Headley, who changed his name from Daood Gilani three years ago (perhaps to make it easier to “pass” as an ordinary American), was in cahoots with an al Qaeda commander and another terrorist group in Pakistan, and was arrested when he attempted to fly there in early October.  Rana was arrested two weeks later.  Both were charged with conspiring to provide material support for the attacks, and Headley was accused of planning to participate.  Bill Roggio provides the details here.

This story is unusually interesting, because these guys were using the United States as a base from which to stage attacks elsewhere.  It’s a man-bites-dog story, the reverse of the usual one, in which foreign terrorists come to America to attack us.  Rana and Headley weren’t driven by hatred of America, nor by American foreign policy;  they were avenging what they took to be slurs on The Prophet.

In other words, the motivation was religious.  I don’t think anyone could say, as some are saying today about Fort Hood, that “it’s not about Islam.”  This plot to murder and maim Danish journalists and workers had everything to do with Islam.  One could well imagine the terrorists opening fire in Copenhagen and chanting “Allahu Akbar.”

I’m all for waiting until all the evidence is in from Texas before reaching any conclusions, but that should apply to everyone.  Notably to the FBI, which seems to have developed a conditioned reflex that requires the Bureau to announce, within seconds of any act of murder, “there is no evidence of terrorism.”  Which, in this case, is ridiculous, since it was precisely that.

All of which brings us back to one of the nastiest problems we face:  the indoctrination of Americans in this country.  If you look beneath the surface of these plots and murders, you will often find that the actual or would-be killers have attended radical mosques.  They don’t come to jihad by sitting quietly at home and reading the Koran.  They hear sermons, they are guided in the paths of terror, and they choose to become terrorists.  And in this country, those radical sermons and that incitement is traditionally treated as “protected speech.”  It’s protected by the First Amendment, and its guarantee of freedom of religion.

How are we supposed to deal with that?  On the one hand, we can’t permit such indoctrination to go unchecked.  On the other, it’s un-American to start censoring sermons and religious texts.

It’s a mess.  But we’d better get at it.

Faster, Please.

UPDATE:  As I suspected, Hasan’s mosque has a dark side.  As Stephen Schwartz explains here, in a very important article.

• Video: the treatment of wounded in a parking garage in Tehran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSITmqfbwLs

• Masses in Tehran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b8zjI0yf9I&feature=channel

• A girl attacked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQkbckUtlo&feature=channel

• Freedom, independence and Iranian republic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk3ShQp4d-s&feature=channel

• A poster of Khamenei being torn up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtI5dy1fwY&feature=channel

And don’t miss the extraordinarily detailed blogging of homylafayette.

What does it mean?  I agree with an “elderly woman” to Radio Farda:

I was in the demonstrations this morning. You can’t imagine the number of security troops that had been deployed. It looked like there was one regime agent for every protester. And all this to confront people with nothing to defend themselves with. I finally understood today how scared they are. This regime is over.

The regime has failed to intimidate the people;  the effect of the violence, the brutal savagery, the mass rapes, executions, and torture is to intensify their contempt (they trampled pictures of Supreme Leader Khamenei).

Alas, their contempt is not limited to their own tyrants.  It extends to President Obama, who today issued a masterpiece of appeasement and all but groveled in begging the leaders of the Islamic Republic to make a deal:

I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.

He could not spare a single word for the plight of the people of Iran, who were being beaten, clubbed, stabbed and shot as he issued his statement.  He went on:

We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community. We have accepted a proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet Iran’s request for assistance in meeting the medical needs of its people. We have made clear that if Iran lives up to the obligations that every nation has, it will have a path to a more prosperous and productive relationship with the international community.

This is Jimmy Carter all over again, and just as Carter’s appeasement of the Islamic Republic led to the death of countless innocents, in Iran and around the world, so Obama’s appeasement will do the same.  He, and his administration, are accomplices to evil.  From Iran, via Twitter, comes the bottom line:

Gee the people of Iran seek to really CHANGE things and Obama says, let’s negotiate w/ the Nazis

Just so.

At the same time, the near panic over swine flu, and allergy pandemics.  For a while there I thought there would be legislation to ban peanuts from American life, but that seems to have passed.  Delta Airlines hands out peanuts without any obvious protest.

Meanwhile, I remember my mother dragging me around to the houses of kids with chicken pox and mumps, so that I could get infected.  Why?  So that I could build up my antibodies.  Exposure to germs helps the immune system.  From which it follows that all this cleanliness and sterilization has a downside:  it makes us more vulnerable to infection.

And from THAT it follows that DIRT IS GOOD FOR US.  N’est-ce pas?

