Algerie: Un avenir très sombre, peu importe le prochain leader

Peu importe qui sera au pouvoir, des réformes très douloureuses seront notre pain quotidien dans le future le plus proche. Ceci n’est pas une spéculation, mais une vérité et une réalité amère.

“Shale oil production in the US is still in its early stages, and its full potential remains uncertain, but development is happening at a faster pace than shale gas. Preliminary estimates for 2020 range from 5-15 million barrels per day with a production breakeven price as low as $44-68 per barrel depending upon the fields. By the 2020, the US could emerge as a major energy exporter.” The Global Trends 2030 page 35-36

Je ne suis pas un alarmiste d’habitude, mais les alarmes en Algerie doivent être données.

Selon les perspectives économique de 2012 du FMI, l’Algérie doit avoir le coût du baril de pétrole entre $100 à $120 pour pouvoir équilibrer et balancer les dépenses fiscales et budgétaires–c.a.d: pas de deficit et ni de dette publique. En 2011, l’Algérie a enregistré le 2ème plus gros déficit budgétaire des pays producteurs de pétrole au Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord avec un deficit égale à 3,6% du PIB–c.a.d: 6.8 milliards de dollars. En 2012, elle a enregistré une dette publique relative au PIB de 8,80%–c.a.d: 16.62 milliards de dollars–avec une croissance économique relativement faible de 2.6%. Il faut noter, au passage, que la croissance économique en Algérie est très largement dépendante des exportations du pétrole et du gaz naturel.

L’Algérie se dirige vers une crise budgétaire d’une magnitude et d’une gravité dont le peuple n’ai jamais vu pareille. Le pétrole, le gaz naturel et les produits pétroliers représentent 97% des exportations de l’Algérie. Les hydrocarbures ont longtemps été l’épine dorsale de l’économie Algérienne, et en 2012, le pétrole et le gaz naturel représentaient environ 60% des recettes budgétaires et 44% du PIB. Si l’Algérie ne diversifierait pas son économie d’une manière très brutale et rapide dans les 10 à 15 prochaines années, le pays se dirigera littéralement vers des troubles sociaux gigantesques et le collapse total du système politque.

Pouquoi?

C’est tres simple: Les USA commencent déjà a diminuer drastiquement leur importations de gaz naturel (les USA seront totalement indépendant en gaz naturel en 2020), et pour ce qui est du pétrole, ils seront independent des importations, et même exportateurs entre l’an 2025-30. Quand les USA entreront le marché du gaz naturel comme exportateur en 2020 (et par la suite, le marché du pétrole en 2035), les prix de ces 2 produits vont chuter et d’une maniere drastique. Non seulement le plus grand consommateur de pétrole au monde n’est plus un importateur de pétrole et de gaz naturel, mais il les exporte en plus. Cela représentera un choc énorme dans les marchés du gaz naturel et du pétrol. Certains économistes ont estimé un swing de $45 à $55 dans le prix du baril. Ceci veut dire une baisse drastique du PIB, une croissance économique negative, autrement dit une recession, et une baisse d’environs 40% des recettes budgétaires . C’est une catastrophe pour le pays. L’heure du réveil est ici pour l’Algérie parce qu’il ne reste plus beaucoup de temps.

A tout casser, l’Algeria a une fenêtre d’opportunité de 10 à 15 annees au plus pour agir durant laquelle il faut mettre en place des réformes sérieuses et radicales au système économique entier, et il faut commencer dès maintenant. Si de sérieuses réformes ne sont pas engagées dans les 10-15 prochaines annees, l’avenir pour  l’Algérie sera d’une laideur absolu.

L’Algérie doit réformer radicalement son système bancaire. Elle doit totalement restructurer son système fiscal (perception de l’impôt, collection d’impôt et sa redistribution). Tous les programmes de prestations sociales doivent être totalement revus (retraire, santé, couverture sociale, prestations familiales, le coût du travail, prestation de chomage, logement social, les prestations de Moudjahideene, de fils de Chouhada, et des veuves de Moudjahideenes etc). Certains de ces programmes de prestations sociales doivent complètement être éliminés, d’autres pourraient être renforcés. Il faut éliminer toutes les subventions dans presque tous les secteurs à l’exception des programmes d’éducation, et de santé des enfants, et certains produits de base. Il faut réduire le budget de la défense, fermer et consolider des bases militaires, réduire l’effectif de l’armée, arrêter complètement tous les nouveaux contracts d’armement. Et surtout, il faut ouvrir le marché Algerien et abandonner la règle des 51% parce que le gouvernement Algerien sera forcé de l’abandonner un jour contre son gré; alors il faut le faire dès maintenant quand le gouvernement et l’Etat sont encore en contrôle de leurs actions.

