available," Mrs Edwards said. "I had to chase around and eventually found a neighbour who was a teacher to sign the pictures.

"The Passport Office should set this sort of thing out in its forms if it is going to be so pedantic."
A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

"The Post Office obviously has its rules and we can't comment on that. We are aware of a case in the past where an error was made involving similar circumstances, although I don't know the exact details. Staff should be aware of the rules."

A Post Office spokesman said: "Our offices have a Passport Office template which says what the photograph should and shouldn't be.

"Bare shoulders don't come into that at all. We can't see any instruction to that effect so all we can do is apologise to Mrs Edwards. It was clearly a mistake made by the clerk at the post office.
"It is the first time we have heard of such a rejection and we will take it up with that particular office.

"We do around three million passport applications a year. It is one of our most popular services and it is normally extremely effective.

"We have a much lower rejection rate compared to applications submitted directly to the Passport Office."

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

WAIT AND SEE

Exposition de caricatures sur l'Holocauste en Iran
(www.liberation.fr Mercredi 16 août 2006 )

TEHERAN (Reuters) - A l'entrée de l'exposition, une affiche montre un casque avec l'étoile de David en haut d'une pile d'autres casques sur lesquels sont inscrits des croix gammées. A l'intérieur, la statue de la Liberté est représentée tenant un livre sur l'Holocauste et faisant le salut nazi.

Les organisateurs de l'exposition disent présenter les 200 caricatures retenues par un jury dans le cadre d'un concours international de caricatures sur l'Holocauste organisé en Iran.
L'objectif, selon eux, est de tester la capacité des Européens à remettre en cause leurs propres tabous.

"Il s'agit d'un test des limites de la liberté de parole adoptée par les pays occidentaux", déclare Massoud Shojaï-Tabatabaï, le directeur de la Maison de la caricature, un syndicat de caricaturistes, qui a participé à l'organisation de l'exposition.

Le journal iranien au plus fort tirage, Hamchahri a lancé en février une compétition de caricatures sur l'Holocauste, en riposte à la publication de caricatures du prophète Mahomet dans des journaux européens.

"Nous voulions questionner les tabous européens. Pourquoi s'interroger sur l'Holocauste serait-il un tabou?. Pourquoi toute personne qui évoque le sujet devrait-il recevoir une amende ou aller en prison ?", a-t-il ajouté.

La négation de l'Holocauste est considérée comme un délit dans certains pays européens, comme l'Allemagne, l'Autriche et la France. Le président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a déclaré qu'il s'agissait d'un "mythe" et il a affirmé que ce sujet devrait faire l'objet d'un débat.

Les organisateurs du concours, qui a soulevé un concert d'indignations en Occident, disent avoir reçu 1.193 dessins en provenance d'une soixantaine de pays.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Un jambon de Bayonne au premier qui me signale une ambassade iranienne detruite par une foule hysterique au son de "Mort a l'Iran" ou/et "Mort aux Infideles Musulmans"

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Les Arabes et leurs potes de France nous prennent pour des cons.


March from Châtelet to Opéra, Paris, France, 12 August 2006

Hezbollah Fighters

I chanced upon the sister demonstration in Paris. On Rue de Rivoli, posters
of the head of Hezbollah as well as Hugo Chávez were carried. At one point, one
of the chants the demonstrators yelled went "Hezbollah! Résistance! Hezbollah!
Résistance! Hezbollah! Résistance! Hezbollah! Résistance!"



Well...He Doesn't need to be introduced....

GOT MY POINT ?

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ACADEMY.....


Congratulations Asshole! They're talking about you on Fox News TV. You are now officially the biggest liar on earth. Keep up the good job

Sunday, August 13, 2006

TERRORIST AMONG US


Saturday August 12, 2006 A "Peace In Middle-East" Rally....(And nobody killed the bastard). Isn't America a great country ? Even Lady Liberty's worst ennemies are allowed to protest (or should I say to spit their hate) safely IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

PAS DE PARTI PRIS DANS LA PRESSE HEXAGONALE !!!

La "cyber-guerre" : des blogs entre dépit et colère
[Le Monde samedi 12 aout 2006]

Sergent dans l'armée israélienne, Andrei Brudner, 18 ans, a été tué au Liban. Dans son dernier billet, publié il y a deux semaines sur son blog, il prévenait ses lecteurs qu'il était envoyé au front : "Vous entendrez peut-être parler de moi dans les médias, ça ne durera pas longtemps, mais nous avons suffisamment de munitions pour que cela dure longtemps. Souhaitez-moi bonne chance."

