I'm off for a couple of weeks. Initial direction: North. Blogging forecast: Light, but possible.

A few questions to discuss while I'm away:

1. If a bird flies inside an airplane, does the airplane weigh less?

2. If there's an ice cube in a glass of water on that plane, will the ice melt any faster if the bird flies, and when it melts will the water level rise or stay the same? What if there's noone there to see it?

3. Why did it take Star Trek TNG four seasons to get rid of Wesley Crusher? Why?

4. Which universal constants do your answer to the previous questions depend upon?

5. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What if they stand still? Demonstrate.

6. Emacs or vi - which is in most need of a paperclip?

7. Assume that A is B. Is it?

8. List five possible uses of a hyperdimensional gyroscope.

Bonus question: Anyone posting anything political to this thread will be shot. Why?

The Norwegian police dropped the Mullah Krekar case this week. There wasn't enough evidence to convict him of attempted murder, kidnapping, funding of terrorism and the other crimes he committed during his time as acting leader of Ansar al-Islam in pre-invasion Kurdish Iraq. Krekar is a free man.

I don't know the details here, but one important factor was the possibility that torture or strong incentives had been used on former Ansar al-Islam members to make them testify against Krekar. There was speculation about this in January, and though it had a conspiracy tinge to it - were the Americans involved somehow? - there seems to have been something to it. One witness withdrew his original statement in February, and accused PUK of having tortured him to frame Krekar. (Ironically, he made this claim while in American custody in Abu Ghraib, where he said he was treated "just fine".) Public prosecutor Tor Aksel Busch is highly critical of the PUK, and says that "there's a realistic chance that witnesses have been pressured and abused".

Another factor was the inability of the Norwegian police to offer adequate protection to witnesses in Kurdish Iraq. With witnesses being put under pressure from both Ansar al-Islam and PUK, the police concluded that further investigation would require better protection than they could offer, and felt it necessary to drop the investigation in February

So they were left with what evidence they already had, some of which had been placed into doubt. I don't know if it was the right decision to drop the case, but we were never particularly qualified to try a Kurd for crimes against Kurds in the first place. Without access to the evidence myself, I'll take the police's word for it: They were unable to build a solid case against Krekar.

Now, to be clear - it stands to reason that Mullah Krekar is an evil fanatic, that he ran a Taliban-like guerilla group in Northern Iraq which partly used suicide attacks and terrorism to fight other groups and their civilian government in the no-fly zone. It would be ridiculous to claim that all this happened without his knowledge and approval. It also passes the test of plausibility that Krekar still holds influence over the branch of Ansar al-Islam which regrouped as a regular terrorist organization after the American invasion. If not influence through actual authority, then through respect. It is rational to believe that Krekar still identifies with their struggle and that of other Islamists to form Shariah states and a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and that he, one way or another, intends to contribute to that struggle.

In short, Mullah Krekar is an evil bastard.

But we can't prove it. Perhaps others can, in a stable, future Iraq. But it's time for Norway to accept that we did our best, and we botched it. Our best just wasn't very good. So it's time for plan B: Deportation. The formalities have already been taken care of, and the order was given two years ago. Minister of Regional Affairs (+ misc including immmigration) Erna Solberg stated this week that the deportation order stands unchanged.

The only thing that stands between us and a Krekar-free Norway is that we don't have anywhere to send him. Iraq is Krekar's home country, but it's unstable and it's personally unsafe for Krekar to go there. There are other countries where Krekar would be welcomed with open arms - after which he'd be kindly escorted to a jail cell. We're in a bind. We don't want Krekar because we know he's a evil fanatic. We can't send him anywhere, because we know that everyone else knows he's an evil fanatic too, and they won't likely guarantee not to kill him. But we can't prove in court that he's done anything criminal, so the only solution is to let him stay, and live here in freedom. It's the one option nobody is pleased with. (Not even the Norwegian people, a majority of which wants Krekar to leave.)

While we look for a way to get rid of him, Krekar intends to use his freedom to open a language school in Arabic for Norwegians. This is actually an inspired idea - a low-level one-on-one attempt at introducing toned down versions of Islamist ideas into Norway, playing on multiculturalist fascination with Arab culture and Krekar's own celebrityhood. I doubt it will have much effect, though. Some will see a Krekar language school as another step towards "Eurabia", that mythical and irrational doomsday scenario where Islam takes over Europe. Krekar probably believes so as well. Teach Norwegians to read Arab, and they will want something to read, such as the Koran or other Islamic writings, at which point they will be struck by the obvious truthfulness of Krekar's religious beliefs.

