DANIEL DREZNER HAS WRITTEN HIS OWN REPLY TO OSAMA. Excerpt:

I’m sensing some nervous tension in your last missive. You seem concerned about the exchange of letters between American and Saudi intellectuals. You should be scared, since it’s pretty clear that your faith in your faith is staggeringly weak.

Let me explain. You believe you’re a devout Muslim, armed with a super-freaky interpretation of the Quran. OK, so yada, yada, yada, you’re devout. But it’s pretty clear that you believe that when Muslims – much less infidels – are faced with an array of choices, your version of the creed isn’t going to win. This is why you fulminate against the inability to impose Shariah, the U.S. separation of church and state, and the fact that American culture seems to be kicking some global ass. Because without the power of the state, without the elimination of a marketplace of ideas, your “fun-loving” philosophy is doomed to go the way of the do-do bird. Even with the power of the state, you’re in trouble. Looked at Iran recently?

Read the whole thing.

MELISSA SCHWARTZ has a new URL. Adjust your bookmarks accordingly. And visit to congratulate her on her stunning new hairstyle.

NO ANTISEMITISM HERE IN EUROPE — MOVE ALONG NOW, NOTHING TO SEE:

Teachers are afraid to give lessons on the holocaust and the hatred of Jews, because half the class will walk out, says Jan van Kooten, head of education at the Anne Frank Foundation. “Another example: pupils from Monnickendam were no[t] allowed by their parents to visit the Jewish Historical Museum, because they did not want their children to learn about Jewish culture, ‘because Jews are bad.'”

Jeez.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has more examples of Euro antisemitism.

MISS WORLD: After being driven out of Nigeria by crazed Islamists, it’s now being attacked in London by crazed feminists.

UPDATE: Imagine what would people would say if a gang of crazed American religious zealots started burning mosques and attacking foreigners. But that’s what happened in Kaduna:

There were reports of sporadic shooting in the city as enraged Muslim youths attacked Christians and set churches ablaze to protest what they described as an assault on their faith. Non-indigenes were also not spared, as the youths showed their anger.

P.M.News reporter in Kaduna said he counted as many as 21 corpses on the road as he looked for the nearest business centre to file his report.

As uncivilized as the Ku Klux Klan. But less condemned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Iain Murray notes:

In one obscure city, religious clashes killed 2,000 people. That’s about the same as died in two years of the Intifada in Israel. Yet there is no Western outrage, no calls for Nigeria to be divided between its two obviously incompatible faiths, and no calls for the UN to pass security council resolutions. If ever there was evidence that the clash of civilizations is about more than just the the Palestinian question, here it is. Perhaps the Miss World riots will open a few eyes.

Indeed.

WHY THE U.N. CHARTER NO LONGER CONTROLS ON USE OF FORCE: Because it’s been a disastrous failure and nobody follows it. Here’s a quote:

International “rules” concerning use of force are no longer regarded as obligatory by states. Between 1945 and 1999, two-thirds of the members of the United Nations–126 states out of 189–fought 291 interstate conflicts in which over 22 million people were killed. This series of conflicts was capped by the Kosovo campaign in which nineteen NATO democracies representing 780 million people flagrantly violated the Charter. The international system has come to subsist in a parallel universe of two systems, one de jure, the other de facto. The de jure system consists of illusory rules that would govern the use of force among states in a platonic world of forms, a world that does not exist. The de facto system consists of actual state practice in the real world, a world in which states weigh costs against benefits in regular disregard of the rules solemnly proclaimed in the all-but- ignored de jure system. The decaying de jure catechism is overly schematized and scholastic, disconnected from state behavior, and unrealistic in its aspirations for state conduct.

The upshot is that the Charter’s use-of-force regime has all but collapsed. This includes, most prominently, the restraints of the general rule banning use of force among states, set out in Article 2(4). The same must be said, I argue here, with respect to the supposed restraints of Article 51 limiting the use of force in self-defense. Therefore, I suggest that Article 51, as authoritatively interpreted by the International Court of Justice, cannot guide responsible U.S. policy-makers in the U.S. war against terrorism in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

This is from a law review article by Prof. Michael Glennon, The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 25 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 539 (2002). (Emphasis added above).

TENNESSEE TEA: Bill Hobbs points out that Tennessee is doing its part to lessen our dependence on imported oil.

I ALREADY MENTIONED THE NEWSWEEK STORY ON THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT CONNECTION TO THE 9/11 HIJACKERS but here’s a small item from it that hasn’t gotten as much attention as it deserves:

A federal law-enforcement source told NEWSWEEK that Basnan—who was recently convicted of visa fraud and is awaiting deportation—was a known “Al Qaeda sympathizer” who “celebrated the heroes of September 11” at a party after the attacks and openly talked about “what a wonderful, glorious day it had been.”

And this is a guy getting money from the Saudi royal family, one with a number of connections that suggest he’s some sort of an operative. This tells us all we need to know about the Saudis’ attitude. And, as far as I’m concerned, there’s plenty of justification for our next attack to land on Saudi Arabia instead of (or as well as) Iraq.

UPDATE: Nick Schulz emails that this story has even gotten Mark Kleiman sounding bellicose:

It now appears that the Saudi government was significantly complicit in bombing our capital and our biggest city, killing 3000 Americans in the process. Are we going to take it lying down?

I hope not.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a story in The New Republic, too. I think this has legs.

JOHN MOSER HAS MORE on the Brooklyn College tenure battle. And he provides this link to a page at the History News Network on the matter.