Me, I don’t use those little bottles.  Every now and then I do wash my hands–typically before meals and on other occasions I won’t describe here because this is a family blog–but I’m not going to get excited when I get dirty.  I do get a flu shot most years, but that’s more of the “infect yourself to get stronger” theme.

Has anybody checked to see if the compulsive clean hands people get sick more than us dirty folks?

“This was not a case of the Americans straying into Iran,” [a local tribal leader] said. “They were targeted and captured by a group that came over from Iran, ignoring Iraq’s sovereignty. We know this and it means that Iran must have wanted to take Americans hostage at this sensitive time.”

As we know, the Islamic Republic delights in taking hostages and then “stockpiling” them for future use.  The hikers are not the only American hostages seized by the Iranians in the recent past.  There is the case of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who disappeared on Kish Island in March, 2007.  The Iranians deny any knowledge of Levinson’s whereabouts.  And then there is the unfortunate Kian Tajbakhsh, formerly employed by one of George Soros’s groups, who has been sentenced to fifteen years in prison for alleged participation in recent protests against the phony June elections.

Meanwhile, three Iranians–two of whom are clearly important people–have defected.  One, Shahram Amiri, is a nuclear physicist who worked on the secret “Ferdo” site near Qom that has attracted so much attention in the past two months.  He disappeared from Saudi Arabia in May.  The second, General Ali Reza Asgari, is a former deputy defense minister and high-ranking officer of the Revolutionary Guards who helped create Hezbollah.  He vanished without a trace from a hotel in Istanbul in February, 2007.  The third, a Mr. Ardebili,  appears to be an arms dealer who disappeared from Georgia this summer.

I have been told that the Iranians have informed the American Government that the hikers will only be released if the United States sends the three Iranians back home.  Could Washington do this, even on the virtually impossible assumption that it wished to?  I don’t think so.  I believe that Amiri defected to France, not to the United States.  I don’t know where Asgari is, but I have been told by CIA officials in no uncertain terms that he is not under American control, although he is in “a friendly country,” is available to American debriefers, and has provided invaluable information.  As for Ardebili, I have no information about his whereabouts.

There is one amusing sidebar to the Amiri story.  While the Iranians fume about his defection, he is helping Iran’s enemies, bigtime.  According to Le Figaro, via the terrific new web site “Planet Iran”:

French Daily Newspaper Le Figaro reports: Prior to traveling to Iran, the IAEA inspectors who were to inspect the Ferdo Iranian nuclear facility outside of Qom, met with Shahram Amiri, the Iranian nuclear scientist who recently fled Iran. According to Le Figaro, this meeting took place in Frankfurt.

This is our world.  Iranian soldiers  cross the Iraqi border and snatch three American tourists.  Meanwhile, important Iranians find a way to escape the regime’s clutches, and join the West.  The Iranians propose a swap that amounts to this:  citizens of a free country can only regain their freedom if former citizens of an evil tyranny are sent back to the tyrannical country to face a terrible fate.

That’s the sort of deal you get from the Islamic Republic.  If you don’t like it, convince the feckless leaders of the West to join with the Iranian people and bring it down.  The next potential watershed is next Wednesday, November 4th, the anniversary of the assault on the American Embassy in Tehran and the seizure of American hostages.

It’s the perfect date for the fall of the regime, don’t you think?

–The creation of a joint airline;

–The creation of a free trade zone along the border;

–Turkish investment (to the tune of some $4 billion) in the Pars field in southern Iran;

–Agreement that each would permit the other’s currency to circulate (a real winner for Iran, whose currency was previously not acceptable in Turkey);

–Favorable prices to the Turks for Iranian oil and natural gas (I am told that the Iranians promised a 50% reduction of market rates! Seems preposterous to me, but we shall see).  The Iranians are not known for strictly honoring such deals, but the Turks are entitled to be pleased at any significant reduction;

–A joint power plant of some six thousand kilowatts, to be constructed as soon as possible, powered by (Iranian) natural gas;

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Erdogan visit was the dog that did not bark, namely the failure of any early meeting with Supreme Leader Khamenei.  It was widely reported that such a meeting would take place; see here , here , here , and here, for example.  But as of early afternoon Wednesday, there was not even a quasi-official claim that Erdogan saw Khamenei, not even the sort of “virtual evidence” of Khamenei’s ability to rule that had been put out in recent weeks (a couple of days ago, the web site of the press service ISNA came up with an alleged speech to Hajj pilgrims, but when it turned out to be nearly a year old, it was quickly taken down, as was a reference to “archive photos” of meetings with Senegalese President Wade).  I therefore earlier concluded that Khamenei was not well enough for a meeting with Erdogan.

