Here is the definition of a turd. Disgruntled PKR MP Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohd Hashim has reportedly offered enough Pakatan Rakyat colleagues to Barisan Nasional as to enable their full legislative control of Parliament, but his colleagues dispute he has such numbers.It is understood that the Bayan Baru MP has offered some 10 lawmakers, including himself, to add to BN’s 137 for a two-thirds parliamentary majority.Such a majority allows the government to pass any law despite opposition from their rivals.

BN needs 11 more seats in the 222-seat Dewan Rakyat for the psychological majority, and it is learnt that Independent Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali or even Kulim Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin is expected to join the group if the defection happens.Zulkifli has supported Zahrain in his diatribe against Lim.“I have heard that [there are] three or four who want to leave the party. BN really wants him, too,” Penang PKR chairman Dr Mansor Othman told The Malaysian Insider, referring to his predecessor whom he replaced after winning the Penanti seat and being made deputy chief minister last year.

Zahrain was not available for comments despite several attempts to reach him. He had previously said it was mere speculation that he would leave PKR for former party Umno or the newly set-up Parti Cinta Malaysia.Several other PKR and DAP leaders confirmed they have heard news that Zahrain was now gathering allies to make the jump.“I don’t think he has the numbers. From what I know, it’s just three of them,” a senior DAP leader told The Malaysian Insider.

Pakatan Rakyat now has 82 MPs, of which 31 are from PKR including the four from Penang: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Permatang Pauh), Tan Tee Beng (Nibong Tebal), Mohd Yusmadi Yusoff (Balik Pulau) and Zahrain.Mansor said he was not sure if the MPs are from Penang, other states, or they included those from allies DAP and PAS. “I don’t really know... All I know is that there are some MPs who have expressed an intention to leave the party,” he added.Speculation that Zahrain could be leaving peaked again when he restarted a simmering feud with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng this week, by calling the DAP leader “a dictator, a chauvinist and communist-minded” and earning brickbats from party colleagues and allies.

He had previously criticised Lim when former Penanti assemblyman and deputy chief minister, Mohamed Fairus Khairuddin quit his post and seat last year.Mansor said that while the bad blood between Zahrain and Lim was long-standing, news that the PKR leader wanted to quit began very recently and added the matter would be brought up at the party’s special supreme council meeting tomorrow.The Malaysian Insider understands that the issue will also be discussed at the PR joint leadership council meeting due to take place after tomorrow’s PKR meeting.

DAP parliamentary leader and representative at the PR meeting, Lim Kit Siang, today called for the formation of a disciplinary committee to discuss the cases of intransigence within the pact, saying these cases have dented the coalition’s recent hard-won gains.Mansor yesterday lamented Zahrain’s statement, which was critical of Lim. “The words were uncalled for and I regret his statement. That is certainly not the way to address our fellow partners in PR,” he said and declined to elaborate further.

The PKR leader said the party will issue a statement on Zahrain’s criticisms against Lim, but coalition insiders believe Anwar might not take action after having failed to admonish his fellow Penangite last year.Anwar has also been seen as soft on Zulkifli, who has ignored a party gag order by continuing to make comments on the “Allah” issue. G. Manimaran in the Malaysian Insider

On the 27th November 2007, Indians, who make up less than 10 percent of the population of about 25 million and are disproportionately poor, led a protest march through Kuala Lumpur, the first large-scale ethnically motivated street demonstration in almost four decades. . After so many years, finally a PM is coming to Batu Caves. Guess what? He has realized the only way to get tiny drop of goodwill for a few Indian votes is by attending this function. But unfortunately he is wrong. The day when the FRU shot tear gas gun into the Batu Caves temple compound on the 26th November, 2007, that was the day the UMNO (BN) government dug themselves into a deep pit of shit. Probably Najib will throw a scrap or two, to buy the Indian votes. He should continue dreaming, only to wake up to see his 1Malaysia in tatters. The Police disrupt S'gor gov't Thaipusam function, to score points with Jibby.

At the function, Selangor menteri besar Khalid Ibrahim (right) will hand out RM1 million to Tamil schools and Hindu temples. “The Gombak OCPD (Abdul Rahim Abdullah) and other top police officers came at 6.30pm and told us it was for safety reasons,” said program coordinator and Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) councilor, George Gunaraj. Najib wants to do a public relations exercise with the biggest losers in the current system, who happen to be Indians, who, according to government statistics, make up 9 percent of the labor force but hold 16 percent of menial jobs and control just 1.2 percent of equity in registered companies in the country.Indians are not aided by the affirmative action program, because it is based on ethnicity, not need.

Look at the slides when the Polices teargas the Indians inside the temple. Need high speed connection.

Indian support for the government is the worst it's ever been in the country's history,it's profound. Indians have traditionally supported the government the highest. With Chinese voters also angry at the government - mainly over its handling of the economy and educational issues. Underpinning the anger of the Chinese and Indians is an affirmative action program in place for 37 years that favors Malays and other smaller indigenous ethnic groups collectively known as bumiputra, literally "sons of the soil." Bumiputra make up 60 percent of the population but have 87 percent of government jobs. They receive discounts of 5 to 10 percent on new homes and have a reserved quota of 30 percent of any newly listed company on the stock market. Newspapers are filled with notices of government construction contracts exclusively reserved for companies controlled by bumiputra.

"It's completely unacceptable that you cannot get awarded a contract just because of the color of your skin," said Lim Guan Eng, now the Chief Minister of Penang a member of the Democratic Action Party, the leading opposition party in Parliament. "That grates tremendously. We are treated as though we are third- or fourth-class citizens." Lim points out that the father of Mohamed Khir Toyo, the former chief minister of Selangor State and currently an unemployed dentist, came from Indonesia. Yet his son is considered a bumiputra, while an ethnic Chinese person whose family has lived in Malaysia for centuries would still not qualify as indigenous.

More than economic issues, said Santiago of the Group of Concerned Citizens, Indians were infuriated by the highly publicized case of a Malaysian soldier, Maniam Moorthy, who died in 2005 and whose body was claimed by the Islamic authorities for Muslim burial. The authorities claimed that Moorthy, who was born a Hindu, converted to Islam months before his death. Moorthy's wife, Kaliammal Sinnasamy, sued in a civil court to obtain the body, but the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction because the matter had already been decided in an Islamic court. A ruling on Kaliammal's appeal has been postponed indefinitely.

The case, one of at least a dozen similar ethno-religious disputes reported recently in Malaysian newspapers, became a cause célèbre among Indians. "You can push us, you can cheat us, you can discriminate against us, but you can't tell us that we're not Hindus after we are dead," Santiago said.

Cow heads are easily obtained, because they deal in the slaughter of cattle and the selling of beef. Easy to get a cow's or a bull's head. You buy a cow's head, no eyebrow is raised. No problem there, move along.

Pig's head, very difficult to obtain, you just cannot go and purchase a pig's head. Who rears swine? The Chinese. Would it not be suspicious if a member of the majority were to purchase the head of a pig? Can he be seen with the head of a pig in his hand? Will he steal into a pig pen, kill the pig and behead it, to throw it into a mosque? Pigs squeal and make lots of noise. The pig farmer would surely know what is happening and that would be the end of that. Okay, how about purchasing a pig's head in the market? In Malaysia, the place where they sell pork is clearly marked as "halal" ( kosher) or non "halal". Can a member of the majority walk into this area and purchase a pig's head? No way, Jose! These people are agent provocateurs of people with vested interests, losing their political power in Selangor, who are trying to rile up Malaysians into a bloody confrontation, I am talking about "Wild-boar heads found at two PJ mosques".

Four wild-boar heads were thrown early this morning into the compound of two mosques along Jalan Klang Lama, a major road in the southwest of Kuala Lumpur. The heads were found in the compound of Masjid Taman Dato Harun and Masjid Taman Seri Sentosa, both in Petaling Jaya and about 3km apart.Petaling Jaya Selatan member of parliament Hee Loy Sian, who was at Masjid Jumhuriyah, said the two heads were found wrapped in plastic bags before morning prayers about 5.30 this morning.

Zulkifli Mohamad, the imam who leads prayers at the Al-Imam Al-Tirmizi mosque, called for calm and said Muslim saboteurs could be behind the latest incidents."This is the work of some people to stir racial tension in the country. We are shocked by their actions," he told reporters."I want the police to act fast, we ask Muslims to be patient, there is a possibility Muslims could be behind this incident." I like Encik Zulkifli Mohamad, who is a very wise man. So people let us all be cool.