Depuis 1962, l’Algérie s’est efforcée  sans aucun succès a développer des industries hors-hydrocarbures en raison de la réglementation lourde étatique, d’une bureaucratie lourde et archaïque, et en raison de l’accent mis sur la croissance mené par l’État. Les efforts du gouvernement ont fait peu pour réduire les taux élevés du chômage chronique des jeunes ou à remédier à la pénurie de logements. Une vague de protestations économiques en Février et Mars 2011 a incité le gouvernement Algérien à offrir plus de 23 milliards de dollars de subventions publiques, des augmentations de salaires rétroactives, et d’autres avantages sociaux. Malgré cela, les mouvements sociaux continuent de peser sur les finances publiques, et sur l’environnement politique qui est devenu explosive ces derniers temps. Les défis économiques à long terme sont plus qu’essentiels, ils sont obligatoires, et doivent comprendre comme partie integrale la diversification de l’économie au détriment de sa dépendance aux exportations d’hydrocarbures, le renforcement du secteur privé, l’attration des investissements étrangers, et la création des emplois adéquats pour les jeunes Algériens. Cette diversification de l’économie ne se fera pas sans les réformes susmentionnées.

Cela va être douloureux; c’est une thérapie de choc; un choc au système économique qui a été moriband depuis plus d’un demi-siècle. Mais hélas ce choc doit être fait et donné autrement la douleur sera insupportable quand l’Algérie n’aura plus aucun contrôle sur ses politiques économiques et sociales, et surtout aucun contrôle sur son destin. Sans cette douleur, qui doit être partagée équitablement par tous les Algériens, le désordre social et l’anarchie seront le pain quotidien du pays. .

Et peu importe qui sera au pouvoir, il ne fera pas de miracles. Peu importe qui sera au pouvoir, il sera obligé de réformer. Peu importe qui sera au pouvoir, il sera obligé d’infliger de la douleur à une population entière et de faire des choix très impopulaires. Aucun dictateur ne peut engager ces réformes douloureuses sans causer un mécontentement populaire, et même un soulèvement. Les dirigeants actuels du pays, la classe actuelle de nos politiciens, n’ont aucune crédibilité auprès du peuple, et sont  profondément doutés et haïs par le peuple Algérien. C’est pour cela que celui qui sera à la tête du pays dans un très proche avenir doit jouir d’un large mandat populaire. Ce futur président doit avoir le plein appui, le soutien, et la confiance du peuple Algérien. Aucun dirigeant autoritaire peut avoir cela; aucun dirigeant de l’Algérie d’aujourd’hui, de l’Algérie de Bouteflika et des généreux Toukif et Tartag, n’a ce soutien et cette confiance. Seules de véritables réformes démocratiques, avec des élections propres, ouvertes et transparentes donneraient au pays ce leader et cette classe politique qui meneront le combat des réformes structurelles et institutionnelles.

D’ailleurs, je conseille vivement à ce prochain president de prononcer ce passage légendaire de Churchill lors de son premier au discours a nation–ce passage d’une sérénité grave et sérieuse que Churchill a prononcer devant la Chambre des Communes le 13 mai 1940, juste avant l’invasion Nazie et la grande et héroïque Bataille de l’Angleterre.

“Nous sommes dans la phase préliminaire de l’une des plus grandes batailles de l’histoire….nous devons être préparés.

Je voudrais dire à la Chambre comme j’ai dit à ceux qui ont adhéré à ce gouvernement: je n’ai rien à offrir que du sang, du labeur, des larmes et de la sueur. Nous avons devant nous une épreuve des plus graves et des plus sérieuses. Nous avons devant nous beaucoup, beaucoup de longs mois de lutte et de souffrance.”

Du sang, du labeur, des larmes, de la sueur, et de la souffrance, c’est exactement ce que le futur président Algerien doit promettre au peuple algérien. Tout autre promesse sera un mensonge.

Algérie: Bouteflika mort-vivant et Poker menteur autour du cadavre Algérie

Another beautifully written editorial by Mohamed Benchicou.

Poker menteur autour du cadavre Algérie

Par: Mohamed Benchicou

Samedi, 18 mai 2013

Tous les décideurs le savent ; quelques-uns seulement ont le courage de le dire : avec ou sans Bouteflika, le prochain pouvoir aura pour mission presque impossible d’éviter la mort au pays. Avec peu de moyens. Nous n’aurons plus jamais les faramineuses recettes pétrolières dont a bénéficié le régime de Bouteflika.

L’arrivée de ce dernier au pouvoir avait coïncidé avec l’augmentation de la demande chinoise qui avait fait s’envoler les prix du pétrole en quelques années. Aujourd’hui, nous vivons le scénario inverse. L’exploitation du pétrole non conventionnel en Amérique du Nord va créer dans les cinq prochaines années une augmentation de l’offre qui va faire effondrer le prix du baril. Autrement dit, avec ou sans Bouteflika, le prochain régime se débrouillerait avec un pétrole à moitié prix, moins abondant, et des besoins en hausse ! La tragédie nous arrive en effet, droit sur la gueule ! Le pétrole, les réserves financières en milliards de dollars, c’est fini ! Oui, fini. Les projections les plus optimistes donnent l’Algérie pour importatrice nette de pétrole dès 2020.