Si plusieurs soldats-blogueurs américains sont déjà morts au combat, en Irak ou en Afghanistan, Andrei Brudner était le premier en ce qui concerne le conflit entre Israël et le Hezbollah. Par-delà les bombardements, la guerre se propage sur Internet. Des milliers de sites ont été "piratés" par les opposants à l'intervention de Tsahal qui, en retour, a elle-même effacé des sites pro-Hezbollah.

L'armée israélienne multiplie les actions de "cyber-guerre". Alors qu'elle cherche à brouiller l'accès à Internet au Liban, elle a aussi envoyé des SMS et des messages sur les répondeurs téléphoniques de nombreux Libanais afin de les inviter à quitter le sud du pays. Par trois fois, elle a réussi à pirater Al-Manar, la chaîne de télévision du Hezbollah, ainsi que plusieurs radios libanaises.

Le Liban n'est pas le seul pays visé par ce type de guerre psychologique. L'Union mondiale des étudiants juifs (WUJS) vient de lancer "Mégaphone", un logiciel qui permet d'alerter ceux qui soutiennent Israël sur des articles et sondages en ligne susceptibles d'influencer l'opinion publique et qu'il convient de rectifier.

Une bonne partie des blogs israéliens dénonce la couverture médiatique du conflit. Pour beaucoup, CNN serait ainsi un "communist news network" (chaîne communiste) à la solde du Hezbollah. Leurs cibles : les images, largement reprises dans les médias, des enfants morts à Cana, qui auraient été instrumentalisées par le Hezbollah,ou encore le fait que l'agence Reuters ait retouché - pour rajouter de la fumée - une photographie des bombardements de Beyrouth,ce que l'agence a reconnu.

ECHANGES POIGNANTS

Les blogueurs libanais, eux, reprennent un photomontage du New York Times montrant les images satellites, avant et après les bombardements, du quartier de Beyrouth, aujourd'hui ravagé, où se trouvait le QG du Hezbollah. Tous, bien évidemment, dénoncent l'action de Tsahal, les pertes civiles et les conséquences du blocus et de la destruction des infrastructures du Liban. Partagés entre la colère et le dépit, ils sont nombreux, à l'instar du Lebanese Political Journal, l'un des blogs libanais les plus consultés, à tenter d'expliquer l'histoire compliquée de leur pays à tous les internautes.

Son contributeur explique pourquoi, face à l'impuissance générale, le Hezbollah représente le seul espoir de nombreux Libanais. Il n'en fait pas moins partie de ceux qui dénoncent l'organisation chiite et croit à la paix avec Israël. Une position de plus en plus difficile à tenir*. Ami Ben-Basset, qui fait partie de ces blogueurs israéliens qui tentent de garder le fil avec les Libanais, rapporte ces propos d'un intellectuel de Beyrouth : "Si je critique le Hezbollah, je serai considéré comme un traître, mais si je critique Israël, je serai traité comme un sympathisant du terrorisme."

Poignants aussi ces échanges d'e-mails entre les rédacteurs en chef des éditions de Tel-Aviv et de Beyrouth du magazine culturel Time Out, rapporté par Lisa Goldmann, journaliste et blogueuse à Tel Aviv qui utilise Internet pour rester en relation avec les Libanais, qu'elle appelle "mes voisins". Ou ces dessins de Mazen Kerbaj, organisateur du festival de musique improvisée de Beyrouth, qui a ouvert son blog afin d'y dessiner la guerre, au jour le jour, comme l'avait fait sa mère, Laure Ghorayeb, au temps de la guerre civile au Liban. Mazen lui a aussi ouvert son propre blog : elle a recommencé à dessiner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Position de plus en plus difficile a tenir en effet en considerant que ces deux points de vue sont absolument antinomiques et ne peuvent coexister. Vous ne pouvez considerer comme ultime espoir une organisation politico-religieuse dont le but est l'aneantissement de l'etat d'Israel et esperer, dans le meme temps, une paix avec le pays cible des attaques de la sus-dite organisation. De surcroit, Le Hezbollah est responsable par ses agissements de la situation presente. Jouer les victimes et instrumentaliser les pertes pour agir psychologiquement sur une population occidentale toute petrie de culpabilite ne vous avancera plus a rien. Plus personne n'est dupe....Les "moderes musulmans", s'ils existent, ferment leur gueule parce qu'ils ont la trouille de se faire egorger. Le Liban, pris en otage par le Hezbollah, n'a d'autre choix que de collaborer ou subir. Il en va de meme pour "l'Oumma", prise en otage par les fondamentalistes...
Le jour est venu ou il faut choisir son camp. La politique du cul entre deux chaises ne peut qu'amener a la chute brutale. Le jour est venu ou il faut nommer les choses et envoyer se faire voir le politiquement correct. Nous assistons a une guerre de religion ou, devrais-je dire, a une guerre DES religions et a un choc des civilisations. Le plus fort survivra ! (Librenfin)

