Author: Mick Hartley

Well, who knew? Some birds can sing with their wings:

Richard Prum, a Yale ornithologist, was hiking through an Ecuadorean forest 18 years ago when he had one of the strangest experiences an ornithologist can have. He watched a bird sing with its wings.

Dr. Prum was observing a male club-winged manakin. The tiny red-headed bird was hopping acrobatically from branch to branch in order to attract female manakins. And from time to time, the male would wave its wings over its back. Each time the manakin produced a loud, clear tone that sounded as if it came from a violin.

“I was just utterly stunned,” Dr. Prum said. “There’s literally no bird in the world that does anything that prepares you for it. It’s totally unique.”

Ever since, Dr. Prum has wondered how the club-winged manakin managed this feat. Now he and a former student, Kimberly Bostwick of Cornell University, believe they have solved the mystery.

Club-winged manakins rake their feathers back and forth over one another, using an acoustic trick that allows crickets to sing. While the technique is common among insects, it has never been documented before in vertebrates.

Pieter Dorsman at Peaktalk translates the wise words of Gilles Kepel, on why the internet plays such a pivotal role in recruitment for jihad.

If you interpret the Islamic scripture – or that of any other religion – literally, then it contains an abundance of laws, but in the fourteen centuries of Islamic civilization prior to the introduction of the internet, the critical interpretation of these texts was the exclusive domain of the ulamas. Thanks to the internet we now have bearded cyber-salafists who have taken the place of the ulamas and they know only one interpretation: the literal one. To them everything that is digital is transcendental which creates a blur between the virtual and the afterlife in one separate world, disconnected entirely from the real world with its own laws. At the juncture of these two universes we can find a double death: the suicide of the martyr which relieves him from the tension – which is considered schizophrenic – between those two worlds and the slaughter of infidels.

Could you perhaps guess that Kepel’s French? I’ve read it a few times, but that last sentence still defies me.

Salman Rushdie interviewed in Reason (via Butterflies and Wheels):

Reason: You wrote an essay criticizing President Bush and other Western leaders for claiming after 9/11 that “this is not about Islam.” In what way is this about Islam?

Rushdie: Well, you know, that was said for good reasons. It was said to minimize the backlash against Muslims. But just in terms of actual fact, it is absurd. It is not about football…..

I think there is a desire, for virtuous reasons, to make this disassociation. You can respect those reasons, but there is a problem of truth. It reminds me a little bit of what Western socialists used to say during the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. They would say that that’s not really socialism. There is a real socialism that is about liberty, social justice, and so on, but that tyrannical regime over there which was actually existing socialism is not really Marxism. The problem was that that’s what there was. When that fell, in a way that whole intellectual construct of socialism fell with it. It became very difficult to ignore all these people coming out of the Soviet Union who detested the term socialism, because to them it meant tyranny. I think there is beginning to be that kind of disconnect in the discourse about Islam. There is an actually existing Islam which is not at all likeable.

s.

His comments were made in a videotape which was broadcast on Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera.

The al-Qaeda deputy said: “Blair has brought you destruction to the heart of London, and he will bring more destruction, God willing.”

Mr Blair denies his policies provoked the 7 July bombs, which killed 56.

Al-Zawahri also warned the US that Iraq would be worse than Vietnam.

Nothing but the facts….and Al-Zawahri’s pronouncements are no doubt of some significance. So why do I feel like the BBC are playing his game?

MEMRI provide a link to the actual broadcast, and a translation:

“As for the English, I say to them: Blair has brought destruction upon you, to the center of London, and he will have more of it, Allah willing. Oh the peoples of the Crusader coalition, we have offered you, at least, to stop your aggression against the Muslims. We have offered you… The lion of Islam, the mujaheed Sheik Osama bin Laden, may Allah protect him, has offered you a truce, so you will leave the lands of Islam. Did Sheik Osama bin Laden not tell you that you could not dream of security before we live it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad? But you have made rivers of blood in our countries, so we blew up volcanoes of rage in your countries. Our message to you is clear and unequivocal: You will not be saved unless you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and our resources, and cease your support of the corrupt (Arab) rulers.”

And from an earlier broadcast:

“I would also like to stress that the expulsion of the invading Crusader and Jews from the lands of Islam will not be accomplished merely through demonstrations and hoarse throats in the streets. Reform and expelling the invaders from the lands of Islam will only be accomplished by fighting for the sake of Allah.

