We're Pretty Lame, Activists Say/Saudi court rules: Paralyze man who crippled another/other news
A new audio surfaces of Feisal Abdul Rauf explaining how the U.S. is worse than al-Qaeda....
August 24 2010 /
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/24/hate-speech-from-the-ground-zero-mosque-imam/ Hate Speech from the Ground Zero Mosque Imam 
Posted by Jamie Glazov on Aug 24th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. 
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog
AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories â€" notably the questionable sources of some of the
financing of the Obama campaign. Her op-eds have been published in
The Washington Times,
The American Thinker,
Israel National News,
Frontpage Magazine,
World Net Daily, and
New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of the new book,
The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton).
FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
I would like to talk you today about the discovery of more extreme and troubling statements that have come from the “moderate†Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. A new audio has surfaced. Tell us about it and when was it recorded.
Geller: Thanks Jamie, the audiotape, segments of which are available at
AtlasShrugs.com, was recorded on July 12, 2005. It’s a speech Rauf gave at The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre in Australia. The speech reveals that he is not even close to being the “moderate†that the media always portrays him as being. This speech Rauf delivered contains numerous statements that belie his moderate image and raise serious questions about what the mega-mosque will really be standing for once it is up and running in lower
Manhattan.
Like Osama bin Laden and other jihadis, Rauf blames America and sees America as more evil than the terrorists. Here is what he says about how the U.S. is worse than Al-Qaeda:
We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.
We all know what a profoundly misleading statement this is. It is curious that Rauf makes no mention of the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilation and enslavement. Nor does he say anything about the recent slaughter by Muslims of Christians, Hindus, Jews, and non-believers in Indonesia, Thailand, Ethiopia, Somalia, Philippines, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, China. Rauf’s words manifest no candor, no willingness to admit that Muslims have ever done anything wrong. He shows none of the mutual respect and readiness to take responsibility that we might expect from someone with such a reputation as a “moderate.â€
FP: This imam is painted to be some kind of great “moderate†but I am yet to hear what kind of reformation he is promoting for Islam.
Geller: Well Jamie, that’s because he isn’t calling out for any significant reforms. He says straight out that “Islam does not need a reformation.†He doesn’t say anything at all about all the jihadis who use Islamic texts to justify violence.
Also, in the course of his remarks in the speech we’re discussing, he uses the “N†word, referring to “nâ€"-rs or whities.†I can’t help form wondering: Is the Reverend Al Sharpton, who has endorsed the Islamic supremacist mosque at Ground Zero, going to come forward and say something about this? Will he condemn Rauf? Will the mainstream media say something about it? Will they condemn Rauf? For whatever point the Imam was arguably trying to make, by what standards is he let off the hook for using the word, while others, like Dr. Laura recently (who used the term to make a point about its usage), is not and widely condemned?
Please, Rev. Sharpton and the media, do come forward and explain this all to us, so we’ll know the way that Rauf is using the “N†word that is acceptable for everyone else to use it.
FP: Rauf also shows a reluctance to admit that Muslims were involved in Islamic terrorism, right?
Geller: Yes, Jamie. At one point he says: “And when we observe terrorism, whether it was done by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by al-Qaeda or whoever is behind the bombings in London or those in Madrid…†Note that when he says about the London and Madrid bombings, he was speaking five days after the London attacks and over a year after those in Madrid. It was common knowledge who the perpetrators were at that time. But maybe Rauf didn’t want his listeners to be thinking about exactly who they were.
And while Imam Feisal speaks of tolerance, he praises the worst extremists and inciters to genocide. In his address in Australia he said he had just come from a conference in Jordan featuring “over 170 leading Muslim scholars from almost every part of the Muslim world, including some of the most important names like Sheikh Tantawi of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who is the Chief Mufti of Egypt, the Chief Mufti of Jordan, the Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, who is a very very well known Islamic jurist, highly regarded all over the Muslim world.â€
The late Sheikh Tantawi several years ago endorsed suicide attacks against Israelis, as did Sheikh Qaradawi. Sheikh Gomaa has defended Islam’s death penalty for apostasy and sanction for wife-beating, and has endorsed the jihad terror group Hezbollah.
FP: And yet the media nurtures Rauf’s reputation to be that of a moderate.
Geller: That’s right, Jamie. And Rauf shows his true colors regarding Israel, also. He says he wants a “one-state solution†for Israel and the Palestinians. Given his advocacy for Islamic law, that means an Islamic supremacist Sharia state in which Jews are denied equal rights â€" when they aren’t killed outright.
FP: Why isn’t the mainstream media reporting on these statements by Rauf?
Geller: The only reason I can think of is that they are trying to protect him. With red flags everywhere in Rauf’s record and the nationwide grief caused by this grotesque act of Islamic supremacism, why isn’t the media doing its job of investigative journalism? It seems to me that it is because the media is rabid in its frenzy to destroy good, decent Americans who oppose a 15-story mega-mosque on Ground Zero.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s rhetoric is ugly, racist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic, all wrapped up in “inter-faith†propaganda. But don’t expect to hear about it from Wolf Blitzer.
FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
The Muslims who stage fake hate crimes -- and the Islamist groups that exploit them....
August 24 2010 / http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/24/fake-hate-crimes-an-islamist-weapon/
Fake Hate Crimes: An Islamist Weapon
Posted by Ryan Mauro on Aug 24th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, National Security Advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center.