"Tout l'art de la guerre est basé sur la duperie"

"La guerre est père de tout, roi de tout, a désigné ceux-ci comme dieux, ceux-là comme hommes, ceux-ci comme esclaves, ceux-la comme libres."

"Le marchand :Et toi, mon cher, pourquoi pleures-tu, car je préfère causer avec toi ?

Héraclite : Je regarde toutes les choses humaines, ô étranger, comme tristes et lamentables, et rien qui n'y soit soumis au destin : voilà pourquoi je les prends en pitié, pourquoi je pleure. Le présent me semble bien peu de chose, l'avenir désolant : je vois l'embrasement et la ruine de l'univers : je gémis sur l'instabilité des choses ; tout y flotte comme dans un breuvage en mixture ; amalgame de plaisir et de peine, de science et d'ignorance, de grandeur et de petitesse : le haut et le bas s'y confondent et alternent dans le jeu du siècle."

Sunday, August 06, 2006

AL-REUTERYA PRIS LA MAIN DANS LE SAC

.....Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

...It's not just this one picture. It is the MSM's "outsourcing" of most foreign news coverage to low-paid, low-experience, low-credentials, foreign "local" stringers who almost certainly have a very strong personal interest in 1) juicing their stories and pictures to make sure they sell and 2) advancing a political goal of slandering Israel that most Muslims, sadly, seem to share....

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo


Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.' Reuters' head of PR says in response, 'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged .


The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.

In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software," she added.

Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image."

Johnson added: "Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it."

Speaking to Ynetnews, Johnson said: "This has to cast doubt not only on the photographer who did the alterations, but on Reuters' entire review process. If they could let such an obvious fake get through to publication, how many more faked or 'enhanced' photos have not been caught?"
A series of close ups are then posted on the blog, showing that "it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were 'enhanced.' There are also cloned buildings." The close ups do appear to show exact replicas of buildings appearing next to one another in the photograph.

The Sports Shooter web forum , used by professional photographers, also examined the photo, with many users concluding that the image has been doctored.

'Looks so obviously doctored'
"I'll second the cloned smoke...but it looks so obvious that I don't know how the photographer could have gotten away with it," wrote one user.

After further research, Johnson posted a photograph he says is the original image taken before distortions were made, showing much lighter smoke rising.
Other blogs have also analyzed the photographs, and reached similar conclusions, such as Left & Right , which states: "The photo has been doctored, quite badly."

The author of the Ace of Spades blog wrote: "Even I can see the very suspicious "clonings" of picture elements here. And I'm an idiot."

The Hot Air blog also looked at the photo, describing the image as "the worst Photoshop I have ever seen."

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.

"A photographer who would blatantly falsify an entire 'news' image would certainly not be above posing and staging photographs of rescue workers," Johnson concluded.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

LE HEZBOLLAH PREND LE MONDE ENTIER POUR DES CONS
(ou l'absence complete de decence des Islamistes au service de leur propagande)

Sur le blog du Lieutenant-Colonel Monnerat

Autopsie d'une mise en scène?

Alors que la presse traditionnelle a couvert le drame de Cana avec une absence remarquée de distance et de sens critique, plusieurs blogs ont rapidement étudié les images disponibles des décombres et des victimes. Cet article du Jerusalem Post résume leurs interrogations et leurs découvertes : comme le bilan révisé à la baisse de la Croix Rouge tend à le montrer, il existe désormais une forte présomption d'une mise en scène destinée à forcer le trait et à exploiter cet événement au maximum. Si pareille chose se confirme, cela montrerait une fois de plus l'intérêt d'une information participative en source ouverte, et rappellerait toute l'importance de la vérité dans la lutte pour les coeurs et les esprits. A vouloir surexploiter ou dissimuler, on finit en effet par perdre.

