Click on the link for the rest of the story and comments.

Not so, said Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. If they'd wanted to do that, they'd have hit the Hilton or the Marriott or some other target-rich chain hotel. The Taj and the Oberoi are both Indian-owned, and popular watering holes with wealthy Indians.

OK, how about this group that's claimed responsibility for the attack? The Deccan Mujahideen. As a thousand TV anchors asked Wednesday night, "What do we know about them?"

Er, well, nothing. Because they didn't exist until they issued the press release. "Deccan" is the name of the vast plateau that covers most of the triangular peninsula that forms the lower half of the Indian subcontinent. It comes from the Prakrit word "dakkhin," which means "south." Which means nothing at all. "Deccan Mujahedeen" is like calling yourself the "Continental Shelf Liberation Front."

OK. So does that mean this operation was linked to al-Qaida? Well, no. Not if by "linked to" you mean a wholly owned subsidiary coordinating its activities with the corporate head office.

It's not an either/or scenario, it's all of the above. Yes, the terrorists targeted locally owned hotels. But they singled out Britons and Americans as hostages. Yes, they attacked prestige city landmarks like the Victoria Terminus, one of the most splendid and historic railway stations in the world. But they also attacked an obscure Jewish community center. The Islamic imperialist project is a totalitarian ideology: It is at war with Hindus, Jews, Americans, Britons, everything that is other.

In the 10 months before this atrocity, Muslim terrorists killed more than 200 people in India, and no one paid much attention. Just business as usual, alas. In Mumbai the perpetrators were cannier. They launched a multiple indiscriminate assault on soft targets, and then in the confusion began singling out A-list prey: Not just wealthy Western tourists, but local orthodox Jews, and municipal law enforcement. They drew prominent officials to selected sites, and then gunned down the head of the antiterrorism squad and two of his most senior lieutenants. They attacked a hospital, the place you're supposed to take the victims to, thereby destabilizing the city's emergency-response system.

And, aside from dozens of corpses, they were rewarded with instant, tangible, economic damage to India: the Bombay Stock Exchange was still closed Friday, and the England cricket team canceled their tour (a shameful act).

What's relevant about the Mumbai model is that it would work in just about any second-tier city in any democratic state: Seize multiple soft targets, and overwhelm the municipal infrastructure to the point where any emergency plan will simply be swamped by the sheer scale of events. Try it in, say, Mayor Nagin's New Orleans. All you need is the manpower. Given the numbers of gunmen, clearly there was a significant local component. On the other hand, whether or not Pakistan's deeply sinister ISI had their fingerprints all over it, it would seem unlikely that there was no external involvement. After all, if you look at every jihad front from the London Tube bombings to the Iraqi insurgency, you'll find local lads and wily outsiders: That's pretty much a given.

But we're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the ideology. It's the ideology that determines whether you can find enough young hotshot guys in the neighborhood willing to strap on a suicide belt or (rather more promising as a long-term career) at least grab an AK-47 and shoot up a hotel lobby. Or, if active terrorists are a bit thin on the ground, whether you can count at least on some degree of broader support on the ground. You're sitting in some distant foreign capital but you're of a mind to pull off a Mumbai-style operation in, say, Amsterdam or Manchester or Toronto. Where would you start? Easy. You know the radical mosques, and the other ideological front organizations. You've already made landfall.

It's missing the point to get into debates about whether this is the "Deccan Mujahideen" or the ISI or al-Qaida or Lashkar-e-Taiba. That's a reductive argument. It could be all or none of them. The ideology has been so successfully seeded around the world that nobody needs a memo from corporate HQ to act: There are so many of these subgroups and individuals that they intersect across the planet in a million different ways. It's not the Cold War, with a small network of deep sleepers being directly controlled by Moscow. There are no membership cards, only an ideology. That's what has radicalized hitherto moderate Muslim communities from Indonesia to the central Asian 'stans to Yorkshire, and co-opted what started out as more or less conventional nationalist struggles in the Caucasus and the Balkans into mere tentacles of the global jihad.

Many of us, including the incoming Obama administration, look at this as a law-enforcement matter. Mumbai is a crime scene, so let's surround the perimeter with yellow police tape, send in the forensics squad, and then wait for the D.A. to file charges.

