Pipes favours a military solution to our Islamist problem

Pipes favours a military solution to our Islamist problem

By Ted Belman

Daniel Pipes wrote Europe’s Stark Options in which he defined the options as integration, expulsion or Islamification. He failed to take a position. I wondered what it might be so I googled him for it and came up with this,

How the West Could Lose (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 27, 2006)

He asks “After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists?” He thinks victory is not so simple because

Islamists (defined as persons who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam, the Sharia) might in fact do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That’s because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them – pacifism, self-hatred, complacency – deserve attention.


I found his definition of Islamist interesting because they are anyone who follows Sharia Law. So moderates are those who don’t. My reading is that he considers moderates to be apostates. He goes on to define “pacifism, self-hatred, complacency” and ends with,

Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.

Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, but instead stick to the lawful, political, non-violent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them.

So it appears that he favours a military solution.

Putin’s Middle East Visit

Putin’s Middle East Visit
By Ariel Cohen
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 2, 2007

Vladimir Putin’s February 11 visit to
Saudi Arabia was the first ever for any Russian or Soviet leader. Putin also visited
US allies Jordan and
Qatar. Coming from
Munich where Putin delivered his most bellicose anti-American speech, he further delineating a Russian Middle Eastern policy at odds with
Washington in an interview with Al Jazeera.  Putin reiterated
Russia‘s opposition to the
Iraq war and disputed the justice of Saddam’s execution. He was also critical of
US democracy promotion in the
Middle East, quoting the empowerment of Hamas and Hezbollah as a result of parliamentary elections promoted by
Washington. At the same time, he justified
Russia’s refusal to recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations on the basis of their victory in parliamentary elections in the
West Bank and
Gaza in January 2006.

Also, during his visit to the Saudi capital, Putin stunned the world with an offer to sell
Saudi Arabia “peaceful” nuclear reactors. In addition, he offered 150 T-90 tanks and other weapons. During his Middle East tour, the Russian president indicated Russia’s willingness to sell helicopters, to build rocket propelled grenade (RPG) factories, and to provide sophisticated anti-aircraft systems—the Carapace (Pantsyr), TOR M1 and Strelets—and topped it off by offering the Saudis expanded satellite launches and an opportunity to join the Russian satellite navigation system, GLONASS.

During his visit to Qatar, the third largest natural gas producer in the world, Putin also indicated that the Iranian offer to form an OPEC-style cartel of gas producers was “an interesting idea” – after his minister had dismissed it out of hand—and invited Saudi banks to open wholly-owned subsidiaries in
Russia.

 

Putin summed up
Russia’s new foreign policy and
Middle East policy as follows:
 

From the point of view of stability in this or that region or in the world in general, the balance of power is the main achievement of these past decades and indeed of the whole history of humanity.  It is one of the most important conditions for maintaining global stability and security…  

I do not understand why some of our partners [
Europe and the
US – AC] … see themselves as cleverer and more civilized and think that they have the right to impose their standards on others. The thing to remember is that standards that are imposed from the outside, including in the
Middle East, rather than being a product of a society’s natural internal development, lead to tragic consequences, and the best example of this is
Iraq.
 

This Realpolitik talk was praised in Arab capitals, where the old Soviet anti-Western and anti-Israel stance is still remembered fondly. King Abdullah I of
Saudi Arabia bestowed the King Faisal Award on Putin, calling him “a statesman, a man of peace, a man of justice.”  Quite a turnaround from the jihad funded against the Soviets by the Saudis twenty years ago during the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan.  It is also worth noting that
Saudi Arabia officially decries the 100,000 killed and 500,000 displaced Muslims in
Chechnya, while private groups based in the Gulf support terrorists there.
 

At odds with the West 

There are a number of factors driving Putin’s recent rhetoric and actions in the
Middle East. First, by embracing Middle Eastern monarchies and Islamist authoritarianism in
Iran, he signals
Russia’s continuous distancing from Western norms of internal political behavior. This has important implications, as 2007-2008 are election years in
Russia. Putin is now loudly rejecting the American democracy and human rights approach, which has stumbled and sputtered in the
Middle East.

Second,
Russia is following the Soviet model of opposing first British and then the
US presence in the
Middle East by playing to anti-Western sentiment in the “street” and among the elites. Putin’s
Munich speech, his Al Jazeera interview, and his press conferences in
Jordan and
Qatar solidified the Kremlin’s public diplomacy message, emphasizing its differences with
Washington.
 

