|Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
Do we know when our human rights are being violated?
|Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:00 pm: |
Honor Killings in 'Palestine', or Murder in family honor.
From Mediterrean Women, a very powerful article.
I also wrote elsewhere something on this issue of killing women for honor:
...This is a test of who we are, where we are going, and whether or not we are willing, in the name of our good natured tolerance, to allow civilization to roll back the clock to a time when rather than doing things throuhg agreements, and laws of agreements, we want to once again do things through coercions, and laws of coercions. How we collectively choose now will influence generations to come.
My human rights end on the tip of my nose. They can (morally) believe whatever they want, provided their fists (or bombs) are not hitting me. Is this "moralizing"? Is interacting with other humans through a process of "agreements" better than a process of "coercions"? Is this "standard" of human behavior (from the tip of my nose) necessarily a moral standard? I see it pretty clear cut and dry: hit me, and you've violated my personal space, my physical identity's boundaries. Regardless of the attacker's moral convictions, their belief system, or what they think of people's human rights, I will not be trespassed; nor will I trespass others. Is this some sort of "universal one world ethic"? It is for me, and I will defend it, not really caring what others think of it. Their dysfunctions is really not my problem, and if they want to blow themselves up, or kill their daughters, that's entirely their problem. Just don't do it to me, or to those of us who demand that we live under liberty rather than tyranny.
Does "human rights" mean anything to the average Palestinian? Why? Are they a different species of humanity from us? Were the Germans of Nazi Germany a different species of humanity from us?... I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Does a Palestinian hurt when struck? That's the "fact" of coercion. -Ivan A.
This applies to both men and women, but especially to the abuse sufferred by the women of Islam. It was written somewhere:
"All revolutions are said ultimately to turn upon themselves and devour their own children. And, when suicide bombing became an increasingly difficult means of enhancing family prestige, Palestinians shifted the focus onto their female offspring to restore the balance."
And this is the horrifying resulting oppression of Palestinian women, not in the 12th century, but in the 21st.
|Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 01:28 am: |
Cross posted on Examined Life's Forum: War on Terror -3- or Pacifying Islam
By Ivan A. (webproxy04qfe1.sbi.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 04:33 pm:
Let's take your statment, James, as example:
I acknowledge, rather, that this is simply a matter of animal self-preservation - for no one "owes" me anything on the basis of me being a conscious being, UNLESS I make myself vulnerable to him, and in doing so, elicit his choice to make himself vulnerable to me. Your own freedom doesn't began with your reflective and self-conscious demand that others respect it; rather, it begins with others who choose to sacrifice their own freedom for your sake.
Why not see it instead that no one "owes" you anything, period. Why would being a "conscious being" different from an "unconscious being" change that statment? Nobody owes you anything, but neither does anyone "own" you. You are a free agent until someone else's actions impinge on yours. Then you have two choices: (1) ignore them, if you can, or (2) address them, if you wish, or must. How you choose to respond to this is entirely within your internal "me", and there is no outside consciousness (other than your own) who can answer to that condition. Now, you may choose to respond without thinking, or somewhat unconsciously, and move away, or push back; or you might use your conscious mind, your reason, to address the other's actions on you. If the other is a communicative human being, endowed with a mind and language skills, then your communications may take one of many forms. But if the other is non-conscious, non-reasoning, in that his or her mind does not respond to your communications, then some other form of response may be required: fight or flight, if threatened, or simply to ignore them. Why would you think you have to make yourself "vulnerable" to them? You either are vulnerable or you are not, not necessarily your choice. In the end, it all boils down to how you choose to respond to any given situation. It ALWAYS comes down to you. And just as you are doing now in this dialogue, your choice is to use words. But if a dumb animal suddenly crossed your path in the forest, you may not have the leisure to "talk" and some other course of action would have to be taken. Not taken by society, nor your culture, nor your church, nor the grand super-Collective of all the knowledge given to our civilization; but it would be YOU who has to choose. You, and you alone, are at risk, if your freedom is threatened. Nobody else can take that risk away from you. The responsibility for your actions really is all yours. Then, whether or not your family or community supports you in your actions is secondary, because you had to act, take choices of your own free will. If not, and if you fail to act of your own will, then you are not a free agent, are totally vulnerable to what others choose for you, and in effect totally dependent on others. But you can choose this too! Of course, if you do, you are no longer a free being, since now you must obey others. In effect, you've chosen to be a slave, and other than what others grant you as (very limited) rights, you have none. That may be you, but it is not me.
Perhaps something needs to be clarified here, because this freedom is never clear cut black-white stuff. We live in a social network within which we have certain freedoms, either sanctified by law or inherent to our beliefs. How we then choose to act within this social network, within the laws of the nation and socially acceptable behaviors, is how we had chosen to "agree" with the social reality within which we live. Some conditions offer us no choices, same as in nature some conditions are not negotiable (if I walk off my roof, I will fall), so the choices given to us are limited. But if our society is structured on a basis of freedom (rather than pure submission) then there are conditions that are acceptable to you, and which society finds acceptable of you. That is our "social agreement" which guides our lives of necessity. But if you find these "agreed upon" conditions unsupportable, you at least have one other choice: you leave. And if that choice is not allowed (like behind the Berlin Wall), then you can either fight it, or even commit suicide. The reason our society, based on concepts of individual freedom, works as well as it does is that there is a fairly large degree of latitude of choices open to you, so you live in relative "agreement" with your social order. At least, you're not forced to live like a hermit out in the wilderness away from all human contact, though that too may be a choice. The point being is that we are always in some sort of tacit agreement with our reality, if we are to survive and prosper in it, and that others do not have the right to take your sense of personal agreement away from you. But you do, if you wish, so can either run afoul of the law, or get excomunicated into the wilderness. In the end, it ALWAYS remains your choice, that inner "me" who is you, who has to make choices every moment of your life. Whether or not they are then conscious choices, well, nobody else can determine that for you. It really is YOU.
Sorry if none of this makes any sense to you, but it is quite clear to me. There is no "sacrifice" on the part of anyone, unless they choose it, to allow you the freedom to be who you are. You are a free being no matter. What makes life in a society like ours so different from that of living under the strictly controlled world, like that of Communism, or even Islam, is that the choices offered to you are greater than those within a tightly controlled society. Still, others may find it better to live in a controlled world, like in the military for example, than in one where greater options are open to you. Their choice.
|Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
How does a people recover from decades and centuries of abuse in a democratic state? Here is a case in point: "Hamas floats Palestinian 'army'", where the 'until death' war against Israel has no let up, perhaps even intensifying with the flush victory of their parliamentary election. Once a people has suffered abuse, both from external forces as well as from internal forces, such as seen in Palestine (suicide bombers, honor killings, etc.), then does this abuse translate into the democratic process as well? Are the results of such elections a larger macro-study of how an abused people will continue to abuse themselves voluntarily afterwards, perhaps for decades or generations? It seems that in Hamas setting up an army as their first order of agenda, the newly elected government is exhibiting the first flush of their social dysfunction: Rule by War.
This is not to turn against the Palestinian people, nor their election. Rather, it is to show that democracy, like other social institutions, will exhibit the people's social dysfunctions rather openly. The same can be said for the former Soviet Communist client states, or for secular dictatorships, or for religious dictatorships: Where the people had been abused, though they may not be conscious of it, these abuses will carry over into their democratic aspirations. Ukraine's Orange Revolution had all the markings of a successful transition to democracy, and yet it too remains plagued by dissension, accusations of corruption, sucking up to Russia, etc., so the democratic process has not yet reached full maturation: centuries of abuse had not yet erased themselves from the public psyche. This is the hard test of 'abused-democracy', where in the will of the people expressed electorally, for those who had been abused, the abuse does not melt away right off, even when they are democratic and free, but lingers for some time more. The people continue to 'abuse' themselves electorally, and of their own free will, as a manifestation of that former state of abuse.