There was a photograph that appeared in many of the British papers, taken by a Reuters man and captioned by the news agency as follows: "A suspected gunman walks outside the premises of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus or Victoria Terminus railway station." The photo of the "suspected gunman" showed a man holding a gun. We don't know much about him – he might be Muslim or Episcopalian, he might be an impoverished uneducated victim of Western colonialist economic oppression or a former vice-president of Lehman Brothers embarking on an exciting midlife career change – but one thing we ought to be able to say for certain is that a man pointing a gun is not a "suspected gunman" but a gunman. "This kind of silly political correctness infects reporters and news services worldwide," wrote John Hinderaker of Powerline. "They think they're being scrupulous – the man hasn't been convicted of being a gunman yet! – when, in fact, they're just being foolish. But the irrational conviction that nothing can be known unless it has been determined by a court and jury isn't just silly, it's dangerous."

Just so. This isn't law enforcement but an ideological assault – and we're fighting the symptoms not the cause. Islamic imperialists want an Islamic society, not just in Palestine and Kashmir but in the Netherlands and Britain, too. Their chances of getting it will be determined by the ideology's advance among the general Muslim population, and the general Muslim population's demographic advance among everybody else.

So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists don't seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we haven't yet held talks without preconditions with. This isn't about repudiating the Bush years, or withdrawing from Iraq, or even liquidating Israel. It's bigger than that. And if you don't have a strategy for beating back the ideology, you'll lose.

Whoops, my apologies. I mean "suspected ideology."

The Bush administration on Friday notified Congress of the deal, after an unusually long delay that had led some to question the strength of the US security commitment to Taiwan.

Taiwan has not yet purchased the weapons. But a Congressional notification is the point in the arms sales process that triggers a storm of official Chinese diplomatic protests, said Mark Stokes, a former top Pentagon official dealing with China and Taiwan, in a talk to the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club earlier this year.

China typically summons top US diplomats in Beijing and elsewhere for a sharp dressing-down immediately after such notifications, Mr. Stokes said.

According to Xinhua, China's state-controlled news agency, the foreign ministry this time summoned the US embassy's charge d'affaires in Beijing. The report cited a statement on China's foreign ministry website.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the Chinese government and people firmly opposed this action which seriously damaged China's interests and the Sino-US relations. ...

"It is only natural that this move would stir up strong indignation of the Chinese government and people," he said.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Taipei welcomed the news. Taiwan's president, Ma Ying-jeou, took power in May on a platform of improved commercial ties with China. But he also wants to maintain a robust defense in order to counter China's military buildup across the Taiwan Strait.

On Saturday, Taiwan's Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi thanked the U.S. and said the government wants to maintain a strong defense against any threat from China while seeking improvement in cross-strait relations.

"President Ma Ying-jeou would like to express gratitude to the U.S. for the arms package," said Wang. "A strong defense and peace in the Taiwan Strait are necessary for Taiwan's prosperity."

China views Taiwan as rebel territory and vehemently opposes any US arms sales to the island. The US is bound by domestic law to make available to Taiwan sufficient weapons for its self-defense.

Further complicating the issue, Taiwanese themselves cannot agree on the nature and extent of the threat from China. Their bickering held up Taipei's arms request for several years, amid legislative grid lock.

Another murder in a Canadian black community, this time the victim being 11-years old. And it took only moments for white liberal politicians to blame law-abiding handgun owners and, yes, the United States of America.

Handguns have to be banned, they cried, and American gun laws are too soft. This has to be a first. Canadian leftists blaming a murder in Toronto on President George W. Bush. Orders of Canada and CBC T-shirts all round.

Such drivel does not, however, explain how Norway, with one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, manages to have one of the lowest crime rates.

Or how Israel, a society where guns are extraordinarily common, has so few criminal shootings.

Or how Britain with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world has a violent crime rate that is virtually out of control.

It's too late to play silly games any more. If handguns are the cause of all this we have to ask why there are so few shootings in, for example, the Dutch, Ukrainian, Irish, Portuguese, Korean, Hindu or African communities. Why, in fact, there are so few shootings in any community outside of the West Indian and specifically Jamaican.