First they tried and provoked the Indians with the cow head. They failed miserably, my hats off to all Indians, you guys were cool. You whacked them using the the internet. That is okay in my book. Of course these morons were indulged by our political masters. That is why they had the 'cojones' to come up with that hurtful action. Violence is never a solution. They were disappointed, as there were no riots. Some people up there miscalculated about the "Allah" issue too, a number of Churches got burnt, some suraus (2 small fires) and mosques got vandalised, oops forgot, a Sikh temple too. Still no riots and violent reaction. They must have been sorely disappointed. Why not hurl pig's heads into mosques, compounds to be exact. That was supposed to be the solution to create riots. Surely they can rein the Chinese in, to a good old blood letting. Nope, sorry, they could not acquire pig's heads. The Malays too did not fall for that. My hats off again!

So they went and acquired wild boar heads, making do with wild boar heads is equivalent to pigs' heads in their convoluted logic. Wild boar head are easy to acquire, by hunters. The majority in the rural areas have shot guns. No problem, you can bag wild boars where there is tapioca, in a rubber estate or the good old jungle, after which you can acquire the head. No one see them, packing wild boar heads in plastic. Okay, being squeamish about touching the boar's head due to religious issues, solve the problem in plastic, brilliant ain't they? I am a bit puzzled about the throwing in of the money though. Anyone out there has an opinion. You do the maths. My third time hats off, to all Malaysians, I salute you for being rational and a great people. Stay with me on this, calm and rational.

following the hugely destructive earthquake. Unfortunately, the Israelis have a lot of experience in digging people out of rubble, etc. They are a people who have faced bombings over and over. At the end of 2003, there was a major earthquake in Bam, Iran. (Yeah, I know: “Bam,” an earthquake.) The Israelis were alacritous: They wanted to send rescue workers immediately. There was no time to waste, and Israel was very close, physically, to Iran. But Iran refused this aid and expertise. The government preferred that people die rather than suffer the ignominy of being rescued by Jews. This episode was a further indication of the psychosis prevalent in the Middle East. Fortunately, Haiti, for all of its sufferings, does not suffer from that.

I noticed an interesting piece by Marty Peretz of The New Republic — noticed it because it was cited in Commentary’s Contentions. Peretz wrote,

I’ve just read the transcript of the president’s remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from “Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.” Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there “among others.” Yes, the country to which I refer is “among others,” that one.

The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering — as of last week — at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. . . .

It’s not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television . . .

So didn’t Obama notice? For God’s sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement.

(For the full piece, go here.) In any case, it is rather remarkable that Israel, a tiny country very far away from Haiti, and with serious — indeed, existential — problems of its own, should find the time and resources to help this afflicted people in the Caribbean. Will the world credit Israel for it? That question was merely rhetorical. Jay Nordlinger in The National Review

Hamas knows that if Egypt ever becomes REALLY SERIOUS about hurting Hamas, Hamas is going to be in extremely hot water. Egypt can shut down the tunnels if it wants to do that, both by building as deep and strong a wall as it wants to build, and (if Egypt gets really serious) by arresting or shooting anyone on the Egyptian side who participates in the tunnel "industry."

The Egyptian steel wall sends that signal very clearly. In fact, ever since the news about the steel wall became public, the Hamas leadership appears - to me, at any rate - to have shown increasing signs of panic. I can see why; if it works, then Hamas can't bring in weapons, can't tax the tunnelers and can't smuggle its people in and out. If it works, then Gazans really WILL have a crisis on their hands, and Hamas will be very clearly to blame.

Egypt, for its part, is furious with Hamas for two reasons: 1. Hamas humiliated the Egyptian government when the Egyptians tried to reconcile the factions, and again when Egypt tried to work out an exchange of prisoners between Hamas and Israel. 2. Hamas has kept parading in front of the world its closeness to Iran, at a time when the Egyptians are absolutely apoplectic to find that Hezbollah was planning for terror attacks against the Suez Canal, which is one of Egypt's primary strategic assets, and against other Egyptian targets. As of last week, Egypt's state prosecutor was asking for the death penalty for the terrorists.

The Hamas attempt to do what it did last time, and use civilians to camouflage an attack on the Egyptian border (I'm assuming that this is what happened) went very wrong when Hamas murdered an Egyptian border policeman in cold blood.

[Egypt has shown its displeasure not only with the wall but also by kicking out the pro-Hamas demonstrators and the public announcement that no more leftist aid convoys will travel through Egypt. - EoZ]

Egypt said earlier this week that it would consider *cough* throwing the Gazans under the bus *cough* withdrawing completely from Palestinian affairs. It has pretty firmly rejected Hamas flirtations.

So now Hamas is going back to the Saudis. Why? Most importantly, because if the Saudis (who have been flirting a bit with the Syrians lately) actually agree to get involved again, this will make the Egyptians look isolated and powerless. Hamas leaders may be calculating that the Egyptians will immediately try to restore their diplomatic prestige by rushing to mediate something (this is a guess, I will admit. ; - ) And an engaged Egypt is not going to simply seal off Gaza and let Hamas stew in its own violence and stupidity.

While Hamas made the Saudis look like useful idiots last time around, the Saudis are suckers for things that will make them look influential in the region, as long as it doesn't involve making peace with Israel. So under normal circumstances, I would expect them to go for it.

But at the moment, the Saudis are fighting a war against what they see as Iranian proxies in Yemen. While Huthi forces are apparently trying to request a truce at the moment, the Saudis are apparently having none of it (I'm reading only a little bit into this column: ). The little snipe at Hamas in the column also suggests that Hamas is very much out of favor in Saudi circles. So I'm expecting the Saudis to ignore this.

Hamas will keep trying to find mediators that it hasn't already humiliated. I'm betting that Hamas will try the Turks next, and the Turks are likely to go for it. It's unclear whether Fatah will accept Turkish mediation.

Meanwhile, Hamas has lost the so-called "legitimacy" of an "electoral mandate, weakening its position among Gazans." Useful idiots will continue to willfully forget that in 2007, Hamas gunmen violently overthrew the elected order, threw their opponents off of buildings and forcefully occupied Gaza, putting it under the control of people who are living in Damascus. Now that the parliamentary term has expired, the fig leaf is simply gone. Hamas has refused to cooperate with PA elections, and that's how things stand.

None of this means that Hamas is on its last legs or that it will change its behavior or its associates. Hamas leaders have been very clever liars and very clever when it comes to survival - all the while continuing to try to murder as many Jewish civilians as possible.Elder of Ziyon

Indeed. The face veil in its various forms is the most visible symbol of an ideology that wants nothing to do with equality and integration. "Italy: Foreign minister rejects face veil," from AdnKronos International, January 27 2010:

Florence, 27 Jan. (AKI) - Italy's foreign minister Franco Frattini on Wednesday voiced his opposition to the face veil. Women wearing the garment pose security issues and symbolise "a refusal to integrate" by Muslim immigrants in a host country, he said.''Let's ask ourselves if covering one's face isn't the first sign of refusal to integrate and closing oneself off... from the host community and its traditions," Frattini said.

He was speaking at a conference of young publishers taking place in the Tuscan city of Florence, a day after France moved a step closer to banning the face veil. A French parliamentary committee on Tuesday issueda report recommending a partial ban on the face veil in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.

"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism," said French parliament speaker Bernard Accoyer upon the presentation of the report. France's parliamentary recommendation is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue of the face veil, which has sparked heated debate in many European countries."I would not legislate on the face veil but would tackle the issue through a wider process," Frattini said, noting that it raised also security problems.

''When someone enters a bank or a public office veiled from head to toe, it seems logical to me there is a security issue," he said.... Jihad Watch

It’s time for Obama to look at terrorism differently. It is always dangerous to mistake your ideological preferences for shrewd political strategy, but that is precisely what President Obama and his advisors have done with the War on Terror.

On the right, the prevailing critique of the president’s approach to the War on Terror is that it is both deeply ideological and unserious. Obama remains fixated on the idea of closing Guantanamo, even if it means keeping irredeemable terrorists in U.S. prisons indefinitely. The administration initially banned the use of the term “War on Terror,” preferring the ridiculous bureaucratese “overseas contingency operations.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano favors “man-caused disasters” to describe 9/11-style terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to send self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to a civilian trial in New York City, allegedly without consulting anyone save his wife and brother.