But Khamenei did indeed meet with Erdogan, at the very last minute.  The Turkish convoy diverted to the Supreme Leader’s residence en route to the airport, and there was a meeting there, down the hall from the doctors, involving the top members of the Turkish delegation, and both Foreign Minister Mottaki and Ali Larijani from the National Security Council of Iran, in addition to the two principals.  The meeting lasted 47 minutes, and Khamenei took the occasion to denounce America as the cause of all the region’s problems.  Interestingly, he also talked about the future of Iraq, calling on the Turks to join with Iran and Syria to drive Iraq toward an Islamic Republic.  There are photographs and films of the meeting, all genuine so far as I can tell.

Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn’t.  Some of the really big events remain obscure to me, like the bombing of the Bologna railroad station and the “anarchist” bombs in Milan.  Every now and then somebody gets convicted for them, and actually goes to jail, but then the case gets reopened and somebody else gets convicted, and on it goes.  This is particularly frustrating when it comes to the scandals that brought down the political class in the eighties;  it’s clear that many innocent people were convicted.  There are many important cases in which I still don’t know who was guilty, and who was framed.

But I digress, the point here is the press.  In those years, Watergate was happening over here, and I was very proud that American journalists were, as I then thought, simply reporting the facts about the Nixon Administration, and eventually Nixon had to resign.  I thought that showed a dramatic difference between our press and theirs.  One night at dinner, some Italian journalists said to me “that’s nothing;  we could bring down the entire system here if we wrote what we know.”  So I asked them why they didn’t.  They said “because we don’t see anyone or anything better.  So it makes no sense to bring this down.”

I didn’t like that at all.  I didn’t think it was their job to out think the destiny of the country, and I said, “but your job is to report the news, not to make political decisions.  Just tell the people the truth, and they will figure out what they want to do.”

I was wrong about the American press.  Watergate was highly political.   But even so, there was plenty of room in our leading newspapers for real reporters, and a single newspaper could carry stories that were variously good and bad for the two parties and for politicians of different political stripes.  You didn’t have to buy seven newspapers to try to figure out what was true.  And it was generally considered bad form for newspapers to carry stories that were blatantly political.

“…the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence…it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.”

That’s clear enough: evil was everywhere, and Hashem wiped it out.  Things get more complicated later, after the deed was done:

And Hashem said in His heart: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

And in fact, the evil nature of man emerges over and over again.  It’s one of the central themes of the Torah, isn’t it?

I have recently published a book, “Accomplice to Evil,” which recounts many cases in my generation of good people’s refusal to see evil when it was right in front of their noses.  Not just individual cases of evil people, but evil on a mass scale, evil that threatened the survival of civilized societies.  From Hitler to Mao, from Italy to Darfur and Rwanda, over and over again we have blinded ourselves to evil and looked away, until terrible events compelled us to finally confront it.

When Hashem says “the imagination of man’s heart is evil,” he warns us: do not listen to the misguided optimists who tell you that all men are the same, and all men are good.  Better to listen to Machiavelli, whose rules for leaders, and above all for statesmen, rest on the dictum: “man is more inclined to do evil than to do good.”

Hashem orders us to fight evil: “Surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it” (which is to say two things: no suicide, and there must be punishment for spilling blood, whether done by man or beast).  “Whoso sheddeth blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.”

So we must enforce justice.  We must combat evil.  It’s largely up to us, and it’s part of the deal with Noah:

“And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”

Any lawyer reading this–and there are many of those with us today–will see that it’s a promise of no more floods, not a promise of no more Divine intervention in the collective affairs of men.  But the linkage between our pursuit of justice and Hashem’s covenant is clear enough. Punish evildoers, and things will be well.

But we are all inclined to do evil, so what happens?  Noah and his sons multiply.  We can read the genealogy.  And, just as Hashem has foreseen, corruption sets in all over again.  We are lured to it, as always.

Which brings us to the question of the Tower of Babel.

Chapter X ends with “These are the families of the sons of Noah; after their generations, in their nations; and of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.”

However, the very next sentence, the first words of Chapter XI are quite the opposite: “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.”

What’s that all about?  Well, time has passed, and from the various nations of the sons of Noah, we now have something quite different: all mankind is gathered in one place–on the plains of Babylon–united in a single mission: “Come let us make brick and burn them throughly.”  A vast industrial project.  Avraham, (who makes his first appearance at the end of this Parashat) will later be thrown into an enormous furnace of the sort that provided the bricks for the tower of Babel.

