Tag Archives: Islam

Like hippos in a china store

The government of Hungary is considering kicking U.S. chargé d’affaires André Goodfriend out of the country. It is of the view that the American diplomat is poking his nose into matters that are none of his business.

The country’s State Attorney has asked the foreign ministry to initiate stripping Goodfriend of diplomatic immunity so this office can prosecute him based on a legal action started by Hungary’s taxation administration chief, Ildikó Vida.

The foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, said he’s sending an official request to the State Department. Whether he’ll succeed is more than questionable: the stuffed shirts at Foggy Bottom would go through the roof and describe Hungary’s request impertinent to nth degree, while President Barack Hussein Obama is expected to go ballistic.

Except: if the Americans, as is expected, tell the Hungarians to go and fly a kite, Goodfriend will be flying first: he Hungarian government will designate him as persona non grata, and if they are kind and generous, Goodfriend will have 48 hours to pack up and leave. If not, he’ll have to leave forthwith.

First, a bit of a definition: a chargé d’affaires represents his or her nation in the country she or he is accredited to. That means, this diplomat has to receive le agrément from the host government (for whatever reason, French is still the language of diplomacy). This means that the host government can always withdraw its agreement with the diplomat’s continued stay.

The chargé d’affaires enjoys the same privileges and immunities as a regular ambassador. In most cases, the chargé d’affaires only serves on a temporary basis, while the ambassador is away. Still, these diplomats can be appointed for longer periods of time, something that seems to have happened in Goodfriend’s case. As diplomatic protocol rules, a chargé d’affaires could be appointed also when the two countries disagree on something and they prefer to be represented by lower-ranked diplomats, basically in order to save face.

Now that we have the niceties behind us, here’s the scoop: several governments’ diplomatic representatives (including Canada’s) went public with their masters’ displeasure about what they described as corruption running amok in the countries where they are stationed. Not that it had the desired effect. General populations in these (mostly post-communist) countries are perfectly aware that their governments’ standards of honesty and decency are nothing to write home about. Still, they detest it when foreigners wag their fingers and tell them this isn’t cricket.

In the Hungarian case, the country’s chief taxation official, Ms. Vida, and five of her subordinate officers were denied entry visas into the U.S. this past November, based directly on accusations of corruption as expressed by none other than Goodfriend himself. Ms. Vida described his statements as slanderous and defamatory and libellous drivel, but her prime minister, Viktor Orbán, said this wouldn’t be enough. Sue the bloody Yankee, he told Ms. Vida, or I’ll fire you.

Wonderful. Except you can’t sue a diplomat who’s protected by immunity. You can only ask her or his government for permission to strip her or him of that immunity, and if no agreement is forthcoming, you can kick her or him out.

And this is where it seems to be headed.

President Obama, whom most of the post-communist countries’ citizenry detest about the same they used to detest their communist leaders, didn’t help matters when he announced that in Hungary, in his esteemed opinion, the something he calls “civic society” is in danger. What he had in mind precisely remains unclear, but Hungarian officials figured out that the U.S. commander-in-chief was unhappy because they refused to blindly follow his lead and call Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin all kinds of names.

That the Hungarians might have a reason for a more nuanced view is something Obama has never considered. In fact, he seems to be frightfully unaware of this.

On the other hand, post-communist countries have been up in arms lately. They have detected that U.S. embassies in their countries have been interfering with their internal affairs. They are quite sensitive about these things: they’ve had their share of being ordered about by the communist leadership in Moscow. Bad enough that the European Union bureaucracy has been trying to replace the communist economic community system with a similar structure of their own. Post-communist countries, one and all, view this kind of behaviour askance.

For example, the Czech Republic is livid because the U.S. embassy has been supporting (financially) a movement to teach Islam in Czech schools.

Now, Canada’s ambassador Otto Jelínek has joined forces with his U.S. and Norwegian colleagues, trying to tell the Czechs that corruption is bad. The Czechs are perfectly aware of what kind of swindlers and fraudsters they have in their government. But they still feel that young Jelínek would do better tending to his knitting or, even better, to his family business that produces the finest plum brandy (slivovice) in the world.