Over the recent Fourth of July weekend, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (
CAIR)
interviewed attendees of the 47th annual Islamic Society of North
America (
ISNA) convention about their experiences in dealing with “Islamophobia.†Shortly afterwards, on July 6, CAIR called on the FBI to investigate an
act of arson at a Georgia mosque, saying that hate crimes were increasing because of a “vocal minority in our society promoting anti-Muslim bigotry.†The Islamic Circle of North America (
ICNA)
referred to it as one of the “incidents of Islamophobia [that] are on the rise in this country.†However, police later
arrested a Muslim suspect.
As Daniel Pipes has
documented for years, Islamist organizations in the West are quick to label crimes as anti-Muslim hate crimes as part of their effort to make Muslims
feel under attack and to paint themselves as Muslims’ protectors. For example, immediately following the
Fort Hood shooting, CAIR
asked Muslims to respond by donating to it. “We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy,†the fundraising pitch read. To no one’s surprise, an anti-Muslim backlash
did not ensue.
Cutting through the propaganda requires understanding the ways in which crimes are misrepresented as hate crimes â€" and why. There are two main culprits to consider: Muslims who stage fake hate crimes and Islamist organizations that seek to exploit them.
Why would anyone fabricate a hate crime against himself or his mosque? History indicates a pair of common motives.
In some cases, the faker has an obvious political goal of demonstrating the supposed prejudice against Muslims. A classic example occurred in 2008, when a 19-year-old female Muslim student named
Safia Z. Jilani at Elmhurst College in Illinois claimed that she had been pistol-whipped in a campus restroom by a male who then wrote “Kill the Muslims†on the mirror. The alleged attack occurred just hours after she spoke at a “demonstration called to denounce the anti-Islamic slurs and swastika she had discovered … in her locker.†A week later, however, authorities determined that none of this had taken place and she was charged with filing a false police report.
Similar incidents recently unfolded overseas. A Muslim community leader in London named
Noor Ramjanally reported that he had been kidnapped by members of the quasi-fascist
British National Party; he also said that he had received death threats and his home had been firebombed. His claim received widespread attention, causing him to boast, “I have got the whole UK Muslim community behind me now.†Ramjanally later was arrested for faking the crime. Furthermore, last year in Australia, a prominent imam,
Taj Din al-Hilali, told police that his mosque had been vandalized. When confronted with the
security tape, which shows that he is the one who kicked in
the door, he insisted that it had been manipulated.
In other cases, individuals are driven to fabricate hate crimes not for political reasons, but to cover up more mundane criminal activity. Take the bizarre story of
Musa and Essa Shteiwi, Ohio men who received media attention in 2006 after reporting several attacks on their store, the third being with a Molotov cocktail. A fourth “attack†then occurred, when an explosion was set off and badly burned the father and son,
injuries from which they later
died. CAIR highlighted it as a hate crime. However,
investigators found that the two had set off the explosion themselves after they poured
gasoline in preparation for another staged incident and one of them foolishly lit a cigarette. The pair had
hired a former employee to carry out the previous attacks as part of an
insurance fraud scheme.
Now let us turn to the motives of groups such as CAIR for exaggerating the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims.
First and foremost, Islamists try to undermine and delegitimize their opponents by placing blame upon them for hate crimes. For example, a 2008 CAIR
report attributes an alleged increase in hate crimes â€" “alleged†because the claimed increase is wholly
contradicted by FBI statistics â€" to “Islamophobic rhetoric in the 2008 presidential election†and people who are “profiting by smearing Islam.†Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is specifically rebuked for titling a
campaign ad “Jihad.â€
CAIR’s 2009
report takes aim at the anti-Islamist film
Obsession, a bête noir among promoters of the hate crime narrative. To cite one example of this approach, on September 26, 2008, law enforcement was
notified that a 10-year-old Muslim girl at the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton had been attacked with pepper spray. A member of the board immediately attributed it to advertisements for the documentary. However, the FBI found no trace of chemicals in the mosque or on the alleged victim; the pepper spray was
discovered inside the mosque four days later. It concluded that there was no evidence that a hate crime had occurred.
Islamist groups also use the fear created by their publicizing of alleged hate crimes and anti-Muslim sentiment to try to mobilize the community into opposing counterterrorism programs. As Daniel Pipes
has noted, CAIR started down this path a decade and a half ago, when it described the prosecution of World Trade Center bomb plotter
Omar Abdel Rahman and the arrest of Hamas leader
Mousa Abu Marzook as hate crimes.
Similar tactics remain in play. In February 2009, the
American Muslim Task Force and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (
MPAC) condemned the FBI after a
story broke about the use of an informant in a mosque. They accused the government of an anti-Muslim conspiracy,
saying that the informant was paid to “instigate violent rhetoric in mosques,†and threatened to end outreach efforts with the FBI. Then, in October 2009, a Michigan-based, pro-terrorist imam named
Luqman Ameen Abdullah, who had been preparing his followers to wage war against the U.S. government, opened fire when the FBI tried to arrest him for criminal activity. Abdullah died in the shootout, but CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America (
MANA) are
attempting to attribute his demise to foul play.
These groups assume the worst of the FBI’s intentions and try to make the Muslim community feel as if it is threatened by its own government committing state-sanctioned hate crimes. True to form, attendees of the ISNA convention this past July
were told how the FBI supposedly is targeting Muslims and advised that they should not talk to FBI personnel without a lawyer.
In summary, while real anti-Muslim hate crimes deserve the harshest of condemnation, claims about anti-Muslim hate crimes always should be taken with a grain of salt. CAIR and other Islamist groups thrive off of convincing Muslims that they are under constant assault from roving bigots and an oppressive state. Individual Muslims then feel empowered to fabricate hate crimes in order to paint themselves as victims.
