Hizb ut Tahrir: Hatchery of Islamist Radicalism

The following short article was published on January 30, 2007, and was sent to the Australian Government on the same date. It’s republished here as the government now considers the banning of Hizb ut Tahrir.

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Hizb ut Tahrir’s spokesman Washim Doureihi’s claim that his party’s goal “was not to change the nature of Australia,” is either blatant dissembling, taqqiyya–characteristic of Muslims–or historically ignorant. The establishment of a caliphate in the Indonesian archipelago and beyond, which is the goal of Hizb ut Tahrir, with a population of more than five hundred millions, would not merely “change the nature of Australia,” but would irrevocably obliterate Australia and New Zealand as the outposts of Western civilization in the region.

However, the statement of John Howard, as reported in The Age, on January 30, 07, should be of some concern to Australians. He stated that “people…should be able to say ridiculous things in democracy without that language constituting violence and extreme incitement to violence.” This judgment of the PM is based on rational criteria. The trouble is that all the actions of the terrorists are based on a patent of irrationality, and indeed, their whole movement of jihad has a ridiculous base, i.e., religious fanaticism. And it’s by propagating these ridiculous things that their propagandists, such as Dr. Ismail Yusanto, chairman of the Indonesian arm of Hizb ut Tahrir, who was the main speaker at the conference last weekend, are getting their deadly recruits of terror. That is why political leaders who have committed their military forces to fight global terror, have to take these “ridiculous things” with seriousness. They cannot allow a hatchery of Islamic radicalism to function in the midst of their countries as a fifth column of global terrorism.

Advertisements

No More Free Suntans in Sunny Greece

By Con George-Kotzabasis

As Drew correctly states none of the classical liberal economists, Smith, Mises, Hayek, and I would add in this brilliant constellation Mill, Bawerk, and Schumpeter, ever argued that the free market was perfect and “market failure” was inconceivable. On the contrary they argued that the three cardinal principles of the free market were imperfect knowledge, uncertainty, and risk. How could any rational and economically literate person accuse the classical liberal economists of contending that the free market were free from market failure, when their whole argument was premised on the above three principles? Moreover, they did argue, that market failure could be cured mainly by the ‘elixir’ of the free market, and not by unqualified and ubiquitous government intervention.

It is the critics of the free market that engendered the ‘straw man’ of the perfect market so they could knock it down easily without any effort of critical thinking, which of course they lacked, and replace it with the socialist planning nostrums or, a la Kervick, with the hybrid panacea of the “mixed economy,” whose avatar was and is modern Europe, and which presently is at the threshold of economic bankruptcy. The sun is still shining in sunny Greece, but there are no more free suntans for its denizens.

Danger of Tyros Handling War Strategy

I’m republishing this short piece that was written on September 2007 hoping the readers of this new blog will find it to be of some interest.

A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to:

Clinton’s Statement on Kyl-Lieberman Resolution Washington Note, September 30, 2007

Like the two eminent commentators of the New York Times Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, respectable in their own professions as an economist and art critic respectably, and a bevy of politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, not so respectable because of their populist stunt, all of them being novices par excellence in the affairs of war who have attempted to pass judgment on the war in Iraq and cashier its victory despite evidence to the contrary, we now have another “tired less” tyro joining them in war strategy. The scholar and blogger Steven Clemons of the Washington Note. Clemons indirectly rebukes Senator Clinton for her support and vote of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, fearing that this will allow Bush to manipulate this resolution and use it to attack Iran.

He calls therefore on Senator Clinton to exercise “leadership in passing an explicit Senate resolution forbidding Bush from taking action against Iran without clear advice and consent from Congress”. But such action is not a declaration of war against Iran needing the authorization of Congress. It’s a strategic force de frappe on the part of the US against Iran in which the elements of secrecy and surprise are pivotal and decisive in the success of such an attack. Therefore Clemons’ call is strategically oxymoronic.

–>

Dismiss Dismiss Victorious General Shout Nipple-fed Intellectuals

By Con George-Kotzabasis

The unsated gratification of nipple-fed intellectuals, like Steve Clemons and Dan Kervick, is to replace the savvy and the strong with their own brand of weakness. This has happened to UN Ambassador John Bolton and is now happening to General Stanley McChrystal. The successful general who had killed thousands of insurgents and al-Qaeda fanatics and their leader Zarkawi in Iraq by his Special Forces operations which was the major contributing factor to the success of the Surge that had turned an American defeat into an American victory, is to be swept out by the anti-war animus of all the dilettantes of strategy and military affairs for his so called insubordination to his civilian superiors.

What McChrystal has done other than, according to his aides, express his disappointment about Obama and Holbrooke, and one of his aides saying that Jim Jones, the National Security advisor, is a clown? And is it surprising that McChrystal in describing a Pentagon meeting in which among a coruscating constellation of generals of strength, tenacity, and success, Obama with his inexperience and weak character was found to be “uncomfortable and intimidated?” And why McChrystal cannot express his view about the timorous Ambassador Eikenberry, who opposed the sending of more troops to Afghanistn and who is more concerned according to McChrystal to cover “his flanks for the history books” than in winning the war and McChrystal saying about him, “Now if we fail, they can say, I told you so.”

In what way in all of the above was McChrystal in breach of his subordination to his Commander in Chief Obama? Is criticism by the military of some members of an inept and incompetent administration reason to dismiss a general who has the knowhow, tenacity, and great potential to win the war in Afghanistan as he has done in Iraq? Only goofy and malevolently biased people against the military would place criticism toward members of the administration as of primal importance over military victory.

But the nipple-fed intellectuals scenting the moods of their kindred spirit in the White House have achieved their goal.