After the Fort Hood shootings and again after the foiled Christmas Day attack by “suspect” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the president’s initial response was to look at the incidents through the now-familiar ideological prism. These were “isolated” attacks from individual “extremists.” Admirably, Obama was quick to correct the record about Abdulmutallab, contradicting Napolitano’s initial contention that “the system worked.” Rather, Obama admitted, there was “systemic failure.” Since then, the media have reported that Abdulmutallab’s arrest and interrogation were as flawed as the system that let him on the plane. FBI agents interviewed the jihadist for only 50 minutes, according to the Associated Press, before he was read his Miranda rights and lawyered up, and no one even bothered to consult with Obama’s national-security team.

Meanwhile, pro-Obama pundits have been rolling out a revealing argument: Terrorism happens; get over it. For instance, Time’s Peter Beinart and Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria argue that the American response to the Christmas Day bomber was “hysteria” or “panic.” Both say that the threat from al-Qaeda is overblown and distracts us from smart policies and more important priorities. Whatever the merits of these arguments and Obama’s responses, one thing is becoming clear: They amount to awful politics. One of Scott Brown’s biggest applause lines leading up to the special election last week was that “in dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

“People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s political strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” Indeed, after years of debate over the tactic, a Rasmussen poll found that 58 percent of Americans favored waterboarding Abdulmutallab to get intelligence. Of course, if the Obama administration’s reluctance to treat terrorists like enemies is derived entirely from deep-seated ideological principle, then it should stick to its guns. But couldn’t some of the reluctance be a holdover from the politics of the George W. Bush years? The Democrats came into power believing that downplaying and downgrading the War on Terror was both right and politically smart. The former is debatable, the latter now is unsupportable. Overseas, Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan and has lobbed more Predator drones at al-Qaeda than Bush did. His base didn’t like it, but it was nonetheless both right and politically shrewd.

The White House insists that it is not ideological but pragmatic, and yet it clings to an ideological nostrum that hawkishness on terrorism is not only atavistic but at odds with a progressive agenda at home. The British Empire destroyed Thuggee terrorism in India in the 1830s. (The Thuggees may have killed a million people.) But the war on Thuggeeism hardly dominated British politics. Bill Clinton initiated “extraordinary rendition” without any serious political blowback or distraction (in part because it was largely kept secret). LBJ’s Great Society and civil-rights victories coincided with escalation in Vietnam. And let us not forget that domestic spending skyrocketed under Bush even as he prosecuted the War on Terror.

Question: Would Obama’s domestic prospects look better or worse right now if he had correctly treated the Fort Hood and Christmas Day attacks as terrorism from the outset? Purely partisan conservatives should hope that Obama continues to see the War on Terror through the same lens he has used for the last year. But it would be better for America — and Obama — if he saw the light. Jonah Goldberg in the National Review

An Arab academic at Cambridge University is outraged by Arab and Muslim stinginess and lack of human compassion, especially those of Muslim charities and oil-rich Arab nations, in regards to the Haiti tragedy in particular and their general unwillingness to help non-Muslim disaster victims.

(JPost) A commentator in an influential Arabic language paper says it is "an outrage, in every sense of the word" that wealthy Arab countries are not giving more money to help victims of the earthquake in Haiti.In an opinion piece published in the influential London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayyat, Khaled Hroub, a Palestinian academic at Cambridge University, wrote that while millions are being wasted in the Arab world on trivial matters, Arabs have failed to contribute respectable amounts of financial assistance in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

Hroub referred to a comparison of the pledges of aid by countries and organizations all over the world published in The Guardian. The British newspaper claimed that United States has pledged the most money, amounting to around $160 million, followed by Canada and the World Bank. No Arab countries were listed among the top 20 donor countries and organizations in The Guardian's list. The first appearance of an Arab nation is the United Arab Emirates, ranking in 23rd place.

"I don't see any pledges from the rich oil producing Middle East countries," one reader wrote in a talkback. "So much for partnership and reaching across... It seems to me the Western world always reaches out." Hroub also criticized non-Muslim nations such as Venezuela, Cuba, China and Russia, all of which he accused of sending minimal amounts of aid. Hroub said that despite a deadly 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran, in which killed more than 26,000 people were killed, Iran only sent a symbolic contribution to Haiti.

"We don't know how [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad wants to confront the American arrogance throughout the world with that!" he wrote. Hroub argued that Arab and Muslim countries only opened their pockets and responded to catastrophes and natural disasters when the victims were themselves Muslim. "The Islamic charities are absent from these kind of catastrophes in a way that's scandalous," Hroub wrote.

"With the exception of a few very symbolic charity organizations and other semi-governmental organizations in Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan and Lebanon, these organizations' calls to duty end with helping other Muslims alone. It's as though these organization only respond to the pain of Muslims and the pain of non-Muslims does not deserve a response." "Some people say that Arab aid should be allocated to Gaza and its people, who are closed in on all sides, instead of giving it to Haiti," he writes. Read the whole thing here. Hat tip : Eye On The World

"They are constantly under threat, always on the run because they converted to Christianity in a largely Muslim country." by Dana Lewis for FoxNews, January 26 2010:

Egyptian Maher El-Gowhary and his 15 year old daughter Dina never pray twice at the same church, never stay longer than a month in any one apartment. They are constantly under threat, always on the run because they converted to Christianity in a largely Muslim country.Maher and Dina nervously agreed to meet us at a Church in Cairo. The priest at the Church said he feared problems from the Egyptian authorities and while he agreed to have us watch his Sunday mass, the Priest declined to speak to us about what is happening in Egypt and to the El-Gowhary's.



They tell their story out of fear and desperation. Born Muslims they chose to convert to the Christian Church after both claim they had religious visions. Now Maher says "Muslims try to kill us, and will kill us if they find us."

Several religious fatwas have been issued for "spilling his blood" after Maher asked an Egyptian Court to legally recognize his conversion, so he can one day be buried as a Christian and so his daughter won't be forced into a marriage by her Muslim mother....Read it all.

A work of genius! How could these learned analysts have possibly discovered such a thing! This is on a par with their other brilliant discoveries: poverty causes terrorism, Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been Hijacked By A Tiny Minority of Extremists, etc. etc.

"Report says Al-Qaeda still aims to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S.," by Joby Warrick for the Washington Post, January 26.

When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers. The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.

The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda's leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties.

The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, draws on his knowledge of classified case files to argue that al-Qaeda has been far more sophisticated in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction than is commonly believed, pursuing parallel paths to acquiring weapons and forging alliances with groups that can offer resources and expertise.

"If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now," Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The report comes as a panel on weapons of mass destruction appointed by Congress prepares to release a new assessment of the federal government's preparedness for such an attack. The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration's actions so far in hardening the country's defenses against bioterrorism, according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.

The commission's initial report in December 2008 warned that a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction was likely by 2013....Blindingly brilliant! Jihad Watch

Halabja: The gassing of the Kurds.

Today in Baghdad, Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, was hanged. He was Saddam Hussein's cousin, brought up like him in Tikrit, in the Sunni heart-land. There was a family resemblance, physically and morally. Chemical Ali acquired his sobriquet in the Iran–Iraq War. The Baath elite feared that the Kurds were turning against them and siding with the Iranians who anyhow looked as if they might break through. Chemical Ali was in charge of the operation to crush them by using poison gas. Some 5,000 Kurds were killed in this way. It was not the first time an Arab power had used gas. President Nasser of Egypt had gassed Yemenis in his campaign in that country in 1966 and 1967. But this Iraqi atrocity convinced Western intelligence services that Saddam possessed wider weapons of mass destruction and obviously the will to use them. This determined Western policy, leading to the occupation that followed and the consequences the world is now living.

Chemical Ali was made governor of Kuwait in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. At the time, a clip of film captured a scene that told all there was to know about this brutal man. Chemical Ali was shown standing in a stretch of desert surrounded by Iraqi officers. A prisoner was brought to him and made to kneel with his hands tied behind his back. Chemical Ali then abused him verbally, and started kicking him. Some weeks later, Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait. Encouraged by American policy, but not in fact supported on the ground, the Shia rose in revolt against Saddam. Chemical Ali was given the task of crushing the Shia and he did so mercilessly, with an unknown number of thousands murdered at his orders. Again he was recorded boasting of the use of gas, saying that nobody could prevent it and cursing the West in foul language for its opposition.