THE GAP BETWEEN MICHAEL CRICHTON’S NOVEL AND REALITY: My TechCentralStation column, which is running early this week, is up.

MICHELE at A Small Victory is listing the things that she’s thankful for. Indymedia is at the top of the list. No, really.

MICHAEL LEDEEN WRITES:

If the American government, or the chatterers, or the academy were at all serious about trying to understand the real world, we would be in the midst of a discussion of the potentially earth-shaking events in Iran. And the main topic of discussion would be how close we are to the downfall of the mullahcracy in Tehran. Last Friday something like half a million Iranian citizens took to the streets to demonstrate their disgust with the regime of the Islamic Republic (the very same Islamic Republic with which some of our diplomats unaccountably continue to make deals, and which our secretary of state unaccountably refuses to condemn in the same clear language used by the president, the national-security adviser, and the secretary of defense). Contrary to what little you have been able to read in the popular press, these demonstrations were not limited to Tehran, but spread all over the country, with amazing results. And it was particularly noteworthy that there were very large numbers of female participants; in Tehran, some people I spoke to estimated that between one-half and two-thirds of the demonstrators were women.

I’ve been puzzled about why almost no one besides Michael Ledeen (and some bloggers) is talking about this. I’m almost ready to conclude that the Administration is deliberately downplaying it, because they think the mullahs are on their way out anyway, and that (visible) U.S. support for the revolution will do more harm than good. (There is, I strongly suspect, some invisible support.) Either that, or they’re just idiots.

ANDREW SULLIVAN has an extensive analysis of the “Osama bin Laden letter” published by The Guardian. I think the letter is bogus, but Sullivan points out that in many ways that’s not the most important question.

Anyway, I’ve composed a reply:

Dear Osama:

Why do we hate you? Because you killed 3,000 Americans and want to kill more. And when you kill Americans, you’re dead meat — and so is anyone who helps you, and maybe anyone who sympathizes too loudly. The question now isn’t whether you will win. It’s whether the Bush Administration will succeed in disposing of you and your cause before you provoke a response that will cause Arab civilization, such as it is, to join the Aztecs, the Carthaginians, and others who overplayed their brutal hand against a superior foe.

A bit shorter than Osama’s, but then my grievance is simpler.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman writes to ask if I’m endorsing genocide. No. It’s what I hope to prevent, as I made clear in an earlier post. But I do view genocide, or at least the destruction of Arab civilization (if not its people) as the inevitable result of Ladenite efforts to escalate and inflame the conflict unless the United States manages to win an early victory. If it’s “war to the knife,” well, there’s only one likely outcome.

SYMPATHY FOR THE MESSIAH: Brock Yates feels sorry for Jesus for what he’s suffered at the hands of his devotees:

Poor Jesus Christ. He has been attached to every conceivable nutball cause ranging from cruel, paranoid redneck racism to dietary fads, but never has his name been attached to a motor vehicle.

Not so far, Brock. . . .

FACT-CHECKING MICHAEL MOORE: Forbes says that “Bowling for Columbine” comes up short in the accuracy department. Excerpt:

ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it’s not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the “weapons of mass destruction” made in Lockheed Martin’s assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.

ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin’s plant in Littleton doesn’t make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy’s mother from spending time with him.

ACTUALLY: Moore doesn’t mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, “if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun.” He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.

ACTUALLY: Moore didn’t just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

Hmm. If a big corporation were this dishonest, Moore would be making fun of it.

UPDATE: SpinSanity has a post in response, concluding:

When the most popular documentary of the year is riddled with blatant lies and distortions, it’s a cause for concern. When the film is part of a pattern by one of the nation’s most prominent political celebrities, it’s disturbing. And when the media gives Michael Moore free reign to spread his lies and distortions with very little critical analysis, it’s a sad comment on our democracy.

Or at least on our media. However, another reader — who because he works at Lockheed-Martin will remain anonymous — points out that the plant Moore refers to did formerly do missile work. That’s true, though the Titans that Moore showed — unless he was using ancient archival footage — were commercial vehicles used to loft peaceful payloads, not “weapons of mass destruction.” (Though I believe that military spy satellites are among them).

MUSLIMS AGAINST FREE SPEECH: Eugene Volokh is unimpressed by the Muslim Legal Defense and Education Fund’s assault on Alan Dershowitz.

READER TOM BOSWORTH writes with a suggestion:

An idea just came to mind: Make the future Medals of Honor out of the remains of United Flight 93. As long as there is enough left to cast, I can”t think of a more fitting tribute to the people who defeated the hijackers of that plane, nor a more meaningful material to make the medals for the best of the professionals who defend us.

The Victoria’s Crosses are to this day cast from Russian bronze cannons captured by the British in 1855 at the Battle of Sebastapol during the Crimean War. The material from which our Medals of Honor are made could be as meaningful.

I kind of like this.

UPDATE: Reader Adrian Edmonds writes that the Russian-cannon story is a myth:

It is a common belief that these medals are made from Russian cannon. However, this has never been true. The original metal used for the proofs were unsatisfactory so Victoria rejected them and as a decision to make them from base metal. not semi precious , had been made, a engineer went exploring at Woolwich Armoury and came away with two 18 pounder cannon.

In spite of the fact that these were clearly marked with Chinese characters, the myth still persists today that the medals are made from Russian cannon. I believed it myself until last year until a visit to the musem at Woolwich.

Well, there you are.

DAMIAN PENNY points out another academic conspiracy theorist.