Affaire à suivre, par exemple ici...

COMPLEMENT (3.8 1845) : Sur le rôle des médias, je conseille la lecture de cet article du Jerusalem Post. Il fournit en effet des aperçus inquiétants sur le traitement des informations à la source, et notamment sur les influences qu'acceptent les reporters et dont le public n'est pas informé.

Extrait :
CNN "senior international correspondent" Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah's "press officer" and that Hizbullah has "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations."
When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program "Reliable Sources," Robertson acknowledged that Hizbullah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hizbullah "had control of the situation," Robertson said. "They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath."
[...]
Another journalist let the cat out of the bag last week. Writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, Time magazine contributor Christopher Allbritton, casually mentioned in the middle of a posting: "To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hizbullah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one."

Rien de bien nouveau sous le soleil, malheureusement.

Non, Mon Colonel, Rien de Nouveau!

“There’s always something burning with the jihadi members of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.” They’re going to riot and torch embassies whether it’s Qana or cartoons, and Israel’s going to be blamed no matter what, so why not ignore them and keep the heat on Hezbollah?
LES MUSULMANS NOUS PRENNENT POUR DES CONS !
(Pas de raison de se gener, les clowns europeens leur donnent raison)

Muslims press U.N. for truce in Lebanon

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - The Islamic world's largest organization of countries demanded on Thursday that the U.N. implement an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon and investigate what it called flagrant human rights violations by Israel.

Leaders of key countries in the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey, voiced strong support for the Lebanese people "in their legitimate and courageous resistance against the Israeli aggression."

"We demand that the United Nations' Security Council fulfill its responsibility ... by deciding on and enforcing an immediate and comprehensive cease-fire," the OIC said at an emergency summit.

The U.N. Human Rights Council should launch "a full investigation into these criminal acts perpetrated by Israel," which include the killing of civilians and destruction of homes in Lebanon, the declaration added.
"We hold Israel responsible for the loss of lives and suffering ... and demand that Israel compensate (Lebanon) and its people for the losses sustained resulting from Israeli aggression," the leaders said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel. He also called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate ceasefire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian television.


Malaysia, which chairs the OIC, rallied presidents, prime ministers and policy-makers of 17 Muslim-majority nations for one-day talks to articulate their opposition to Israel's attacks in Lebanese and Palestinian territories.
"This war must stop, or it will radicalize the Muslim world, even those of us who are moderate today," said Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who leads the world's most populous Muslim country. "From there, it will be just one step away to that ultimate nightmare: a clash of civilizations."

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said in a video statement to the conference that more than 900 Lebanese had been killed and 3,000 injured in more than three weeks of Israel-Hezbollah fighting. He said 1 million Lebanese had been displaced.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called for a U.N.-backed force to stabilize the Israeli-Lebanon border. Muslims "must show preparedness to contribute forces for peacekeeping operations under the United Nations banner," Abdullah told the conference.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said hostilities must be halted "before the spiraling violence engulfs the entire region and kills the hope for a durable and just peace in the Middle East."

Lebanon's Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said his country's "sole request is a comprehensive cease-fire."

"After that, there will be a large margin to tackle issues between Israel and Lebanon," Salloukh said.

Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas controlling southern Lebanon have been locked in fierce fighting for three weeks, resulting in hundreds of Lebanese civilian casualties.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

INSPIRATION

...Islamic extremists take advantage of weakness. It is part of the Arab culture from which their leadership and ideologies are derived. They only respect strength and courage, having no respect for anyone other than “the toughest kid on the block.” Jihadist’s view others’ readiness to make concessions, moderate positions, or bargain through a situation as weaknesses to be exploited. Any action by an opponent which does not clearly demonstrate resolve, strength, and power encourages them to exploit and attack that opponent. It’s a perfect living example of the old saying “You give an inch, they take a mile.”...

From The High Plain Patriot


Je ne peux pas penser, une seule seconde, que les journalistes qui travaillent pour les grands médias en France et en Europe ignorent tout du discours haineux et génocidaire des dirigeants du Hezbollah.

Je ne peux pas penser qu’ils ignorent que Al-Manar, la chaîne du Hezbollah, est le média le plus antisémite que le monde ait connu depuis la fin du Troisième Reich.

