To get rid of the terrorist hives you have to go after the “queen-bees”

November 17, 2015

It was, I think, Lee Kwan Yew who first described Islamic terrorists and terrorism with his analogy of bee hives. He advised that terrorism could only be addressed if you went after the preachers (“the queen-bees”).

“In killing terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees. The queen bees are the preachers, who teach a deviant form of Islam in schools and Islamic centers, who capture and twist the minds of the young.” – Lee Kwan Yew, 2003 interview with Fareed Zakaria

I think the hive analogy is sound but I would put it a little differently. In an Islamic terrorist organisation, I equate the preachers with the queen-bee, the central command and the suicide bombers and kamikaze attackers with drones, and all the remaining support staff as the worker bees. The Paris attackers were drones and expected to suicide. Their support (safe-houses, chauffeurs, comfort women and the like) are the worker bees and expendable. The sick, infected queen-bee is somewhere in Syria.

Most Muslims are not terrorists. But far too many are. And they are all inspired by their own queen-bees each with its own infected version of Islam. Of course there are non-Muslim terrorists as well. In today’s world however, the majority of groups using indiscriminate terror tactics are Muslim.

Why deny the reality? Why then the leap to judgement – and it surely is based on something other than reason – to reach the conclusion that the religion of Islam should not be held responsible for the “perverted terrorists” that the religion inspires? I hear some arguing that what drives ISIS is not “true” Islam. Or that Islam is actually a “religion of peace”. There is a rush to absolve the religion and to decouple the behaviour of terrorists from their religion. This may be politically correct but it is quite irrational. The religion does generate and allow the queen-bees who provide the driving Cause. Without Islam (no matter how perverted a view or practice of Islam), there is no ISIS. And there wouldn’t be so many other such groups (al Qaida, Boko Haram, al Shabab, LeT …). I conclude that there is something fundamental and inherent in the practice of Islam which inspires, allows and glorifies terrorist behaviour by some of its practitioners . “Terrorist Islam” is as much a part of Islam today as “Militant Christianity” was of Christendom almost a thousand years ago.

All terrorists have a Cause which tips them over the edge. Breivik had his and it was a “white supremacist cause”. The IRA had their own Cause also rooted in religion. For those Muslims (mainly Sunni) who are terrorists, it is their “perverted” view of Islam which provides the Cause which is the key motivator. That “perverted” view of Islam is actually part of the reality of the Islam of today. It is that which is promoted by an army of imams and preachers in mosques and teachers in madrassas who cherry-pick sections of the Koran to underpin their adoption of jihad and their virulent world-view. These are the queen-bees. It would seem that Islam contains within itself a convenient framework, and the Koran provides suitable, appropriate and authoritative “scriptures”, which can then readily be exploited by the “queen-bees” to inspire the terrorist groups. A very great many of these “queen-bees” are Sunnis and a large number of their mosques and madrassas are funded from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. On the ground, Islam is proving to be particularly effective in generating queen-bees and providing the terrorists with a Cause.

The writings of  the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) are all just fairy stories, made up a long time ago. Their literal content is anachronistic and almost irrelevant. They can all be – and are – interpreted in a variety of ways by the queen-bees of the day. It is the interpretation of those stories today and the behaviour engendered now which is relevant. Most Muslims interpret the Koran and their religion to shun gratuitous violence. But a not insignificant number of Muslims, interpret the Koran in a “perverted” way and practice their own jihadist brand of Islam. And they do so because they can, and – more importantly – because Islam allows them to. A religion does not live in some Divine Vacuum. It is not some abstract thing which can be divorced from its current interpretations, practices and practitioners. The Christian religion which inspired the Crusades and the barbarisms of the Church Militant is now out-of-date. But is obsolete only because it is no longer practiced. The ahimsa (non-violence) principles of a romanticised Hinduism of the past (which never really existed) is not relevant when faced with the reality of the current violent practices of some Hindu fanatics. The VHP and the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha provide the Hindu queen-bees. The much vaunted non-violence of Buddhism is of no comfort when faced with rabid, rampaging Buddhist monks in Burma or Sri Lanka. These mad monks are an integral part of what Buddhism is today. The religion of Islam cannot just – by assertion – claim to be a religion of peace and ignore the reality that so many of its preachers and teachers promote terrorism. It is the religion itself which allows space for their interpretations which, in turn, give rise to the perversions (just as the Bible was, and is, perverted by some). The religion of Islam as manifested in its current practice and by its practitioners must bear its share of responsibility for the behaviour of the perverted few.