Oh Lord, the man must be mad. Silence him, stop him, call in a Human Rights Commission before it's too late!

Yet there is nothing racist about seeking answers that might save the lives of young black men and much that is racist about refusing to ask basic questions for fear that politically correct credentials be damaged.

If our leaders were braver they might admit that matriarchy is a fundamental theme of Jamaican society and the levels of fatherless families in the country's urban centres are staggering. This culture has been transferred to Canada. Just as it has to other Jamaican diaspora communities, which experience similar rates of violent crime.

It might be comforting to see every young single mom as a saint who works three jobs and is devoted to her children, but positive caricatures are just as unhelpful as are negative ones.

There are such mothers of course, but also young women who party late and work little. Who find themselves pregnant as teenagers and mothers of several children, perhaps from different fathers, by the time they are adults.

Such problems occur to various extents in all communities, but when the only male role model is the gangster on the street corner with the loud car, loud clothes and loud gun, the chances of leading a law-abiding life are minimal.

Made even harder by a dysfunctional obsession with disrespect.

A gesture or a harmless comment can indicate lack of respect and the need to shoot. Just last week in London, England, three young black men shot a doorman point blank in the face three times because he politely asked them not to smoke. Hard to believe that this was the result of oppression, racism and lack of government programs. Especially as the victim was himself black.

Poverty? Spare me. It is deeply insulting to assume that the poor are criminals.

Also ridiculous to assume that there is genuine, crippling poverty in a country with free education, health care and subsidized housing.

How the election of 1976 changed the Middle East The execution of former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, merits only the briefest mention. His indefensible behavior can be defended only in that his step-father was so brutal he went to be raised by Khayrallah Tulfah, his pro-Nazi uncle. Whether Saddam became a brutal sociopath by nature or by nurture we may never know; however, we do know Saddam passed on to his, arguably, insane sons his own delight in the torture and brutal murder of his subjects. The irony of the last week of 2006 is that former President Gerald Ford, one of the most decent men ever to serve humanity, was honored at his death by the American people at about the same time the people of Iraq broke the neck of Saddam Hussein with a hangman’s rope. The death of President Ford and the problems we face with militant Iran and the trouble Iran is causing inside Iraq raises some interesting speculations about the presidential election of 1976 that pitted the incumbent President Gerald Ford against presidential wannabe, James Earl Carter. Long before and while Gerald Ford was President of the United States, the Shah of Iran was America’s best friend in the Middle East. During those years, the Soviet Union was nearing the zenith of its military might and was looking longingly at the oil riches of neighboring Iran. Indeed, were it not for the Shah and his American ally, some experts predicted the Soviet Union would not only seize Iran’s oil but also achieve its long-sought goal of a year-round, warm-water port on the Persian Gulf. Fortunately, the Shah was a strong opponent of Soviet expansionism. He purchased the latest U.S. military equipment to face the Soviets to his north. Our military advisers and factory technical representatives enjoyed warm personal relationships with members of the Iranian military who were quick to embrace new technology and learning. (The fact that Iranians are not Arabs may have something to do with the Iranians’ willingness to study technical manuals rather than limit their reading to the Koran.) The Shah admired many of our institutions, to include our social security system. So much so, that he hired Ross Perot’s IDS company to come into Iran to set up a social security system as a way of insuring that Iran’s oil wealth was distributed among the people of his country. But the pro-women’s equality, pro-education Shah was moving too swiftly for the radical Islamic Mullahs who were loath to see any changes in Iran that might diminish their influence among the Iranian people. Urged on by the Mullahs, the devotees of radical Islam wanted the Shah deposed. Mind you, like all of the rulers of the Middle East, the Shah was a dictator, complete with a secret police apparatus to keep him in power. Ironically, if the Shah had not been “infected” with progressive ideas such as a social security system and other western institutions that were threatening to the Mullahs, he might well have remained in power to the end of his days. The U.S. was not the only nation that liked the Shah. He was also popular with all of his neighbors in the Middle East. Why? Because the Shah had no intention of attacking them. Having plenty of oil and being under the protection and influence of the United States probably had something to do with his pacifism. Had Gerald Ford been elected in 1976, U.S. policy with regard to the Shah would have remained unchanged. Iran would have continued to be a pro-U.S. nation. But when President Jimmy Carter was told the Shah was dying of syphilis contracted years ago as a student in Paris and that a holy man was waiting in the wings in France to replace the Shah, Carter pulled the Persian Rug out from under the Shah, paving the way for the Ayatollah Khomeini and radical Islam to rule Iran. As Paul Harvey says, “Now, you know the rest of the story.” Syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, is a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Naval War College and a former research fellow at the U.S. Military History Institute of the U.S. Army War College. He is the co-author of The Grand Conspiracy and The Panama Conspiracy – two thrillers about terrorism directed against the United States. ©2007. William Hamilton.