If anyone deserved to die, it is this sadistic killer. But execution is an awesome thing. I have just been reading Michael Scammell's new biography of Arthur Koestler. He was sentenced to death in the Spanish civil war, and it affected him all his life. In later years, he campaigned hard to have the death penalty banned in Britain, and succeeded in doing so. The arguments he put forward are unanswerable intellectually, concerned as they are with miscarriages of justice, wrongful identification, and the like. Yet this doesn't cover a case like Chemical Ali.

I had supposed myself to be against capital punishment for the reasons that Koestler had given. But I attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann, heard the evidence against him, and was present when his final appeal was turned down. Half an hour later we all heard that he had been hanged. I was amazed to find that the world seemed a better place, because justice had been done. It is the same now with the news from Baghdad. David Pryce Jones in the National Review.....and I agree with Mr. Jones.

Their first impulse was dhimmitude -- even at the expense of making a travesty of a Chinese tradition. After all, as offended as they may have been by this, the Chinese in Singapore were much less likely to start blowing things up and killing innocent people. "McDonald's says sorry," from Reuters, January 22 :

MCDONALD'S apologised to Singapore on Friday and brought a pig back to its toy menu, after a decision to leave the animal out of its Chinese zodiac collection upset many in the predominantly ethnic Chinese nation.
McDonald's this month started selling cartoon character miniatures depicting the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac calendar, but the pig was replaced by love god Cupid as McDonald's said it did not want to offend Muslims.

But the move, just ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday and Valentine's Day in February, backfired as many Chinese customers complained in chatrooms and blogs that they would not have a chance to buy the animal sign of their birth year....From Jihad Watch

Qur'an 4:3 permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with captives and slaves, and it is the supposed divine endorsement of the idea that makes it so persistent in Muslim countries -- most notoriously in Saudi Arabia, but not only there. "Lahore: 12-year-old Christian domestic worker killed by Muslim employer," from Asia News, January 25:

Lahore (AsiaNews/Agencies) - A 12-year-old Christian girl died on Friday as a result of physical violence inflicted by her employer, a rich and powerful Muslim lawyer in Lahore. The case has led to protests by the Christian community, which demonstrated before the provincial assembly of Punjab in Lahore. The authorities are trying to appease people and have pledged that justice shall be done. Pakistani President Zardari has also promised to pay compensation to the family.

A Protestant NGO, Sharing Life Ministry Life (SLMP), reported the case of Shazia Bashir, 12, who was employed for the past eight months as a domestic worker in the household of Chaudhry Muhammad Naeem, a lawyer and former president of the Lahore Bar Association.Local Christians say that during that period the girl was the victim of constant harassment, and that she was raped and tortured before she was killed. SLMP chief coordinator Sohail Johnson said the girl worked under constant stress and experienced emotional and psychological trauma. She was also denied the agreed salary (Rs 1,000 or about US$ 12 per month).

Shazia "would get insults whenever she raised the subject of payment," the Christian activist said.Three days before her death, her employer tortured her, he noted. Afterwards, he tried to have her treated at his home without informing the parents of her health situation. In the end, the medical care she did get proved inadequate and she had to go to Lahore's Meo Hospital."Shazia's parents were not allowed to meet her. They did not know what she was going through," said Razia Bibi, the girl's 44-year-old uncle.

Shazia died last Friday from her injuries.Sohail Johnson said that her body showed signs of torture with at least 12 marks of injury. "Shazia was admitted to the hospital with a broken jaw," he said.Initially, Chaudhry Muhammad Naeem's family tried to pay off Shazia's parents with Rs 20,000 (US$ 250) to stop them from filing a case against them. Eventually they fled, but were arrested yesterday under pressure from the federal government.

On Saturday, Christians demonstrated in front of the Punjab Provincial Assembly. The Lahore Bar Association has instead sided with the powerful Muslim lawyer. Local Christians have expressed scepticism about the impartiality and efficacy of the police investigation; however, Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah said that outside interference would not be tolerated and that justice would be done. Sohail Johnson said that 99 per cent of Christian girls from poor families are hired by wealthy Muslims, and are often physically, psychologically and sexually abused. "In some cases, their employers marry them off to Muslim servants, and forcibly convert them to Islam," he said.

"These vulnerable Christian girls do not have any state protection. We urge the government to ensure protection of these disadvantaged girls," the SLMP coordinator said.Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has promised Rs 500,000 (US$ 6,000) in compensation to the girl's family and urged the Punjab government to provide financial help as well. The money is expected to cover the cost of Shazia Bashir's funeral, which is scheduled for today in Lahore. Jihad Watch

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews.

Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm. But they were not the purpose of the Crusades.

To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.

It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy, and opulent. Europe was the third world. The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America. Catholic presence in the Crusader States was always tiny, easily less than ten percent of the population.

These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader States was Muslim. They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader States was to defend the Holy Places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places.

There was no mother country with which the Crusader States had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources. As an outpost, the Crusader States kept a military focus. While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader States were safe, but once united the Muslims were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.

This is a continuation of previous posts. When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.

This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. Most recently, Bill Clinton in a speech at Georgetown cited this as one reason the United States is a victim of Muslim terrorism. (Although Mr. Clinton brought the blood up to knee level for effect.) It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well.

That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days.

It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.

That's right. The Government is quite firm on "restructuring" the fuel subsidy on May 1st. Here is how it will work. First the price of RON95 will go up to RM2.10 per litre. Those who are eligible for the subsidies will have to swipe their MyKads at the gas stations and they will still get gas at the "old" price of RM1.80 per litre. Those who are not eligible will have to pay RM2.10 per litre. This is based on today’s world prices for oil. If oil goes up or down between now and May 1st, then the prices will be adjusted.

Eligible means cars below 2000 cc while cars above 2000 cc are not eligible. Between now and May 1st, you must register your MyKad and your car (if it is below 2000cc) somewhere. Details to be announced I think. Those with cars above 2000cc need not bother. You don’t get the subsidy anyway. Petrol stations will be equipped with a hand held device which can read your MyKad so that you can get your subsidy and also to read the amount of petrol you have used. The Government plans to allow only 100 litres of subsidised petrol per car owner per month. Only one car will be allowed for the subsidy.

All gas stations will be linked online (by May 1st) so that your usage of petrol will be monitored. The Government has talked to all the oil companies and they have all agreed. Diesel will still be subsidised and commercial vehicles will not be affected. Only petrol driven privately owned passenger vehicles are eligible or not eligible for the subsidy. What this means is that owners of cars below 2000cc will not see any reduction in their living expenses. They will still pay RM1.80 per litre for RON95 like they do today - no change there, except they will now have to flash their MyKads every time they buy petrol, because they will only get say 100 litres of subsidised petrol a month.

Owners of cars above 2000cc will pay 30 sen more per litre - over 16% increase per litre of petrol. Presently the Government spends about RM2.0 billion per year on fuel subsidies (petrol, diesel, all petroleum fuel). It is envisaged that this "restructuring the fuel subsidy" - which affects only petrol driven privately owned cars - will save the Government RM1.0 to RM1.5 billion. Here are more numbers. There are about 8.0 million privately owned cars in Malaysia. Of these, 7.8 million are cars below 2000cc. This means this whole restructuring of the fuel subsidies is only going to affect 200,000 cars of 2000cc and above ? ?

And by making these 200,000 cars (of greater than 2000cc) pay an extra 30 sen per litre, the Government will save RM1.5 billion in subsidies a year ? ? I did some quick arithmetic and it works out to about 300 litres per car per month. But the Government is open for suggestions. My view is while the 'restructuring' is supposed to help the poor, it does not really. They will still pay RM1.80 per litre (which they are paying now). There is no savings for them. Only the rich (those owning cars of 2000cc and above) will end up paying 30 sen more per litre. So while the poor remain status quo, the rich get penalised.

Even if world oil prices go up and pump prices also move up, the poor will still get subsidised petrol but at the higher market price. The rich will pay more. I feel that prices of things will still go up. Although commercial vehicles and diesel lorries and trucks and tractors will still get subsidised fuel (thereby canceling the urge to raise prices) there will be some impact on the Consumer Price Index. Pasar malam traders use petrol driven generators to do their business at night. There are other equipment that may run on petrol - which may not enjoy the subsidy.