In the case of Hamas, whether it will be a "democratic" abuse of power as a conditioned response to their suffered abuses, or perhaps something more meaningfully healing of those past abuses, it will remain to be seen. The people of Palestine have spoken at the polls with their own voice. Now we will see what that voice is going to say. Will they continue to "abuse" themselves, or will they start to heal?
|Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 09:56 pm: |
I have to reserve judgment on Hamas Ivan,
I suspect that it will be long time before it changes its tune on Isreal if ever.
On a side note, I now think I may have an answer as to why I and the CIA station personnel were posioned with anthrax in Mexico and why my Laptop was stolen. It was just before the President's visit to Mexico and I think it part of an effort to identify our Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, DEA and CIA agents prior to the President's visit. This was I also think part of an overall effort to identify our security security service operatives in preparation for an assination attempt on the President's life.
The computer sytem code stolen from me had the complete architecture of the new system we were trying to build that would have included the names photo's and contact information for all of our agents in Mexico working out of the embassy.
I had a bad feeling about it and told everyone I thought the system was compromised. Now I think I understand why I was drugged and poisoned along with the CIA station personnel using a boquet of flower laced with anthrax.
I suspect Fidel and the Old ex Chairman of the KGB that lead the coup in Russia had a hand in it. It tracks with the MO like that used to attempt to take out the president of Gorgia with Dioxin.
Same mysterious attempts by shadow players in the great game of spys.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
Ed, in the article referenced, it says:
This is the most damning thing, that the poisons are supposed to simulate a 'natural' death, and thus baffle doctors.
But one thing in their design is constant. They must make the victim's death or illness appear natural or at least produce symptoms that will baffle doctors and forensic investigators. To this end the Kamera developed its defining specialty: combining known poisons into original and untraceable forms.
To me, this is just one more symptom of that 'coercion vs. agreement' I had talked about before, as to which future our world will choose, or be forced into. Coercions, if continued, will hold our world back in the primitive, which is what the poisoners wanted to do in Ukraine. Agreements, to be meaningful, can only form where coercions are stopped.
|Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 10:08 pm: |
Two Jordan editors are arrested
"Muslims of the world, be reasonable", wrote Mr. Momani... a lone voice of reason.
Well, he got arrested. So much for 'freedom of speech' in the world of Islam. We hear you loud and clear... "Shut Up!"
|Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 08:23 pm: |
FREEDOM OF SPEECH in Islam?
Are the satirical Danish cartoons revealing a deeper super-polarization of Islam and the West? --cross posted from EL forums.
When one stands back from the hysteria of the pan-Islamic response to the satirical cartoons of Mohammed, now re-published throughout the European press, the issue of 'freedom of speech' versus 'tolerance for religious differences' is becoming subordinated to a deeper rift, that of the values of the largely secular West and the values of deeply religious Islam. It is a historical fact that people of the West do not go on mass rampage, embassy burnings, threats of killings and beheadings, or chanting "death, death!" in response to satirical representations of any religious icons. Why is it so deeply divisive for the believers of Islam? Why are they even dying in their furor over this?
It appears that the issue of the cartoons may be only the tipping point of a darker and deeper issue that has plagued Islam's attitudes towards the West for a very long time. What these, to us innocuous, cartoons did was merely force to the surface an already pre-existing condition: Islam is deeply intolerant of most of our Western values of freedom. We can see this intolerance not only in the severity of the hysteria in their protests, but also in the purging of their own members, such as arresting the editor of the Jordanian press who had called for Muslims to show reason. 'Reason' is exactly what they are showing, in their own way, that they in their minds find our liberal values unreasonable and deeply offensive to them. This includes freedom of expression, at all levels from the press to nudity; our equality of the sexes, which offends their 'natural' order of how men and women should interact; their sense of democratic values where the people are empowered, which are largely absent in their world; and our secularist culture which values scientific ideology over religious ideology, a total opposite from theirs. Thrown in with this are our economic and political successes worldwide, and you can see the depth of their discontent. They are bullshit over it, hysterically and demoniacally so, so their violence vents their deep inner feelings towards all things of the West. Denmark had the bad luck, or bad taste, of putting itself in the forefront of this deep cultural division, so it along with other European nations are now feeling the brunt of this Islamic intolerance towards Western cultural values. That is why (in Britain) they can hold up a poster with "Freedom go to hell", because to them this makes perfect sense. Of course, we find Islam?s ways deeply offensive to our values too, such as their public beheadings, stonings, 'honor' killings, burquas, etc. If they hate our freedoms and liberal values at so many levels, then surely to their sense of 'reason', our values of freedom can "go to hell". Of course, what is happening instead is that their own cultures are the ones thrown into chaos, not ours. Their people suffer, both in terms of world public opinion, but also in self-inflicted wounds, such as dying during protests. We think of Islam, as it is currently being taught, as having lost all sense of reason.
Islam's response to our freedoms is clear: "Shut up!" We are not allowed to talk. Their call for punishing, even to kill, the cartoonists and editors responsible for their publication, shows how far removed they are from understanding the reality of the West. We will not kill the artists nor the publishers, and their vehemence against us will not silence us either. We have a right to our hard fought for and won freedoms. But there lies the problem: our freedoms are their anathema, and any Islamics who stand up for our Western freedoms are becoming de facto apostates within their own world. That is the main problem, and the fact that those silly cartoons triggered such a rabid response from the Islamic world is now more understandable, though not excusable, when seen from this perspective. The Danish cartoons only revealed a much more serious in-depth, super-poralization that exists between the cultural values of Islam and the West. Therefore, it should be assumed that no apologies from the Western media, nor their governments, will in any way alter the deep divisions that exist, other than placating them temporarily, until the next provocation. Can this be resolved peaceably, or will it ultimately lead to a greater conflict resolution? Pacifying Islam will not work, and I suspect the answer has to come from within their world, since there is nothing we can do to bridge the super-polarization division of our two cultures. In today's age of instant communications, jet travel, mass migrations, the scales had tipped irreparably. Thrown into this boiling cauldron the atomic ambitions of Iran, the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian Hamas victory, and one can see how turbid the who situation had become. Economically and socially, the world of Islam will become marginalized and condemned by all reasonable people of the planet. This sharp division may in fact be the beginning of the end for Islam as we know it. How will this work out? History will be the judge.
|Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
If the Devil shouts top of his lungs "God is Great!" it doesnot make him suddenly virtuous, he is still the devil. Same for all those rioters who shout "Allah Akbar!" They are still riotous mobs burning and destroying. Coercion in any form does not suddenly become virtuous because one does in the name of God. Coercive actions, brutality, violence, destruction, murder, torture, burning... they are all evil, regardless of how one shouts.
If the D-evil suddenly became virtuous by merely shouting that God is Great, the world would know no evil. But we know this is not so, and what evil men do to each other in their coercions can only be elliminated through good works, love, kindness, and to stop the evil deeds. To stop evil, they must De-cist the coercions.
|Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 09:22 am: |
Thomas Jefferson's words ring strong to this day:
"I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Let the tyrants of ignorant religious fanaticism beware, for our God of freedom is stronger and greater than their god of violence and fear. Reason and love are more powerful forces in the world of God than hate and destruction. Let those who hate freedom beware, and tremble.
|Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 08:48 pm: |
A very excellent choice of words Ivan,
As I sit here in my study I am thinking of them and all the events I have been involved in; the Gulf War and the cause of its syndrome, PANAM 103, the Cipro Floxian damage to the people that took it and the adverse side effects that followed it during the anthrax attacks, and a host of other issues.