The suicide bombers and gunmen and beheaders are essentially drones – but deadly drones. Killing a drone does not get rid of the queen-bee or the hive and a further supply of idiot drones. A terrorist is not born a terrorist. No doubt genes have a say. Upbringing plays a large part but the availability of a queen-bee and a Cause is the final – and necessary – straw. Some would argue that a terrorist will always find a Cause to serve, but behaviour does not work that way. There may be some cases of psychopaths looking for any Cause to serve Generally, however, Causes look for or create their drones, not the other way around. A member of ISIS born of Muslim parents, but who was brought up instead, say as a Buddhist, or who was not polluted by some rabid imam or his proxy, would not today be beheading infidels. The potential terrorist will never finally become a terrorist without being attached to a queen-bee and indoctrinated by a Cause. That Cause has to be sufficiently strong to generate, and be manifested as, a vicious hate of something or somebody, if it is to finally tip behaviour into terrorist actions. Which is why I don’t buy the argument that just poverty or unemployment provide a Cause. They may contribute, but by themselves, don’t usually generate the level of hate required. Of course, it is not only a religion and its infected queen-bees which provide a Cause for terrorists. Politics and race can also provide the level of hate required. Every religion has had its share of queen-bees who inspire, or have inspired, its fanatic drones by providing them with a Cause directed against non-believers. In today’s world, Sunni Islam and its queen-bees inspire more terrorist groups and terrorists than any other religion. “Militant Christianity” encouraged and promoted by Christian queen-bees, was an integral part of the Christianity in the time of the Crusades. In our time, it serves no purpose to try and divorce “moderate Islam” from the queen-bees who promote the practices of “terrorist Islam”. The religion of Islam – at any time – consists of its practitioners of that time. One cannot separate Islam, as if it lived in some elevated place above the fray, from the terrorist behaviour it has inspired in so many of its adherents (Sunni and Shia).

All through history one or other of the organised religions has inspired terrorism. But it has always required rabid preachers – the queen-bees – to inspire the simple-minded drones. In today’s world that religion is Islam and the majority of the terrorist groups active are Sunni.

The simple reality is that Islam today – in some fundamental way – generates more queen-bees and inspires more terrorists with a Cause, than any other current religion or political movement. And to get rid of the terrorist hives you have to go after the queen-bees. Without the queen-bees the idiot, murderous drones and the unthinking, slave-like workers would be directionless. 

Paris climate conference to be subdued after G20 summit skips over contentious issues

November 17, 2015

The G20 summit in Turkey was completely dominated by the issue of combating ISIS terrorism and never got around to discussing the contentious climate conference issues separating the developing from the developed countries. In fact they got stuck on whether the goal of keeping to less than 2ºC warming by the end of the century should be referred to or not. India and Saudi Arabia opposed the motion but eventually gave way. There was little time to discuss much more and the critical issues of financing the “good fight” and whether even developing countries should make larger emissions cuts were hardly addressed.

ClimateChangeNews reports:

Campaigners looking to this weekend’s G20 leaders meeting in Antalya, Turkey, for progress on the climate agenda have been left disappointed.

In a statement on Monday, the group of major economies reiterated their commitment to a 2C limit on global warming and to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.

There was little sign of convergence on contentious issues ahead of December’s UN climate summit in Paris: how to ramp up ambition, share responsibility between rich and poor, and get finance flowing. 

India and Saudi Arabia reportedly objected to a review mechanism that would require countries to regularly update their climate plans. The EU is pushing for five-yearly reviews, a proposal recently endorsed by China.

“The only thing G20 leaders had to say on climate was ‘see you at the climate summit’,” said Oxfam’s Steve Price-Thomas.

The Climate conference starts on November 30th in Paris and after the terrorist killings is likely to dispense with much of the circus and side-meetings that normally accompany these jamborees. The French Prime Minister confirmed that things would be subdued

A series of events linked to a UN climate summit in Paris in two weeks will be cancelled over security fears, Manuel Valls told local radio on Monday morning.

The conference will be “reduced to the negotiation” with “concerts and festive events” likely to be called off in the wake of the country’s worst ever terrorist attack, the country’s prime minister told RTL. 

Valls did not specify whether that included a mass demonstration planned by activists on the eve of the summit on 29 November.

Despite the attack, no country or head of state had asked France to postpone the summit, he added.

More than 100 world leaders are due to open the COP21 negotiations on Monday 30 November, at Le Bourget airport on the outskirts of the city.