It would be asking too much, I suppose, for the BBC to emphasise that Al-Zawahri is not a nice man. When he says, for instance, “you could not dream of security before we live it as a reality in Palestine”, he’s not talking about any two-state solution. That we’re not dealing here with a man with reasonable demands about the West ceasing to meddle in the Muslim world, but a theocratic fascist who’s willing to see as much blood shed as it takes to turn back the clock to some medieval caliphate. It’s just that I can’t help thinking many viewers – and many inside the BBC as well, perhaps – will be thinking, well, there you go. It was all about Iraq. Get our troops home, apologise, and everything’ll be OK.

gypt routinely tortures – I mean really tortures to death – suspected terrorists, to say nothing of mere dissidents. Turkey’s record is not all that much better. The U.S. and Great Britain have killed many more civilians in responding to terrorism in Iraq than Israel has done. So even if the Vatican’s statement of principle were morally acceptable – which it surely is not – that principle would in no way justify leaving Israel off a list that includes many worse violators of international law.

I was struggling to find the energy, and the words, to cover Ken’s latest exercise in apologetics, but thankfully Tom at let’s be sensible has got there first:

And, quickly, a “compare and contrast”. First, Livingstone….

“The injustice done to the Palestinians does not justify the actions of a suicide bomber. But neither can anything justify the killing of civilians by Israeli forces.”

Got that? Anything. Now, this, following the shooting by police of Jean Charles de Menezes:

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: “The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public.

“This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.”

Sometimes it’s justifiable, sometimes not. Why’s that, I wonder?

w.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:it7uak5k5m3p”>Blonde on Blonde – it’s such a Blonde on Blonde-ish title: Absolutely Sweet Marie, Obviously 5 Believers, Temporary Like Achilles. But it isn’t. It was put out as a single, and only released on album with Bob Dylan’s Greatest Hits. So why do I know it so well?

You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning

Here’s some speculation about who it’s aimed at.

he George and Dragon, and recreate an art gallery – like, um, the ICA – in the ICA. Or should that be in a pub?

is just more of the same it’s-all-our-fault breast-beating. What should we have done differently? Yes, it so happens that Muslims in the US appear better integrated than they are here – but haven’t we congratulated ourselves in the past, not without reason, on the fact that our black communities are nowhere near as separate as the big city ghettoes like Compton or Harlem in the US? That you’re far more likely to see mixed race couples in London than in New York? It’s all down to the circumstances. The US, after slavery, has a race fault-line running through its history. We have an entirely different history of Muslim immigration than the States, with a preponderance of Pakistani immigrants who keep their ties to their homeland, and who in many cases have shown no desire to integrate.

If, on the other hand, he’s saying, well, we need to re-think that old multicultural model, don’t we? – then maybe I’d agree with him.

A smart way of taking the initiative, I suppose – and throwing into doubt the possibility of Saddam getting a fair trial:

Saddam Hussein’s lawyers are refusing to take part in any further legal proceedings until the Iraqi tribunal acknowledges a physical attack on the former dictator and guarantees the safety of all defendants and attorneys, one of his legal team said yesterday.

Members of Saddam’s defence team claimed on Saturday that the former Iraqi president was attacked during a court appearance last week.

The Iraqi government and court officials deny the claim. But lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi, who attended the court appearance, insisted the allegation was true and demanded the government acknowledges it. He also insisted the Iraqi special tribunal apologise for the incident, guarantee the safety of Saddam and other former regime figures during future appearances, and punish the alleged attacker. Mr Dulaimi said Saddam’s lawyers would stop attending any further proceedings “until our demands are met”.

In Jordan, Saddam’s legal team said in a statement that a man burst out from those gathered in the courtroom and tried to hit Saddam as the ousted leader was leaving after a 45-minute hearing.

“There was an exchange of blows between the man and the president,” the statement said, also claiming the judge overseeing the hearing did nothing to stop the assault.

The Iraqi government and the special tribunal issued statements declaring that no such incident took place.

From the BBC:

“As Saddam Hussein’s lawyer and on behalf of all the defence team, we announce the boycott of the Iraqi Special Tribunal until they make a formal apology for the incident, and the person who committed that disgraceful act is brought to justice,” Mr Dulaimi said.

Saddam Hussein’s legal team said the former president was attacked as he was leaving the courtroom following questioning last Thursday.

Mr Dulaimi told Reuters: “A man… his name is Tahseen, I think he is a reserve investigative judge of the Special Tribunal, stood up and walked towards the president [Saddam Hussein] as he was rising, grabbed his [Saddam Hussein’s] arm and tried to attack him.

“Those present intervened and ended the scuffle.”

At the time, a spokeswoman for detainee operations in Iraq denied the incident occurred.

“Nothing like that happened with Saddam whatsoever,” Lt Kristy Miller told Reuters news agency.