Je ne puis pas penser qu’ils ne savent pas que le Hezbollah est une organisation totalitaire qui endoctrine et soumet par la violence les populations civiles dans les zones qu’il contrôle. Je ne puis pas penser qu’ils ne savent rien du fait que les miliciens du Hezbollah utilisent les populations civiles du Sud Liban comme des boucliers humains, empêchent délibérément la fourniture de vivres à ces mêmes populations, de manière à disposer de victimes à exhiber devant des caméras.

Je ne puis pas penser qu’ils ignorent que des immeubles, tel celui qui vient d’être touché à Qana, sont des dépôts d’armes dans lesquels le Hezbollah place, de manière ignoble, des femmes et des enfants pour les sacrifier à des fins de propagande.

Je ne peux pas penser que ces mêmes journalistes ne savent rien ou presque de ce que subit en ce moment la population du nord d’Israël.

Je ne peux, dès lors, que me poser une question : pourquoi tant de mensonges et d’ignominies ? Je trouve peu d’explications. Je ne veux pas aller jusqu’à dire que l’antisémitisme, sous de nouveaux oripeaux, est de nouveau omniprésent en Europe, mais il m’arrive de penser que c’est le cas.

Bien sûr, vous répondront les intéressés, ils ne sont pas « antisémites », mais, poursuivront-ils, « regardez ce qu’ils font aux civils libanais ». Et si vous leur rétorquez que les Libanais sont victimes du Hezbollah, ils se transforment immédiatement en avocats du Hezbollah, en précisant qu’il « mène aussi des actions sociales » et que c'est un mouvement de « résistance ».

Certains concéderont, à la rigueur, que le Hezbollah doit être désarmé, mais ils ajouteront que cela doit se faire par la « négociation », voire, peut-être, par l’envoi d’une « force internationale », avec l’accord du « gouvernement libanais ».

Sachant qu’ils ne sont pas complètement idiots, je serais tenté de leur dire qu’Hitler, à sa manière, était très « social », et j’aurais envie de leur demander :

Résistance à quoi ? A l’existence d’Israël ?
Négociation avec qui ? Des fous furieux ?
Force internationale pour faire quoi ? Protéger le Hezbollah ?

J’ai eu, parfois, ce genre de discussion. Je les évite désormais. Je sais qu’il y a pire que des gens complètement idiots, à savoir : des gens qui font cyniquement les idiots, en pratiquant le tri sélectif des faits. Et je sais, hélas, que nombre de journalistes, en France et en Europe, font cyniquement les idiots et pratiquent le tri sélectif des faits. Je sais aussi, et c’est pour cela surtout que j’évite ce genre de discussion, qu’il y a davantage à l’œuvre : une forme de haine viscérale qui ne dit pas son nom.

Pour ces centaines de journalistes français et européens, Israël, désormais, est détestable par essence. Des réactions instinctives ont été incrustées dans leur cerveau et, quoi que fasse Israël, il a tort.

Des discussions s’engagent pour un processus de paix et s’interrompent ? C’est la faute d’Israël qui n’a pas fait assez de concessions dans la négociation.

Des ennemis d’Israël font des attentats terroristes ? Ils sont « désespérés » et utilisent « l’arme du faible ».

Israël riposte ? C’est le « cycle de la violence », qui va entraîner encore davantage de « désespoir ».

Israël n’a pas encore été accusé du récent épisode de canicule en France, mais, au train où vont les choses…

Cette haine, qui ne dit pas son nom, a des relents antisémites, incontestablement. Aucun Etat sur la face de la terre ne subit autant d’incriminations verbales et de calomnies qu’Israël. Aucun, sinon peut-être les Etats-Unis - qui ont, peu ou prou, autant d’ennemis haineux qu’Israël, mais sont la première puissance du monde.

Cette haine a aussi d’autres causes et, entre autres, une conception - totalement pervertie - de la repentance, dont implication est que quiconque semble faible et opprimé est digne d’éloge et de soutien. Or, aux yeux des Européens, les Arabes sont faibles et opprimés, en général, alors qu’Israël est « fort ».

A cela s'ajoute l’idée que le « rêve européen » est celui d’un monde dans lequel il n'y aurait aucun conflit qui ne puisse se régler par la diplomatie : un monde où personne ne veut le mal, où il n’y a pas de totalitaires, pas de méchants, et où, quand un « faible » ou un « opprimé » se montre agressif, c’est qu’il a raison et qu’on n’a pas fait assez d’efforts pour le « comprendre ».