But religious beliefs are never as obviously truthful as believers think they are. And although multiculturalism benefits Islamism through its unwillingness to confront the dark side of foreign cultures, they are still two separate and incompatible worldviews.

What bothers me most about all of this is that we'll be stuck with the Krekar circus for a long time. I can already see it before me:
2005 - Krekar opens Arab language school in Oslo, starts an ironic fashion for taking Arab classes from evil Mullah's, (followed next year by a post-ironic fashion for taking Norwegian classes from retired elementary school teachers).
2007 - The police investigates accusations that proceedings from the school are used to finance Europe's terrorist network. Investigation dropped when Nettavisen reveals that some of the evidence comes from American intelligence.
2009 - Mullah Krekar becomes the host of a short-lived celebrity gameshow on NRK.
2010 - One of Krekar's Norwegian pupils makes a spectacular failure of himself trying to blow up an Oslo bus. 50 passengers evacuated, 1 terrorist treated for light burns and a headache.
2013 - Krekar's lawyer and long-time partner Brynjar Meling renounces Christianity, and begins law studies at the Islamic University in Medina.
2014 - Mullah Krekar renounces Islam, launches his first album and an underground career in punk rock.
2016 - Brynjar Ali Meling publishes his masterpiece, "Shariah With a Human Face - Towards a Norwegian Islamic model".
2017 - A translation of Meling's book becomes a surprise hit in France, where it triggers the birth of the sixth republic.
2021 - Mullah Krekar has a spiritual awakening while undergoing treatment for his cocaine addiction, becomes Norway's first televangelist for his own weird brand of Pentecostal Sufism.
2026 - A land-wide Pentecostal Sufi revival is cut short when the climate proves Hollywood right, and 21st century Norway instafreezes into a permanent museum of ice. Mullah Krekar's third and final autobiography, "I Was An Evil Fanatic But God And Rock'n Roll Showed Me the Light", is never published.

Hm. Well, maybe not, but I'd still rather send him away, preferably to a fair trial in Iraq.

That Reagan thread got carried away a bit (my fault!) by a discussion on what Islam is or isn't. Is it true to say that "Islam is world war", and thus a major threat even in moderate clothing? Is it true to say that Islamism is the real Islam, something that lurks inside every Muslim community waiting to jump out? And should we look to the Koran to answer those questions, or to real life Muslims?

I say that Islam is whatever people do, say and think in Islam's name. Sometimes what Muslims do is compatible with the Koran or other Islamic writings, other times it's not, and when that happens, real life supercedes the holy book. Islam does not have a mystical essence that somehow exists independently of real life Muslims. They are all it is. Islam is world war only if Muslims go to world war. They haven't. Islam and Islamism are the same only if Islamists act and think the same way as other Muslims. They don't. It doesn't matter what the Koran supposedly tells Muslims to do, those commandments are part of real Islam only to the extent that they're actually followed.

I've now moved all the off-topic comments over to this thread. A lot of people have opinions about this, and it's no point dragging poor Reagan into it.

Let's try something new. Instead of me telling you what to believe, (as if!), you tell me what to believe: Most favorable obituaries of Ronald Reagan attribute our victory in the Cold War to his aggressive policy against the Soviet Union. By launching an arms race he forced the Soviets to spend more than they could afford, hastening their economic crisis, and encouraging a new policy of reconciliation with the West, which was followed by the peaceful disintegration of the Soviet empire.

The question is: If you agree, why, and if you don't, why not?

I ask as someone who doesn't know much about Reagan, and don't have many views about him either way. Note: I'm not asking if Reagan was a good president, or a good guy, or a smart guy. Granted that he was right to call the Soviet Union an Evil Empire, granted that his critics underestimated him, granted that he had a keener view of the weaknesses of the Soviet Empire than others, and granted that he had an admirable vision of the strength of free societies, this by itself does not show that his contribution to the end of the Cold War was vital. So what are the facts that conclusion is (or isn't) based on?

Those who came to the anti-terror meeting at Hamar OL-Amfi on June 5 expecting fire-breathing Zionists were disappointed. The purpose of the meeting was to condemn terrorism while being otherwise politically neutral - and at that we succeeded. This was not a pro-Israel meeting, as the local media had warned. (And I'm still waiting for my first check from that great Israeli conspiracy supposedly financing the whole thing, or perhaps a retraction from NRK?)