The project of building a tower to heaven is often taken as a pure metaphor, but the Babylonians actually built such towers, called ziggurats by the archeologists.  And those ziggurats had religious significance.  There were shrines or temples at the very top.  So it’s fair to say that the very idea of building such a tower was pagan, and thus abhorrent to Hashem.

But why were the people scattered?  Contrary to some commentators’ view that Hashem promised Noah that he would never again punish mankind collectively, the scattering of the peoples from Babel is just that.  It sure looks like a punishment.  What was their sin?

The most colorful explanation is that building the Tower was an assault on heaven.  In this view, men had become so arrogant that they thought they were entitled to Divine rewards.  In the words of the Parashat, they wanted to make a name for themselves.  For all themselves.

Other commentators look at it very differently.  Some say that the scattering was necessary to carry out Hashem’s enterprise, repeated several times in the Parashat, that man must be fruitful and multiply, and that if everyone were in one place it would be more difficult.  I don’t think the historical record bears that out; some of the most fecund populations are in very dense areas.  Can you spell Calcutta?  Naples?

According to Rav Blick,  Rav Soloveitchik gave a political reading:  he  explained the difference between the generation of the flood and that of the dispersion by saying that the first was modern America (moral corruption, pursuit of money and pleasure), while the second was communist Russia, which justified its evil practices by imposing solidarity on the masses.

That is to say, at the time of the flood, mankind was corrupt one by one, each person pursuing evil according to his own desires.  But the project of the Tower was a collective enterprise; everyone was required to subjugate himself to a grand vision, and everything was determined according to that single vision.  Hashem detests that, for His chosen people must pursue freedom, and freely choose to fulfill his commandments.

Rav Blick has an ambitious, and, sad to say, a rather lengthy explanation along similar lines:

“This explains why this story is here, in this location in the Torah,” he says.   “We are perched on the verge of the creation of the Jewish people. Avraham will be asked shortly to separate himself from his father’s house, his country, his birthplace, and create an individual unit of spiritual perfection.

Why is the truth of the Torah not offered to all of humanity? Is not Judaism and its message a universal one? Why is Judaism a national religion? Why is the Torah given in a way that makes it incomprehensible to most of mankind?”

Rav Blick goes on:

“The Torah explains to us that even though the universal mass society of Babel included pious individuals (Shem, Ever, even Noah are still alive), the service of God cannot arise out of such a society. It is too repressive, too dedicated to maintaining its own existence. Man must be dispersed in order to develop individually…In this context, one nation can arise slowly, over a long period of education, trial, and redemption, which will carry on God’s message for humanity. Within…Babel, Judaism is impossible. Within any world order, world empire, Judaism cannot arise. Mankind is dispersed to develop individual character, cultural diversity. In one corner, without having to worry about the destiny of all mankind, a small family will build the kingdom of God.”

So says Rav Blick.  I like that, and it means, I think, that it’s not enough just to do Good as it’s commonly understood: living a pious and virtuous life.  For part of doing Good involves fighting evil, whether performed by an evil man or an evil nation.  That, too, is part of the meaning of the dispersal, the scattering, as it is a central element of the story of Noah.  As, indeed, it is a central element of the story of our own times.  Of all times.

“Some people sing in the shower, in the shower half an hour. No kids, three minutes is more than enough. I’ve counted, three minutes, and I don’t stink,” he said during a televised Cabinet meeting.

Getting into his stride, he went on to label baths and jacuzzis anti-communist.

“If you are going to lie back, in the bath, with the soap and you turn on the what’s it called, the Jacuzzi… imagine that, what kind of communism is that? We’re not in times of Jacuzzi,” he said, to laughter from his ministers.

Obviously I can’t vouch for this;  I didn’t see the television broadcast.  Read it all and judge for yourself.

The hoax/satire was written in August, so it’s not connected to any current event.  I cam across it on Twitter, read the blog, found it interesting, and posted on it.  I failed to notice that one of the tags was “satire.”

So he got me, and lots of others. It worked because it’s plausible.  I’ve done satirical pieces myself, and I know how they can take off.  I once wrote one that said that Bill Casey did not die, and was hiding in a bunker under the St Andrews golf course from which he was running Mikhail Gorbachev.  I thought it was obviously satirical, but it went like wildfire all over the world.  And that was in the days before the Internet.

So I should have picked up some hint, but I didn’t.  Shame on me.

I’m posting this as quickly as possible.  Apologies to the president and to Joe Klein, and to Rush Limbaugh, who had many very wise things to say about the Constitution and the views of the Founders today, and to everyone else who got involved.