From a legal perspective I am at the heart of hundreds of major law suits, corporate and political scandles and a host of other issues, hence why the government bounced me from secure facility to secure facility the liability and legal costs associated with me are high. Armies of laywers have look at the legal nightmare and walked away because it could bring down governments and corporations. People are killed for less, when the KGB got a chance based on leaked intelligence they took a shot with poison. Which based on the grace of god and good medicine I survived.
Each night I go to sleep and wonder at what all the men and women in positions of power are thinking if all the documentation I scattered around the federal government is pulled together in one picture. Its enough to topple a government and echoes across the globe from the wreakage of PANAM 103 to the anthrax in DC to the streets of Mogadishu in Somalia to CIA Langly to Moscow
Good Night My friend. What the future holds for me will be interesting. A single amn with compass and ruler took on the best of the KGB and its allies.
|Posted on Monday, February 20, 2006 - 01:27 pm: |
MORE ON THE CARTOONS...
Now they're burning churches and killing Christians in Nigeria.
Why is it never the other way around, Christians burning mosques and killing Muslims, but only this way, Muslims rioting and killing and burning? All this from a 'religion of peace'? There's a huge disconnect here between words and reality, a very ugly and violent reality of Islam.
|Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
SUNI SHIA SCHISM, 1100 years later...
BBC News: "Long path to Iraq's sectarian split" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4750320.stm
It may all boil down to this:
"The leadership by imams continued until 878, when the 12th Imam, Mohammed al-Mahdi, is said to have disappeared from a cave below a mosque in Samarra.
Not accepting that he died, Shias still await his return more than 1,100 years later. The Hidden Imam's arrival will, they believe, reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.
Sunnis, as they became known, reject the principle of leadership by imams, and instead believe in the primacy of the Sunna - what the Prophet Muhammad said, did, agreed to or condemned."
If the schism between Sunnis and Shias is so ancient, and archaic in its reason, then how can Western styled democracy, and philosophy of individual freedom under law, ever hope to bring peace to their divided world? If Iraq fails (and I hope it does not for the sake of the Iraqi people), then it will have fallen on this schism. The choice for the Iraqi people is clear: an opportunity to transcend their secterian passions and violence with an agreed upon government of tolerance for each other's cultural differences.
Do not let the imams fan the flames of hatred, which keep Iraqi culture locked in a millennium old death grip. A nation built upon the foundations of human freedoms and agreements is a universe apart from a world based on animosity and coercions, and jihadic violence. Reprisals of revenge only prolong the inevitable evolution of Islamic ideology from the 7th century to the 21st century. It is time to put an end to their ugly secterian history of hatreds and violence. This is indeed their moment of choice.
What about the West's, in particular American, involvement in Iraq's future? Failure is not an option, and civil war will not solve their issues with force. Victory here is clearly for the Iraqi people to reject their secterian leaders' call to violence, and put down their arms. Naive that it may seem, the future will belong to the Iraqis, and not their interventionist neighbors, nor the jihadist Caliphate, nor terrorists. The West opened a window on the future for Iraq, and the world of Islam. Whether or not they leave it open, or slam it shut, is up to their people, not America et al. The real issue is not an 1100 year old schism, but human rights, and the power of freedom and agreement over coercions and violence.
|Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 09:53 pm: |
I did some research and found the following information regarding the Soviet Cold War Strategic Plan to drag us into a mess in the Middle east and break us economically when we got bogged down there.
It answers the question about everything from Lockerbie and the rest to my poisoning by ex KGB operatives in Mexico. It was grand plan that alsp linked Cuba and the SIGINT site there that is now run by the PRC.
My reconstruction of this plan and its out come, the cuban agents, Somalia and passing of Data to Osama to use against us was all part of the KGB operation outlined below.
This is the minefield we walked into in the Middle east and why the old ex chief of the KGB is providing position papers to Putin. He was the architect of the plan before the fall of the Soviet Union and put most of the agents and pieces in place in the Middle East, I suspect Osama and Al Queda are now operating indepenedntly but using much of what the KGB did to further their interests.
A very big mess the old KGB created and what we walked into. Hence my disection of the operation.
Why does the Kremlin support terrorist movements throughout the world? In addition to the reasons already mentioned (to terrorize, humiliate, and destabilize people and nations), another reason has been suggested by Samuel T. Francis in his Heritage Foundation booklet The Soviet Strategy of Terror: "The purpose of Soviet support of terrorism, the key to the Soviet strategy of terror, is the destruction of the economic base of American capitalism and hence of the United States as a world power." He pointed out that virtually all Soviet-backed terrorist groups are active in areas rich in natural resources (oil in the Middle East and Latin America, strategic minerals in Africa) or situated near vital waterways (the Panama Canal, the Persian Gulf, the sea lanes off the southern tip of Africa).
Confirming this strategy was Robert Moss, who cited the testimony of a Soviet defector "that back in 1954, the 10th department of Soviet military intelligence, the GRU, drew up a plan to threaten Western access to Middle East oil. It was a plan that would involve penetration of the Arab world and alliances with radical Arab movements." Moss expressed agreement with "professional analysts who also believe that that plan has guided Soviet strategy in the Middle East over the last quarter of a century. It was a backdrop to the Soviet dalliance with Nasser in Egypt. It is part of the backdrop to the intimate relationship that exists today between the Soviets and terrorist states like Syria, Libya, and South Yemen, and the PLO."
|Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 07:13 am: |
As I sit here drinking my morning coffee, I am struck by the audacity of Moscow centre in the final days of the Cold War.
When I started breaking the network communications and penetration of our society by old East-Block agents and networks coupled to that of AL Qeuda I started to see the plan. Old operation Marabu come to fruition.
The yong children in the intelligence corps forgot what we were capable of during the Cold War and marched blindly following a president into the mess in Iraq.
They used old style encryption systems and dvices that dated back to enigma and the beginings of quantum computing tied to coded broadcasts and one time pads to coordinate through the media. Hence why I could predict al qeada strikes with such accuracy from unclassified data. Using the cypher keys from the old engma system compass and ruler to descern the pattern behind the transmissions and the activity. Reaching back like the old engma code breakers to break the code.
In the process I trisected the angle and solved the billiard problem, its related to quantum mechanics.
When I finally get to the war college I will give a class on the old enigma system and the application of the irrationality of Pi to code breaking.
|Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 09:10 am: |
THE COLD WAR'S LONGEST COVER-UP:
HOW AND WHY THE USSR INSTIGATED THE 1967 WAR
The Middle East Review of International Affairs
|Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 09:46 am: |
Ed, we just watched A Beautiful Mind last night, my third time, first for C. It just shows how fragile and wonderful is the mind, and more spiritual than reason powers it. To use it for code breaking is one thing, but to know when it is right to use it for spiritual quests is another, and greater. There is no harm in using the mind, especially as it applies to stopping coercion and helping humankind get to the next rung. But that next rung is spiritual.
|Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
I concur with that asessemtn. During the hieght of the Cold War we through our best and brightest into the intelligence services to break the codes that guided policy. I have seen the movie twice myself. Dr. Nash used to work for the RAND corporation during the height of the Cold War. He used his ability with math, geometry and game theory to develop a series of products that we used to model Soviet military thinking and strategy.
I used and was taught his techniques during my service as an intelligence officer and built upon them. My skill was at the reconstruction of agent networks and communications networks from what we called message externals. Decrypting the internals of the message and the struture of the network it was transmitted over from the external characteristics of the message and the encryption characteristics of it and other associated data features.