Organisers are expecting over 40,000 delegates a a day at the critical conference, where a global warming pact is to be finalised.

In parallel, several civil society and business groups had planned side events around Paris.

In my opinion the COP21 Climate conference is rather pointless and misguided. China and India have already got what they want in terms of freedom to use fossil fuels virtually without restriction. The world would be better off with the whole event being cancelled, not that there was – or is – any chance of that happening.

Rapprochement

November 15, 2015

They were not talking about Ukraine.

Rapprochement

Putin-Obama Rapprochement 15th Nov 2015 (photo AP)

There is something primal and hopeful in seeing these two actually getting their heads together. Whether it will be to any purpose remains to be demonstrated.

The UK’s new fifth-column: Labour party would not strike ISIS in Syria – even if it had been London rather than Paris

November 15, 2015

With the new, Jeremy Corbyn led, Labour Party, the UK needs no external enemies. An indigenous fifth-column. A few days ago Jeremy Corbyn felt that Jihadi John should not have been killed but arrested to face a court of law. He also declared that he would never use nuclear weapons in any circumstances. Now his Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, has also demonstrated his own fifth-column credentials in an interview with The Independent.

(It should be borne in mind that The Independent is far from independent and is essentially a socialist propaganda sheet, and its reports must be appropriately discounted. Hilary Benn has no particular claims to fame except that Tony Benn was his father and he is a friend of Jeremy Corbyn. He tries to be further to the left than his father to get out from under his shadow. So his pronouncements are even more extreme than Tony Benn’s but he is not half as likeable. He is not much liked by the farming community either since, by not permitting badger culls, he bears some responsibility for the spread of bovine TB in the UK).

The Independent:

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an “act of war” – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response. 

He said that the idea of British action against Isis in Syria should be put to one side until the country’s civil war had been brought to an end.

Mr Benn, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said that the Government should drop plans for a new House of Commons vote authorising military attacks in Syria to concentrate on peace talks and providing humanitarian support for refugees.

His intervention dramatically undermines David Cameron’s hopes of joining the United States-led action against Isis in its Syrian heartland. The Prime Minister, who insisted the French fight against IS was also Britain’s, has maintained he will not ask MPs to authorise RAF bombing raids in Syria until a “political consensus” has been reached. 

It can only be concluded that even if it had been London that had been attacked by ISIS rather than Paris, Benn, Corbyn and the Labour party would be advocating a softly-softly approach and entertaining negotiations with ISIS. There is, no doubt, a little bit of a reaction to Blair’s war-mongering in Iraq in all this, but the naivety of Corbyn and Benn is astounding.

ISIS must feel that it must be the will of Allah that they have the unwitting support of the dupes in the new Labour Party and especially in its child-like, simple-minded leadership.

I like this cartoon from Schrank which I think captures my image of Corbyn.

  • Left – no matter what.
  • No nuclear – no matter what.
  • No bombing ISIS – no matter what.
  • No spending cuts – no matter what.
  • No austerity – no matter what.
  • No Queen – no matter what.

Left – no matter what  — from schrankartoons.com

 

G20 meets in Turkey today – but will Saudi and Turkish (and EU) support for ISIS be confronted?

November 15, 2015

The agenda of the G20 meeting starting in Turkey today will be dominated by Paris – and so it should.

The G20 is made up of 19 countries and the EU: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the European Union.

129 people died in Paris on Friday night and another 90 are still in critical condition. At least two of the terrorists had posed as refugees passing through Turkey and Greece just about a month ago. One more has now been identified as a known, 29 year old, “radicalised” French citizen.

The G20 is intended primarily as an economic forum, but Paris and Syria and ISIS can be expected to dominate. But I am not sure that any discussions about ISIS will be open enough or sufficiently meaningful in addressing root causes. To do that the agenda would have to include,

  1. the tacit support for ISIS from Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and
  2. the funding and growth of ISIS caused by the EU and US support of anti-Assad  rebels, and
  3. the misguided “multiculturalism” in the EU which – among other things – allows Saudi funded, radicalising mosques and madrassas all across Europe, and
  4. the EU “soft” policies which have now probably allowed at least hundreds of terrorists to be sneaked into Europe as “refugees”.

Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey are members of the G20, but their support for ISIS, not officially perhaps, but indirectly and by inaction and by default, will not, I think, be confronted directly. Turkey is a Nato member and is “protected” from criticism of its excesses. Criticism of Saudi Arabia is always muted from those countries dependent on oil imports or defence exports.