What angers them even more is the gall with which the Americans and Canadians invited the Norwegians to join them in the chorus of anti-corruption condemnation. The Czechs and the Norwegians have been at swords drawn lately. A Norwegian social worker has taken away children from a Czech family that was in the northern country, citing abuse, without providing single proof. The Czech government has been trying to reason with its Norwegian counterpart, to no avail, thus far. And these busy beavers are going to tell us how to behave? is the tenor of the Czech public reaction.

That the Americans didn’t notice they were entering a minefield is behaviour typical for this administration. That ambassador Jelínek, who speaks and reads and writes Czech, was not aware of the backlash this step would create in his parents’ homeland is beyond shameful.

And most of the post-communist countries’ public opinion agrees: the Americans don’t like Putin. Not that we love him. In fact, not that we love the Russian bear, period. But, they say, nobody, and least of all Obama, is going to tell us what to do, what to think, and how to act.

They’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirts.

To heck with the Americans. Let them eat cake. But Canada’s government – of all governments in the world – should know better.

Edmonton Catholic School Board makes peace with Muslims. Really?

Rid the world of the infidel dogs. If it takes killing them, so much the better. If they surrender and convert to our faith, not bad, either: the more slaves we’ve got, the better off we are.

Which faith do these words come from?

If you guessed Islam, you were correct.

Bluntly put, while the Muslims’ methods border on the uncivilized, the tenor is quite logical. Most religions are (and have always been) of the view that theirs is the only perfect way to worship. Christian religions are not exempted. Just remember the Inquisition. Except: most religions have abandoned these harsh methods of dealing with those who either choose to believe differently, or who, for Heaven’s sake, foolishly decide not to join any organized church at all.

Still, the only major religion that believes that those who beg to differ and subscribe to other beliefs ought to be condemned is (and has always been) Islam.

Edmonton Catholic School Board seems to think the Muslims don’t really mean it. Its promotional literature features a photograph of a girl wearing hijab. This kind of head covering indicates that the wearer is of Muslim faith.

An important distinction: not all Arabs are Muslim. There are quite a few Arabs who have devoted their lives to Christianity. And this really means: their lives. Should anyone wish to know what happens to them, just watch the news coming from, say, Egypt. It’s not as if the atrocities against Christian Arabs were happening centuries ago. No, they are happening now. Right now.

Why? Simply because Christian Arabs are firmly convinced that not everybody in this world wants (or aspires) to be a Muslim.

Naïveté beyond belief

Asked whether the Edmonton Catholic School Board was aware it had been drumming up custom in quarters not really friendly towards any kind of Christianity, and that includes the Catholic faith, the reply was shocking: we’re all-inclusive.

Well, come to think of it, not really.

A few quotes here.

Those who apply for enrollment in an Edmonton Catholic School, are required to read and sign (in agreement) this statement that is part of the registration form: “The Alberta Human Rights Act requires Edmonton Catholic Schools to give notice to a parent or guardian when courses of study, educational programs, institutional materials, instruction or exercises include subject matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion.

The essential purpose of our schools is to fully permeate Catholic theology, philosophy, practices and beliefs, the principles of the Gospel and teachings of the Catholic Church, in all aspects of school life, including in the curriculum of every subject taught, both in and outside of formal religion classes, celebrations and exercises.

Have you noticed anything about the Koran in this statement?

The requirement continues thus: “If Religion is other than the Catholic faith, please sign the following acknowledgement: I hereby acknowledge and accept the values and philosophy of a Catholic school and that my child will participate in the prayer life, church and church related activities, religious courses, instruction and exercises in which Catholic ethical and moral standards are taught. Additionally, I am aware that my child is being admitted to this school as a non-resident student, and because of this, the District accepts the responsibility for my child’s education until such time as my child finishes his or her program in this school, voluntarily withdraws, or is expelled from the District.

Is it discrimination, by any chance?

Of course it is. As it should be, too. If anyone wants to study elsewhere, without having to agree in advance to a set of beliefs, public schools are a wonderful alternative.

Come to think of it, let’s say it openly: discrimination, in and of itself, is a pretty good thing.