When the Government gave special diesel subsidies for the inshore fishermen (RM1.00 per litre of diesel), it immediately created huge diesel smuggling problems. Then the Customs had to spend millions of Ringgit to buy boats to curb the smuggling. I think this split fuel subsidy structure will also create instant "kampong oil traders" especially if the oil prices move up drastically. People who have not used up their 100 litre per month quota will buy fuel and sell it for a small profit to others who may need it.

It would be fairer if the Government gave everyone a flat 100 litres (or 150 litres or 200 litres as may be more scientifically determined) of subsidised petrol. Above that and you pay market prices. And put in place a program to remove the subsidy altogether. Its only 30 sen per litre (ok at current prices). The Government can reduce 10 sen per year and in three years, there will be no more need for fuel subsidies. The market will settle down to a new level by itself .

The issue of foreign cars can also be handled in a much easier manner. Singapore allows Malaysian cars 14 days free entry into Singapore. After that you have to pay RM75 per day. We could do the same thing. Charge foreign private cars RM10 tax per day - which goes to the Government or something like that. The idea to deny the fuel subsidy to foreigners living in Malaysia does not seem fair. Foreigners who are resident here also pay road tax, drive cars bought in the country (paying excise duties etc) and may work here or run businesses here. They are actually part of the economy.

Foreign cars coming in from Singapore or Thailand are different.

The public also would like to see a drastic reduction in the prices of cars. Also a reduction in paying tolls. That would be more meaningful. In conclusion, this restructuring of the fuel subsidies does NOT save any money for the poor (below 2000cc). The rich (above 2000cc) have to pay more. Both have to swipe their MyKads. They are all voters.

Mahathir Mohamad is well known for statements that are, to Western ears, outrageous. But as Andrew Bolt observes, Mahathir did not arrive at these opinions in a vacuum. Will we see unequivocal condemnation of Mahathir (and not just by dedicated Holocaust deniers), or the usual claims that his remarks were taken out of context?

"Mahathir: Jews 'had to be periodically massacred'," by Andrew Bolt for the Courier Mail, January 23. This Jew-hating, terrorist-excusing conspiracy theorist was actually the elected leader of Malaysia - and spoke at a Muslim gathering where he expected his views to win support: Malaysia's former premier Mahathir Mohamad said on Wednesday there was "strong evidence" the US faked the September 11 terror attacks as an excuse to go to war against Muslims.

"There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,' Mahathir told the Conference for the Support of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), as quoted by local media. [Quite possibly the strangest compliment James Cameron has received. - M.]. The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that "there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby."
Jews "had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom," Mahathir said. Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world."

Bolt continues:

Here's the frightening question: For how many Muslims does Mahathir speak for? And perhaps we should for once ask to what extent this man's disgraceful bigotry and victimology is driven by Islam rather than seek again to blame ourselves for his vileness, as in this recent effort, reported in The Age: Malaysia's relationship with Canberra was at best prickly and diplomats could not understand why Dr Mahathir held such a jaundiced view. Barry Wain, an Australian journalist who has observed Dr Mahathir for 37 years, provides some of the answers to the mystery.

In 1969 Dr Mahathir, a first-term politician and a rising political star, was invited on an all-expenses-paid trip to Australia as a guest of the Foreign Ministry in Canberra. But he lost his seat in an election that year and a few days before he was due to depart the Australians asked him to postpone the trip.... Two years later Dr Mahathir accepted an Australian Government offer to visit Canberra after attending a seminar at his own expense at Monash University, only to find the hospitality in the capital as bleak as the weather. In his book, Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times, Wain maintains Dr Mahathir never forgot how he was treated all those years ago.

So does cold hospitality in Canberra also explain why Mahathir believes Jews "had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred"? Or has some faith or ideology pushed him to that conclusion? Many are all too willing to accept a roundabout and illogical explanation over an uncomfortable one. From Jihad Watch

For a very long time the US government was looking for a political lackey to do its bidding in South East Asia. They scoured the earth and soon found their man in Bolehland – a land where anything is possible. He was none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Dr M). They would mould, modify and manage him into a perfect make-believe.

They first portrayed Dr M as the savior of his nation. He would make great speeches about the grave threat of recolonisation but for his own political survival he would hone to perfection and use a gamut of archaic repressive laws left behind by the Colonial Master. US professors in history and politics would then write about the tragedy of how the once-oppressed are now the oppressors in the Third World!

Next they projected him through the foreign press as a Voice of the Third World. Dr M would invite Nelson Mandela to stand next to him in Kuala Lumpur to declare his anti-apartheid vehemence. The same media would then go to town with his racist stance at home reinforced recently by a Cabinet minister who crowned him a “Bloody racist” and a “Father of racists”! It was an excellent smokescreen for racism in US.

The US singled him out, shored him up and saluted him the hero of the Muslim world. Dr M would declare his country an “Islamic State” and preach on Islamic values. Yet, his party was corrupted to the core and his Federal ministers and Chief Ministers (Menteris Besar) were guilty of sexual immorality and many other sins. The West pounced on the tragic contradiction and used it to smear the good name of Islam.

The US gave him free rein with his occasional anti-semitic invective. He would blame the problems of his country and the world on the Jews, though he had official Jewish financial advisors to his government, such as Salomon Smith Barney and Goldman Sachs. The more he attacked Israel, the more it gave the US the excuse to defend and protect them!

He was pictured as fearless in criticising and castigating the US for its many human rights abuses, whilst the US collected evidence of every human right violation he had committed especially those related to the Internal Security Act. Every year such evidence would fill the pages of the annual reports by US agencies on human rights abuse in the country which are sent to potential investors of Malaysia.

“Mahathir, despite his nationalistic rants, signed a secret security agreement with the United States in 1984 that gave the Americans access to a jungle warfare training school in Johor and allowed them to set up a small-ship repair facility at Lumut and a plant in Kuala Lumpur to repair C-130 Hercules transport aircraft,” wrote Barry Wain, author of the ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times’.

The US recognized him as the man behind Malaysia’s economic success but at the same time it would point the finger at him for the nation’s stagnant economy and for the scandalous amount of money lost during his premiership. As Barry Wain would also reveal: “Malaysia has squandered an estimated RM100 billion on financial scandals under the 22-year rule of Dr Mahathir Mohamad.”

In spite of the big show he had put up in demonising the US, Dr M would seek to return to the US for re-engineering and to receive further instructions. The government paid RM4.6 million for the services of disgraced US lobbyist Jack Abramoff to secure an audience with the then US President George W Bush, whose many crimes against humanity gave an elated Dr M a longer anti-US script to act out.

Dr M said recently that if the US can make 'Avatar', they can make anything, even 9/11!

Alas, how true, they can even make their very own Dr Mahathir Mohamad, one who would do anything at the behest of the US to satisfy his craving for the attention and adulation of his country and the world, and the adoration of his many followers who consider him their very avatar of power!

Martin Jalleh
(25 Jan 2010)

Young man convicted of ‘desecrating Quran’ by accusation of rival shopkeeper.

FAISALABAD, Pakistan, January 22 (CDN) — A young Christian shopkeeper was sentenced to a life term in prison and fined more than $1,000 last week following a dubious conviction of desecrating the Quran, according to Pakistan’s National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP).

Peter Jacob, general secretary of the NCJP, said 22-year-old Imran Masih of the Faisalabad suburb of Hajvairy was convicted of desecrating the Quran (Section 295-B of Pakistan’s legal code) and thereby outraging religious feelings (Section 295-A) by Additional District & Sessions Judge Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan on Jan. 11. The conviction was based on the accusation of a rival shopkeeper who, as part of an Islamic extremist proselytizing group, allegedly used a mosque loudspeaker system to incite a mob that beat Masih and ransacked his shop.Neighboring shopkeeper Hajji Liaquat Abdul Ghafoor accused Masih of tearing out pages of the Quran and burning them on July 1, 2009. Denying that he burned any pages of the Quran, Masih told investigators that the papers he burned were a heap of old merchandise records he had gathered while cleaning his store.