A great deal of ISIS financing is from private Saudi sources but surely not without the knowledge of the Saudi authorities. The official Saudi support is ostensibly for groups of Sunni rebels who are opposed to Assad and who are also said to be opposed – sometimes very mildly – to ISIS. Moreover some of these groups are no more than conduits to ISIS and al Qaida. Saudi Arabia’s primary aim seems to be to support anti-Shia groups and opposition to ISIS is only secondary. If ISIS was the only Sunni group available to oppose the Shia forces then Saudi Arabia would make sure they were supported.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Sunni Gulf States, all want the Shia to be wiped off the face of the Earth and if that means supporting the murderous psychopaths of ISIS – well, the end justifies the means.

In the case of Turkey, it is also an overwhelming desire to prevent any Kurdish state which rules their actions. Turkish hatred of a Kurdistan is on a par with the Saudi hatred of the Shia. They are also against terrorism, provided that the Kurds are first defined as terrorists. And ISIS, as an enemy of their Kurdish enemies, is often their friend. Turkey sees Kurdish successes in Northern Iraq and parts of Syria as ominous and are quite happy to bomb Kurds in or close to Turkey, even if it helps ISIS to gain territory.

Greater Kurdistan dreams map from Jon Davis via Quora

Greater Kurdistan dreams map from Jon Davis via Quora

Turkey will not take actions against ISIS if there is any chance that Kurds may gain an advantage.

I don’t expect the G20 meeting to get more than empty statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Obama will order a few more air strikes. The EU is now a dithering and fractured entity. In fact the EU is now part of the problem and European countries (France, UK, Germany …) will need to act independently to oppose and attack the growth of ISIS. The G20 meeting in Antalya will get no commitments

  1. from Turkey to attack ISIS even if it helps the Kurds, or
  2. from Saudi Arabia to shut off all private funding for ISIS, or
  3. even to withdraw official Saudi support from Sunni groups who “leak” funds to ISIS, or
  4. from the EU to stop the funding from the Middle East of radicalising mosques and madrassas in Europe, or
  5. from the EU to winnow out the terrorists and criminals from among the influx of “refugees”

Sunni Muslims across the world need to pay more than lip-service to opposing the barbarism of ISIS. The Shia are already opposed to all things Sunni. But far too many Sunnis – by inaction – allow their own fanatics to prosper. They allow their fanatic imams to continue preaching their brand of hatred. They turn a blind eye to their radicalised sons and daughters. They too harbour dreams of the establishment of a new Islamic (Sunni, of course) Caliphate and have secret sympathies for the objectives of those “fighting” or murdering for this dream.

I am afraid that Sunnis anywhere (and for me that means all over Europe and the Middle East, Africa and even India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia) who do not declare themselves – by word and action – to be against the Islamic Caliphate must be taken to be supporters of, and sympathisers with, ISIS.

Mayhem in Paris – and I wonder which Muslims are celebrating?

November 14, 2015

The mayhem in Paris is not over yet. So far 40 dead are reported and 100 have been taken hostage.

So tell me again that the religion of Islam and its high priests bear no responsibility.

Or that any peaceful side of Islam has not been obliterated by its barbaric manifestations.

Or that this is probably the barbarism of just a few Sunni fanatics and should not tarnish all Muslims.

Or that there are not Madrassa-brainwashed Muslim youths across Europe who are not secretly celebrating.

Or that no money from Saudi Arabia was involved either in the brainwashing or in the barbarism.

Or that it is not misguided multiculturalism which has provided the space for their isolation and their radicalisation.

And I wonder how many hundreds if not thousands of killers have been sneaked into Europe among the – no doubt – real refugees and asylum seekers?

Someday humans societies will grow up and all organised religions and their brainwashing of children will be obsolete. But not for a very, very long time.

High jinks for Modi in London

November 13, 2015

At least it allows him to forget (temporarily) the debacle in Bihar.

Best buds: David Cameron,narendra Modi and Boris Johnson – photo AP via Daily Mail

I don’t suppose he would have given his RSS salute while in London (which in terms of comic value always reminds me of Peter Ustinov in Romanoff and Juliet).

Modi RSS salute

Modi RSS salute

Even though the RSS salute is ludicrous enough it must be said, in his defence, that I do not recall that he has ever been photographed in khaki shorts and bearing his danda.

Is the Scottish Nationalist Party inherently racist?