If you’re selecting a bride or a groom, you’re discriminating against all those who had submitted applications, and never mind those who had never heard of your existence. (Wives, especially, like to say they should have and could have picked anybody over you, and they would have been better off, but that is just folklore.)

When you’re buying, say, meat in your local grocery store, you’re discriminating against all those other pieces the store has on offer: no, you don’t want ribs today, your taste buds are set on a schnitzel.

Yes, the moronic politically correct crowd would say, but how about discrimination based on sex? Or religion?

Well, would you expect a guy, no matter how handsome or ugly, promoting goods used for female hygiene, on television?

Would you expect someone who believes there’s only one Almighty, and his name is Allah, serving as a rabbi in a kibbutz?

Dealing with mortal enemy

What has all this to do with the perfectly idiotic decision by the Edmonton Catholic School Board to offer its hallowed halls of learning to their mortal enemy?

It has become a modern trend, a fashion, even, for western civilisations to beg for pardons from all and sundry for injustices, real and perceived, that had happened centuries ago. It goes so far as African-Americans (another politically correct and, simultaneously, stupid description) adopting Muslim names and, at the same time, accusing America and Americans for the crime of slavery. They don’t know their history. Muslims, who, by the way, still consider this kind of ownership perfectly fine and dandy, had sold them into slavery in the first place. And they should know that it had been the Americans, together with the Brits, who had led the struggle against slavery.

It is perfectly appalling to see the Pope apologising to the Muslims for the Crusades. One would have expected that if anyone knew his history, it would be the Holy Father. Who knows, he might. If he does, he must know that Crusades were a two-way street. Christians were defending their holy places. That’s all. And in case you weren’t aware, desecration is the Muslim way to handle holy places they manage to take over, usually by force. Not: WAS the way. IS the way. And NOT only Christian or Jewish holy places.

Footage of a gang of Muslims, led by their priests, destroying the graves of Allied soldiers who had fought the Nazis in the deserts of Africa has been going viral the last couple of years.

Logical, after all: Muslim mullahs believe to this day that it is a pity Adolf Hitler was deprived of the chance to finish his “sacred duty” of the Holocaust.

An aside: what happened once the footage of the desecration of Allied graves made the Internet? Not much. The British government issued a modest, shy and unassuming tut-tut. Analysts say that the British reaction was so mute because they feared lest they insult the masses of Muslims who live in Britain, many of them illegally.

Responsibility abandoned

It is within this context that the Edmonton Catholic School Board sees itself fit to announce its schools are all-inclusive. They must be perfectly illiterate. How? They aren’t aware of the fact a number of Arabs are Christian rather than Muslim. The other option would be that they have been blinded by the sheer stupidity a.k.a. political correctness. One wonders which option bodes better for Edmonton Catholic schools’ students.

Of course, if a Muslim decided to convert (to Catholicism, in this instance), that would call for fatwa. Automatic death sentence, that is. How many would dare?

Certainly, Christians will tell you that if somebody hits you, you ought to offer the other cheek for similar punishment. Except not even the most literal and ancient Christian religious writings stipulate you ought to behave like lamb led to slaughter when it’s your life that’s at stake.

Some say it’s not true that ostriches put their heads in the sand when they spot danger. Still, the saying remains. And it fits not only the Edmonton Catholic School Board, but all of the politically correct and frightfully naïve folks, too.

A school board, be it a public or religious institution, has but one responsibility only: to educate those in their care and prepare them for life in the real world.

Political correctness in any shape or form just doesn’t cut it.

And sleeping with the enemy doesn’t do the job, either.

Islamists desecrate military graves. When will we stand up to these bullies?

Islamists desecrated an Allied cemetery near Tobruk recently.

Have you ever heard about it in mainstream media? Have you ever read about it in mainstream media? Have you ever seen it in mainstream media?

Most of you will say this is the first time you read about it.

You might have read a story or two in the British press: it was British graves, after all. But not much.

Here’s your chance to see (and hear) it: http://www.youtube.com/embed/RtgbvotqVFE?rel=0.

Now that you’ve seen and heard it, here are the questions again: Have you ever heard about it in mainstream media? Have you ever read about it in mainstream media? Have you ever seen it in mainstream media?