Au cours des trois mandats du « pouvoir civil » de Bouteflika, il a été gaspillé l’argent du présent et celui du futur. Les hydrocarbures ont été si outrageusement pompés qu’il ne devrait plus rien rester dans le sous-sol d’ici quelques années, date à laquelle nous serions 40 millions d’Algériens, tous, théoriquement, voués à la précarité puisque Bouteflika aura épuisé les réserves pétrolières sans doter la maison Algérie d’une économie diversifiée  pouvant prendre la relève du pétrole et du gaz naturel. En l’espace de cinq ans seulement, la production algérienne de pétrole est passée de 1,6 à 2 millions de barils par jour, soit un bond de 25% ou le double de la moyenne d’augmentation de la production Opep durant la même période.

Les recettes ? Sans s’étaler sur la partie supposée avoir été dérobée par la kleptocratie au pouvoir, elle a surtout engraissé la mafia de l’import via les importations qui ont explosé  entre le premier et le troisième mandat de Bouteflika, passant de 9 milliards de dollars en 1999 à 49 milliards en 2012. Aucun investissement sérieux n’a été engagé dans la production pour doter le pays d’une économie viable qui prenne le relais des hydrocarbures.

Oui, l’Algérie de Bouteflika rappelle la Russie de Boris Eltsine, toutes proportions gardées, une nation chancelante, otage de prédateurs de toutes sortes qui se sont engouffrés au sein de cette faille providentielle pour vider l’Algérie de son sang. Ce fut à leur seul profit  qu’on a  surproduit le pétrole. Aujourd’hui, il est bien tard… L’Algérie redevient pauvre ! Pauvre et sans solution de rechange : quatorze ans après Bouteflika, le pays n’est plus en mesure de répondre à la demande d’emplois, ni peut-être même à la demande alimentaire.

Les observateurs les plus conscients pensent même que le pire est à envisager. Après 14 années de règne, Bouteflika a mis l’État à la merci de sa population. La fronde des chômeurs peut aller dans n’importe quelle direction, y compris la plus pessimiste,  Bouteflika  ayant abandonné l’investissement productif, comment lutter contre le chômage ?

Mais cela, cette vérité primordiale, celle-là qu’il faut dire non pour abattre, non pour accabler ni pour décourager, mais pour mobiliser, pour réfléchir, cette vérité qui réveille, personne ne veut la communiquer, je veux dire personne parmi ceux qui ont la responsabilité de la dire. Ou alors, quand une bouche plus courageuse que d’autres la formule, elle est immédiatement contredite par les virtuoses du poker menteur. Quand le PDG de Sonatrach, Abdelhamid Zerguine, qui sait de quoi il parle, reconnaît que les gisements de pétrole sont en “déclin” et les réserves sont “modestes”, il est immédiatement contredit pas son ministre de tutelle, Youcef Yousfi, pour qui l’Algérie continuera à produire du pétrole et des hydrocarbures en général pendant « de longues années encore ». Et lorsque le ministre des Finances, Karim Djoudi, laisse entendre qu’il n’y a plus d’argent en caisse, que les salaires comme les pensions ne seront plus augmentés, il est aussitôt recadré par le chef du gouvernement, Abdelmalek Sellal, qui jure ses grands dieux que tout va à merveille dans ce territoire coupé du monde qui s’appelle l’Algérie.

Nos dirigeants fabulateurs, pour qui l’art de gouverner se réduit à clamer les fausses bonnes nouvelles et à taire les vraies mauvaises nouvelles, entendent démentir la formule d’Abraham Lincoln : «  Aucun homme n’a assez de mémoire pour réussir dans le mensonge ».  En foi de quoi, ils entreprennent hardiment de duper l’opinion sur l’état de santé d’un président dont ils nous apprennent aujourd’hui qu’il est en convalescence prolongée après nous avoir annoncé, il y a trois semaines, qu’il était entré à l’hôpital militaire du Val-de-Grâce pour de simples examens complémentaires.  Le léger accident vasculaire se termine ainsi par une lourde vacance du pouvoir mais c’est tout cela, n’est-ce-pas, le charme du poker menteur auquel se livrent, avec tant de zèle et si peu de classe, nos dirigeants depuis cinquante ans.