Masih’s family members said Ghafoor fabricated the blasphemy case against him because of a business dispute. Nearby shopkeepers, initially reluctant to talk out of fear of reprisals but eventually speaking on condition of anonymity, told Compass that they had seen the two men arguing over business a few days before the incident occurred. The shopkeepers said that when Masih burned the papers, Ghafoor started shouting that he had desecrated the Quran and blasphemed Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. In the case against Masih, police later accused Ghafoor of misusing the loudspeaker system of a mosque to stir up the mob.

“Ghafoor started shouting that Masih had desecrated the Quran and made blasphemous remarks about Islam and prophet Muhammad,” said one of the shopkeepers. “Ghafoor spread misconceptions about Imran Masih, and a mob of angry Muslim men unaware of the facts attacked Masih and viciously beat him, looted his shop and later handed him over to police.” The shopkeepers added that Ghafoor was a hard-line Muslim and part of an Islamic proselytizing group. Section 295-B of Pakistan’s legal code, desecrating the Quran, is punishable by imprisonment for life. In accordance with Section 295-A (instigating religious hatred and outraging religious feelings), Masih was also sentenced to 10 years in prison and a fine of 100,000 rupees (US$1,170); if he is unable to pay the fine, he will be assessed an additional six months in jail.

A conviction for blaspheming Muhammad (Section 295-C) is punishable by death under Pakistani’s notorious blasphemy laws. Widely condemned by the international community as easily invoked to settle personal enmities, Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have come under review in recent months, but to no avail. The laws are routinely invoked to harass members of minority communities. Additionally, while police cannot make arrests without a court-issued warrant for Section 295-A, they can arrest suspected blasphemers under sections 295-B and 295-C on the complaint of a single individual.

Masih is incarcerated at District Jail Faisalabad. Sources said he plans to appeal his sentence to the Lahore High Court. “No pages of the Quran were burned or desecrated,” said one member of Masih’s family, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It was just a lame excuse to implicate him in a fabricated case of blasphemy.” Tahir Naveed Chaudhary, a Christian member of Punjab’s legislative assembly and Sargodha zone head of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA), said Masih’s case was just one in a long list of incidents in which blasphemy laws have been used to settle personal grudges. He said that APMA would provide legal assistance to Masih. Compass Direct

How do you say 'chutzpah' in Indon? It was indeed ridiculous that Indonesian religious leaders urged Indonesian Muslims not to follow the acts of some Malaysian Muslims who attacked and damaged several churches in their country following the disputes over the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims.The statements of the religious elites, as quoted by The Jakarta Post on Monday, reflected a strong sense of self denial – if not ignorance – that implied that Indonesia has no religious conflict, nor attacks on place of worship. Just click on Google and you will easily find out how many churches have been burned and damaged in this country over the last few years, including very recently.

In practice, the permit system described in the article below functions rather like a modern-day Pact of Umar, making the construction of churches -- or the use of existing buildings as churches -- similarly subject to the whims of local Muslim communities. These churches were not approved, and thus, not "protected" under the dhimma pact. "North Sumatra, two Protestant churches burnt: 'too many faithful and too many prayers'," by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, January 23:

Jakarta (AsiaNews) - A crowd of at least 1000 people burned down two Protestant churches last night in Sibuhuan (district of Padang Lawas, North Sumatra). The blaze was the culmination of tension between the faithful and the local Islamic community, tired of seeing " too many faithful and too many prayers " in a place not registered as a church. The district chief of Padang Lawas, Basrah Lubis, said that "the attackers arrived in a flash. Their number was enormous, more or less a thousand. They were angry because the administration of the church had not responded to their demands: to change the use of buildings from 'places of prayer' to 'neutral buildings'. "
Both burned churches - two adjoining buildings - belong to the Synod of the Protestant Batak Church (Huria Kristen Batak Protestant, Hkbp), and are Pentecostal churches, whose faithful belong predominantly to the ethnic Batak group. Even their liturgies, with dances and songs are in Batak language.


According to police, neither of the two buildings had a building permit and had to be considered "places of prayer" and not "churches". In Indonesia, to build a church a special legal permit (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan, IMB) is necessary. The process to get the permit is almost always hard and the Islamic community has boycotted the emergence of new churches. This lack of legal permits has become the main source of Muslims violence against Christians. According to local witnesses, the first skirmishes took place last Christmas, when a large group of Sibuhuan residents held a sit-in protest against the existence of two churches, which has "too many members and disturbs the neighbours." In fact, the services of the Pentecostal community are full of songs and musical instruments and it is possible that the religious holiday services were a nuisance to local members of another religion.


Conflicting with previous statements, the locals also argue against the community's attempts to turn these "places of prayer" in "real churches". "The legal basis for declaring a church is that the number of believers is at least 60 members. But this community has only 23 members", claims Basrah Lubis. The Hkbp community of Sibuhuan is in existence since 1982 and still can not get permission to convert buildings into real recognized churches. Lubis Basrah admits that non Christian local hinder recognition. Now that the two buildings have been reduced to ashes, Hkbp communities have to travel to Sosa, 28 kilometres from Sibuhuan, where there are three permanent churches.


The Rev. Gomar Gultom, executive secretary of the Synod of Christian Churches in Indonesia (PGI), points out that all this anti-Christian violence occurs because some radical Islamic groups are deeply opposed to the construction of Christian places of worship and seek to restrain the public practise of other faiths. "In Indonesia, Christianity is legal - he says - but often, Christians are threatened." Only yesterday in Jakarta, Prof. Said Agil Siradj of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the largest (moderate) Muslim organization in the country, submitted a report by the Wahid Institute to promote pluralism in Indonesia. The report shows that in 2009, out of about 35 cases of violation of religious freedom, 28 are against Christians. Prof. Sirad says that the violence against Christians is caused by small groups of Islamic extremists, whose knowledge of "true Islam is very poor."

But the spokesman for pluralism insists it's the Christians who need to be sensitive: He also encouraged Christians to keep good relations with Muslims, showing sensitivity towards them. Trying to build a church, all right - he said - but "it is better and wiser to discuss the plan with the local population to minimize misunderstandings." All over the world, non-Muslims are required to be "sensitive" towards Muslims - or else. Hat tip:Jihad Watch. See this video clip by an Arab, talking about Islam's tolerance of other religions.

TO:-
Y.A.B. DATO' SRI MOHD. NAJIB BIN TUN HAJI ABDUL RAZAK
PRIME MINISTER,
Prime Minister's Office,
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA.

C:C
Y.A.B. TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN MOHD. YASSIN
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER,
Deputy Prime Minister's Office,
Level 4 West Block, Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 Putrajaya, MALAYSIA

Y.B. SENATOR TAN SRI DR. KOH TSU KOON
MINISTER IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT
Minister in The Prime Minister's Department,
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA.

Y.B. DATO' SERI HISHAMMUDDIN BIN TUN HUSSEIN
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Level 12, Block D1, Parcel D,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502, PUTRAJAYA.

Tan Sri Musa Bin Tan Sri Hj. Hassan

Ketua Polis Negara

Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur.

20th January 2010

Ref: Al-Islam Journalist yet to be Charged in Court
Police Report No : Dato Keramat/003607/09
Date of Report: 08/07/2009
Police Station: Jalan Patani/ Timur Laut

Dear Prime Minister,
In regards to the matter above, We are deeply concerned on your administration because till today, the two journalist from the Al-Islam Magazine whom entered the Catholic Church, to spy on our rituals, received the Holy Communion and then later spat it out to be photographed for publication purposes in their magazine, is yet to be charged in court despite solid evidence the police has gained.

The Holy Communion, which is made of a white wafer, is the most sacred for Catholics. It is believed by us Catholics that, it is the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ after going through the transformation or the liturgy of the Eucharist. Catholics receives this Communion in order for their sins to be forgiven, and to be in union with God. Catholic have to go through a 1 year formation to understand the meaning of the Communion, there after received a confirmation from the Bishop, whom is the head of the Church, before being allowed to received the Holy Communion. Those whom have not received the confirmation, are strictly not allowed to receive the body of Christ. This journalist had entered our Church and humiliated the most sacred part of our worship, and even published that barbaric act in their Al-Islam Magazine, which is under the Utusan Group of Companies.

Till today, no charges has been pressed against the culprits and this is sending a wrong signal out to Malaysians. It says, it is ok to enter places of worship and spy and humiliate their worship. This message will create lots of distress and disharmony on ground of religion in our country. It is because that there was no action taken at the very beginning itself, today there are people in Malaysia whom are brave to bomb churches down. If it is true your administration is practising the 1 Malaysia Concept, why has there been no action taken till today?