For Islamists, the fear, isolation, and suffering of the Muslim community are nothing more than weapons to enhance their own prestige and pursue their political agenda.
How Imam Rauf utilizes Islamic theology to deceive New Yorkers to build the triumphalist "Islamic center" on Ground Zero. ...
August 24 2010 /
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/24/the-lies-of-a-mosque-2/
Little Lies of the Mosque
Posted by Syed Kamran Mirza on Aug 24th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. It would be a mortal mistake for America to allow the Ground Zero mosque to be built. Like it or not, this mosque will serve as an iconic symbol of Islamic victory. It will be seen by Islamic jihadists around the world as a humiliating defeat dealt to American infidels by Islam.
Islam, in a serious sense, is a religion of great deception. Imam Feisal and his Islamic gang, the American Society of Muslim Advancement (ASMA), are no exceptions. Many Westerners appear to have a monumental confusion about the real purpose of this mosque. Because of a lack of knowledge in Islamic history, they are unable to understand exactly why Muslims are planning to erect it just a few yards from the 9/11 site.
Mayor Bloomberg, the downtown community, and the American Left have no idea why Islamists are so insistent upon erecting this Islamic flag over the ruins of the WTC and over the graves of 3,000 innocent dead Americans. They hardly understand the significance of the name “Cordoba House,†which Imam Feisal initially selected for the mosque. Ancient Muslims once invaded and occupied the Spanish city of Cordoba. They built a mosque over the rubble of a Catholic church as a symbol of their triumph over Spanish infidels. A mosque over the ruins of the WTC would likewise be a clear victory over American infidels.
This has been the practice and tradition recorded in ancient Islamic history. The Islamic Prophet and his disciples all did the same whenever they invaded and defeated any non-Muslim nation. The first thing they did was erect a mosque. Islamic Caliph Omar invaded and occupied Jerusalem and immediately erected the al-Aqsa Mosque (Dome of Rock) over the rubble of the Jewish Temple Mount of Solomon. Imam Feisal and his ASMA want to do much the same thing.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, head of the ASMA, is utterly deceiving New Yorkers by his Islamic tactics of lies and deception. He is lying only to achieve Islamic dominance. Allah duly permits Muslims to “lie and deceive†all infidels in order to spreading Islam, the only religion accepted by Allah for all mankind (Qur’an-3:85).
It is most important to focus on one very pertinent aspect of this controversy. This conniving Imam has declared that the Ground Zero mosque construction will be completed by 2011â€"meaning this Islamic victory flag would be raised much before the completion of the rest of the planned Ground Zero monument complex. If that ever becomes a reality, the entire Muslim world will be rejoicing as the ultimate winner. The Cordoba mosque, symbolizing the victorious Islamic flag, will have been hoisted over the ruins of the iconic WTC, which was destroyed by the Islamic soldiers of Allah.
Imam Feisal’s 2004 book was titled, in Arabic, “The Call From the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11.†The title suggests Rauf is humiliating or denigrating the loss of American life by referring to the scene as “rubble.†By using the Islamic word Da’wah (call) he is intending to use the 9/11 mosque as a springboard for proselytizing Islam to America. However, the English title of the same book is “What’s Right with America is What’s Right with Islam.†This is exactly the kind of technique of Islamic deception used by all so-called moderate Muslims used only to fool Westerners.
Here are some of the most important implications of this mosque:
1. A mosque near the WTC destruction will give electrifying propaganda and triumphant victory to all Muslims of the world, and it will surely embolden the very jihadi-spirit and fanaticism of al-Qaeda in all other Islamic terrorist centers around the world.
2. Recruits for jihadi terrorists in the Muslim and non-Muslim world will rampantly increase. Also, this mosque will become a Islamic proselytizing center, and a breeding ground which will spread “stealth jihad†in America.
3. This mosque will act as a “Grand Mosque†at the heart of infidel America. It will be a 21st century Trojan horse from which Sharia law (Islamic draconian law) will spread with a speed of epidemic proportions â€" in America, as well as elsewhere in the Western world.
4. The American “war on terror,†which has lasted ten long years, cost trillions of dollars, and sacrificed tens of thousands of lives, will be a total loss. Victory of al-Qaeda jihadists will be declared throughout the entirety of the Muslim world.
Imam Feisal is perpetrating Islamic deception with the bogus claim of promoting “interfaith tolerance.†Islam is one of the most intolerant religions in the world. It does not recognize any other religion on earth. Hence, interfaith relations between Islam and other religions are a pure farce. That Islam “is a religion of peace†is the boldest lie one can hear repeated. Gullible Muslims can be peaceful, but Islam is a viciously violent religion. Radical Islamists (pure Muslims) are some of the most intolerant people on earth. The Qur’an is replete with Allah’s clarion call to kill all non-Muslims. Readers can find the truth about Qur’an
right here.
The Islamic God (Allah) does not like or accept any other religions but Islam (see Qu’ran verses: 3:85, 3:19, 48:7, 14, and 25:2); the Qu’ran repeatedly curses all non-Muslims (see: 3:61, 8:55, 2:191, 9:123, 3:28, 47:4); Allah asks believers not to take any unbelievers, including any Christians or Jews, as friends (verses: 4:140, 5:57, 18:106, 10:99, 8:55, 98:6). How can there be any interfaith tolerance between Muslims and non-Muslims?