Le jeu consiste à faire passer les vessies du bunker pour d’heureuses lanternes, c’est-à-dire produire un bobard, sinon crédible, du moins vraisemblable, quelque chose qui ait  l’allure du « mensonge le plus détestable » qu’André Gide définit comme étant « celui qui se rapproche le plus de la vérité », quitte à susciter chez l’opinion une réplique par un autre mensonge, le « mensonge fructueux»  dont Sacha Guitry dit qu’il « consiste à faire croire à quelqu’un qui vous ment qu’on le croit ».

L’équation est alors très simple : reconduire Bouteflika, comme le souhaite la mafia, en supposant qu’il garde ses facultés naturelles, revient à reconduire le pouvoir le plus irresponsable qu’ait connu l’Algérie en 50 ans afin qu’il parachève sa besogne de destruction. Ce serait alors un choix suicidaire, consciemment fait pour en finir avec notre pays.

Le général Lebed disait de Boris Eltsine qu’il était, par nature, un destructeur. « Il ne comprend la politique qu’en brisant et en déstabilisant l’environnement. Cela est une qualité en période de transition, mais il est temps aujourd’hui de construire. Boris Eltsine, lui, n’est pas un bâtisseur. »

Alors oui, reconduire Bouteflika, comme le souhaite la mafia, c’est en terminer avec l’Algérie. Quelle alternative reste-t-il ? Une seule, confirmée par l’histoire récente, dans tous les pays qui ont vécu une situation similaire : un gouvernement de salut national. Pour cela, il faut le vouloir.

Algérie: L’élection Présidentielle et Les Amuseurs de la République

This is a very beautifully written editorial by Mohamed Benchicou. It’s a must read.

Les Amuseurs de la République

Par: Mohamed Benchicou

vendredi, 03 mai 2013

Comme tous les quatre ans, à pareille époque préélectorale, ils déferlent, en rangs serrés, avec un nouveau spectacle dans les valises, comme s’ils répondaient à l’appel d’un devoir national du simulacre, bousculant à la fois les règles de l’actualité et celles du théâtre burlesque. Le gang des Amuseurs de la République est à l’œuvre !

Leur nouvelle création de 2013, provisoirement intitulée « Le président peut-il encore gouverner ? », originale et désopilante, basée sur l’allusif, un nouveau style baladin qui consiste à contourner la triste réalité nationale pour s’attarder sur l’ailleurs, raconte les tribulations du chef de l’État d’une île mystérieuse, une contrée fantasmagorique dont je suis incapable de vous dire le nom. À croire certains spécialistes versés dans le monde du burlesque, il s’agirait de Fantasyland, un pays magique de Disneyland, où les contes de fées et les histoires qui ont inspiré les films d’animation de Disney prennent vie, comme par magie. Cela expliquerait, sans doute, le fait que le nouveau spectacle, « Le président peut-il encore gouverner ? », vient d’être enrichi de plusieurs déclinaisons tout aussi drôles les unes que les autres, comme « Le quatrième mandat, c’est fini ! », un gag qui a rencontré un succès foudroyant, « La succession est ouverte », avec Benflis en guest-star, ou « Saïd Bouteflika limogé », une fiction loufoque montée avec adresse et dans laquelle des observateurs avertis ont cru reconnaître à la fois la main d’un célèbre manipulateur et un plagiat de Discoveryland, monde de Disney où les prédictions des grands visionnaires prennent vie.

Le débat autour de la fameuse contrée dont parlent nos opposants et nos journalistes est toujours en cours, mais une chose semble cependant certaine : il ne s’agit pas de l’Algérie. La lecture de l’éditorial d’un des membres les plus influents des Amuseurs, ne laisse, à ce propos, aucun doute. Le respectable analyste décrit, en effet, une province étrange mais démocratique, où la succession du président se réaliserait dans « le respect de la souveraineté du peuple, sans contrainte, et dans la transparence », détails qui excluent, de facto, l’hypothèse Algérie. La chose relève d’ailleurs du bon sens : la maladie d’un chef d’État n’étant handicapante qu’en démocratie, système où l’opinion garde le droit de regard sur la gouvernance, la question « Le président peut-il encore gouverner ? » devient, du coup, parfaitement inadaptée à l’Algérie. Chez nous, Dieu merci, pareille complication nous est épargnée, les citoyens que nous sommes n’étant consultés ni sur l’état de santé du chef de l’État, ni sur sa désignation ni encore moins sur sa reconduction. En retour, ce dernier régnerait sans rien nous devoir. C’est tout le privilège de ce que les Russes appellent les vybori bez vybora (élections sans choix), privilège qui s’ajoute, pour des autocraties comme l’Algérie, à celui d’être parfaitement gouvernables à partir d’un lit d’hôpital. La prouesse paraît d’autant plus à la portée de notre chef de l’État que notre cher pays, où le Conseil des ministres ne se réunit jamais, est unanimement reconnu comme l’unique de la planète à fonctionner sous le mode du pilotage automatique, personne n’y gouvernant et, conformément aux vybori bez vybora, personne n’y étant gouverné.