The cost of our success at neutrality was having to listen to - in my personal view - occasional nonsense. Hamar mayor Einar Busterud listed water and poverty as important causes of terrorism. Jon Lilletun (KrF) concluded that since rule of law is a weapon against terror, its international counterparts of treaties and multinational organizations are as well, which lead to a condemnation of those nations who act on their own against such treaties and organizations. From condemnation of terrorists to implicit condemnation of the US and Israel, all in one paragraph - impressive. Lilletun also managed to implicate low voter turnout as a threat to our society, with unspecified relevance to terrorism.

Torbjørn Jagland, foreign policy spokesman for Labor, commanded more respect. There's a decency about him that makes it impossible for me to dislike him, even when I disagree with his dreamy proposals for world peace. Jagland was the only top politician at the event not to insert partisan plugs in his speech. And when Jagland tells the story of how he witnessed a Palestinian man forced down on the ground in front of his son, a gun in his neck, at a checkpoint he passes every day on his way to his son's school, it's not in the angry voice of the pro-Palestinian trying to capture the moral high ground, but as if to say "Hey - don't forget these people either". That's normally a superflous reminder here in Norway, but perhaps an important one for that particular audience on Saturday to hear.

The one speaker I fully agreed with, though he's less honest than Jagland, was Carl I. Hagen. The Progress Party remains the only political party in Norway with a sane foreign policy on terrorism, the US and Israel. Like the other speakers, Hagen had been reminded in advance to stay away from particular conflicts where terrorism is involved, ie. not to make this a pro-Israel rally. And, like the other speakers, he thus phrased himself in general terms but with obvious implications: When terrorism has positive results, he said to storming applause, we get more terrorism. And since the only permanent antidote to war and terrorism is through the establishment of democracy, rule of law and distribution of powers, we have an obligation to promote democracy abroad. By promoting democracy, we fight terrorism.

Judging by the amount of applause for Hagen, the political affiliation of the audience was fairly uniform. I suppose the topic and the local coverage worked together to deny us broad appeal. Who else but raving fanatic would hold a meeting to condemn terrorism? There were 1000-1200 people present, and I doubt there were many who didn't walk in through the door firmly pro-Israel. One person carried an Israeli flag. Others confronted the tiny counter-demonstration outside, claiming that there was no Palestinian people, and that they have no right to a land of their own.

So in a way it was appropriate when a Macedonian journalist, who told of the recent conflict between Albanians and Macedonians in her country, warned the audience against excessive emotional involvement in far-away conflicts. Whether you believe one side or the other is more in the right, she said, you should be careful of allowing emotions and anger to take control, of identifying so strongly with one side that you stop thinking. That is something pro-Israelis forget as well as pro-Palestinians.

A representative of the American embassy held a calm, non-specific defense of the philosophy behind the American war on terror: deny terrorists sanctaury, deny them wmd's, and work to promote freedom. Other speakers were Oddvar Nilsen from the Conservative party, psychologist Berthold Grünfeld, and Atle Sommerfeldt from Norwegian Church Aid. The latter impressed by not being particularly anti-Israel. Another NGO, the Norwegian People's Aid, refused to come unless they could talk about the root causes of Palestinian terrorism, ie. blame Israel, which would have broken the surprisingly effective Middle East truce at the meeting. Though you mostly knew what everyone really meant, there were no speeches in favor of or against particular actions of any particular government. If that sounds cowardly, remember that this was how we originally sold the event to the speakers. Without it, fear of being associated with a pro-Israel rally would have scared them off.

The anti-terror meeting was followed by a moderately failed terror aid concert. A few major artists had signed on, but cancelled, likely because of the negative coverage. The once who remained were half-good, the audience lukewarm.

Later in the evening there was a meeting against anti-semitism, independent of the first and with a somewhat smaller audience. This was a disappointment. (I say that as a member of the audience - I was not involved with the planning.) Our hypotethical critical visitor, expecting fire-breathing Zionists, would not have found them here either. But he would have had all his other prejudices about supporters of Israel confirmed. The whole atmosphere of the meeting was Christian. Not in a preachy or exclusive way, but with the clear implication that this was a meeting by and for Christian friends of Israel.