©1999-2007. American Press Syndicate. Dr. Hamilton can be contacted at: P.O. Box 2001 Granby, CO 80446

Richard Brennan writes the following: "Effectively, there is already a ban on handguns in Canada. They are already extremely tightly controlled and are only available to those requiring them for employment purposes (such as police and armoured car guards), legitimate target shooters, and approved collectors," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

In addition to rejecting a handgun ban, the Conservative government wants to scrap the long-gun registry, saying it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. This policy is popular in many parts of the country where gun ownership is seen as a right.

"The Conservatives have long been in the holster of the gun lobby," Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant told the Toronto Star after he and Toronto Mayor David Miller called for a ban on handguns.

Bryant called on Ottawa to heed the outcry that something be done to curb illegal guns, including cracking down on smuggling at the border and restricting even more who can own handguns.

"We've got 215,000 (registered) handguns in Ontario alone and each one of them is a target for theft," Bryant said. "I say `no gun, no funeral,'" he added, referring to the deaths that have plagued Toronto in recent years.

The federal government maintains that handguns, which have had to be registered in Canada since 1934, are effectively banned now because of the severe restrictions.

Again- This is work in process and getting more information on the gun laws in Canada.

Current firearm laws in Australia

The possession and use of firearms in Australia is governed by state laws. However, legislation was partly aligned by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (see below). Anyone in Australia wishing to buy, own, or use a firearm is required to have a Firearms Licence and must be over the age of 18. In Queensland, a minor may use a Category A or Category B firearm under the direct supervision of an adult, who is licenced for the type of firearm being used.[1] Applicants for a firearms licence must have a secure safe storage unit bolted to the wall or floor or have it weigh more than 150kg if it is used only for the storage of category A, B and C firearms, with separate lockable ammunition storage.

For every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. The law excludes self-defense as a reason for issuing a licence.

Firearms in Australia must each be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states (eg QLD and NSW) allow an owner to store or borrow another owner's firearm of the same category, while others do not (eg WA).

Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

• Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, paintball guns, and airsoft/soft air rifles (depending on State). (For Category A an applicant must give an acceptable "Genuine Reason" for owning that firearm.)

• Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after January 1st, 1901 (For Category B and higher, the applicant must prove a "Genuine Need" for each firearm of that category.)

• Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only some farmers and collectors can own working Category C firearms)

• Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are effectively banned: only those who have an occupational need of culling large animals may own a functional Category D weapon [2].)

• Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and airsoft guns not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.

(Participants in "approved" competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for unstated reasons. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (4") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.8") for semi-automatic pistols, and magazines are restricted to at most 10 shots. (In most other countries low-powered air/soft air/BB handguns are completely free of licencing requirements.)

• Category R: restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, .50 BMG calibre weapons, etc. (Collectors in some states only, weapons must be comprehensively deactivated. Deactivated firearms are still subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as 'live' firearms in many States.)

Antique firearms can in some states be legally bought, owned (and, in some states, used) without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

Single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before January 1st, 1901 are considered antique firearms in all cases. Antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms require licenses in all states except Queensland and Victoria, where an individual may possess such a weapon without a license, so long as the weapon is registered.

Norwegian soldiers complain about unfamiliar equipment, ranging from combat vests and weapons to vehicles.

"Certain soldiers that have come to Afghanistan have received equipment that they have never used before. In reality, soldiers begin their training in Afghanistan, and this is obviously unfortunate," said national representative for military conscripts Eivind Nævdal-Bostad.

Nævdal-Bostad and the other members of the Conscript Council visited the Norwegian forces in Afghanistan earlier this year and recorded the discontent there.