Tout ça pour dire que l’interrogation « Le président peut-il encore gouverner ? », en plus d’être parfaitement incongrue pour un pays où la sagesse autocratique l’emporte sur la véhémence démocratique, pose incontestablement un problème inédit : dans quelle catégorie classer les chimères généreusement imaginées par une si brillante équipe d’analystes et de brillants politologues, dont le seul mérite aura été de nous apprendre que  la grande famille du pouvoir illégitime pouvait, finalement, être aussi drôle que les Simpson ? Dans le théâtre, on avait inventé la comédie, le vaudeville, la bouffonnerie, la parodie, le burlesque, le sketch, le pastiche, la satire, la clownerie, l’arlequinade, la facétie… Aucun de ces styles ne paraît, cependant, correspondre au grotesque de la situation. Ah ! Peut-être dans la pantalonnade, qui n’est pas ce que vous pensez, mais dans le théâtre italien, une posture comique assez drôle dans laquelle excellait le pantalon, qui n’est pas non plus ce que vous pensez, mais un personnage du théâtre vénitien qui porte traditionnellement cette sorte de culotte et qui a laissé son nom pour désigner un homme sans dignité et sans consistance !

Depuis on a cependant su que « pantalonnade » veut dire, en même temps que ce que vous pensez, subterfuge grotesque pour sortir d’embarras. Rappelons-nous : la théorie du « président malade et démissionnaire » avait déjà permis, en 2005, d’avorter les grosses contestations autour des effets catastrophiques de la fameuse Charte pour la paix. Val-de-Grâce avait étouffé le scandale politique. Le régime s’est servi de nouveau, en 2006, de la théorie du « président malade et démissionnaire », pour briser le débat houleux qui commençait à s’installer autour du projet d’amendement de la Constitution. À quoi bon débattre, se disait-on, d’un projet mort-né, compromis par la santé défaillante du président ? Dans les deux cas, le régime a obtenu, par l’esbroufe, un répit salutaire qu’il a su habilement exploiter. Aujourd’hui, en 2013, Bouteflika substitue le débat autour de la corruption de Chakib Khelil, c’est-à-dire la corruption imputable à sa famille politique, par un débat sur l’AVC et ses conséquences sur la gouvernance. Val de Grâce II continue le boulot diversion de Val de Grâce I ! Comme en 2004, le régime utilise la presse minaudière et l’opposition maniérée pour reconduire, « légalement » et dans le cadre du « pluralisme », le président Bouteflika à la tête du pays ! Encore une fois, un des subterfuges par lesquels s’éternisent les autocraties dans nos pays, aura magnifiquement fonctionné. Ainsi, pendant que d’éminents esprits nous rebattent la thèse du « président malade et démissionnaire », que dit et que fait le principal intéressé ? Il affirme à qui veut l’entendre : « Grâce à Dieu, je me porte très bien » ; il prépare la population à l’émotion du « retour au pays » ; il multiplie les flagorneries en direction de l’opinion publique ; il n’oublie pas de « remercier » la presse qu’il gratifie d’une journée spéciale le 22 octobre… Tout cela débouche sur une information capitale : la décision de postuler pour un quatrième mandat est déjà prise !

Alors, je crois bien que, faute d’antécédents dans le genre théâtral, l’on soit obligé de rapprocher la manœuvre complice à laquelle se prêtent une partie de notre presse et de notre opposition, d’une pantalonnade tout à fait remarquable d’adresse et d’inventivité et dont on rirait volontiers si elle n’était un discours de diversion qui finit par laisser au régime l’initiative politique. Nous avons juste oublié que le diable, devant les nigauds, entreprend toujours  de jouer au nigaud. Tout autocrate compte sur la bêtise humaine pour enfourcher le monde et l’étrangler de ses sangles. Il suffit de laisser croire. Gouverner c’est faire croire a dit Machiavel. C’est cela, le but de la politique, pour Machiavel, ce n’est pas la morale mais la réussite : obtenir et conserver le pouvoir !

Finissons par un clin d’œil à la journée du 3 mai pour évoquer le « papier » si précieux pour un journaliste et dire que toute cette histoire ressemble, en effet, à celle du papier plié en quatre qu’on découvre au détour d’une ruelle, que l’on ramasse avec une curiosité difficilement contenue, que l’on  fourre dans la poche avec cupidité,  que l’on ouvre, enfin, avec angoisse pour découvrir que la trouvaille, au final, n’était qu’un prospectus de vente au rabais… Il sera alors l’heure pour l’île mystérieuse de fermer ses portes. Rendez-vous dans quatre ans pour une autre séance de fantasmagorie. Entre-temps, nous aurons au moins appris que la politique n’est pas un jeu, mais un art de la dissimulation au nom de l’efficacité. Et l’efficacité, ici, consistait, tout simplement, tout bêtement, serai-je tenté de dire, à s’assurer de sa propre succession en 2014 !