It all started off with a protest in the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Silibin Ipoh, by a group of people acting on a false SMS stating that we were converting Muslims to Christianity, and the government has been not successful in bringing those responsible, to justice. Later on, our church was spied, our worship was humiliated, and still no action taken against the culprits. Today our Churches are being bombed, vandalised with stones and paint and yet still no one is charged in court. I am very suspicious on your administration for not taking any action against those responsible for the 3 different incidents. Is your government against Christians in this Country? What are the police still waiting for? Are they waiting for someone to be killed? More religious disharmony will occur in our country if those responsible, are not brought to justice.

We demand an immediate response on the Al-Islam issue and for the journalist to be charged in court as soon as possible under the Penal Code Section 295 or 298a ( Causing Disharmony, disunity or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity , on grounds of religion) . The nation had loosed their trust in the Police Force and the Judiciary system. Bringing those journalists to the stand of Justice will bring back some trust on your administration that has long ago been lost. Self and written admittance in the Al-Islam Magazine itself is a solid proof for the journalist to be charged. We hope you would truly practise the 1 Malaysia Concept and stop all kinds of disharmony on grounds of religion in this country.

Thank you and hope to hear from you soon.

From,

K.Sudhagaran Stanley,

Human Rights Activist
Stanley_sudha@yahoo.com

When it took office a year ago, the Obama administration boasted of a new strategy of “smart power”, designed to restore America’s “standing” in the world. In essence this new approach to foreign policy was designed to distance the new US government in every way possible from the Bush administration, supposedly hated in every corner of the earth, from Berlin to Buenos Aires.Hence, the hallmarks of Obama’s foreign policy have been the naive engagement of an array of odious dictatorial regimes, grovelling apologies before foreign audiences, lamb-like timidity in the face of intimidation, the ending of the War on Terror, and the trashing of traditional alliances. But has this liberal foreign affairs revolution succeeded in advancing American interests and security across the globe? Hardly. Under Obama’s leadership the United States now appears significantly weaker and far more vulnerable, faced with an array of deadly threats that grow more menacing by the day.

When President Bush was in power he may not have been hugely popular abroad, but the United States was widely feared on the world stage, her enemies were hunted to the ends of the earth, and her real allies were treated with respect. As Barack Obama is discovering to his cost, the world stage is not an extension of the set of American Idol, and global leadership is not about winning popularity contests. The doctrine of “smart power” looks increasingly like an empty shell, a naive approach that has reaped no dividends and threatens to usher in an era of American decline, unless it is reversed.

I’ve outlined below ten areas where George W. Bush’s international leadership was considerably smarter than that of his successor. As I noted in an article at the end of the Bush presidency, ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush’s actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. President Bush, like Ronald Reagan, understood that American global leadership rests heavily upon the projection of hard power as well as diplomacy, and the United States can only lead effectively if it is willing to aggressively confront its enemies and defeat them.

1. Bush never apologised for his country

Barack Obama has apologised for America’s past actions in practically every speech he’s given on foreign soil, and has humiliatingly referred to America’s “arrogance”. In contrast, George W. Bush’s speeches before international audiences were filled with pride for America’s history and achievements, with an uncompromising belief in the greatness of his country. The Obama approach has simply projected weakness rather than strength, and his diatribes against the previous administration’s counter-terror strategy has provided ample ammunition for those who believe the United States lacks the stomach for the fight ahead. Continued here.......

In case you missed the nonevent, the military prison for suspected terrorists and other assorted "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, did not close today. It may be years before it does, assuming President Obama ultimately delivers on that promise. In any case, the policy of keeping people locked up indefinitely without trial will continue, supplemented by a policy of keeping them locked up even if they are tried and acquitted. The New York Times reports that "the Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees...because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release."

The task force said about 40 other detainees "should be prosecuted for terrorism or related war crimes," but that does not mean they will be released if they are found not guilty. The remaining 110 or so detainees are supposed to be "repatriated or transferred to other countries for possible release," but it's not clear when they might happen. About 30 of the men are from Yemen, and the Obama administration stopped sending detainees back to that country in light of the Christmas Day airplane bombing plot that originated there.

This is the same mishmash of approaches to War on Terror detainees that the Bush admininstration took: release some, try some in civilian court, try some before military tribunals, keep the rest imprisoned indefinitely. Maybe the proportions will be different. A few weeks ago, I asked, "What’s the difference between Obama’s anti-terrorism policies and Bush's?" Still wondering.

Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Reason Blog

They whine about Christian biblical verses inscribed in gun sights in a majority Christian nation, they want Jesus erased. Yet, the Christians are tolerant. Just look at the atrocities below committed in Muslim majority countries on their minorities, no amount of spin can hide this :

1. Indonesia: Christians Most Hit by Religious Freedom Violations

2. Malaysia: Church Buildings Attacked in Malaysia Following Court Decision

3. Pakistan: Two Christians Critically Wounded at Wedding in Pakistan

4. Somalia: Compass Direct News' Top 10 Stories of 2009

5. Egypt: Coptic Christians Gunned Down after Christmas Service

6. Iran: Authorities Arrest, Coerce Christians over Christmas Season

7. Pakistan: Muslim Mob Wounds Christian Family

8. Christians in Jos, Nigeria Fear Further Attacks

9. Algerian Church Continues in Spite of Burnt Building

10. Pakistan: Accused Christian Says Muslims Tried to Coerce Him

11. Turkey: Court Seeks to Link Murder of Christians to 'Cage Plan'

12. Indonesia: Massive Muslim Mob Damages Church Building

13. Pakistan: Muslims Gun Down Christian Friend

14. Pakistan: Muslims Allegedly Poison Christian Employees to Death

Malaysia is often held up as the model of what a modern Muslim-majority nation can be. The ruling class, the bumiputra (literally "princes of the earth") are largely, though not entirely, Muslim. But when Malaysia's High Court ruled in late December to lift a government ban on non-Muslims using the word "Allah," Christian churches became the targets of fire-bombing attacks. This eruption of violence suggests that there is trouble brewing just beneath the surface even in this supposed paradise of Islamic moderation.

At last count, eleven Christian churches and one Sikh temple have been attacked in Malaysia. That makes twelve attacks against places of worship in half a month's time. What does it say about Islamic values when the impetus for these attacks was the use of a particular word?

Everyone agrees that the word "Allah" pre-dates the birth of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In Malaysia, as in most of the Muslim of the world, Allah simply means God, the same God that, according to the Quran itself, both Christians and Jews worship. Nonetheless, use of the word Allah among non-Muslims has long been prohibited by law in Malaysia. A December 31 ruling by a Malaysian court overturned that law, a move that upset many of the nation's Muslims, who make up about sixty per cent of the populace. They claim that non-Muslims will use the word to corrupt Muslims into accepting infidel beliefs.

Once again, we are presented with evidence of Islamic intolerance and insecurity. To his credit, Malaysian Prime Minister Dato' Sri Mohd Najib condemned the attacks, which undermine both his "One Malaysia" policy and his re-election prospects. But no matter how much tolerance the leader of this nation may preach, the actions of his co-religionists speak much louder. Emboldened by an increasingly aggressive, violent, world-wide Islamic resurgence over the last few decades, this episode reveals what expatriates who have lived in Malaysia have long claimed: that the supposed harmony of Malaysia is nothing but a glossy veneer that barely covers up the inequities and prejudices of this society.

The Malaysian constitution grants special privileges to the bumiputra, or as they are called in the constitution, Malays. Malays are defined as those citizens who profess the religion of Islam, habitually speak the Malay language and conform to Malay customs. The constitution directs the King of Malaysia (Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy) to safeguard the special position of the Malays and to ensure that a certain percentage of public services and scholarships and other similar educational privileges are reserved by the federal government for the benefit of Malays.

The bumiputra enjoy other advantages as well. A certain percentage of stock in publicly-traded companies is reserved for the bumiputra. Traditionally, they pay less for real estate than other Malaysian citizens. This is clearly a separate and unequal society. Which is not to say that Malaysia is not governed in a more liberal fashion than reactionary Muslim nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Western clothing can be found on the streets of Kuala Lampur. Christians, Buddhists and Hindus, if less than equal compared to their Muslim masters, are at least allowed to practice their faith in relative peace.