Le fait qu’il y a plus de trois cent millions d’arabes, plus d’un milliard de musulmans et seulement six millions d’habitants en Israël, joue vraisemblablement un rôle aggravant. De même le fait que l’Europe soit toujours davantage une terre musulmane.

La peur du terrorisme entre en ligne de compte également : il n’y a rien à craindre si l’on crache sur des juifs ; par contre, critiquer des islamistes, c’est autre chose.

Adopter vis-à-vis d’Israël la position la plus communément adoptée dans le monde arabo-musulman fait sens, dans ce contexte, même si c’est très lâche.

On peut noter aussi un point rarement évoqué : l’islam radical - tel qu’il a cours tant dans la mouvance d'al-Qaida, que dans celle du Hezbollah, en passant par la nébuleuse Ahmadinejad -, n’est pas l’islam, mais un dogme politique dans lequel entrent bien des ingrédients empruntés aux idéologies totalitaires nées en Europe : national-socialisme, fascisme, communisme.

Il n’est pas étonnant que des intellectuels européens d’extrême droite débordent de mansuétude envers les islamistes - les uns et les autres lisent Mein Kampf.
Il n’est pas étonnant que des intellectuels d’extrême gauche débordent, eux aussi, de mansuétude envers les islamistes : en effet, on peut négliger le fait que les islamistes lisent Mein Kampf, lorsqu’on apprend qu’ils lisent aussi Lénine. Des journalistes pleins d’égard envers l’extrême gauche européenne peuvent voir, dans les islamistes, des lointains cousins de l’extrême gauche.

Quoi qu’il en soit, que les mensonges se répandent et soient pris pour argent comptant par les populations européennes, prouve qu’il existe, sur ce continent, une pathologie mentale collective préoccupante. Le fait que quasiment tous les dirigeants politiques européens, Chirac en tête, contribuent à cette pathologie mentale collective, est extrêmement inquiétant pour le futur de ce continent.

La guerre que doit mener Israël est âpre et douloureuse. Au plan international, Israël ne peut compter que sur le soutien des Etats-Unis de George Bush.

Israël est plus que jamais traité comme « le juif des Etats », selon l’expression d’Alan Dershowitz.

Quand bien même je serais seul à le dire encore en langue française, je le dis :

Le Hezbollah est un mouvement totalitaire et fanatique, aux buts génocidaires, dont l’objectif est tout à la fois de transformer le Liban en république islamique satellite de l’Iran des mollahs, et de détruire Israël, si possible en exterminant sa population.

Le Hezbollah ne peut avoir de place sur l’échiquier politique d’un pays démocratique. Israël ne peut vivre en ayant sur son flanc nord une armée de terroristes dont le but avoué est de détruire Israël. Toute issue autre que la destruction du Hezbollah serait, pour ce mouvement, une victoire aux conséquences très délétères pour l’avenir proche d’Israël.

Toutes les victimes civiles libanaises, y compris les femmes et les infortunés enfants de Qana, sont des victimes du Hezbollah et non de l’armée israélienne. Le fait de prendre des civils pour boucliers humains (fût-ce avec le consentement de ces civils) constitue un acte d’une cruauté et d’une lâcheté absolues, mais, hélas, logiques de la part de terroristes. Tout gouvernement occidental digne de ce nom devrait dénoncer les crimes du Hezbollah.

Ceux qui, dans la population libanaise, soutiennent le Hezbollah, subissent aujourd’hui les conséquences de leur choix et n’ont à s’en prendre qu’à eux-mêmes. Soutenir une organisation terroriste constitue un risque. On ne peut souhaiter l’extermination d’un peuple voisin et s’étonner, ou se lamenter quand ce peuple se défend. Le gouvernement libanais n’est pas innocent. Si des pays comme la France voulaient du bien au Liban, ils auraient dû, depuis longtemps, agir pour que ce pays soit une démocratie à part entière.

Les Libanais qui ne soutiennent pas le Hezbollah sont aujourd’hui ses otages, et ils le sont depuis longtemps, avec la complicité de pays, tel la France. Ils ont été abandonnés non pas face à l’armée israélienne, mais, bien avant, face à la prise d’otage opérée par le Hezbollah qui, comme toutes les prises d’otage devra connaître un dénouement. Le seul dénouement concevable est la punition ou la mort du preneur d’otage.

