Time Immortal

Islamist blogger (and Pickering, Ontario nuclear power plant worker) Shaukat Khawja — also known as Rehmat, owner/operator of the Rehmatpedia blog — has had some very…interesting things to say in the past, but I’ve a feeling that this latest offering of his (put not on his blog but in the IslamUnity.net forums) might just take the cake. If nothing else, it at least confirms a suspicion that I’ve had about the guy for a while: underneath any pretense he might have established about being committed to peace and mercy (the name “Rehmat”, if memory serves, means “mercy” or “kind”), he’s just your typical anti-Jewish bigot.

Choice samples from his latest include:

Jew elites always played a major part in great wars and reactionary movements. They’re known for tricking the both parties in a conflict. For example, Jews funded most of Crusades against Muslims and Jews; Jew sided on both sides of American Civil War; they were behind French Revolution and Communist Revolution in Russia – and they declared war on Nazi Germany, while 150,000 German Jews were serving Nazi Army and some Zionist terrorist groups were having honeymoon with Hitler and Mussolini regimes.

Jew elites, eh? You mean, like this?

Okay, Photoshoppery aside, Shaukat is here saying more or less the same thing that got Mel Gibson into trouble a couple years back: “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world”. Now, to be fair, I’m sure that Jews probably did fight in e.g. the American Civil War, and then on both sides. But that is because such conflicts transcend religious considerations — neither the Civil War, nor the French or Russian revolutions or World War II were about religion, and did not have any real religious significance. Even the Crusades were more about politics and territory than they were about religion. And in such conflicts, people of the same religious stripe might well end up on opposite sides of the field of battle.

Case in point: there currently Muslims serving with e.g. NATO forces in Afghanistan, and who do battle with the Muslims in the Taliban.

Shaukat claims that he doesn’t need to prove this — or any other — statement made in the list of his that I have linked to, and yet the claim made above is hardly sufficiently self-evident to be able to stand on its own. Where is the evidence of Jewish funding of e.g. the Crusades against their own people?

Nazis never killed six million Jews. It’s 20th century’s biggest hoax – which has only flourished under government protection in several western countries.

Nazis are known for killing several million of Gypsies, Christians and Jews under their rule – but the largest victims were Gypsies. Even Auschwitz museum in Poland now have reduced the figure of Jewish killed by Nazis as 2.5 million.

Ah, Holocaust denial — pretty much a staple of Islamic discourse, unfortunately.

The problem with it is: the Nazis themselves were reasonably good book-keepers; we know from their own documentation that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered in various ways in the 1930s and 1940s. The figure of 2.5 million Jews that Shaukat gives is reflective of the number of Jews killed in Poland alone. And again, many of these deaths were documented and/or witnessed; the figures are not baseless.

Holocaust denial is ostensibly a punishable offence in Canada (not something I agree with, but that’s another matter). Strangely, however, I very much doubt that Shaukat is going to be charged with anything over this utterance.

September 11, 2001 attack on WTC and Pentagon was an inside terrorist job – conceived by Israeli Mossad, CIA and pro-Israel politicians and government officials.

Ah, the World Trade Center conspiracy. Another canard, and again a common staple of Islamic discourse.

There’s other stuff, some of it laugh-out-loud wrong, but these are some of the highlights. I think there’s room for one more, and that’s good…because of all the things Shaukat has asserted about Jews in his latest post, here’s my personal favourite:

Jews have the most powerful Jewish Lobby (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) in the US - which works for the interests of Zionist Israel instead of the US.

Here I had thought that the Hindu Jewish lobby was the most powerful. It appears, O Reader, that I have been grossly misinformed about the size thereof.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Why does it not surprise me that the Liberal Party’s latest “plan for Afghanistan” fails to address the key issue facing that country? Stephane Dion’s latest brain flash is, apparently, that Canada should continue to provide aid to the Afghan people, but should stop taking any role in “rooting out” the Taliban.

Key details of the proposal are as follows:

• Fix the Canadian combat end date at February 2009.
• Extend the military mission by two years for training and security duties.
• Allow any military operation except “search and destroy” missions against the Taliban.
• Give NATO immediate notice that Canadian troops will withdraw in 2011.
• The Liberal plan would also spell out proposals for development and diplomacy.

Now, to be fair, most of these things that Dion and his party are proposing are good things, things which would benefit Afghanistan. But they will only benefit Afghanistan if Canada takes an active role not only in them, but in continuing military operations against the Taliban, whose primary goal is to destabilize the fledgling Afghan government.

The proposal is, in summation, both cowardly and disgraceful, and mocks the sacrifices that Canadian men and women have already made in trying to help get Afghanistan on its feet. Canada has taken a lead role — a pace-setting role — in hunting down the Taliban insurgents that have been trying to overturn all that has been established in Afghanistan; for us to abandon that now in favour of the vague pursuit of “security” not only makes no sense, but insults what we’ve had to pay, in lives and in blood, to bring the Afghan people as far along as we have.