The ostensive “interfaith meetings and congregations†are an Islamic trick invented after 9/11 as part of “stealth jihad,†which strives to conceal and protect soldiers of the holy war. This is, in fact, a historical technique of Islamic war widely practiced by the Prophet of Islam in the 7th century to fool pagans. The Prophet of Islam said: “war is a deception.†Present day Islamists also use the same technique of deception practiced by the Prophet Muhammad. When Muslims are arrested for terrorism, or hatching a terrorist plot, some cunning Islamist Mullahs quickly come forward and repeat: “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. The Qur’an never allows killing any innocent humans. Islam is a religion of peace.†Muslims, in general, will most always deny that any true Muslim-sponsored terrorism exists in the world. This is simply an act of hiding the real face of Islam. It is only to fool the Western media and the useful and gullible.
The Prophet of Islam did exactly the same thing in the 7th century when he came to Medina after having clashed with the pagans majority in Mecca. He also tried to fool all the affluent Jewish tribes in Medina and nearby areas by tantalizing them with a peace-pact. It was only to buy time while he gathered support from the poor vagabond Bedouins, luring them with spoils of war. He eventually gathered enough strength to attacked the Jewish tribes with full force. He also assassinated many of his opponents by these deceptive techniques. Within 10 years, the Prophet of Islam fought almost eighty offensive wars, plundered widely, killed or drove out all non-Muslim men, and enslaved women and children.
Please consider the duplicitousness of Imam Feisal’s motives and his dishonesty. Allah forbade Muslims to pray for any dead non-Muslim (Qur’an-9:84). Yet, here the Ground Zero imams are trumpeting the so-called “interfaith tolerance†of Islam with living non-Muslims. What a dreadful mockery and deception by this imam. These Islamists are engaging in stealth jihad and are trying to fool their host nation with their ridiculous interfaith nonsense. This will only be true as long as Muslims remain a small minority. The moment they grow at least 5-10% of the population, they will expose the real face of Islam.
The ulterior motive of this modern day jihad is to convert and bring all of mankind under Islam, the “only true religion of Allah.†That is the main reason why Islamic terrorists are continuously getting a silent nod of consent from millions of gullible Muslims and hypocritical Islamists like our Imam Feisal.
As per the Qur’an’s teachings (Qur’an: 98:6), Muslims consider the Western lifestyle immoral, unclean, and unethical, and they cannot emulate the Western lifestyle simply because of their belief in Islam. Instead, these Muslims living in Western host nations solemnly do expect and wish that sooner or later, Islamic Sharia law will be established and all Western infidels will start emulating the lifestyle of Muslims; hence fulfilling Allah’s wish to bring the entire Earth under the fold of Islam, the one true religion.
Why such a large mosque in downtown New York City?
Was there a sudden influx of Muslims in Manhattan? Will Imam Feisal and his ASMA agree to build a synagogue, a church, and a Hindu temple alongside this mosqueâ€"so that people of all four major religions can have a real chance at interfaith dialogue? Why doesn’t Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, allow religions other than Islam to practice within its borders? Could Imam Feisal answer these questions?
Knowing the enemy is very crucial.
After almost ten years of the war on terror, the West is still struggling with the real identity and the real face of their greatest enemy. To maintain political correctness, they just cannot name the enemy with clarity. Proponents of American political correctness do not know that these Islamic jihadists are fighting many fronts in order to subdue American infidels and to fulfill their holy wish of converting America into an Islamic nation. I am afraid irresponsible political correctness may allow this to happen soon.
Misguided political appeasement, liberal myopia, naiveté, and reluctance to understand Islamic deception are all helping Islamists like Imam Feisal A. Rauf to utterly fool American politicians very easily.
Case in point: U.S. President Barak Obama’s recent endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is highly insensitive. It is a suicidal mistake by the president of the free world. Nobody in America is asking to prohibit the practice of Islam. Hence, it was quite irrelevant for Obama to state: “Muslims have the right to practice their religion.†This is sheer ignorance and naiveté on the part of the U.S. president, to say the least. President Barack Obama should ask his own conscience why Muslims need a mosque near Ground Zero over the sea of blood-stains left behind by almost 3,000 innocent Americans killed by Islamic terrorists. I wonder if President Obama would also endorse a Japanese “Kama Kazi interfaith†monument near Pearl Harbor, or a “Nazi interfaith†monument in London or Paris.
Muslims around the world who deplore the West and blame the “Great Satan†(America) in particular for almost anything bad, will take this mosque as a symbol of Islamic victory over the Western infidels. In the midst of such sacred territory, there will be a constant reminder that those who despise our way of life and everything this republic stands for can also use our hard-earned democratic freedom and rights against us.
President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s sheer pathetic ignorance regarding the Islamic mindset is reflected in their monumentally erroneous decision to endorse the Ground Zero mosque. Such a mosque would be a painful reminder to all New Yorkers who would passed it. Around the world, radical Muslims and gullible Muslims will remember the heroic victory of 9/11 jihadists. What a painful defeat and utter disgrace for the Western infidels.
Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza is the author of Roots of Islamic Terrorism and co-author of Beyond Jihad and Leaving Islamâ€"Apostates Speak Out. See Jamie Glazov’s interview with him here. Israelis don't need lectures By George F. Will
Thursday, August 19, 2010
About the writer
:George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek. He can be reached via e-mail. JERUSALEM
In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000. During the onslaught Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take "risks for peace."