Demander un cessez-le-feu immédiat à Israël, comme le font le gouvernement français et l’Union Européenne équivaut à demander que la prise d’otage se prolonge, et à assurer une victoire au preneur d’otage, qui pourra ensuite repartir en quête de son double objectif. La France et l’Union Européenne se conduisent en complices de la prise d’otage et de la tentative d’assassinat d’Israël. C’est au Hezbollah qu’il faut demander non seulement un cessez-le-feu, mais une capitulation sans conditions. Et que nul n’évoque l’argument humanitaire pour demander un cessez-le-feu à Israël : c’est le Hezbollah qui, par sa prise d’otage et sa violence, crée un drame humanitaire, non seulement pour les Libanais mais - faut-il le rappeler ? - pour les Israéliens aussi.

Le Liban ne pourra vivre en paix que s’il est débarrassé de ceux qui, en son sein, rêvent d’exterminer un peuple voisin. Vouloir vivre en paix tout en ayant en son sein une forte minorité qui rêve d’exterminer un peuple voisin est impossible et contradictoire.
Israël ne pourra pas, à lui tout seul, parvenir à éradiquer le Hezbollah. Il y faudra non seulement le soutien des Etats-Unis, mais aussi celui des hommes et des femmes qui veulent que la liberté et la dignité de l’être humain soient préservées.

Si, comme on peut le craindre, Israël ne peut ou ne veut aller jusqu’au bout de son action, si l’ONU, organisation corrompue et d’un antisémitisme avéré, se voit confier le dossier et la mise en place d’une force « d’interposition » de type Finul, ce sera une victoire pour le Hezbollah et une défaite pour les valeurs de liberté et de dignité de l’être humain. Ce sera aussi, dans ce contexte, une défaite pour ceux qui souhaitent un Liban libre. Israël devrait alors s’attendre à des jours amers.

La victoire du Hezbollah serait aussi une victoire pour la dictature syrienne et pour la république islamique d’Iran, dont les dirigeants ne pourraient que se sentir encouragés dans leur course à l’armement nucléaire, vers la déstabilisation de l’Irak et de la région, et vers la destruction d’Israël.

Alors même que leurs populations débordent de haine envers Israël, elles aussi, les pays arabes sunnites de la région ne veulent pas d’une victoire du Hezbollah, et c’est un atout qu’il ne faut pas négliger.

Les dirigeants européens, en général, et les français en particulier, qui croiraient, dans ces conditions, que donner une victoire au Hezbollah leur gagnerait les bonnes grâces du monde arabe se trompent lourdement et gravement. Les dirigeants qui, comme Chirac et Douste Blazy, disent que c’est pour éviter un « choc de civilisations » qu’ils font tout pour sauver le Hezbollah - contribuant ainsi à la destruction d’Israël -, sont des irresponsables dangereux : le Hezbollah, le régime des mollahs, Al-Qaida, la famille Assad, ne représentent ni la civilisation arabe, ni, au delà, une quelconque civilisation musulmane, mais sont la caricature hideuse et monstrueuse de l’idée même de civilisation. Le monde arabe et, plus largement, le monde musulman ont besoin d’être délivrés de cette caricature multiforme. Préserver la caricature et dire qu’elle incarne une civilisation fait courir un danger mortel non seulement à Israël, mais aussi à l’Europe.

L’un des enjeux décisifs auxquels l’Europe doit faire face est l’intégration de ses populations musulmanes. Apaiser ou conforter la caricature ne peut qu’inciter les musulmans européens à se reconnaître non dans les valeurs de liberté et de dignité humaine, mais dans les valeurs de Ben Laden et de Nasrallah. Peut-être Chirac et Douste-Blazy souhaitent-ils que tout le Proche-Orient devienne une « république islamique », dont divers pays d’Europe, et parmi eux la France, seraient les provinces. Peut-être souhaitent-ils que, dans vingt ans, la France ressemble au Liban aujourd’hui pris en otage : dans ce cas, qu’ils aient l’honnêteté de le dire. Sont-ils capables d’un instant d’honnêteté ? Rien qu’un instant ? J’en doute.

J’ai laissé ici de côté la « question palestinienne ». Délibérément. Les producteurs de mensonge sur les opérations israéliennes contre le Hezbollah ont acquis leur art du mensonge en couvrant le « conflit israélo-palestinien ».