 

Islam: Terrorism, Islam, and other religions

Courtesy of our dear friend Juan Cole

Terrorism and the other Religions

Posted on 04/23/2013 by Juan Cole

Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.

As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.

I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.

Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)

Belgium– yes, the Belgium of strawberry beer and quaint Gravensteen castle– conquered the Congo and is estimated to have killed off half of its inhabitants over time, some 8 million people at least.

Or, between 1916-1930 Tsarist Russian and then Soviet forces — facing the revolt of Central Asians trying to throw off Christian (and then Marxist), European rule — Russian forces killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. That is horrible, but no one, whether in Russia or in Europe or in North America has the slightest idea that Central Asians were mass-murdered during WW I and before and after, and looted of much of their wealth. Russia when it brutally conquered and ruled the Caucasus and Central Asia was an Eastern Orthodox, Christian empire (and seems to be reemerging as one!).

Then, between half a million and a million Algerians died in that country’s war of independence from France, 1954-1962, at a time when the population was only 11 million!

I could go on and on. Everywhere you dig in European colonialism in Afro-Asia, there are bodies. Lots of bodies.

Now that I think of it, maybe 100 million people killed by people of European Christian heritage in the twentieth century is an underestimate.

As for religious terrorism, that too is universal. Admittedly, some groups deploy terrorism as a tactic more at some times than others. Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active terrorists in the 1940s, from a British point of view, and in the period 1965-1980, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups. (Members at one point plotted to assassinate Rep. Dareell Issa (R-CA) because of his Lebanese heritage.) Now that Jewish nationalsts are largely getting their way, terrorism has declined among them. But it would likely reemerge if they stopped getting their way. In fact, one of the arguments Israeli politicians give for allowing Israeli squatters to keep the Palestinian land in the West Bank that they have usurped is that attempting to move them back out would produce violence. I.e., the settlers not only actually terrorize the Palestinians, but they form a terrorism threat for Israel proper (as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin discovered).

Even more recently, it is difficult for me to see much of a difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Hebron massacre.

Or there was the cold-blooded bombing of the Ajmer shrine in India by Bhavesh Patel and a gang of Hindu nationalists. Chillingly, they were disturbed when a second bomb they had set did not go off, so that they did not wreak as much havoc as they would have liked. Ajmer is an ecumenical Sufi shrine also visited by Hindus, and these bigots wanted to stop such open-minded sharing of spiritual spaces because they hate Muslims.

Buddhists have committed a lot of terrorism and other violence as well. Many in the Zen orders in Japan supported militarism in the first half of the twentieth century, for which their leaders later apologized. And, you had Inoue Shiro’s assassination campaign in 1930s Japan. Nowadays militant Buddhist monks in Burma/ Myanmar are urging on an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya.

As for Christianity, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilities that displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?

Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.

Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.

It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as “nice” and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasn’t been repeated.

Bibi Netanyahu’s U.N. Speech Today and the Doomsday Gap

Today Bibi Netanyahu put on a show, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination, before the U.N. General Assembly. His performance was so over the top that it actually reminded me of George C. Scott’s performance as General “Buck” Turgidson in Stanley Kubrick’s movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Good ‘Ol Bibi showed up with props and ACME-like-Bugs Bunny cartoon to alert the world to a danger that only he seems determined to eradicate in the most destructive and suicidal way. In fact, Good ‘Ol Bibi was as ridiculous and extreme as Ahmadinejad. While he was speaking, i couldn’t help myself thinking that i heard this speech before–it was like a déjà vu experience, and then it hit me: I was in fact listening to and watching Dr. Strangelove talking about the terrible Doomsday Machine and Doomsday Gap. At that point, i stopped worrying about Bibi, about his speech, about his concerns, and learned to love containment. There is something that good ‘ol Bibi needs to learn very fast: ain’t nobody on this side of the Atlantic who’s willing to start a doomsday scenario that no one knows how to end it. So Bibi, go peddle your fear-mongering and warmongering somewhere else.

Here is to Bibi Netanyahu’s U.N. Speech

President Obama’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly (transcript)

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens.

Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician. As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps, and taught English in Morocco. He came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East, and he would carry that commitment throughout his life. As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria; from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked – tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic and listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for a future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected. After the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and saw dignity in the people he met. Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents. He acted with humility, but stood up for a set of principles – a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice, and opportunity.

The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and the Libyan people. And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region – including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen – have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm. So have religious authorities around the globe.

But the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded – the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; and that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis. Because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart, and the hopes we hold in common.

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. Since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that has taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspirations of men and women who took to the streets.