Third, the Russian leadership is concerned with the high Muslim birthrates in
Russia, especially as the Slavic Orthodox population is declining.
Russia is facing an increasingly radicalized Muslim population along its southern “soft underbelly,” particularly in the
North Caucasus, where two Chechen rebellions, even though they were effectively crushed, led to the spread of Salafi Islam. Many young Russian Muslims view themselves more as members of the global Islamic Ummah (community) than as citizens of Mother Russia. Keeping Muslim powers such as
Saudi Arabia and
Iran at bay, preventing them from supporting insurgencies in
Eurasia, and toning down radicalization through Islamist education and propaganda, is an unspoken but important item on the Kremlin’s agenda.
 

Finally,
Russia is a high-cost oil producer, the largest oil producer in the world, the largest oil exporter outside of OPEC, and the largest gas producer. As such, it is interested in maintaining a high energy price environment, which is usually generated by tensions and conflicts in the
Middle East.
Russia is perfectly willing to sell weapons to both sides of the growing Sunni-Shia divide. This was evidenced when the same nuclear reactors – peaceful, of course, and the same anti-aircraft systems, were offered both to Iran and to the Arab Gulf states, which are increasingly nervous about the growing Iranian military power and nuclear ambitions. As one Russian observer put it, weapons sales create allies.
Russia is using weapons and nuclear reactor sales the way imperial
Germany used railroads – to bolster influence and to undermine the dominant power in the
Middle East.
 

What Can
Washington Do?
 

Clearly, the new
Middle East, in which
US power and prestige are threatened in
Iraq, and where
Moscow is challenging the
US superpower status, is going to be a more competitive and challenging environment. Today’s
Middle East needs to be viewed with the realism and toughness its history and culture requires.
 

The
US, as a status quo power in the
Middle East, should bolster its relations with pro-Western regimes in the Gulf. While some weapons sales and business projects will inevitably take place, only by maintaining a security umbrella in the Gulf can the
U.S. have a bigger clout in the region than
Russia.
 

The
US should continue dialogue with
Moscow on issues of mutual concern, such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and destabilizing weapons sales. But more importantly, it should be providing military assurances to Gulf countries against Iranian encroachment, which
Russia is incapable of giving; expanding cooperation in the fight against terrorism, which threatens the Middle Eastern monarchies; and being competitive in cutting edge economic ventures in which
Russia lacks expertise, while granting access to
US capital markets for development projects.
 

After a 20-year hiatus,
Russia is forcing its way back through the open
Middle East door.
Washington decision makers had better take note.

United Nations OKs State-Sanctioned Mass Rape

United Nations OKs State-Sanctioned Mass Rape

while condemning Israel for defending itself

by Bill Levinson

As shown by “Another U.N. Classic” (Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2007; Page A10), the same organization that sanctions child molesting and child rape by its so-called peacekeepers (Google on “United Nations” and “sex for food”) has blocked discussion of state-sanctioned mass rape in Burma (Myanmar) and Sudan. This comes as no surprise given the United Nations’ proven lack of honesty, character, and integrity.

On the occasion of the annual meeting of the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women, the American delegation decided to organize a panel on the subject of “State-Sanctioned Mass Rape in Burma and Sudan.” …Enter U.N. bureaucrat Sylvie Cohen of the Division for the Advancement of Women. Ms. Cohen refused to list the panel discussion on the U.N.’s Web site because it “would be perceived as offensive to named member states.”

While the United Nations has never had a problem with “offending” Israel by calling it a racist or apartheid state, it is apparently quite [Michael Savage nasal whining tone] sensitive [/Michael Savage nasal whining tone] to the sensibilities of barbaric dictatorships like Myanmar and Sudan. Also recall that it is Sudan that is crucifying and enslaving Negro Christians for being Christians.

From Freedomhouse.org, we have the freedom ratings of the kinds of countries that the United Nations does not want to offend. Ratings are on a 1-7 scale, with 7 being the worst.

Burma (Myanmar) (2006)
Political Rights: 7
Civil Liberties: 7
Status: Not Free
Population: 50,500,000
GNI/Capita: $105

Sudan (2006)
Political Rights: 7
Civil Liberties: 7
Status: Not Free
Population: 40,200,000
GNI/Capita: $460

Both countries are prima facie evidence that Rudyard Kipling was 100 percent right about Western Civilization’s Burden“. Myanmar and Sudan are obviously unfit to govern themselves, and it is unfortunate that Sudan is no longer under British colonial rule.

In any event, we understand why the United Nations, which is into pedophilia, child molesting, and child pornography (again, Google on “United Nations” and “sex for food” to see what we mean) has no problem with state-sanctioned rape. The United Nations is totally unworthy of respect by any civilized person.