"The soldiers complained of, among other things, personal equipment - combat vests, hand guns, and requested more armored vehicles," Nævdal-Bostad told NTB.

Other complaints involved unnecessarily heavy protective gear and a lack of helicopters for evacuating wounded.

The Defense sent more armored vehicles to Afghanistan earlier this year and Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen said earlier this week that two or three helicopters would be sent in 2008.

Click on the link for the rest of the story and other Norwegian world issues.

The turmoil we see in the Muslim, nuclear-armed nation of Pakistan is caused by radical Islamists, not by President Pervez Musharraf. The majority of Pakistanis are both moderate and tired. They are tired of radical Islamist’ violence. They are tired of the political efforts of the leftists to make Pakistan a purely secular state.

The majority of Pakistanis are moderate in that they hope the plan hatched a few weeks ago by President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto might, eventually, come to pass. Mrs. Bhutto is the titular head of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). If elected Prime Minister next January, she was supposed to recognize Musharraf as Pakistan’s civilian president.

The heart of the violence stems from the Federally (meaning locally) Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). “Federal” is a euphemism for the fact that no power, be it British, Russian, Chinese or Pakistani has ever been able to “govern” the tribes living in terrain that would scare a mountain goat. Wisely, Osama bin Laden and his sort are hiding among the ungovernable tribes.

Eight hours before former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto boarded the flight that would take her back to homeland from which she and her family were expelled eight years ago, she phoned my colleague United Press International and The Washington Times editor-at-large, Arnaud de Borchgrave. Mrs. Bhutto gave him a list of names of those most likely to assassinate her when she arrived in Karachi.

Arnaud offered to accompany Mrs. Bhutto; however, it is a good thing that he did not because, shortly after her arrival in Karachi, a bomb killed 142 and wounded over 400. Miraculously, Mrs. Bhutto escaped unharmed.

Mrs. Bhutto fled back to Dubai; however, as of this writing, she is back in Pakistan. While Mrs. Bhutto fled back to Dubai President Pervez Musharraf decided the Supreme Court would not recognize his recent reelection and, without proper recognition, the Musharraf-Bhutto deal would work. So, Musharraf suspended the Constitution, packed the court (as FDR tried and failed to do in this country) and locked up hundreds of lawyers. Hard to fault that last part.

Some background on Arnaud de Borchgrave: Probably no one reporting today has better access to the world’s movers and shakers on both sides of the war between the radical Muslims and the Judeo-Christian world than Arnaud de Borchgrave. Born a Belgian nobleman, he served in the Royal Navy in World War II. He dropped the title “Count” long ago; however, crowned heads from London to Tokyo have not forgotten his origins.

Speaking immaculate French, English and some Arabic, Arnaud often gets the story without the need for a local interpreter, who may or may not portray the nuances of what Arnaud is being told. Accompanied by his beautiful wife, Alexandra, the pair is welcome in the gilded halls and the corridors of power around the world.

Wonder Wife and yours truly have known Arnaud and Alexandra for almost 20 years. Among other places, we’ve traveled together to Moscow (back when the communists ruled), to Seoul, South Korea, and even toured the DMZ together. For writers seeking depth and context for their columns, it is wonderful to follow in the wake of Arnaud. He opens doors other writers cannot breach.

As Mrs. Bhutto was preparing for her previous return to Pakistan, she e-mailed Arnaud saying, “I very much want you near me and will have you seated next to me for the final leg to Karachi…” Later, when Mrs. Bhutto phoned Arnaud a list of likely assassins, it made better sense for Arnaud to remain in Florida with the list.

Furious that Musharraf could not prevent the attempt on her life, Mrs. Bhutto has reneged on their deal and is calling for Musharraf’s ouster; however, one suspects that’s just for show.

A Jeffersonian democracy in Pakistan is not a choice. The choice is which dictator’s finger is on the nuclear trigger: that of U.S.-friendly, President Musharraf, or Osama bin Laden.

About the Author:

William Hamilton is a syndicated columnist and featured commentator for USA Today. Writing as William Penn, he and his wife, Penny, are the co-authors of The Grand Conspiracy and The Panama Conspiracy – two thrillers about terrorism directed against the United States.