I used a simple tool we used to call a guhore stick, a ruler with symbols and designs on it to break the networks using pencil, paper chalk boards and white boards, the operation was similiar to that I use with compass and ruler in trisecting angles.
In the movie Dr. Nash was worried about and looking for one time pads and encrypted messages in the public media. It was linked to classifed transmissions from Moscow Centre that he had access to working at the RAND Corp.
What Dr. nash saw were fragments of the Soviet Plan and its agent network, however he was nto a trained military officer and could not come to grips with the envirnoment of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) environment we were working in. The pressure on him was tremendous and he snapped from the load placed on him. The human brain can only process so much data before it suffers a breakdown triggered by stress induced changes in brain chemistry.
High functioning people are more prone to this type of breakdown than low. Modern medications control the disorder and restore the balance disrupted by stress induced chemical changes.
In Dr. Nash's case he could not deal with the ramifications of MAD and sought in his mind a solution to the problem. He like me was placed by forces outside of his control in an evironment where he had to perform at all costs and suffered a breakdown.
In the end he walked away from the environment that caused his breadown and then went on to teach. Gradually finding his way back from the depths of madness, although on the way back in his detached state managed to find a solution to a problem in geometry that we are still trying to figure out.
Madness and Genuis are linked the balnce between the two is a fine line and modern medications help control it.
In mexico I saw from my travels and interaction and code breaking the implementation of Operation Marabu by AL Qeada an old cold war legacy operation I knew well. I had to use all my skills and abilites to analysze and seperate out the networks associated with it and the players.
PANAM 103 was just part of Marabu, one that the Director of KGB discussed over tea one morning in Moscow Centre with his planning, operations and disinformation teams.
That was Moscow Centre at the hieght of its power. That is what drove Dr. Nash mad, trying to break the code. Many at benchly park went mad during WWII breaking enigma. Most ened up in academic settings after the war or in religious institutions in some capacity.
Not much has changed
PS I would read the Sword and the Shield, the history of the KGB for the other side of the story. During the Cold War we set in motion forces that we are still attempting to control.
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 06:45 pm: |
Just how close it came
I have included an extract from the following site that talks about the Soviet Operation Ryan. It is from a declassifed CIA report.
The new instructions from Moscow also indicated, without being specific, that the alert was linked to revisions in Soviet military planning, noting that RYAN “now lies at the core of [Soviet] military strategy.” (47) The alert was designed to give Moscow a “period of anticipation essential... to take retaliatory measures. Otherwise, reprisal time would be extremely limited.” (48)
But the repeated emphasis on providing warning of a US attack “at a very early stage” and “without delay” suggests that the Soviets were planning to preempt, not retaliate. If they acquired what they considered to be reliable information about an impending US attack, it would not have made sense for them to wait for the attack to begin before responding; it would have made sense to try to destroy the US missiles before they were launched. Hence the reference to military strategy probably meant that the Soviet high command intended to target the Pershings for preemptive destruction if RYAN indicated plans for a US attack.49
What I was doing during the Cold War was providing the targeting data for our lance missles in preparation for their replacement by the Pershing II missles. This effort was fed back to the Soviet Union by the Conrad Spy Ring. It was at this juncture that I also noted a significant increase in Soviet and Czech Special forces training designed to prepare these forces to destroy our Pershing II missiles. It was also at this juncture just before PANAM 103 was blown up that I was approached by a Czech Senior Intelligence Officer observing one of our exercises, who gave me a covert warning that they knew what I was doing and tried to find out if I would play ball with them and pass them data. Operation Ryan data was the most important data to the Senior Soviet Leadership.
When I broke off the conversation I had a bad feeling. And then came PANAM 103.
Churchill said the Soviets were an enigma wrapped in a puzzle. Now you know part of what that puzzle was.
It took me 20 years to put the pieces together.
To me it was a simple targeting campaign called Catus Coup and Kogi Campaign. The computers we used to do our work are now dust. The great signals intelligence sites that supported our work are closed and the military forces we faced no longer exist.
I still have the maps I used to plan these nuclear campaigns on. That is all that is left of the breakthrough in cryptography that lead to PANAM 103 and restored the balance that the Conrad Spy Ring disrupted. Without that work and breakthrough in cryptology, Europe and much of the world would now likely be radioactive rubble.
I have the military awards they gave me for my work in a glass case on the wall of my study.
When I vist the United Nations with my daughter I will tell her about Cactus Coup and Kogi Campaign and PANAM 103 and what we had to do to keep this planet alive. And about the monster the KGB helped create in the Middle East during the fall of the Soviet Empire.
PS It was a very close thing
Material from Operation Ryan was placed in the daily books read by the senior members of the Soviet Leadership on a daily basis.
When I was reconstructing the data that I was using to target the Soviet Forces it sent Red Flags to the KGB. They in turn saw an opportunity to stop the code breaking and targeting of their forces by taking me out on PANAM 103 and advancing their plan to involve us in a no win situation in the Middle east under the auspicies of Operation Marabu. Which was a complex gambit designed to inflame tensions between us and the Middle East governments through the use of cutouts, disinformation and manipulated intelligence.
Over all a very complex operation that was tied to a set of clear cut Soviet Goals.
Then came the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of militant Islam that rode the wave of Soviet Covert support that was Operation Marabu.
|Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 12:50 am: |
Incredible stories, Ed. You have been through a lot. The world is not yet safe from those who hate our freedoms, and who would design to take them away from us. Patience and vigilence. Remember Thomas Jefferson's words: "I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man." These are words we of the West, and all modern humanity, must live by.
Ps: If at anytime you need to modify any of your posts, perhaps for security reasons if you so decide, please let me know via email, and I can make it so. Naming names may lead to libel, so be aware. You may wish to remove the names, leave only initials, etc., if that is okay. I say this with all due respect.
|Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 05:25 am: |
Just was researching a few things and found some more data linking PANAM 103 to the Old Soviet Union and Old Operation Marabu.
I have attached two links
Both document the involvement of a terrorist cell that was planning to blow up an airliner duing operation Autumn Leaves, the German Counter Terrorism investigation that broke up the cell. It also documents the involvment of Syria, and the Old Soviet Union.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) was the goup that was identified by the Germans planning to blow up the airliner. One man associated with the Group was trained in the Soviet Union in terrorism in the 1970's. Likely under the auspices of the GRU/KGB under the umbrela of Operation Marabu.
If we look at this in terms of goeplotical context the Syrian Marabu connection starts to make sense because of the results of the 1967 war and the Humiliation the Soviet Union and its client states suffered at the Hands of Isreal.
If we take that in context of what I previously posted we now have identifed the link and part of the plan to the old KGB/GRU and operation Ryan and Operation Marabu and its aim to get us dragged into a non-win costly Middle East War.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 11:33 pm: |
FREEDOM GO TO HELL?
Why is it such a concern for our human rights watchdogs on technicalities of law, but of so little interest in raw coercions? An example: http://alienmemoirs.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/freedom_go_to_h.html
Or perhaps this isn't clear enough? Should they be kidnapping, killing, blowing up, to get the attention of those liberal watchdogs of our freedoms? What is appalling is Islam's treatment of women. This is a backsliding throughout their world, and now even in Malaysia, which was considered a model of a good Islamic nation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4795808.stm
AT WHAT PRICE DO WE SELL OUR FREEDOM TO THE STUPIDITY OF REGRESSIVE REGIMES-RELIGIONS? COERCION, VIOLENCE, KILLING, THEY GO TO HELL!
|Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 07:23 pm: |
I note the first website in the above posting is by a Saudi student who is opposed to what was depicted in the picture referenced in the narrative of the posting.