When a pan flutist struck up the tune of a well known Christian song, the whole audience sang along, perfectly. The main musical attraction was a choir from the church Sannhetens Ord, who announcer Anitha Apeltun Sæle boasted "love Israel more than most people". They stood there with their burning eyes, singing songs in Hebrew with lyrics from the Old Testament. One of the singers was dressed in Biblical looking clothes, playing a Biblical looking horn. What does this have to do with modern antisemitism? To some of these Christians, I suspect, politics and religion is one. In this unhealthy mix of myth and reality, Israel is not just a free, democratic country, it is the nation of God, a continuation of the Biblical kingdom of Israel.

At the very least some of these Christians have their political support for Israel mixed with a kind of religiously motivated Israel chic. And the tragedy is that because of this, opposition to media anti-Israelism and fear of anti-semitism has become strongly associated with conservative Christians. That connection is successfully used as a strawman defense by pro-Palestinians. Israelsvenn (friend of Israel) is a common pejorative with precisely those implications - a conservative Christians who support Israel unquestioningly.

And yet it's not as if conservative Christians have hijacked a mass movement and turned it narrow and religious. Without them there would be nothing. Ester Kristoffer, (who felt comfortable talking about God in her speech, which she normally avoids), recounted how she came back from Israel with the draft for a book. She had interviewed ordinary Israelis, of different political views, about how they experienced their situation. She sent the book to the major publishers. They loved it - but didn't want to print it. Only the Christians embraced her, only the Christians were interested in hearing stories from the other side of the conflict.

And though many Christians were perhaps originally motivated by their faith to question media anti-Israelism, they often think rationally from there on. Some of them do a great job in the media. Outside the Progress Party, conservative Christians are about the only players in the media landscape who regularly challenge foreign policy dogmas, and they usually do it without religious overtones.

That's the right way to do this. This was the wrong way. The association between faith and support of Israel is a tragedy, and it should be fought not encouraged.

Jo Benkow was central in both the meetings, and for him I have nothing but admiration. A Norwegian Jew who escaped to Sweden during the war, and one of the most respected Conservative politicians in Norway, he did a great job leading the anti-terror meeting, and held a speech on the history of anti-semitism at the second meeting. He just has a powerful presence as a person, and has recently added his reputation to those who criticize the Norwegian media coverage of the Middle East conflict. He's certainly a contrast to that other Conservative old-timer, Kåre Willoch, who has become the lead thinker of Norwegian anti-Israelism.

Another Norwegian Jew, one of our two remaining survivors of the Holocaust, spoke of the shameful way in which the Norwegian police helped the Nazi's round up our Jews, and of his own experiences in imprisonment and slavery. Both he and Benkow (and Ester) received standing, heartfelt ovations. A powerful moment.

So what about the original motivation for organizing these meetings, the bus drivers from Jerusalem who would explain to the people of Norway what it's like to live in daily fear of terrorism? They couldn't speak after all. The anti-terror meeting was held on the Sabbath, and Israel refused to send the bus drivers an official invitation that might discriminate in favor of secular Jews. Without that invitation, they would have had to travel at their own expense. This was clumsily handled on our side. The whole meeting was organized on the assumption that this part of the program, at least, was certain, but it turned out that the Israelis had been critical to the choice of day all along.

So that part of the program was moved to Sunday, to a seminar with the bus drivers and members of ZAKA, (the Israeli organization that picks up body parts after terrorist attacks). I was unable to attend, (too early, too long to travel), which I regret.

Curiously, the local police would not let us announce that meeting in public, unless we paid them compensation for the extra security measures a public meeting would require. Is that legal? It's certainly a shame to have to keep the most interesting part of the program secret, announced only at the meeting the day before. I don't know how it went, (if anyone were there, send me a report.)

Was it all worth it? By itself, no. I doubt anyone's eyes were opened to the horror of terrorism more than they were before. The budget just barely went in plus, the last I heard of it, so I doubt there'll be much money for treatment of and research on PTSD. The media was not put on the defensive about terror apologetism, no debate was started - except over the bombed bus used at the meeting in Bergen, and that debate was shortlived. But as a first attempt by a new player on the field, a spontaneous network of Norwegians who at least in principle want to avoid the partisan mistakes of others, as that it was worth it. People got together and did something. It was hard, and mistakes were made - certainly there was a lack of professionalism here, (and I include myself in that), made up for by luck and the hard work of individuals. The purpose could have been made more coherent, communication to the media more consistent.

But any future attempts will be easier, done better. The success of these meetings will be measured by the ability of the people who took part in them to exploit the new networks that were formed, to learn from our experiences. That's the challenge.