And an additional question: have you ever heard, read or seen a word of concern, not to mention protest, from any of the so-called civilized governments of what we still call (inertia, perhaps?) civilized countries?

The only government to raise an eyebrow was the one in London, England. Again, it was British graves, after all. But even so, an eyebrow up, saying “tut-tut,” just doesn’t cut it.

Other than that, the answer to all of the above questions is no. A shocking and alarming no.

But why?

Have we all gone scared excrement-less (to use a polite version of a well-known comparison) that someone might say we’re racist? That we lack basic tolerance? That the graves are in Libya and what are they doing there, anyway? That is wasn’t the Libyans’ war, after all?

During the Second World War, Tobruk was in Italian hands. Italy, at the time, was an openly fascist country, allied with an openly national-socialist Germany.

Tobruk was then (still is, in fact) a strategically located port. Those who held Tobruk would have an upper hand in military operations on the African continent. Having that upper hand was important for a number of reasons: access to raw materials, control over sea-lanes, to name but a couple.

No wonder the Allies fought for and won the control of Tobruk. The Germans, perfectly aware of the place’s importance, sent an elite army to win the port (and the peninsula) back. Deutsches Afrika Korps under Lieutenant-General Erwin Rommel pushed the Allies out. So pleased was Rommel’s commander-in-chief, Adolf Hitler, he would bestow the rank of Generalfeldmarschall upon him, making Rommel the youngest officer holding such a high rank in the history of the German military.

The Allies fought back and re-captured the region in what has become known as the Second Battle of El-Alamein.

It was one of the major turning points that would lead to the defeat of Hitler’s Germany.

So far as the Islamic population in the area (but not only there) is concerned, Hitler should have won the war. He was, so far as they are concerned, a swell guy and if he had any shortcomings at all, it would be that he hadn’t done away with the Jews altogether.

This is no imaginative conclusion. This is what these people state on record.

And yet, instead of trying to enforce humanity, Western lumpenintelligentsia (see definition of lumpenproletariat for explanation) is all agog over what they call Arab spring. A war, that is, on existing governments in those regions.

Granted, existing governments in those regions would have a long ways to go to begin resembling anything coming close to modern democratic governments. The question whether anything of the kind would be possible to achieve within this century is quite legitimate. But it still does not mean that we should automatically give standing ovation, including material support, to all those who oppose them.

Western lumpenintelligentsia (again, see definition of lumpenproletariat for explanation) ignores such minor things like that those in opposition to existing governments are Islamic fundamentalists of all stripes and shades. Their fierce opposition to their governments is based on the fear that those existing governments are becoming too westernized, meaning, by extension, that they begin resembling democracy too closely for comfort.

Lies legitimized

We now live in an era of political correctness, which, for all reasons and purposes, is just unabashed censorship. It goes so far as to call, for example, Mark Twain or William Shakespeare racists. One wonders quite often whether any of those accusers have ever read Twain or Shakespeare, but that’s another matter.

This era of political correctness makes it easy to silence those whose views do not conform to the politically correct mantra. An accusation of any of the “reactionary” –isms will suffice. And if you happen to point out to any of the supporters of political correctness that they are indulging in censorship, they would call you all kinds of names, usually not even knowing what those names mean.

So, if you happen to say that what the Islamists are doing in desecrating soldiers’ graves is abominable, the answer would come back that it wasn’t their war in the first place.

Guess what: it was. As mentioned above, these fellows were Hitler’s supporters. Should any of the politically correct crowd ask, “So what?” a reality seminar in a former Nazi concentration camp would be useful. Preferrably with actors dressed as SS thugs, with the inmate knowing her or his next stop would be an extermination camp.

Of course, these Islamists just happen to be also the same gang that objects to having Olympic arena built in a spot that they claim used to be a burial area for the fallen Muslim soldiers of wars two centuries ago.

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. Literal translation from the Latin: What is legitimate for Jove (Jupiter), is not legitimate for the ox. In simpler words: Gods may do what cattle may not. Even simpler: it’s all about double standard.