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy put us on the side of the people.
We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were not being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents; and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values – they are universal values. And even as there will be huge challenges that come with a transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians, and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair. This democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab World. Over the past year, we have seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal, and a new President in Somalia. In Burma, a President has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society; a courageous dissident has been elected to Parliament; and people look forward to further reform. Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity, and the right to determine their future.

And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said: “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.
In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress – dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend upon the status quo; and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia; from Africa to the Americas; from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we’ve witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order. At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.

That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.
Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change. But such efforts depend upon a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company; no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnership to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, and those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard but the destination is clear – a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine. Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision – a Syria that is united and inclusive; where children don’t need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed – Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians. That is what America stands for; that is the outcome that we will work for – with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute; and assistance and support for those who work for this common good. Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.
In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights. That is why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict; that is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War; and that is the lesson of the last two decades as well. History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices.

Nations in every part of the world have travelled this hard path. Europe – the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century – is united, free and at peace. From Brazil to South Africa; from Turkey to South Korea; from India to Indonesia; people of different races, religions, and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress I’ve witnessed that after nearly four years as President, I am hopeful about the world we live in. The war in Iraq is over, and our troops have come home. We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014. Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals. I’ve seen hard choices made – from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan – to put more power in the hands of citizens.
At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity. Through the G-20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery. America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations. New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent. New commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity. And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of leaders – it is the people I’ve seen. The American troops who have risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away. The students in Jakarta and Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit humankind. The faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations. The young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise. These men, women and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the globe who share similar hopes and dreams. They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. That’s what we see on the news, and that consumes our political debates. But when you strip that all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes from faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people – and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people, and all across the world. That was our founding purpose. That is what our history shows. And that is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And today I promise you this – long after these killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’ legacy will live on in the lives he touched. In the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi; in the Libyans who changed their Facebook FB 0.00% photo to one of Chris; in the sign that read, simply, “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.”

They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed. Thank you.

Tunisie: Rached Ghannouchi met en garde contre les dangers de l’intégrisme violent

Courtesy of Juan Cole.

Tunisian Muslim Leader Warns of Dangers of Violent Fundamentalism

Posted on 09/21/2012 by Juan

As the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior announced that no demonstrations would be permitted on Friday, the Muslim leader Rached Ghanoushi warned of the dangers of violent fundamentalism. The Tunisian government invoked emergency powers on learning of plans for violent disruptions on Friday, in response to anti-Islam caricatures published in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Ghanoushi, the leader of the ruling al-Nahda Party and a long-time proponent of political Islam in Tunisia, has come out strongly against the small but violent “Salafi Jihadi” movement in an interview with Agence France Presse. He said that these violent extremists posed a threat both to his own al-Nahda Party and also to general liberties in the country, and said that such disruptive groups need to be dealt with decisively.

The Salafis, or hard line ultra-fundamentalists, in Tunisia, unlike those in Egypt, did not gain seats in parliament, and they are mainly known for a series of small but provocative public acts of violence and disruption, including throwing stones outside movie theaters, rioting outside art exhibits, harassing unveiled women, attacking tourist hotels for selling alcohol, and, last Saturday, attacking the American school and setting a fire on the grounds of the US Embassy in Tunis. The hard core of activists sometimes gets support in a few working class districts of the capital and some small rural towns, but it is far out of the mainstream of the country.

Many Tunisians are secularists, and there is a strong tradition of moderate Sunni Muslim reformism. Ghanouchi himself told me in an interview in May that his al-Nahda had unreservedly embraced democracy and the principle of popular sovereignty.

Other Tunisians when I was there viewed al-Nahda with suspicion and felt as though it was using the Salafis or at least not interfering with them, as a way of shifting the country toward the religious Right. Educated women often expressed fear of the Salafis taking away their rights.

The al-Nahda government is being criticized for not having arrested Salafi extremist Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, known as Abu Iyadh.

Ghanoushi has in the past condemned actions of the Salafis but at the same time complained of ‘provocations’ by secularists. In this interview, he appears to have made no excuses for them and to have condemned them roundly (though the Arabic version of the AFP interview condemns ‘Salafi Jihadis,’ not all Salafis).

I take it he has begun to worry, as I suggested last weekend, that al-Nahda itself may become associated in the public mind with the extremism and violence of the Salafis, and so could suffer in the parliamentary elections now scheduled for late spring, 2013. The proponents of political Islam in both Tunisia and Egypt face the problem that if they crack down on the extremist Salafis, they look like lackeys of imperialism defending attacks on the Prophet Muhammad. They could thus injure their standing with their own base. On the other hand, if they don’t dissociate themselves from and prove the can curb the disruptions of the Salafis, they could lose the general public in a future election.

Secular-minded Tunisians will be watching al-Nahda carefully to see if it follows through on its commitment to public order and to curbing the Salafi Jihadis.