November 13, 2015

The natural corollary for any “nationalist” party is a discrimination against “non-nationals”. In fact it is very difficult to be a “nationalist” without also being xenophobic. In many countries in Europe the nationalist parties are very often also anti-immigrant and inherently racist to varying degrees. Nationalist, racist parties are usually on the far-right and often have a Nazi or a neo-Nazi past

Ruth Wodak …… divided these parties into four groups: “parties [that] gain support via an ambivalent relationship with fascist and Nazi pasts” (e.g., in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and France), parties that “focus primarily on a perceived threat from Islam” (e.g., in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland), parties that “restrict their propaganda to a perceived threat to their national identities from ethnic minorities” (e.g., in Hungary, Greece, Italy, and the United Kingdom) and parties that “endorse a fundamentalist Christian conservative-reactionary agenda” (e.g., in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria)

Occasionally the nationalists come from the far-left as with Syriza in Greece or the far-left parties in Portugal. The Scottish Nationalist Party is about as far left as you can get without being just another Communist Party. But it is now becoming clear that the SNP also has a nucleus of not only xenophobic but also anti-semitic views. In the latest instance the party and the party leader have had to apologise abjectly for one of their member’s “grotesque” anti-semitic views.

Daily MailA Scottish Nationalist MSP was at the centre of a race-hate storm last night after sharing an anti-Semitic image online which was compared to the ‘very worst of Nazi propaganda’. Sandra White made a humiliating apology to a Jewish group which condemned the ‘bizarre and hateful’ image she circulated to her thousands of followers on social media website Twitter.

But campaigners said that she should be disciplined for ‘retweeting’ the disturbing cartoon. A petition, which had 500 supporters last night, was launched by campaigners calling on the Glasgow Kelvin MSP to quit. ………. As the row intensified last night, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon apologised to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (ScoJec) for the ‘abhorrent’ post, which Mrs White insisted she had accidentally retweeted.

That this is not an isolated incident is apparent from the recent headlines:

Abstinence for Diwali

November 10, 2015

It’s Diwali tomorrow (Deepavali in the South today).

Abstinence is hard but a Shubh Diwali to one and all.

Not everything is sweet, but what isn’t sweet is fried!!

All that I have to abstain from 

Diwali abstinence

Diwali abstinence image from facebook

Paris conference – in the best case – cannot achieve more than 0.17ºC impact on climate

November 10, 2015

Bjorn Lomborg has a new survey paper out in Global Policy

Impact of Current Climate Proposals, Bjorn Lomborg, Global Policy, Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015, DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

Lomborg’s survey and calculations only reinforce my view that the coming Paris climate conference is almost completely irrelevant to climate. So called climate policy is fundamentally flawed since the climate effect of the actions emanating from the policies cannot be measured, predicted or monitored.

Paris is essentially about wealth redistribution and that too based on ineffective tools. In fact, the primary tool, which is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, is not even known for certain to be a tool. Lomborg shows that assuming that climate models are correct in their assumptions of the impact of CO2 (which they are not), and assuming that all promises are binding (which they will not be), and assuming that all countries live up to their “promises” (which they won’t), then by 2100 the impact on climate could, at worst be 0.048ºC, and at best, be all of 0.17ºC.

Abstract

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

….

Conclusions

Based on climate model simulations, the emission cuts that have been proposed by the US, the EU, China and the RoW will reduce temperature increases by the end of the century, but almost all of the expected warming will still take place by 2100.

Because the climate policy impacts from individual countries are almost additive, they can be almost perfectly partitioned as is evidenced in Table 1. This shows that in the optimistic case, the EU and China each reduce mean global temperature by 2100 of about 0.05°C, and the US and the RoW each reducing a bit more than 0.03°C.

Table 1. Impact of climate policies, optimistic and pessimistic, for RCP8.5, using MAGICC, summary of finds described throughout the text
Change in temperature
°C year 2100 Pessimistic Optimistic
US INDC 0.008 0.031
US CPP 0.004 0.013
EU INDC 0.017 0.053
EU 2020 0.007 0.026
China INDC 0.014 0.048
RoW INDC 0.009 0.036
Global INDCs 0.048 0.170

As Wigley (1998) found for the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions reductions promised until 2030 will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. This clearly indicates that if we want to reduce climate impacts significantly, we will have to find better ways than the ones currently proposed.

There will be much spin after Paris. Whether agreement is reached or not, and whether promises made are binding or not, it will surely be spun to seem to be a resounding success.

But it will all be, in the most optimistic case, for achieving all of a 0.17ºC impact on climate. And based on climate models which don’t work. And on unnecessary and pointless actions for a 100 years, which will achieve nothing of their objectives, but which will make life more difficult, especially for the energy-poor.