So, as a double standard, it is fine and dandy for persons of Muslim persuasion to try to stone to death a girl in Belgium just because she’s not wearing the appropriate clothing. The fact the girl in question was NOT Arab meant nothing. It is fine and dandy for Muslim organizations to demand that the Ontario government introduce Sharia laws for the Muslim community, and those who oppose this (calling it insanity, among other epithets) are labelled as racists. It is fine and dandy for a major Muslim organization to be on internationally recognized lists of terrorist supporters, but when a Canadian government official as much as mentions it, they threaten they would take him (and the rest of the government) to court to have it withdrawn. It is fine and dandy for a major Canadian newspaper to publish a cartoon that describes the country’s prime minister as an Israeli lackey just because he told Israeli parliament (the Knesset) that Canada is and will remain Israel’s ally.

Why are you objecting to have a mosque built just round the corner from the former World Trade Center in New York? So what that it is precisely the place Muslim fanatics changed into a mountain of smouldering ruins on the fateful September 11 day. Don’t the Muslims have a right to pray wherever they please?

How many would stand up and say: no, absolutely not? And this is not about our intolerance, this is about their intolerance, and the ruins bear witness to that. (And never mind the tastelessness of it all.)

So, what should we have done about the Libyan Muslims who desecrated the military graves in Tobruk?

On the first instinct, we should have them identified from the video, taken to a public square and flogged a hundred score lashes on their naked bottoms. Not only for the pain, but for the humiliation, also. And females should do the flogging: widows, daughters and granddaughters of those whose graves were desecrated. Just to drive the message home.

This would be a perfect solution on the second instinct, too.

The third instinct suggests this would be nice, but it wouldn’t be the way to go.

How about taking these people to Nazi concentration camp and treat them just the lumpenintelligentsia that eggs them on would be treated: daily beatings by actors dressed up as SS thugs, and knowledge of extermination that awaits them? Putting the shoe on the other foot, so to speak?

One thing is for sure: keeping silent about atrocious behaviour by the Islamist population makes our world a dangerous place to be.

We should all stand up and let those people know we won’t tolerate it. You can’t stop bullying by hiding somewhere in a corner.

And that’s precisely who these guys are. Bullies.

We should be ashamed of letting them feel they can get away with it.

Police officers wearing hijabs? What’s next? Burkas for police dogs?

The word “uniform” has one meaning, and one meaning only. Does this require spelling out?

Seems Edmonton Police Service would do well checking out a dictionary or some basic thesaurus, available in any public library.


Apparently, in the name of cultural tolerance, it’s now looking at how to introduce hijab as an option to police uniform.

One wishes to have their issues. And Rothschild’s money, too.

So, here are the facts: those who say it’s all about cultural tolerance (multiculturalism, that is) are lying through their teeth beyond belief.

What we are talking about is a religious symbol. Indeed, religion is a matter of culture and tradition, but that doesn’t change the basics: hijab (and other such headgear) symbolizes a woman’s position in society as dictated by a religion.

A mild reminder: that religion was written by males, and that female position just happens to be subservient to male position.

The tragic thing is that more often than not, the crowd that vigorously supports multiculturalism happens to be the same crowd that fights (with similar vigour) for equality of sexes. Not realizing that you can’t have it all.

There should be one simple rule: if you are an officer of the law, you must keep your religion at home. In fact, that rule should extend to all public servants. The same holds true for crosses, stars of David, hijabs, turbans, Sikh knives and whatnot. None of it should be allowed as part of a police officer’s uniform. And neither has any of it any place in a government office, at any level. Period.

That Edmonton Police Service even has an Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit speaks volumes about its misguided approach. We have laws on the books that quite specifically say that we are all equal. To be organizing such hugely superfluous departments is an exercise in attempting to create more jobs, to put it very mildly. And never mind such minor diversions as that those who occupy those jobs keep using so-called static figures, not real-life statistics (numbers, that is, that are dynamic, meaning they change as life changes). The idea is to justify their existence. Using this kind of propaganda babble is an insult to the meanest intelligence.

An Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit representative, Natasha Goudar, is on the record as saying her group has been working with Muslim communities, including Imams, about what she termed were cultural implications and requirements.

An aside: define Imam, will you? A community leader, generally, and a religious authority, more specifically.