Now is this posting a recognition that we have started building a inclusive community of christians, Islamics and others that reject the coercion of regressive religious regimes or is a rejection of Islam as a whole?
Its not clear what the author was trying to say.
One hopes that ahuman will clarify his or her position on this matter.
As to where I stand on the matter I practice Cletic Catholic Christianity and it is a very tolerence religion and have built a network of friends that cross all religous lines. Who knows maybe Celtic Christianity come back into vogue.
|Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:14 pm: |
FBI PROJECT MEGIDDO,
ABOUT DOMESTIC TERRORISM
A made up story about a FBI operation that got out of control
Just prior to the millennium the FBI felt the threat posed by religious extremists was such that it placed many groups on a watch list. The following is a link to site that discusses this project.
Now one wonders what happened to the project after 1999.
Ivan and Ed have explored earthquake prediction as part of research into gravity and the nature of reality.
One wonders what a group of religious extremists or the government could or would do to a guy that could predict earthquakes and had survived a 1200 times normal dose of nerve agent.
Sounds almost biblical.
Some times it pays to have friends in high places as well as low.
I suspect Ed and Ivan have friends around the globe in many unexpected places.
PS I have a Celtic cross around my neck and note there are many prophecies out there. I also have noted a brisk trade lately in Celtic crosses.
Religious is a strange thing and moves people unlike any other subject. In the old day crowds thronged to see a man that could predict earthquakes and governments and religions conspired to kill him. His name was Paul and he forever changed the face of religion
Now just imagine if everyone read the predictions of earthquakes, storms and the rest that Ed did and believed.
Religion is a funny thing it moves mountains and moves people to tear down and blow up buildings. If I had to choose between Ed and Osama I would go with Ed.
Silly me I wonder if the FBI actually reads stuff like this and what they think of all the FBI agents that are wearing Celtic crosses.
|Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 09:30 am: |
As to where I stand on the matter I practice Cletic Catholic Christianity and it is a very tolerence religion and have built a network of friends that cross all religous lines. Who knows maybe Celtic Christianity come back into vogue.
Ed, what I know of the early church of Ireland, before St. Pat brought it over to Catholicism in a world sense, the Irish Celtic Church already had a rich history going back to Joseph of Aramethea in the first century. What would Christianity been like if the fun loving, joyful Irish soul had dominated the centuries instead? For that matter, what if the Gnostics had not been driven underground with their free thinking liberal spirituality and love of Christ? But I suspect the early Church of Rome and Constantinople had a serious task at hand, the survival of a monolithic Christianity, a world power, and thus turned it into a power structure. I would have like the Irish Church better!
Happy Saint Patrick's Day!
ps: on a whim, and out of love for Christianity, I wrote a book about the monks of Iona who wrote the Book of Kells, Scriptorium
|Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
INTO THE LIGHT OF THE GOOD
I wrote this elsewhere, in answer to a now closed forum, and leave it here as a reminder that not all people who believe in violent current interpretations of Islam are evil. Many born to that faith will also see the light, as evidenced here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm
WHAT IF ISLAM REFORMED? What would it look like, philosophically?
I can only offer my thoughts here, a purely hypothetical idea, of what may possibly issue from Islam's Reform. But this is only one man's idea, and it is not up to me to suggest that this is how it will be, since I do not know the future. And if such Reform was to take place, it would have to come entirely from within Islam, and not from outside, as myself. I only offer this as an idea, in all humility and respect.
If we were to identify God as Everything, that in His (and Her, axiomatic) infinity is both Good and Evil, and if Man (and Woman) were given a mind with which to choose one from the other, that we are endowed with reason and a free will, then doing God's will means that it is for us to separate the two. Of our own free will, we choose. This means that all teachings about God, and from God, are of necessity both sublime and pure, as well as evil and mean. So there is both a True teaching given to the highest achievements of humankind, as well as one mysterious and Kabbalistic given to the darker side of our being human. And if God created us in His image, then both sides reside is us.
What does this mean for a possible future Reformed Islam? This is the great opportunity, to consciously separate the two, the Good from the Evil, and in so doing, to catapult the religion far into the future, as perhaps the most desirable teaching available to Man. To do this, in my mind, would require that there be a separation of God's Word into its True form, as well as its Kabbalistic form, so that all the teachings that elevate humanity in its goodness, in its highest ideals, and in its ability to coexist with one another through tolerance, and love, would be set to one side; while all the teachings that coerce, that force human beings against their will, against their agreement, against the reality of Who they are as created by God in His image, these are the other darker side. Each human being is sublime as an entity of God, created in His image, and thus sacred. But not each human being is aware, nor will make choices in life that are conscious of this. So it is up to the teachings to split in two where God's Word is sublime and beautiful, and where God's word is dark and fallen. This will be the filter of human reason, and human love, that will separate the two halves of infinity into the duality of Truth and Evil.
How to do this? It will take the finest minds, the most elevated and conscious minds of humanity (within Islam) to find the distinction between the two. And that distinction can be cut like with a knife, in the way Alexander of legend solved the riddle of the Gordian knot, by slicing through it with his sword. But the sword here is conscious reason, conscious choice of Good over Evil, and a choice of finding agreement for all humanity as opposed to forcing it into coercion. In the holy book of the Qur'an exists side by side both. And what these minds must do is take a fine comb through the writings to create two parallel worlds, that of Good and that of Evil. It should be expected that the Good will be smaller in size than the Evil, but that is because we as humanity are still young. And in this cutting the knife will fall on Jihad: on the good side will be the 'greater' Jihad, where between each human being and God is the dialogue to bring him (and her) closer to the Truth of God's Will; on the Evil side the knife will fall on the 'lesser' Jihad, the war on human beings which negates their beauty in God. This comb will pass through all the writings, including the suras and the hadith. The first will be the True and Pure Islam, that propels humanity forward into a glorious, beautiful, and peaceful future; while the latter will be remembered as where humanity came from. These will be the two halves, and it will be for each human being to choose, as is their God given right, of their own free will.
What will this mean for Reformed Islam? It means that rather than drawing forth men and women to the dark side of God, they will be drawn in vast numbers to the light as never before, because the purity of God's Love will be identified, as the New Jihad. While on the other side, the old Jihad will be drawn only for those who cannot see the light of God, who are obscured by darkness, and fallen. It is the same Qur'an, not changed one word; but it is now in two parts. While humanity will gravitate to the Good, as clearly revealed, there will be those who are drawn into the Evil side, which will be fertile ground for the Jad. Do not think this will be easy, for there will be much argument, for the side of Evil will need its expression. But if humanity chooses peace, because we consciously believe in our planet as at One, then it will be World Peace. This is Who we are, as beautiful and shining human beings. Yet, this is also where human faith in God will be tested most, because there will always be those who need to coerce, to abuse and harm, to kill. But if God hears our calling for the chosen Good, then it will be delivered, and the Good in God's Love for humanity will win. Why? Because each one of us will act, consciously, to make it so. For this we must have faith. How each human being answers in his and her faith will be the future of God's vision for the planet. Will the planet evolve as a conscious world of agreement between humanity, or will it fall back into coercions instead? That is the great unknown, and that unknown rests with our prayers, and our faith in God. The New Islam can be this vehicle, this lens, through which the light will pass into the world, and from that light the world will choose freely. It will be a philosophical choice, open to all humanity. If we are truly conscious as human beings, we will choose rightly.