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 8:23 pm |

Subject: A Warning For America From South Africa

Subject:  A Warning For America From South Africa

IMPORTANT–I urge you to read this,  it is long but the information should be understood by each of us that treasure the American way of life, living under OUR Constitution, and OUR Form of Government.

A Warning For America From South Africa

        By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

        People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

        Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

        America’s structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

        Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman – that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you’ve created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

        But woe to you if – or more likely, when – the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game – violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves – Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

        That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

        Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve “peace.”

        Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

        The Third World is different – different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe – once the thriving, stable Rhodesia – is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the

Western conscience of compassion.

        Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

        It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the ” politically correct” and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe “compassionate conservatism” will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

        White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

        We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of “oppression” and “racism,” and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles’ heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the “equality of man,” and his “love your neighbor” philosophy – none of which are part of the Third World’s history.

        The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today’s tyrants were yesterday’s mission-school proteges. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the “brotherhood of man.”

        Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

        >From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don’t want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

        A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn’t want to quarrel.

        In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society’s laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings – as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge “white man’s justice”? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

        What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white “racists” and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

        Don’t laugh. When the “majority” took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

        In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing – invasions of private land by the “have-nots;” the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

        In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

        What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor’s backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for “medicinal” purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

        Don’t laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

        Don’t imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses – like the need to overcome generations of white racism – will be found to exonerate the guilty.

        In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn’t exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

        When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa’s new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

        Your tax dollars will go to those who don’t earn and don’t pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans’ services, are simply abandoned.

        What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don’t expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

        Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there

is no getting it back again.

        Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

        To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don’t put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

        Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your posessions, your power, and your status.

        And they already know that their allies among you, the “human rights activists,” the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

        They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

        They know what to do.

        Do you?

        Gemma

Nearly 90% of Palestinian youth deny Israel’s right to exist

Israeli Fathers Remember Their Children Killed by Suicide Bomber

Israeli Fathers Remember Their Children Killed by

 Suicide Bomber

Wherever Yossi Zur travels, he brings back a stone to place on the grave of his teenage son Asaf. Zur, who lives in Israel’s northern port city of Haifa, is one of three parents who have found unique ways of keeping alive the memories of their children who were murdered by a suicide bomber.

Asaf, 16, Tal Kehrmann,17, and Yuval Mendellevich, 13, were among 17 people killed on March 5, 2003 when a suicide bomber boarded the bus they were riding and detonated an explosives belt packed with 37.4 pounds (17 kilograms) of explosives. [1] Of the dead, 12 were younger than 21. Another 53 people were wounded in the attack. [2]

Were he alive today, Asaf would be celebrating his 21st birthday on April 27 and finishing his compulsory military service. And like most young Israeli men seeking a respite after three years of regimented life, Asaf would have been planning a trip to an exotic location. But since Asaf, or “Blondi” as his family called him, won’t be able to travel the world, his father decided he would bring the world to him.

In January, Zur began asking people of all nationalities across the globe to send him stones in honor of Asaf. He put his request in the form of a letter that he distributed through the Internet. He has since received more than 500 stones from 49 countries and outer space.

Placing stones on graves is an old Jewish tradition that some say dates back to Biblical times when graves were marked with heaps of stones. But a more common explanation for this custom is that stones serve as a reminder someone has visited the grave. And, unlike flowers, stones endure. [3]

Aside from Jewish custom, Zur said he chose stones because, “I wanted to bring back something that’s a symbol of a particular place, something that’s permanent.”

While the fathers of Asaf, Tal and Yuval mourned the loss of their children, the mother of the suicide bomber who took their lives celebrated her son’s death. Read about how she views her son’s attack.

Those who send stones sometimes include messages for Zur or Asaf. Eileen from Pennsylvania sent two stones from India – one bears the word “peace” and the other “strength.” A woman named Kinneret sent two stones from the Himalaya Mountains in Nepal; Milena in Sweden sent a stone from the pyramids in Egypt. Zur also received three stones that a contributor named Yoav brought to Israel from Potosi, Bolivia – the highest city in the world.

Lawrence, a NASA employee, and Karen from Illinois sent in pieces of the Allende meteorite, which landed in Mexico in 1969. Sefi, a teacher from California, included letters from her students along with the three stones she sent to Zur.

Zur received one stone from a girl in Israel who had lost a close friend to an illness just before the two were to leave on a vacation in Argentina. The girl brought back two stones, one for her friend’s grave. She held onto the other one waiting for the stone’s destiny. After she read Zur’s letter, she told him she knew the stone was meant for Asaf.