During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's July visit to Washington, Barack Obama praised him as "willing to take risks for peace." There was a time when that meant swapping "land for peace" -- Israel sacrificing something tangible and irrecoverable, strategic depth, in exchange for something intangible and perishable, promises of diplomatic normality.
Strategic depth matters in a nation where almost everyone is a soldier, so society cannot function for long with the nation fully mobilized. Also, before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel within the borders established by the 1949 armistice was in one place just nine miles wide. Israel exchanged a lot of land to achieve a chilly peace with Egypt, yielding the Sinai, which is almost three times larger than Israel and was 89 percent was 89 percent of the land captured in the process of repelling the 1967 aggression.
The intifada was launched by the late Yasser Arafat -- terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner -- after the July 2000 Camp David meeting, during which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to cede control of all of Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with small swaps of land to accommodate the growth of Jerusalem suburbs just across the 1949 armistice line.
Israelis are famously fractious, but the intifada produced among them a consensus that the most any government of theirs could offer without forfeiting domestic support is less than any Palestinian interlocutor would demand. Furthermore, the intifada was part of a pattern. As in 1936 and 1947, talk about partition prompted Arab violence.
In 1936, when the British administered Palestine, the Peel Commission concluded that there was "an irrepressible conflict between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." The commission recommended partition. What followed was the Arab Revolt of 1936-39.
On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. recommended a partition plan. Israel accepted the recommendation. On Nov. 30, Israel was attacked.
Palestine has a seemingly limitless capacity for eliciting nonsense from afar, as it did recently when Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron referred to Gaza as a "prison camp." His implication was that Israel is the cruel imprisoner. Gaza's actual misfortune is to be under the iron fist of Hamas, a terrorist organization.
The creation of Israel did not involve the destruction of a Palestinian state, there having been no such state since the Romans arrived. And if the Jewish percentage of the world's population were today what it was when the Romans ruled Palestine, there would be 200 million Jews. After a hazardous passage through two millennia without a homeland, there are 13 million Jews.
In the 62 years since this homeland was founded on one-sixth of 1 percent of the land of what is carelessly and inaccurately called "the Arab world," Israelis have never known an hour of real peace. Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.
Saudi court rules: Paralyze man who crippled another
'Eye-for-eye' verdict stirs outrage
A Saudi Arabian court has ruled that a convicted man's spinal cord should
be severed so he is paralyzed as part of the kingdom's Islamic-law-oriented
retribution for similar injuries he is said to have inflicted upon another
man in a fight.
The ruling has prompted an outcry from human rights groups and an
intervention from Saudi officials who say they are trying to persuade the
victim to
accept monetary compensation for his injuries instead of the punishment
against the criminal.
According to reports from Saudi Arabia, the court in Tabuk, on the
northwest coast of the kingdom, has approached a number of hospitals about the
possibility of cutting the convicted man's spinal cord.
So far at least two hospitals have refused to carry out the procedure,
citing ethical concerns.
In the Saudi justice system, the court establishes guilt and the family of
the victim or the victim himself has the option of inflicting the same
injury upon the guilty party, seeking blood money or offering a pardon.
"The sentence of 'an eye for an eye' has always been in conflict with
medical ethics," said Christoph Wilcke, a senior researcher for Saudi Arabia at
Human Rights Watch, adding, "This case is a new angle in the sense that
doctors are speaking out."
Amnesty International urged Saudi authorities not to deliberately paralyze
the man.
The punishment amounts to "nothing less than torture," said Hassiba Hadj
Sahraoui, acting director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at
Amnesty International.
"While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally
paralyzing a man in this way would constitute torture, and be a breach of
its international human rights obligations," she added.
The defendant, whose identity has not been revealed, was sentenced to
seven months imprisonment for the offense and was convicted after a trial where
he was said to have had no legal assistance.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/23/saudi-court-rules-paralyze-m
an-crippled-another/
|
http://www.divestthis.com/2010/08/were-pretty-lame-activists-say.html
In re-reading the Globe piece on BDS last night, it occurred to me that a bit more research would have shown the weakness of the three examples (Elvis Costello, the SF Dockworkers refusing to unload an Israeli ship, and the Olympia Co-op boycott) being held up to demonstrate that boycott and divestment advocates have the wind at their back. After all, the ripple effect of Elvis Costello's decision to boycott the Jewish state didn't extend to the rocker's own bedroom (Costello's wife Diana Krall played Israel this month). Nor did it prevent other aging pop stars like Elton John and Johnny Lydon (formerly Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) from flipping boycotters the bird as they traveled to Israel to play to packed audiences. In San Francisco, the ship that local protestors demanded dockworkers refuse to unload turned out to be from the People's Republic of China (not Israel). It was hours after the protestors left the docks patting each other on the back for a job well done that a ship containing Israeli goods arrives to be unloaded without incident. And as for the Olympia Food Co-op, I've already extensively covered the exceptional nature of this boycott, given that other co-ops (notably ones in Davis California and Seattle Washington) gave boycott advocates a hearing before giving their proposals the heave ho. Interestingly, co-ops that refused to heed boycott calls seem to be doing just fine, even as Olympia has to hire professional facilitators to keep proponents and opponents of the boycott from tearing at each other while the organization's leaders flounder around trying to justify why they bent (and possibly broke) the organization's rules in order to make their boycott decision behind the backs of the membership. But I believe the thing that struck me the most while re-reading the Globe piece was not anything the original author wrote, but the headline given the piece (a decision usually made by an editor): "Support Builds for boycotts against Israel, activists say". Well they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, what are their alternatives? "Boycott and Divestment has been