Nothing is discarded of the old Qur'an, but it is newly defined as the two halves of God. Though none of this may ever happen, in my mind's eye, I see this as a possibility of how Islam, as Peace and submission to God's Love, can become. I can see a golden opportunity for humankind to evolve into full consciousness. And if this path is taken, then Islam will act as a great magnet for humanity in ways never imagined. The New Islam becomes a shining beacon of light for all, and all religions, for the true path to Peace on Earth. Can it happen, will it happen? I leave that to God. My idea is not a vision of prophecy, nor the future, but merely one man's idea of how it can be done, and no more. And if it does happen, then the world will be a very different place a thousand years from now. Will the Jad win? No.
* * * * * * *
Let it be known that I am not a religious man, I believe in the prophets as human beings like us all, and am more of an 'agnostic' in today's religions, though I love them all. But I truly wholeheartedly believe in God. That is my faith. I love every human being I meet, even those who are confused, and sometimes clearly undeserving. And yet, I see my fellow man from a distance, as each one a separate and sacred being, a separate universe, though through our love for one another we are united. The Universe is a very big place, a very great and spectacular place. Here on Earth, within God's Love for the whole world, and all its living beings, I am glad to be alive. Of my own free will, I am who I am. This is my sacred trust. I believe with certitude in the One true God for each human being, in each one of us: "I am Who I am."
[I leave this idea for all to read, and then discard or archive, as you wish.... of your own free will.]
(As cross-posted on the Examined Life Philosophy Discussion: "War on Terror-2, or Pacifying Islam".)
|Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 12:38 am: |
Institute for the Secularisation of Islam
Their Statement of Principles favors the democratic ideal of seperation of religion and state: "without such separation there can be no freedom from tyranny", amongst other points.
Thomas Jefferson would have approved, as should all rational intelligent beings.
|Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:42 pm: |
Ivan the following website is an article about Russia having intelligence sources inside the United States Central Command.
As to my poisoning and theft of my laptop in Mexico and ties to PANAM 103. The information on me in Mexico was leaked by Russian sources both inside the Central Command and in private industry.
In the Gulf War I was exposed to nerve gas, in Mexico the Old team of KGB, GRU and thier clients used a poison that was a dervative of the same family of organophosphates via ingested food to confuse the issue and make use of plausible denial. This was followed by anthrax delivered via a boquet of flowers that was taken to a diner party I attended with some of our CIA officials in Mexico.
In Florida I suspected the old KGB was still operating during the DC anthrax attacks. It felt like an old KGB disinformation operation conducted to confuse matters.
I note that I even got a Christmass Card from someone named Ivan that I and my wife did not know before I went to Mexico and India on my state department job.
During the hieght of the Cold War we used to send christmass cards to the other side's military officers we were watching to let them know we knew where they lived. Part of pyschological warfare we used to do. Now it was my turn. The minute I left the United States and then went to Mexico I was a target of opportunity for the KGB. Old scores being settled.
Such is the legacy of PANAM 103 and the fall of the Soviet Empire.
I still remember the voice and face of an old KGB/Russian mobster I met in a resturuant in Mexico city near the embassy. He walked like he owned the place and when he touched the face of one of the waittresses that worked there she cringed in fear and he smiled as he spoke to her in Russian accented spanish. He was tall bald thin, a former Spetznaz trained officer. I could tell from the way he moved and held himself.
He looked at me and smiled then left the resturaunt.
Such are the way the shadow wars are fought. The children as I call them I was with were scared and out of their depth.
As I sit here I am reviewing the notes to my briefing on the effects of nerve agent I am reminded of the way the game is played and why the secret service and president wished to recruit me for service in Washington DC.
Like the children I was with in Mexico city the current president is out of his depth and was played as a fool by the greatest chess masters in China, the Middle East and Former Soviet Union.
I may still dabble in the great game from time to time with analysis of situations. But I am getting too old for that type of thing and have other responsibilites.
My Best Ed Chesky
Report: Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:20 am: |
Well, it looks like Islam is finally becoming more mature and civil in the world, so I will relinquish my usual complaints about it.
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
Whatever happened to our old philosophy board? It seems we strayed too far from the academic into the reality of the world. So perhaps their site 'crashed' into permanent hiatus?
Tom's (a former Jesuit) reference above gives us hope, that in the battle for the hearts and minds of people born into Islam, there are those who are ready to drop the repressions of their ideology so firmly rooted in the past. Time to become modern, and respect all human beings with tolerance, even for them.
I think the cartoon riots were especially damaging to Islam's self image, especially to all those within the faith who are getting it what the West is all about. Some of them are beginning to understand how regressive are the tenets of Mohammed, to their embarrassment. While we of the West look at them as primitive superstitions with complete unawareness of what it means to be free as human beings. Worse, theirs is the only world religion that teaches to kill. How horrible! Yet, as seen from the Islamic sites seeking progress, such as seen above in Secularisation of Islamic Society and FaithFreedom.org, there is cause for hope. But the struggle for a more civil version of that ancient ideology is now only begun, and the fight for their hearts and minds will no doubt take a long time, perhaps centuries, and violent. The Mohammed cartoons released in the Danish paper last September created barely a whimper of protest, but by the time they were politicized by their clergy months later it became a worldwide protest for alleged 'insult' to Islam (was it really, or were they illustrating the absurdity of a suicidal killer faith?), so the riots spread to all 22 Islamic countries and Europe. That's the heinous reality, that what was essentially an act of protest by the West, against Islamic terrorism, turned into a politicized Islamic riotous response. Their own died in those riots. I think they held up a mirror and embarrassed themselves more than they know.
My own take on all this has always been that it is not individual persons who are at fault, but the politicized collective used by their leadership that causes harm. Get rid of the madrassas, violent rhetoric at Friday prayers at the mosques, and expose the virulence of some of their religious leadership, and the world of Islam will scrutinize itself more closely. They need to reform from within, and as evidenced above, they had already begun to do so. I believe we can all live in the rainbow of multifaiths, provided we pass them through a prism of understanding and tolerance. Let's face it, the guys who wrote the ancient texts of scripture had no idea of what the 21st century would be like. It's about time for us moderns to reexamine what those ancient writings were all about.
Now, let's see how it unfolds.
Cheers, good to hear from you. Ivan
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 12:30 pm: |
Hi Ivan, I was hoping you knew what happened to the Examined Life forum. That forum had been through three permutations over the past 6 years, different management, but always maintaining continuity and existence. It seems very strange that it would just suddenly disappear, without any notice or warning, and without any signs that it was slowly waning (some sites start to look moribund and then cease activity before they finally fold; not so the EL -- it was fairly vibrant right up to the hour it vanished mysteriously).
About that Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society, I have number of misgivings about it.
1. It seems to be a tiny drop in the ocean.
a. The fact that the last message from the Executive Director on its main page is dated February 2005 is not very inspiring -- there should be a message at least once a year, for God's sake, not to mention more frequently. In fact, in that message dated February of 2005, the Executive Director promises "I will from now on be writing a monthly letter “From the Executive Director,”... It's now March of 2006: Where are the monthly letters? Similarly, the pages of Testimonies and the Comments sections seem to have posts that are not more recent than November of 2003, at best. What's happened in the last 2+ years? To inspire hope, one would expect to see more and more testimonials and comments up to the present date, not less and less down to zero in the past 2 years!
b. Nowhere on its main page do I see any information on membership numbers, nor membership demographics and types of Islam (it would pack considerably more punch if it had a majority of Sunni Muslim members, but I suspect the organization is mostly a handful of Western converts to Sufism). The Executive Director lists the leadership, with only cursory information on them -- their country of origin, but not the type of Islam they subscribe to, nor whether they are apostates or still practicing Muslims.
As to their Statement of Principles, most of it is very fine, but I noticed two problems of commission, and one problem of omission:
4. We are dedicated to combating fanaticism, intolerance, violent fundamentalism, and terrorism by showing the intellectual inadequacy of the fanatics’ programmes, the historical inaccuracy of their claims, the philosophical poverty of their arguments, and the totalitarian nature of their thought.