Susan Weissman of Delray Beach, Fl. sent seashells for Asaf. Weissman, who spent almost three decades living in Israel, said that after reading Zur’s letter, “I felt moved to tears. I made the small effort…to sympathize and send my prayer that time will heal all wounds.”

Now, Zur has the bittersweet dilemma of trying to find a way to fit all of the stones on his son’s grave, which is in the shape of a surfboard to reflect Asaf’s favorite pastime.

To send a stone to Yossi Zur, mail to: Yossi Zur, POB 7895, Haifa 31078, Israel.

Asaf’s fellow passenger on bus No. 37 Tal Kehrmann was on her way to meet friends when the bus was blown up. Like Zur, Tal’s father Ron Kehrmann also sought an original way to keep the memory of his daughter from fading.

Tal loved animals, especially camels; her room was filled with stuffed camels. A sign in her room, which she received from a family friend, read “Camel Crossing.” Ron Kehrmann recalled that a few weeks before she died, Tal drew a camel in her diary. First, Ron began making memo pads and stickers that contained a replication of Tal’s drawing – a sketch that she never had a chance to complete.

In January, Ron Kehrmann reached out to people of all ages around the world to complete her drawing by coloring in a drawing of Tal’s camel.

“‘Color Tal’s Camel’ is unique, convenient and reaches all ages, young and old,” he said. “One can stay at home and take part in this memorial event and also learn about Tal.”

Since Kehrmann began the campaign a month ago, traffic to Tal’s memorial Web site has quadrupled and Kehrmann has received more than 300 colored-in camels from children and adults – Christians, Jews and Muslims alike – in Israel, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.

Seven elementary and high schools in Haifa have committed to taking part in the ongoing project. Download a copy of Tal’s camel.

The last words Yossi Mendellevich heard from his son Yuval by cellphone were “Dad! I love you” just before their connection was severed in the explosion aboard bus No. 37.

Yuval and Avigail Leitel, a 14-year-old Christian girl killed in the bombing, had been part of the Children Teaching Children program at the Jewish-Arab Center for Peace, a program that brings Arab and Jewish youth together to learn about coexistence, tolerance and mutual understanding. Yuval and Avigail had been preparing for an upcoming meeting with Arab youth from a town nearby. [4]

Yossi Mendellevich was inspired to begin work on a project in his son’s memory after he saw the Families of September 11 Web site, dedicated to raise awareness about the effects of terrorism and public trauma and champion policies that protect against terrorist acts. [5]

With Yossi Zur’s help, Yossi Mendellevich is developing a similar Web site in Israel to disseminate information and support to victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks. The two men also plan to create a section for contributors.

“This type of organization is missing in Israel,” he said. “People affected by terrorists need a place where they can turn when they need help. They need to know how to deal with the tragedy of losing a child, a family member or a friend.”

As the three fathers prepare for a fifth year without their children, they still talk about how the deaths of their children could have been prevented. Their answer is the same: the anti-terrorist security fence. When their children were killed, the fence had yet to begin construction.

The security fence has been very effective in thwarting suicide attacks since Israel began building it in August 2003 – five months after their children were killed. From 2003-2006 there was a 92 percent reduction in the number of suicide bombings. [6] There was a 30 percent drop in the number of terrorist attacks that took place in 2003, compared to 2002, and a 50 percent drop in the number of victims. [7]

Said Mendellevich, “The fence is temporary. Yuvali’s death is permanent.”

Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape

Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape

Norway’s most important paper Aftenposten ran a story earlier this week saying that 65% of the rape crimes in Oslo were committed by foreigners, even though they only represent a mere 23% of the population in the Norwegian capital. The article was prompted by a call by the Rape Commission (Voldtektsutvalget) to the imams to put rapes and the attitude against women on the agenda.

Foreigners are six times more likely to figure in crime statistics concerning rapes in Oslo. During the first two months of this year sixteen rapes and rape attempts have been committed, and the three men the police are looking for in connection with four of those cases have one thing in common: they all have a Muslim background. Especially Somalis and Iraqis seem to be well represented in the statistics.

Even though the article doesn’t do much more than quote some simple basic facts, it was nevertheless a bit controversial. The social democratic minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen reacted quickly to condemn the tone of the article since it made a link between rapes and Muslims. According to him, asking the imams for help is wrong, «because we don’t ask Norwegian bishops for help either when a Norwegian rapes somebody». Apparently the minister had not noticed that the debate had started precisely because of the huge number of Muslims in the rape statistics. And I wouldn’t even dare to suggest he could have another agenda than trying to reduce the number of rapes in the Norwegian capital.