Failing to a Decade Now, but We Will Continue to Push It Since it Makes Us Feel Good, Activists Say" "We May Have Gotten Caught Trying to Pass Off Another BDS Hoax Last Week, But That Won't Prevent Us From Trying Again, Activists Say" Or how about (God Forbid) a headline that actually reflects the facts such as "Israel Boycott Attempts Still Controversial after Ten Years". The whole "activists say" trope reminded me of a piece by Jonathan Cristol I read recently on the challenges of writing about a post-modern BDS movement that considers every success and every failure an example of its own unstoppable momentum: "So an article or incident that is in favor of BDS is proof that BDS is gaining steam; and an article or incident against BDS proves that it is gaining steam so quickly that the writer or publication is nervous about it. A victory is a victory and a loss is a victory." So what does another newspaper article on BDS add up to? I'll give Cristol the last word: "BDS has had so few triumphs that every extremely minor victory is blown up as "proof" that the movement is gaining steam. I suspect that this phenomenon is the natural psychological coping mechanism of people who have devoted themselves to an ineffective, offensive, and hopeless cause."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12075&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29
It's New York, Not Jerusalem! How About Ending This Crazy Religious Warby Leon T. Hadar
Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy, international trade, the Middle East, and South and East Asia. He is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. As a non-practicing Jew growing up in the secular city of Tel-Aviv in Israel I recall the many times that my friends and I were complaining that it was too bad that Israel was so much "not like America" when it came to the relationship between religion and state. We certainly envied Woody Allen and our other co-religionists in New York City who were not subservient to the strictures set by the Orthodox Rabbinate and its definition of "who is a Jew?" and who actually had access to civil marriages or non-religious divorces. And most importantly, Americans were not engulfed in the never-ending Israeli-Arab conflict that was gradually being transformed into a violent clash between Jews and Muslims, including over the control of the religious sites in Jerusalem. Well, it is beginning to feel as though it is America that is becoming more "like Israel" as far as the role of religion in public life is concerned as the question of whether to allow the building of mosque is turning out to be a national political issue that could affect the outcome of Congressional elections and that also is being intertwined with debates over U.S. policy in the Middle East. Even more astounding is the fact that a large number of Americans seem to believe that President Barack (Hussein) Obama is a Muslim while the White House insists that President Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. We even have a leading religious figure raising the issue of "Who is a Muslim" (and by extension, "Who is a Christian?") "I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Rev. Franklin Graham told CNN's John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night. Which almost forces me to thank God or someone for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who stated that the debate over the scheduled building of an Islamic center near ground zero in New York was "[as] important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes" and who has made a strong plea in support of the project based on cherished American principles. As he put it, "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right." Moreover, if it were tried, "the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution." So yes, the American government has no right to attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion. Again Bloomberg: "That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here." From that perspective, whether Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the American cleric who had been the driving force behind the center is indeed a "moderate" Muslim or not and who has spent his life promote interfaith understanding should be of almost no concern for those of us who support the principle of the separation of church and state. After all, there are thousands of churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship around this country where religious faiths that you and I may find weird and outrageous and perhaps even disgusting, representing views that run contrary to the values — the sensitivities — of the majority of Americans. Yet the First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom of speech of free exercise of religion even of devil worshippers. We do not ask a priest or a rabbi to state their views on U.S. politics and foreign policy, like, say, "Is Hamas a terrorist organization?" before issuing them a license to build a house of worship. The government needs to action against a religious group only if its leaders or members have been engaged in unlawful behavior, including terrorism, which clearly does not apply to Imam Rauf who among other things, has been involved in projects sponsored by the State Department and the FBI. And groups and individuals certainly have the right to criticize the Imam or his decision to build the center two blocks from where Muslim terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001. What bothers me about this affair is the way some of the opponents and supporters of what is now being referred to as the "ground zero mosque" have framed the debate by suggesting that our position on the issue should be based on whether we indeed regard Imam Rauf as a "radical" or "moderate" Muslim. That assumes that questions of public policy should be based on some agreed standards of religious conduct. It is as though we are asked to decide whether to approve the opening of a bookstore or a restaurant because the first will be selling "educational" books or the second will be providing "healthy" food and so on. Indeed, I was somewhat troubled by some of the comments made by Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, head of the American society for Muslim advancement, during an interview with the conservative pundit Laura Ingraham on Fox News. In addition to stressing that the Islamic center would help promote a tolerant message of Islam, Khan seemed to suggest that she was sympathetic to Fox's crusade against those leading the "War against Christmas." "I was most intrigued because I don't think there is a war between people who are believers," she explained. "I think the real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and who have absolutely no notion what God is and believe in the existence of God," adding that "we should work together on a common platform to remove that kind of ignorance against God." (Yep. Like the way Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders unitedin opposition to a gay parade in Jerusalem in 2006.) Even if you disregard the patronizing attitude that Khan shares with many Christian religious figures that disbelievers (like yours truly) need to exposed to the truth as represented by the Abrahamic religions and be cured of our "ignorance