The US State Department took revenge on the al-Nahda government for its failure to prevent Saturday’s attack on the American embassy by issuing a travel warning for Tunisia, discouraging Americans from going there. This step was a blow to Tunisian tourism and prospects of attracting foreign investment. Ghanoushi told me that the al-Nahda government had good relations with the US and was pleased with the support in Washington for Tunisian democracy. He couldn’t say so publicly, but some of his forthrightness in his AFP interview may have been an attempt to reassure Western powers about the new Tunisia.

A viral movement of support exploded overnight

Throughout the day today, pictures of young and not-so-young Americans showing their support for Islam in their own simple way in their own words popped up on the web. This movement of support has gone viral. 1000s of Facebook pages, blogs, tweets, and YouTube videos have been posted. It is truly sui generis and truly impressive movement.

Take a look, here are a few samples…you can find 1000s more on the web…

On Attend Toujours!!!

Suite à la publication de cette image (voir ci-dessous) dans le journal satirique, “The Onion,” dans laquelle les personnages les plus vénérés de plusieurs confessions religieuses étaient représenté se livrant à un acte sexuel lascive et de dépravation considérable, personne n’a été assassiné, battu, brulé, ou a vu sa vie menacé.

 
On attend toujours les fans de Moïse, Jésus, de la déesse Ganesha, et de Bouddha. Mais on risque d’attendre longtemps et pour rien.

 

 

Sur la réaction des musulmans aux films/caricatures anti-Islam & l’industrie de l’indignation factice

The Industry of fake-outrage

Be advised, this is not an analysis. This is a rant. I will write an analysis in the upcoming days.

Enough is enough. That’s my reaction to this stupidity displayed by Muslims throughout the Muslim world. Every time there is a stupid cartoon or an asinine amateurish movie published in the West, the whole Muslim world plunges into a collective psychotic hysteria. People running around, foaming at the mouth, burning buildings, burning flags, burning effigies, killing people, suicidal attacks, two-bit fatwas flying left and right condemning people to death, and breaching embassies. For your information, embassies  are sovereign territories by international law, and their breach, technically, constitutes an act of war.

The industry of fake outrage  in the Middle East and North Africa has become the most productive and lucrative industry. The Muslim world produces nothing, but fake outrage. If Muslims really cared about the welfare of Islam and cared about the welfare of other Muslims, they should pay more attention to the abysmally catastrophic situation in their own countries; they should pay more attention to their bankrupted economies, to their medieval educational systems, to their diseased public health systems, to their crumbling infrastructures, and pay less attention to stupid amateurs in the West whose only aim is to foment troubles and excite the already hyper-excited Muslims.

If Muslims really cared about the welfare of Islam and other Muslims, they should have stood tall and denounced the horrendous murders committed by Al-Qaeda in the name of Islam in Muslims countries; they should have stood tall and denounced the killings by the 1000s committed by Muslims on Muslims in Algeria, in Egypt, in Sudan, in Iraq, in Bahrain, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in other places. Or is it okay for radical crazed Muslims to kill other Muslims? Are we so scared of the thugs of Al-Qaeda that we dare not criticize them, and we dare not oppose them? Where were these fake-outraged Muslims when babies were slaughtered, young girls were kidnapped and gang-raped, pregnant women were opened up and their fetuses ripped out of their bellies? Where was this outrage when Muslims killed Muslims by the 1000s in Afghanistan? I bet they looked away.

All this killing–the killing of a U.S. ambassador and 3 foreign service officers is an act of war if i may add–and all these millions of dollars wasted in this faux-outrage is the result of a movie (and other domestic struggles that i will analyze in my next post) that nobody saw and nobody heard of. It is the work of a twisted radical and former felon who is apparently a Coptic Christian with an ax to grind. This idiot named Nakoula Bassely Nakoula successfully manipulated millions of Muslims to engage in a total breach of international law and commit murder in cold blood. Yes, Al-Qaeda is involved in Libya, and the ambassador’s killing is most likely the work of Al-Qaeda splinter group. However, without the brouhaha caused by these idiot imams calling for Jihab because some idiot in Los Angeles said something bad about the Prophet Mohamed (saaws), this Al-Qaeda splinter group would not have had the opportunity to do what it did.
More importantly, and let me ask my fellow Muslims directly here: are we that insecure in and about our faith and belief? Are we this insecure about our religion? Are we? Is the divine status of the Prophet or the Koran in danger because a two-bit idiot said something bad about him or burned a couple of Korans in defiance? Is the reputation of our religion this fragile and our faith this friable that when a thug does something we start shaking in our boots, and we start doubting our belief and our principles? If you feel this way, let me tell you, you should not be part of the Islamic faith. I grant you the authorization to leave the Islamic faith because you are not Muslims, and you bring shame to my religion.