“One of the big concerns for them was an educational element to the introduction of the hijab. They didn’t want to just bring it in and have it sit on a shelf,” Goudar said.

Canada is a land of compromise, so, this is how it would look: the head scarf would be black in colour, and sit underneath the standard-issue Edmonton police hat.

It’s the same nonsense as allowing RCMP officers to wear turbans, as the federal government did in 1990.

It seems that Quebec is indeed a distinct society, judging at least by its proposed Quebec Charter of Values. It would forbid Quebec’s public employees from wearing visible religious symbols – including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and larger-than-average crucifixes.

In this case, three cheers for Quebec and its distinctiveness.

We’ve stepped on a slippery slope here. So slippery, that an Edmonton Catholic Schools Board’s brochure features as one of its illustrations a girl wearing a hijab. Asked what that is supposed to mean, a board spokesthingie said this was to demonstrate the all-inclusive character of schools in its jurisdiction. Considering one of Islam’s publicly stated goals is to do away with Christianity (that happens to include Catholicism) and with Christians, this all-inclusiveness seems to be going one way only.

While not calling for Crusades or anything even similar to them, the basic rule of new citizenship should make a comeback, and fast. The rule is straightforward enough: you came to Canada, and it was your voluntary choice. Nobody forced you to come here, and nobody’s forcing you to stay.

Canada has been built on certain principles. Call them cultural, traditional, religious, whatever combination thereof, but here they are spelt out: they are Judeo-Christian (whatever THAT is supposed to mean).

If you want respect, you have to give respect, first. By trying to impose your preferences upon something that you had elected to join in the first place, you’re doing no such thing.

You want to practice your religion? By all means. But do not try to force it upon others.

Your young women can’t join a police force because they feel wearing hijab is a major responsibility? Fine: you simply can’t have it all. If your women still believe that hijab symbolizes something, and if they do not care that they are giving up their rights, that would be their problem.

Yes, some of them would have preferred to drop the hijab and live as they please. Alas, their own men (fathers, husbands, brothers, the lot) threaten their lives for such transgressions. Speaking of which: and when somebody mentions this strange state of affairs in advertisements on Edmonton’s city buses, a councillor sees fit to impose crude censorship on such ads and have them pulled.

Multiculturalism denies the truth that we’re all different in the name of equal rights for everybody.

We’re not all equal. And no, all cultures are NOT equal, either. Female circumcision, anybody? Honour killing, perhaps?

Edmonton Police Service should, first and foremost, rid itself of its Equity, Diversity and Human Rights Unit and spend the money thus saved on better policing.

And those who are cheering this of kind of multicultural nonsense on, should go straight back to school and learn the meaning of the word: uniform.

Prior to Sochi Olympics, Russia lashes out against terrorism

Nothing beats the principle of collective guilt.

Russian president Vladimir Putin says so, and – as a former high-ranking KGB officer – he should know whereof he speaketh, right?

Putin signed into law a bill that stipulates that whatever harm a terrorist causes, her or his family will have to pay for the damages.

Now, this is not a new legal principle, really, and many a regime uses it even today. Come to think of it, whenever an Israel-based Palestinian terrorist blows her- or himself up causing grief to others, this terrorist’s family loses their home. Of course, if they blow themselves up somewhere with no innocent victims or other people’s property around, just for the sheer fun of it, it’s their issue altogether. So long as someone cleans up the mess after them. And, of course, if the terrorist happens to have come from a territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, her or his family receives a reward (while the terrorist enjoys the company of virgins in heaven). The reward, usually money, comes more often than not from funds provided by the European Union, but that’s another issue altogether.

In modern history, two regimes stand out as regular users of this kind of principle: communist and nazi rules thrived upon it.

Which doesn’t mean that today’s legal systems don’t use it, either. All kinds of laws all over the world punish criminals’ relations, from the closest to the extended, for the perpetrators’ deeds. The only difference between the communist and nazi principle and today’s use is simple. Then, relatives paid even if those considered guilty were still alive. Today, relatives only pay when the perpetrators have either extinguished themselves from the genetic pool of humanity, or somebody has done it for them. Simply put: when they are dead.