against God" (Ma'am, I do not have anything against or in favor of God!), none of us is — and should not be — in a position to decide whether the Islamic tradition her husband espouses is more "tolerant" than others. The fact that Imam Rauf has been critical of Osama bin-Ladin and other radical Islamic groups does not turn him automatically into a "moderate" in my eyes. The Koran, not unlike the Torah and the New Testament includes numerous denigrating references to women, gays and members of other religious groups, not to mention expressions of belief in the supernatural and statements that contradict current scientific theory. I would not be surprised if like many Christian fundamentalists, Rauf and his followers reject the tenets of Evolution theory. And that attitude is not very "moderate" in my secular book. Again, that is certainly not a reason to deny Rauf, who is a law-abiding American citizen the right to build his Islamic center. And while I do not buy into the nonsense promulgated on conservative blogs that we should not have a mosque in Manhattan as long as there is not a church in Riyadh, it would be great if Imam Rauf, who is traveling to the Middle East on a State Department-financed trip call on Muslims in the Middle East to embrace a more tolerant attitude toward women, gays and religious minorities. In general, I do not subscribe to the idea that the U.S. government and American politicians and pundits should be in the business of promoting this or that Imam (or priest or rabbi) based on the notion that he (and there is no "she") represent the "real" Islam. In the same way that Christians and Jews have engaged in long and agonizing struggles over the core beliefs of their respective religions, it is the responsibility of Muslims in America and elsewhere to adjust (or not) the principles and conduct of their faith to the realities of our modern world, and that includes making the decision not to practice their religion (God forbid...) In that context, the only responsibility of the U.S. government is to ensure that Muslims — like members of other faiths — have the right to exercise — or not to exercise — their faith and in a way that does not violate American laws (like polygamy in the case of Mormons). That in turn, has helped provide incentives for Catholic and Jewish immigrants to reform their religious institutions and practices and to assimilate into American life. And btw, the principle of religious freedom applies to Americans as individuals and not as members of religious communities — as was done in the Ottoman Empire — which explains why the or anyone else has no business designating President Obama as a Muslim or as a Christian, and why when acts of terrorism (or other crimes) are carried by individuals, we find those individuals — and not their religion — guilty. In a way, one of the most dramatic examples of the American success in separating religion from state and embracing a secular tradition is the fact that the current Supreme Court consists of six Catholics and three Jewish Justices and not even one member of Protestant denominations — which account for more than 50 percent of the population. Again, these six individuals were selected from their jobs based on their qualifications and not because they belong to this or that religious group — which will be the same criteria that will be applied when Americans will select a Muslim to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in a few years.
Protein that destroys HIV discovered Protein that destroys HIV discovered
http://www.kurzweilai.net/protein-that-destroys-hiv-discovered
|
|
Arabic to become compulsory in Israeli schools BBC 8/24/10
(As usual, the BBC shows its Jew hatred by labeling this programme a "scheme" which implies something malevolent. How about just calling it a plan? MBS)
The Israeli authorities are introducing a new scheme to
make Arabic-language classes compulsory in state schools.
The programme, which will start in 170 schools in northern Israel, will
make lessons mandatory for fifth graders.
Education officials hope the scheme, called "Ya Salam", will
turn language into a cultural bridge and promote tolerance between Jews
and Arabs.
Arab students currently are required to learn Hebrew while Jewish
children can take Arabic as an additional language.
But increasing demand from
students to study Arabic as part of their school matriculation
certificate, the Bagrut, had prompted changes to the national
curriculum, officials said.
"We live in a country that has two official languages,"
Shlomo Alon, head of Arabic and Islamic Education at the ministry of
education, was quoted as saying by Haaretz newspaper.
"Studying Arabic will promote tolerance and convey a message of
acceptance."
Mr Alon said the ministry was interested in recognising all
of the state's citizens and providing opportunities for Arab teachers
within Israeli education. There are some 1,000 Arabic teachers, most of
them Jewish.
"The state aspires to complete equality of citizenship. We will not deal
with conflicts based on cultural identity," he added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11075326
Lebanon: Beach clubs blatantly discriminate against African and Asian workers
by Meris Lutz in Beirut Babylon & Beyond The Los Angeles Times 8/23/10
Summer in Lebanon is beach season, especially
among the leisure class and wealthy expatriates who travel extensively
and often complain of racism in the West.
But some of the country's top beach clubs that cater to these same spenders are
enforcing discriminatory policies against migrant workers, most of whom hail
from Asia and Africa, who work in Lebanese homes as maids and nannies.
Debate about the blatant discrimination recently reached new heights
with an undercover video (above) taken of a popular Beirut beach club.
The video, taken at the beachside Sporting Club, shows a cashier
repeatedly refusing to grant entry to an African woman from Madagascar,
described as a maid, despite the pleas of her Lebanese friends.
Waleed Abu Nasser, public relations manager at Sporting Club,
defended the club's policy, pointing out that African and Asian
clientele who work in the embassies or the United Nations peacekeeping
forces are welcome, and that the club's policy against help extends to
bodyguards and personal assistants.
"Most of my clients will not swim in a place with their employees, regardless of
their color," he told Babylon & Beyond.
But, he conceded, short of examining the working papers of every
person who comes to the club, the only means of determining who might be
a maid is through racial profiling.
"Have you ever seen a Sri Lankan tourist in Lebanon? If you're
Lithuanian or Russian, you are probably a working girl in a cabaret,"
said Abu Nasser, referring to the adult entertainment clubs where
prostitution takes place.
"If one of these people were to present themselves to someone working
here he would probably turn her away as well," he said. "It's not based
on race. It's based on statistics.... The day we have equal amounts of
tourists from these countries you will not be able to ask the same
questions."
The video was shot as part of a "shame and blame" campaign against
the worst-offending beach clubs, of which Sporting is just one, said
Farah Salka, one of the organizers from IndyACT, a local activist group.