This #4 Statement curiously leaves out the critical adjective "Islamic". For this organization, which has by nature a limited focus, their top ten Principles should not be concerned with "fanaticism, intolerance, violent fundamentalism, and terrorism" in general (is ISIS going to be a watchdog for Basque terrorism and the "terrorism" of Israel and Bush?) -- ISIS should be concerned mainly with Islamic problems in these areas.
5. We defend the right of free inquiry, and the free expression of ideas. We therefore reserve the right to examine the historical foundations of Islam, and to explain the rise and fall of Islam by the normal mechanisms of human history.
Well, one "normal mechanism of human history" to explain the fall of Islam is that the inferior and corrupt West through its immoral and violent Colonialism managed to oppress and hem in Islam over the past 300 years. Let's hope such anti-Colonialism does not lurk behind the goals of the historiography of ISIS -- particularly since the "secularism" ISIS so vaunts is a gift to the world from that very same Colonialist West.
The problem of omission to which I referred earlier: Nowhere in its Statement of Principles does ISIS state clearly and unequivocally a most important goal for Islam: namely, that Islam must relinquish all motives and justification for self-defense. I know this is hard for Muslims -- even "secular" Muslims -- to wrap their heads around; but it is a key principle of modern secularism. In a modern secular society, all individuals and all groups (religious and non-religious) must hand over their self-defense -- except in extremely rare and dire and extraordinary circumstances -- to the secular legal authorities: it is their job to protect all individuals and groups under their purview. One major problem with Islam is that it inculcates a culture & psychology of ordinary self-defense. This has got to go. It has to be completely dismantled, and Muslims must detach their Muslim identity and their Islam from any sense of an entity that must be defended against anything. If a Muslim feels threatened because of his religion, then there are normal channels in modern secular democracies to handle this, through the proper secular authorities. One major problem with Islam is that vigilantism is officially institutionalized and sacralized. In fact, in Islam, vigilantism is raised to the level of a constant vigilance through jihad (on all levels from the psychological to the economic to the educational to the local-justice of lynchings and riots and honor killings and threats to the macro-level of jihad through terrorism and guerilla actions and even full-scale war) on the part of all members of an entity that encompasses all levels of human existence (religion, politics, laws, sociology, culture).
Encouraging aspects of ISIS:
The presence and supposed influence of Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina -- two powerhouses of the ex-Muslim movement (though Irfan Khawaja, the Executive Director, in his letter on the site dated February 2005, said then that Ibn Warraq had stepped down to devote more time to other things)
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:27 pm: |
Yep, Pepper, the omissions are cause for concern, as it falls short of addressing the full problem: Islamic dogma is inherently anti freedom. The right to choose is superceded by the obligation to obey. Then it gets very messy, because it is human ideology, and a rather antiquated and barbaric ideology, posing as the 'word of God', so any disagreement with this is punishable, often by death. Cruel and unusual religion is the end product of unreformed Islam.
This hits it on the head, that in modern civilized society 'self defense' is delegated to a third party, that of society's governmental laws and judiciary, enforced by the police, and only in dire circumstances to the individuals. In religion, because it imagines itself the word of God, and thus above temporal laws, this 'third party' would by default be its Deity; but they don't allow that third body to do its job, since on such issues God appears silent. (This alone is reason enough to hate the West, since we hold our own laws above those of the 'word', something we gained with our Reformation and Enlightenment.) So they take it upon themselves to do His dirty work, to punish and kill. But is this not a contradiction? If God is the supreme arbiter, and we humans are but lowly subjects, then should we not let God punish the transgressors? We of the West got around this, in part but not in whole, by giving the individual the right to choose for himself and herself, and only have our third party intervention, police and legal, when their chosen actions trespass on another individual's right to be, or to choose, as they are empowered by the freedom to do so. This western value is diametrically opposed to Islamic theory, where the individual is incapable of knowing God, and thus likewise is incapable of making choices; his or her only choice left is to obey their authorities who imagine themselves speaking for God. That's the problem. How can they get around that in their reforms? I think for any thinking person, this is an exceptionally challenging event, and how history plays out for Muslims to grapple with this conundrum will be something mighty to behold. I am guardedly optimistic, but also recognize the price paid along the way will be high.
The problem of omission to which I referred earlier: Nowhere in its Statement of Principles does ISIS state clearly and unequivocally a most important goal for Islam: namely, that Islam must relinquish all motives and justification for self-defense. I know this is hard for Muslims -- even "secular" Muslims -- to wrap their heads around; but it is a key principle of modern secularism. In a modern secular society, all individuals and all groups (religious and non-religious) must hand over their self-defense -- except in extremely rare and dire and extraordinary circumstances -- to the secular legal authorities: it is their job to protect all individuals and groups under their purview. One major problem with Islam is that it inculcates a culture & psychology of ordinary self-defense. This has got to go.
About ISIS, I have my suspicions they went quiet because of threats to them by their Islamic brethren. How do you secularize, not to mention their cautious wording to not offend Islam, when there are death threats floating around? I think this is their major dilemma. What's next? They go off line? if so, back to square one again. Or as you say further:
Yes, that is the main problem, institutionalized religious vigilantism. They are always at risk from their own ranks. Jihad has to be redefined, or its violent coercions are the main threat to Islam. Another conundrum!
If a Muslim feels threatened because of his religion, then there are normal channels in modern secular democracies to handle this, through the proper secular authorities. One major problem with Islam is that vigilantism is officially institutionalized and sacralized. In fact, in Islam, vigilantism is raised to the level of a constant vigilance through jihad (on all levels from the psychological to the economic to the educational to the local-justice of lynchings and riots and honor killings and threats to the macro-level of jihad through terrorism and guerilla actions and even full-scale war) on the part of all members of an entity that encompasses all levels of human existence (religion, politics, laws, sociology, culture).
About the Examined Life people, I wonder if Graham and company just got fed up with some of the foul mouthed postings that happened of late. There are filters within that program that automatically deletes such wording, though that in itself is not enough to bring discussion back to rational philosophical arguments. I hope they come back on line.
One piece of maybe good news is that the poor hapless Afghan fellow who converted to Christianity may not be beheaded after all. Another major embarrassment for Islam, if he were killed. Not crickey in today's modern world, is it?
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:58 pm: |
The dismissal of punishment of the Afghani Christian is not really good news:
1) he was let off due to "lack of evidence", obviously implying that the law to kill people who leave Islam stands in good esteem
2) his own family had been the ones who turned him in, in the first place, showing the pathology reaches to the grassroots level, and is not merely a problem of leaders and imams
3) Abdul Raoulf, a “moderate” cleric in Afghanistan, said (before the recent verdict) that if Rahman is not sentenced to death for his "crime" of leaving Islam, then -- “We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.” And you can bet he means that literally and physically. During the Taliban regime (which this cleric Raoulf protested!), women accused of sexual sins were publicly stomped on by groups of Muslim men until nothing was left but pools of flesh, crushed bones and blood. We are dealing with a pathology that remains in mutated apparently moderated form after the Taliban was forcibly defeated by American bombs and missiles -- a pathology that is appropriately termed "Satanic" in character, no matter what one's personal theology might be.
And the problem is that among ordinary Muslims there are all too many eager to do things like that -- to pull this apostate "to pieces until there is nothing left" in a frenzied orgy of violence -- and they should hardly be let off the hook because clerics "called on them" to do it: the pathology extends wider and deeper than corrupt leadership.
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 03:41 pm: |
Well, there's obviously an incredible mountain of work to be done to 'civilize' Islam from its current pathology!