Steve Janke spells out some practical considerations:

According to Stephane Dion, the right strategic move is to have soldiers supply security to NGOs and local workers building schools in Afghanistan.

For the Taliban, education is a symbol of all they oppose. Ignorance is what they want, so schools are a likely target.

Without Canadian troops aggressively moving through the countryside, the Taliban can quickly move in close to towns and cities.

When does security cross the line into combat?

Do the Canadians enforce a quarantine zone around the towns? But then isn’t that what they’re doing now, just on a larger scale, throughout the entire province of Kandahar?

Does such a “security” cordon stay only as long as there is a reconstruction project underway? Once the school is built, do the soldiers leave?

Then what happens? The Taliban stroll in, torch the school, murder anyone who helped the reconstruction teams, and stroll out?

So maybe the Canadians continue to provide security after the reconstruction team leaves. But what if the Canadian troops learn of Taliban force massing for a raid? Remember that in all this time, Canadian commanders have probably established some level of trust with the locals, who in turn are providing intelligence to our forces.

Do we engage in “proactive” security? Do we send a force to engage the Taliban? But that’s combat and that’s no longer allowed? Does this mean that Canadian troops will maintain static positions while the Taliban finishing collecting a force together? Does that mean the Taliban will be allowed to pick the time and place and manner of the attack, knowing that the Canadians are not allowed to fire the first shot?

That can’t be right, but then what does “no combat” mean? Does it mean the Canadians leave at the first hint that they’ve been outflanked, which is when the first Taliban is spotted peaking over the nearby ridge?

But that doesn’t make sense either. What sort of security is that?

Fortunately, I can’t see this plan getting implemented, but that doesn’t mean I’m not staggered by it; are the Liberals really so out of touch with the realities “on the ground” in Afghanistan that they think that Canadian troops can just withdraw from an active combat role, and that said withdrawal will have no negative effects on the stability of the Afghan government and the safety of the Afghan people?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government accepts the main recommendations in the Manley report, including the demand that NATO provide more assistance in the Afghan south as a pre-condition for extending Canada’s mission there.

“I have spoken with Mr. Manley and advised him that our government broadly accepts the recommendations put forward by the panel on Canada’s future in Afghanistan,” Harper said at a news conference in Ottawa.

The prime minister said he also agrees with the specific conditions set out by the five-member independent panel that should be met in order to extend the mission beyond February 2009.

The report, produced by a panel headed by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley, said Canada should only extend its mission if it can convince its allies to commit at least 1,000 more troops and if the Canadian military receives helicopters and surveillance drones.

“In other words, while the case for the Afghan mission is clearly compelling, the decision to allow our young men and women in uniform to continue to be in harm’s way demands the responsibility to give them a strong chance of success,” Harper said.

“Both of the recommendations will have to be fulfilled or Canada will not proceed with the mission in Afghanistan.”

Personally, I don’t think Canada should be discussing whether or not it should proceed with the mission past February 2009 unless the only points being considered in making that decision are readiness of the government, police, and military of Afghanistan to “go it alone”. I think that whether or not Canada’s NATO allies are willing to contribute troops is irrelevant to whether or not Canada maintains its military presence in, and military assistance to, Afghanistan.

That’s just me, of course. But Canada did make a commitment to the government and people of Afghanistan, not to the willingness of our NATO allies to participate in the fate of same. And if the rest of NATO can’t be counted upon, that’s no reason for Canada to back out of a promise it has made. We should stay in Afghanistan until the military, police, and government there can handle their own affairs and deal with the Taliban effectively without our assistance. To leave before that point would be to plunge the region back into instability and, quite possibly, the thuggery of a renewed Taliban rule (at least in parts of the country).

For suggesting that NATO forces should intervene in Pakistan, the leader of Canada’s is taking a lot of flak. Rightly so, given that his statements were not only hypocritical (given his advocacy for a Canadian military withdrawal from Afghanistan), but also highly offensive (from a diplomatic standpoint).

“He has managed to, in one breath, demonstrate his complete ignorance and poor judgment about the most important foreign policy issue for Canada, while at the same time insulting a critical ally in the war on terror,” said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.

Mamoona Amjed, press attache to the Pakistan High Commission in Ottawa, also issued a sharply worded statement, saying Dion’s comments show a lack of understanding of on-the-ground realities, and insisted no foreign troops would be allowed to operate in the country under any circumstances.

It also said Pakistan is an equal partner in the fight against terrorism and is doing all it can to counter insurgent activity on its soil. “The price paid by Pakistan being a frontline state cannot be undermined by certain irrational comments,” it concluded.

Dion said he was “very, very surprised” by the way his comments were reported.