It has been widely circulated in the usual socially-conscious corners
of the Internet, but, more importantly, said Salka, it reached a much
wider audience when it was shown on several local television stations.
"At this point we are working on awareness ... we have not called for
a boycott yet, but we have published a list of beaches and their
policies. We do expect people not to go to those beaches, or to go but
to make a big hassle," Salka told Babylon & Beyond. "We just want
people to not be blind to the situation."
The rules of who is allowed in, and who is considered a maid, vary from place to
place. The local news site Now Lebanon followed up on IndyACT's research by
contacting several beach clubs and asking them to clarify their policies.
The report found that some establishments explicitly ban "maids,"
most of whom are African and Asian, regardless of whether they are
coming with their employers or on their days off. Others allow them
inside, but not in the pool. A representative for The Riviera, another
local hot spot, told Now Lebanon that maids are allowed in as paying
customers, but only if they come on their own without their employer's
family and "look decent."
In the featured video, the clerk refuses to answer the Lebanese
activists who accompanied the Malagasy woman as to whether she was
denied entry because she was a maid or because of her skin color.
"They’re not welcome because they are maids, even on their day off," explained
Abu Nasser.
Salka was not surprised by the reaction.
"When you tell them they're racist, rather than explaining they're
not, they give classist or sexist arguments to replace the racist ones,"
Salka said. "They say that since our customers have a problem with
other people from different classes, we don't let workers enter because
they are from a different class, and it has nothing to do with their
being black."
Salka said one beach club told her that it denied entry to nannies because
"women should be taking care of their own children."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/08/lebanon-maids-ethiopian-be\
aches-human-rights-racism-jim-crow.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut\
m_campaign=Feed%3A+BabylonBeyond+%28Babylon+%26+Beyond+Blog%29
*Brasscheck TV: Bean counters for the holocaust*
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/916.html
It's pretty clear that corrupt forces within the US conceived of,
organized, funded, and trained what's now known as al Queda.
But that's chid play compared to another American creation.
How corporate America led by companies like IBM and Standard
Oil made the Nazi empire in Europe possible.
(What is ironic here, is that the same people, the, ahem, "anti-Zionists" who usually deny or revise the Holocaust, suddenly invoke the name of the Holocaust because it fits in with their propaganda. MBS)
Video:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/916.html
NWO
Jesse Ventura Talks About Homeland Security 'Gestapo,' Ho...
http://youtu.be/baocJ3wgZXI?a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baocJ3wgZXI
How International Bankers Gained Control of America..Video is 3 Yrs Old
http://bit.ly/1ahmMl
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#
How Television Works http://youtu.be/4CLjEU7OuPI?a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CLjEU7OuPI
Brasscheck TV: Bean counters for the holocaust
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/916.html
Jack Cafferty Mentions Infowars.com http://youtu.be/_UUEnGLswX8?a
The Story of Your Enslavement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
The Video BP & Big Oil Don't Want You to See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkXA6kqNsw
More videos: http://www.youtube.com/alienscientist
EXCELLENT VIDEO: Showing the structural connection of banksters, Federal
Reserve, political system, down thru BP oil spill
Crash Course Chapter 3: Exponential Growth Chapter 4: Compounding Is The
Problem are you prepared?
http://chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
If you only watch one chapter, start with chapter 16: fuzzy numbers
33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should
Know... http://bit.ly/74BIA9
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200327-33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-\
To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know-
Historic secret study reveals most Syrians dissatisfied, outspoken The Los Angeles Times
8/18/10
A groundbreaking survey of Syrian
public opinion conducted in secret has revealed what many in the region
already knew about widespread dissatisfaction with the prevailing
political and economic conditions and the government's ability to
confront them, but according to the study's authors, the real triumph
was conducting any kind of opinion poll at all.
"The most surprising result had nothing to do with survey findings,
but rather the fact that you could get this data collected. People
really wanted to talk," said the study's lead author, professor Angela
Hawken of Pepperdine University. The report was commissioned by the Democracy
Council of California.
Because
nongovernmental surveys are illegal in Syria, researchers around the
country worked under the radar to interview 1,046 diverse respondents
over several weeks earlier this year. The results show most Syrians
think the state is corrupt and incapable of solving the problems brought
on by deteriorating political and economic conditions. A majority also
said they believe that the state of emergency in Syria should be lifted
and that the threat of war is far less crucial than concerns about
political freedom, corruption and the cost of living.
Much of this may come as no surprise to Syria observers, but Hawken
also pointed out two unique demographic trends among respondents. Women,
she said, tended to be markedly more optimistic than men, while older
Syrians were more pessimistic than younger ones.
"I have three hypotheses," said Hawken, stressing that she is an
economic and political analyst, not a Middle East expert. "Either women
are indeed more satisfied, or women are less well-informed about
political issues ... the other contending reason is that they were more
intimidated to participate in the survey."
As for the difference in age groups, Hawken didn't offer a theory but suggested
future studies may shine light on these nuances.
"As researchers, the big implication is that it is possible to
collect data in these countries that can be tough to work in," she said,
adding that the Democracy Council plans to carry out another, more
detailed survey in Syria next year.
The study follows on the heels of a report by the Brookings Institution
showing that frustration over the Arab-Israeli peace process and
disappointment in President Obama have caused Arab public opinion to tilt in
favor of Iran over the United States.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/08/syria-historic-secret-stud\
y-reveals-most-syrians-dissatisfied-outspoken.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_med\
ium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BabylonBeyond+%28Babylon+%26+Beyond+Blog%29
No comments:
Post a Comment