Or rather they were allowed to worship in relative peace. The government of Malaysia has officially condemned the attacks, even as it tries to have the troublesome court ruling that set off the firestorm reversed. Troops have been dispatched to protect non-Islamic houses of worship, but it seems unlikely that many of the 2.3 million Christians who live in Malaysia feel safe going to church.

Even in this most mainstream of Muslim-ruled nations, supposed Islamic tolerance has been once again shown to be a matter of style, not substance. AINA By Rich Trzupek in Frontpage Magazine. Myth of tolerance? Here is a video clip by an Arab, talking about Islam's tolerance of other religions.

Denial, arrogance, and self-pity are ingredients for a pretty toxic cocktail. And yet it seems that the occupants of the White House bunker, shell-shocked by Scott Brown, are coping by mixing all three with a little Kool-Aid. In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the president offered his nuanced analysis of the Bay State Götterdämmerung and his first year in office.

In short: “I did nothing wrong.”

Well, with one caveat: “One thing I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people. . . . I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know, this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here, that people will get it.”

Cue the record-scratch sound effect! Look, Fidel Castro can get away with saying something like that. He’s been cloistered away on life support, unable to give his epic speeches to rent-a-crowds. But Obama? Barack Obama? In his first year as president, Obama has broken all records for talking directly to the American people. According to CBS News, he has delivered 411 public “speeches, comments, and remarks” and 158 interviews — more than one public statement per day and roughly an interview every other day. The supposedly aloof Obama already personalizes things more than a host on The View. Every address is so laden with “me,” “myself,” and “I,” you’d think he was trying to fix the economy with a massive stimulus of personal pronouns.

Obama is a near-permanent fixture not just of news-magazine covers but all magazine covers, including Men’s Fitness and American Dog — which, admittedly, he shared with a three-legged pooch named Baby. He’s schmoozed with Oprah and given plenty of in-depth interviews on 60 Minutes. Next week, the president will give his first State of the Union address. If that seems strange, it’s because it will be his third nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress. The only way the White House communications shop could cram more Obama down our throats would be if it required, as part of the health-care bill, that we have Obama-message receivers installed in our fillings.

The arrogance runs deeper. Over and over, Obama says he’s gotten all of the policies exactly right. Whenever Stephanopoulos asked him whether he did anything wrong, Obama responded that he had no choice but to tackle the “big problems.” “Now, I could have said, well, we’ll just do what’s safe. We’ll just take on those things that are completely noncontroversial.”

What nobility! What courage! What a crock.

The question isn’t, “Do you regret tackling these issues?” The question is, “Do you regret how you tackled these issues?” According to Obama, there was no other way than his way. And these ungrateful, confused, angry voters just don’t understand that. That is, if they’re really mad at him at all. Obama whines that Massachusetts voters are really blaming him for someone else’s mistakes. Guess who? George Bush, of course.

“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs tried to shovel the same stuff Wednesday, saying that the “anger and the frustration” that swept Brown to victory on Tuesday swept Obama to power a year ago. Except, wait a second. Obama was carried into office on the wings of the flying unicorns called “hope” and “change,” not “anger” and “frustration.” Besides, if voters are frustrated with the slow pace of reform, why did they just elect a guy promising to slow down Obama’s agenda?

Not only is the White House in denial that giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid control of domestic and economic policy wasn’t what voters wanted in 2008, they’re in denial that it isn’t what voters want in 2010. Instead, the White House is going to play the populist card, attacking the banks they bailed out and the insurance companies they struck sweetheart deals with. The president who mocked Scott Brown’s truck — made by GM, a company Obama actually owns — is now going to grab a pitchfork and join the mob at the White House gates.

I don’t know how they’ll do it, but one thing’s for sure: We’ll get even more Obama. Jonah Goldberg in The National Review

If this kind of so called experts give advice to our defence planners, God help us.

Jet claim flies in the face of facts — William Choong

JAN 22 — In 1990, David North became the first Western journalist to fly one of the most advanced Soviet aircraft then — the Sukhoi-27. The former United States Navy fighter pilot and editor-in-chief of Aviation Week and Space Technology made a quick assessment: The Su-27 was more comparable to America’s improved performance F-15 Strike Eagle, rather than to the earlier model F-15. Apparently without the privilege of flying one, Professor Azmi Hassan — a geostrategist at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia — made a similar claim: US-made fighters like the F-5, F-15 and F-16, like those in the Republic of Singapore Air Force, “cannot beat the Su-30”, an advanced variant of the Su-27. Also, the Russian Su-30 is better than the US-made next-generation F-22 Raptor, Azmi wrote in Utusan Malaysia last month.

The thrust of his article was simple: Malaysia should purchase 18 Su-30s to replace its ageing inventory of MIG-29 aircraft. But the article left out some obvious facts: For one thing, Malaysia already has 18 Su-30s. And to argue that the Su-30 is better than the F-22 — a stealth aircraft with cutting-edge capabilities — is patent nonsense, say experts.

To some extent, one could compare the airframe performances of two aircraft from roughly the same generation. It has been reported extensively that the Su-30 beat American aircraft such as the F-15 in Red Flag exercises in the US, thanks to its manoeuvrability and high angle of attack. In a widely watched YouTube video, for example, a US Air Force pilot concedes that Su-30s in the hands of competent Indian pilots will “regularly defeat” earlier versions of the F-16 and the F-15. (He did, however, highlight some of the Su-30’s weaknesses).

But the assertion that the Su-30 is better than other US-made aircraft is too simplistic, argues Dzirhan Mahadzir, the Malaysia-based correspondent for Jane’s and a former lecturer at the Malaysian Armed Forces Defence College. “This is the kind of statement that amateurs or those with limited knowledge of military issues make,” he said. One cannot pitch one aircraft against another, given that air forces fight in “systems”, or suites of capabilities. These include airborne warning and the ability to rearm, refuel and deploy aircraft into combat quickly.

It is a truism that a platform — that is, an aircraft — does not equate to an effective capability, notes Dr Alan Stephens, a visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales and a former pilot with the Royal Australian Air Force. “It’s the total system that matters. For example, if the Battle of Britain were refought today with the Luftwaffe flying Hurricanes and Spitfires and the Royal Air Force (RAF) flying Bf-109s, the result would still be the same,” he said, referring to the RAF’s excellent early warning radar network and superior leadership.

Individual skill is another important factor, argues Professor Bernard Loo, a defence analyst at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. “A half-past-six weapon in the hands of a skilled operator is better than a top-notch weapon in the hands of a half-trained monkey,” he says. “The bottom line,” he adds, is as follows: “Unless and until the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) uses its combat platforms in a coherent system, their possession of technically superior platforms will not change the strategic situation in South-east Asia one iota.”

More importantly, Azmi’s argument that 18 Su-30s will make the RMAF the dominant air power in the region is faulty. Even if it is valid — and many experts beg to disagree — the statement misses the whole point about air power. As early as 1921, air power strategists such as Giulio Douhet, an Italian air force officer, argued that air power, like other forms of military force, was merely a means to an end in a strategy to crush an opponent’s will. To paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz, mere hardware is nothing without an overarching grand strategy.

Moreover, there has been growing circumspection about air power, particularly after the Vietnam War. In his 1996 work, Bombing To Win: Air Power And Coercion In War, Robert Pape argued that American air power had achieved little — and would achieve little — in coercing America’s enemies.

Utusan Malaysia — an Umno-owned newspaper that has seen its circulation fall in recent years — has a penchant for making controversial statements. In October 2000, for example, a reporter asked then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew where the 100 AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (AAMs) Singapore was buying from the US would face. He replied: “The missiles will face nowhere, but they are there to welcome whoever intends harm.”

Nobody took exception to the remark until four days later, when Utusan carried a front-page story headlined “Kuan Yew: Sila Serang Singapura”, or “Kuan Yew: Please attack Singapore”. (Interestingly, Lee had referred to a letter to the New Straits Times by Dzirhan, arguing that the US-made missiles put the Republic on a par with Malaysia’s AA-12 Adder AAMs).

It is bad enough that Azmi’s commentary is full of faulty logic and bereft of any theoretical heft. It would be worse if his comments were to impair the otherwise good political and military relations between two neighbours. — The Straits Times

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified. Malaysian Insider