He insisted that all he was saying is that NATO countries should apply diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to have its military deal more forcefully with Afghan insurgents who take advantage of the porous border between the two countries to evade NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if Stephane Dion does not know the difference between “NATO forces” (his words, not mine) and a diplomatic mission, he’s even less qualified to be a leader than he has ever seemed to be.

NATO is a military alliance, not a diplomatic entity. That’s basic knowledge for a Social Studies student in high school. It should be basic knowledge for any man (or woman!) who wants to become Prime Minister of Canada, as well as for any man or woman who leads a national-level political party in Canada. When someone talks of sending “NATO forces” into a region, he or she is not talking about diplomatic envoys; he or she is talking about troops and tanks, airplanes and (if applicable) warships.

It speaks, I think, volumes about just how unfit for his leadership role Stephane Dion truly is that he made these comments in the first place, and that he is now attempting to backpedal by hiding behind the lie that he was talking about diplomacy. Does he suppose we’re all gullible morons? Or does he genuinely have such a poor understanding of international politics and treaties that he doesn’t know what NATO is?

Using NATO forces, if necessary. This from the man who wants Canada to withdraw from its commitment in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Don’t get it? Neither do I.

Any attempt to counter terrorists war-torn Afghanistan will not succeed without an intervention in neighbouring Pakistan, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn’t move to track terrorists.

“We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan,” said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. “As long as we don’t solve the problem in Pakistan, I don’t see how we can solve it in Afghanistan.”

The Liberal leader explained that Afghan officials told him they know where the extremist strongholds are in Pakistan. But he said the Afghans don’t take action.

“One day, we are going to have to act because our soldiers are cleaning out some areas, but in fact very often they are only clean in principle. The insurgents go take refuge in Pakistan and they are going to come back (to Afghanistan) at the earliest opportunity. This could last very long if we don’t tackle the problems that often originate from Pakistan,” Mr. Dion said.

Now, to be fair, I don’t disagree with him. I too think that the only proper response to the spread of Islamic terror cells is to take the battle to them, and hunt them down wherever they are to be found; they aren’t going to go away by any other means than the application of overwhelming force.

But what I don’t get is why Dion is being so bloody inconsistent. This is a man who has repeatedly questioned Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan, and who has repeatedly called for Canadian troops to be brought home in the near future, despite the fact that the Afghan people likely need our help for a bit longer than the time between now and February 2009.

And now he wants “NATO forces” to intervene in Pakistan?

It doesn’t add up.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Canwest News Service Dion’s comments were off base.

“Mr. Dion can’t be serious to suggest NATO “intervene,” in another country while simultaneously saying Canada should abandon its United Nations-mandated NATO mission in Afghanistan,” he said in an e-mail.

“He has to explain to Canadians why he wants an “intervention” but wants to turn his back on Afghanistan, which has asked and continues to ask for Canada’s help. It’s inane.”

Steve Janke feels that this is another ‘gaffe’ by Dion, one which can only hurt the , and indeed for Canada’s left wing parties in general:

When Stephane Dion messes up on a comment on taxes, people notice, and are concerned.

When Stephane Dion messes up on a comment on Afghanistan, especially musing about some dramatic increase in the scope of mission, people notice, and go far beyond concerned. People like me just laugh out loud, but people like those who express sentiments like the ones quoted above are alarmed. And furious. And strangely satisfied.

They are satisfied that Stephane Dion is just playing them. That despite his Green talk — whatever worries these true believers had that the Liberals could draw votes from the NDP are allayed. In a debate, all they have to do is remind people on the fence that Stephane Dion thinks military action in Pakistan is a good thing.

As long as Stephane Dion is allowed to speak without a carefully scripted set of comments to guide him, Canada’s centre left will never be united.

As it is, he is just the leader of the opposition, so his comments have little impact beyond Canadian borders, and no impact at all on Canadian policy. But his comments do have an impact on the perceptions of those Canadians who might be tempted to “lend their votes” to Stephane Dion.

I doubt anyone seriously believes Stephane Dion would have the guts to back a move into Pakistan, even if there was a single person in the Western alliance who thought it was a good idea. He would blanche and mewl about competing priorities.

What does Stephane Dion believe? Seriously? Unscripted he says Canada ought to support an intervention in Pakistan. The next day Liberals started saying the opposite. Unscripted he says he’d consider raising the GST. The next day Liberals started saying the opposite.

But cleaning up the Pakistan mess means going back and reinvesting time and effort to fool NDP supporters that the Liberals are a suitable stand-in for the NDP. Stephane Dion has just made that a lot harder to do, the second time around.

Personally, I think Dion’s just a crappy leader who is trying, and failing, to please everyone — he’s simultaneously trying to be hawkish and a peacenik, a big-government type who’s a fan of increased taxes and a friend of the little guy who wants to cut Joe Taxpayer a bit of a break here and there. I do agree with Angry, though, that his flip-flopping on issues can only hurt him, and can only serve to divide the Canadian left.

Which is why I don’t actually mind that Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada at present.