Nous sommes engagés dans une guerre mondiale qui oppose l’islam radical, totalitaire et génocidaire à la civilisation. Les tenants de l’islam radical, totalitaire et génocidaire font la guerre aux pays qui leur résistent : Israël et les Etats-Unis surtout, mais ils agissent aussi ailleurs, de l’Argentine au Royaume-Uni, de la Turquie à l’Indonésie, ou à l’Arabie saoudite. Ils ont des compagnons de route et des complices : journalistes européens, politiciens français, Nations Unies, gauchistes américains. Ils mènent la guerre sur tous les fronts, du front militaire au front médiatique.

S’ils parviennent à l’emporter, Israël disparaîtra.

Ce que je puis encore aimer dans l’Europe et la France viciées d’aujourd’hui disparaîtra.

La cause palestinienne, qui a toujours eu pour objectif une seconde shoah, l’aura emporté.

Il y aura un monde islamique, chaotique, pauvre, violent et dangereux, qui s’étendra de l’Océan Indien jusqu’à Brest, peut-être jusqu’à Londres.

Il restera un monde civilisé qui inclura les Etats-Unis et diverses contrées d’Asie, mais pas l’Europe. Dans ce monde islamique, chaotique et pauvre, on pourra dire que la « cause palestinienne » n’aura été qu’un outil pour parvenir à la victoire en détruisant Israël, en détachant des millions de musulmans des valeurs de l’Occident, et en prenant en otage, non les Libanais, mais les arabes de Cisjordanie et de Gaza, quitte à les sacrifier, au passage, pour « la cause ».

L’idée que des Occidentaux aient pu croire, un instant, que l’objectif était un Etat palestinien, libre et prospère et vivant aux côtés d’Israël, fera beaucoup rire ceux que fait rire, dès aujourd’hui, la mise à mort d’autres humains, femmes et enfants compris.

Si, comme je le souhaite, les tenants de l’islam radical, totalitaire et génocidaire finissent par être vaincus, Israël vivra ; l’Europe décadente d’aujourd’hui connaîtra peut-être un second souffle ; les Etats-Unis resteront le cœur du monde civilisé, mais il n’y aura pas, en face, un monde en proie à la barbarie. Au Proche-Orient, il y aura non seulement Israël, mais un Liban sans Hezbollah, où les gens penseront à prospérer plutôt qu’à faire la guerre ; une Jordanie, un Irak, une Egypte et une Arabie saoudite prospères ; un Iran sans mollahs, ni Ahmadinejad, où l’art de vivre persan, que j’ai pu connaître avant Khomeiny, aura retrouvé sa place ; un Irak démocratique sans attentats ; une Syrie sans parti Baath. Les arabes de Cisjordanie et de Gaza feront des affaires, construiront des entreprises, des casinos, des stations balnéaires. Ils vivront fraternellement et parleront business avec Israël. Et lorsqu’on y parlera encore de l’OLP, d’Arafat et du Hamas, ce sera comme de monstruosités archaïques, dont il est heureux qu’on se soit débarrassé.

Ceux qui veulent haïr, mentir, tuer, devront se trouver d’autres chevaux de bataille. Je ne doute pas qu’ils en trouveront. Mon objectif, aujourd’hui, mon seul objectif, est qu’ils ne gagnent pas la bataille aux côtés des terroristes du Hezbollah.


J’ai choisi le métier de penseur et d’analyste pour contribuer à ce qu’il y ait plus de connaissance, moins d’obscurantisme, moins d’oppression dans ce monde. Je préférerais ne plus exercer du tout ce métier que de l’exercer en devenant un faussaire. Si je n’avais plus le choix, je deviendrais cireur de chaussures, chauffeur de taxi, ou je ne sais quoi d’autre.

Une prostituée se vend au plus offrant et elle l’avoue sans barguigner.

Elle vend son corps, le temps de la passe, mais elle ne vend pas son âme.

Elle est payée pour mentir, mais elle sait qu’elle ment et son client aussi.

Ses activités apportent du plaisir et non des désirs de meurtres ou des pensées racistes.

C’est pourquoi, à mes yeux, elle fait un métier plus digne et plus respectable que celui qu'exercent la plupart des journalistes des grands médias français et européens d’aujourd’hui.


© Guy Millière et upjf.org