So, what’s so special about the new Russian law?


Mother Russia has been fighting insurgents in the Northern Caucasus mountains for quite some time. All told, it’s been going on for centuries. The insurgents are mostly of Islamic persuasion, and they have had the gall to strike even within Russia proper from time to time. Several years ago, we witnessed a suicide attack at the Domodedovo airport near Moscow. A few weeks ago, a suicide attack in a bus in Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad, originally Tsaritsyn) killed at least seven innocent passengers who had nothing to do with the terrorists’ claims that the Crimea had belonged to them first and the Russians forced them out.

There’s something to think about. History books tell us the battles for the area around Sochi have been the neuralgic point in the wars between Russia and the insurgents in Northern Caucasus at least since the 19th century. At least eight million original (Muslim) inhabitants of the region died during those wars, along with several hundred thousands of Tsarist Russia’s soldiers.

One name should have attracted your attention: Sochi. Yes, the site of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. The area that leaders of the insurgents have announced in advance they planned to turn into living hell for everybody who dares be there during those couple of weeks this forthcoming February.

According to sources in Russia (and elsewhere), Putin’s government is sending crack units of the so-called Spetznaz forces into the region. These Russian army’s units seem to resemble American Navy Seals and Green Berets, the British SAS, and many other such outstanding groups, with one minor difference of major proportions. The Russians are much more ruthless than any of their counterparts. Their ruthlessness begins where the others’ ruthlessness culminated and stepped back in horror.

That would promise an all-out war. There goes the so-called Olympic Peace, so promoted by all kinds of Olympians.

The new law seems to have come to accompany the Spetznaz’s brute (and brutal) force.

The psychology is simple: most of the fighters have got used to the idea they might end up dying sooner rather than later. The suicide bombers’ psychology is based on this realization, after all.

But it’s the threat of the attack on terrorists’ relations that, Russian lawmakers seem to hope, will give the perpetrators serious pause.

Whether it will is another question.

Of course, the Russians (Soviets, at the time) know what they are doing.

Years ago, one of the then-warring militias in Lebanon abducted a Soviet engineer. Whether the guy was a real engineer or somebody else, under cover, doesn’t matter. The militia guys took him hostage.

At about that same time, a well-meaning, but otherwise perfectly stupid British priest, Jimmy Waite, came to Lebanon. He would bring peace to the war-torn country, he said. He was kidnapped shortly upon his arrival. The British tried to negotiate his release, having first to find out whom to talk to. The whole affair took years to get settled.

Not so in the case of the Soviet engineer. Within hours of his abduction, several heavily armed gentlemen called on the leader of the group that abducted the Soviet guy. Without preliminaries, they went to business: you shall release our guy within minutes, unharmed and clean. In return, we shall not destroy your family. To prove we mean business, here’s your mother’s ear. Whereupon they presented the militia leader with his mother’s ear, carefully cut off and wrapped in gift paper.

They took their engineer to safety with them right away.

There’s no reason to think the Russians have changed their ways.

The new law, as published on www.newsru.com, goes straight to the point: if authorities can’t lay their hands on the perpetrator, the family will pay. Besides, if the families aren’t able to prove (beyond any doubt, and who cares about reasonableness) that whatever they own comes from legitimate sources, it’s going to be confiscated forthwith, lock, stock, and barrel.

Whoever gets involved in any shape or form in terrorist training or helping terrorist groups or, Heavens forbid, being their member, will suffer, too. Whoever calls for extremist actions or joins armed groups, and that includes anywhere in the world, so long as Russia feels her interests are threatened, will face the wrath of the country’s new law.

Why that last threat? Russian secret services have admitted quite openly that there are about 300 to 400 Russian citizens actively involved in the civil war in Syria. Perfectly trained, they would pose a serious danger if they came back to Russia in time to show what they learned during the Olympics in Sochi.

Years ago, when Western governments recoiled in horror over atrocities committed by the Russians in Chechnya, Putin himself told them two things: first, the other side does exactly the same things. And secondly, and more importantly, we’re defending everybody, including you, from the “green-coloured danger of Islam.”

What do you think his excuse will be now?