And the problem is that among ordinary Muslims there are all too many eager to do things like that -- to pull this apostate "to pieces until there is nothing left" in a frenzied orgy of violence -- and they should hardly be let off the hook because clerics "called on them" to do it: the pathology extends wider and deeper than corrupt leadership.
Think of how warlike and cruel ancient religions were, from Mesapotamian war god Zababa, to the Hebrews Yaweh, where blood sacrifice, death, killing with vengeance, even one's own children (and eating them!) was demanded by their "holy" teachings. Christianity broke that pattern with Jesus's (naive?) teaching of love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc.; but Islam simply carried on as if Jesus didn't count, so that Allah's alleged "word" was as violent as its predecessors. Hindus had their version of the Kali cult, which may even predate Zababa. In short, human history comes from a violently aggressive past (because all pacificists were killed off?), and only since the Enlightenment have some semblance of universal human rights and tolerance make a dent on civilizing human society. Even the Medieval Catholic Church fell into that violence trap, and it took a lot of effort to make them give it up. Romans (not all however) in modern day Rome are rather proud of having fought the Vatican and hemmed in their power, though they don't publicly declare this. Imagine if someday residents of Medina or Mecca had in their hearts the same secret pride? Sure they're die in the wool Muslims, but what if they also succeeded in reining in the runaway powers of their religious clergy, as the Romans did? Now, can you imagine that? I must admit it is hard to do so. But not my fight, so I leave it to God to rein in his miscreant offsprings, and let the people of Islam work it out.
I'll watch, from afar, much like I'd watch a pack of beasts fight it out, from afar.
|Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 07:22 pm: |
Addendum: On a non-condemnation of Islam here.
I should make an important point here, that though observation of another person's religion, and pointing out inconsistencies within their teachings, is a fully acceptable behavior, in no manner or form would it be acceptable to condemn that religion based upon our observations, though we may feel that we have cause to do so. That religion is still another's, not ours, and to find reasons to condemn it, though we may think ourselves right in doing so, is still a trespass into another's world, which breaks our first directive, that we do not coerce or abuse others.
Well, there's obviously an incredible mountain of work to be done to 'civilize' Islam from its current pathology!
Remember "Islam" means "peace", and what we as outside observers must do is hold them to it. And we should remind them that their Qu'ran invokes with every chapter, "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", as a beginning verse, in the same way their common greeting is "salaam aleikom", God's peace be with you. That we can and must do, but not condemn all Muslims for their beliefs. That, no matter what we may think of their beliefs and failings, we cannot do.
This why I said earlier that it's "their fight". They have to work it out.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 02:29 pm: |
Islam does not mean "peace". It means "submission". There is no such thing as "peace" in Islam in our sense; there is only the state of submission to the commands of God, and anyone who disagrees with these commands or does not believe them, is an enemy of Islam. "Peace" will only come to Islam when they have subjugated all these so-defined "enemies" and killed the ones who resist being subjugated. That's they way Islam began, and that's they way it has conducted itself ever since; the only reason it doesn't seem to be doing that anymore (and it is when you look at pockets outside the mainstream -- the Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, central Asia, Bosnia, etc.) is because the modern West became over the past 300 years so overwhelmingly superior geopolitically, Islam simply shrank in upon itself.
Only a concatenation of accidental factors in the 20th century has re-energized Islam from its moribund decline:
1) the discovery of oil on Muslim lands
2) the use of Western technology, chiefly communications (in disseminating and fomenting fundamentalist ideology) and weapons
3) the geopolitical flirtations of support given various Islamic states by Nazis and then Soviet Communists, combined with naive American counter-support
4) the humiliating affront presented by the successful existence of Israel
5) the exponentially increasing worldwide influence of Western -- especially American -- culture in economics, politics, laws and pop culture which altogether presents an intolerable humiliating affront to the Muslim mind as they increasingly see and feel a Godless world of filthy human rights and democracy and man-made prosperity encroaching and infiltrating their divine and pre-modern world.
The factors of 1-5 were a historically accruing heap of tinder; bin Laden provided the spark, and events after 911 have cranked up the velocity of change that had already been brewing for decades. Each year since 911 seems to bring galvanizing events that add dynamism to the process of radicalizing Islam. The word "radicalize" comes from the Latin, radix, which means "root". To radicalize means, literally, to go back to the roots. That's what radical Muslims are doing now: they are going back to what makes them feel proud and strong, the roots of Islam: Mohammed's initiation of war in the 7th century A.D. against all non-believers in order to usher in the last days.
The normal baseline of Islam is fundamentalism in this sense. It has been obscured in the last century or two by the spectacular rise and worldwide dominance of the West (and America), which, among other things, sucked Islamic leadership into humiliating roles of subservient, corrupt leaders willing to sell out their principles for power and local influence and riches, and encouraged internal conflicts within Islam, further weakening it.
|Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:18 pm: |
Pepper, you bring up very valid points, in "Islam does not mean 'peace'" but rather 'submission', with expectations the whole world is to submit to them. Of course, that is nonsense, and it will not happen.
Your five points above, oil, western influence, state complicity, Israel, and cultural imports, are all a thorn in the self image of a 'pure' historical Islam which imagines itself a superior force in the world. Once, maybe long ago, it was; today, it has ceased to be a powerful player on the world stage, except in a very negative way, to destroy what is challenging this self-imagined superiority. So what we get now, instead of an introspective and self assured body politic of Islam, as it imagined itself historically when it went off to conquer the world, we get a 'radicalized' extroverted version, one that seeks affirmation from the world. However, like a bad child that seeks negative attention, the politicized Islam has drawn a negative attention to itself, which is what is happening today. So instead of a self assured religion made of up people who seek a communion with some higher ideal, and Deity, without disturbing the lives of others, we get a politicized people who do the best they can to disturb the lives of others. That is the tragedy of modern Islam, as it seeks to reassert its 'superiority' self image. By politicizing something that is inherently a transcendent human ambition to spiritually connect with God, by politicizing it publicly and violently, they instead managed to profane their religious ideals, a universal desire to do God's will, into what has become the most dishonorable coercive force on the planet. They kill themselves to kill others, which is an inhuman horror. What is at stake then, for the rest of us who are not believers, is that our freedoms are at risk. For this, we will fight back. Our response is to root out the extremist fundamentalist politicized sentiments within the world of Islam, and neutralize it militarily. In short, they have brought upon themselves their own destruction. But military victory will not win their hearts and minds, and rather alienate them further into isolation within their religious zeal.
We should see it differently, that it is the religion that is now at risk. Not that the teachings are not without their problems, as observed, but that the politicizing of those teachings forced us into a closer examination of who it is we are dealing with, a know your enemy, because they had decided to posture themselves as unfriendly to our ideals of freedom and equality, our legacy of human rights. Because they attacked us, they had brought this negative attention upon themselves. So where does this leave the so called 'moderates' within Islam? We know the fundamentalists are hostiles. Can the moderate and liberal, perhaps politically correct, members of that faith come around to seeing things from a more Western point of view? Mind, it is not the religion that is being questioned, since that is an internal affair for Islam, but their overtly politicized reach on the rest of us that is being examined. Can their coercions, violence against us and themselves, against their women, against their converts to other religions, against those who do not buy the radicalized interpretations of those ancient teachings of the Qu'ran and Hadith; can those minds and hearts be won over? That may be the greatest challenge to the West. And for that, military victory is not enough, because then we are talking about philosophical victory, to overcome the politicized dilemma Islam has thrown itself into. In effect, what does Islam say of freedom in general, especially religious freedom? Do its members have a right to choose, as did Rahman, who has since fled to Italy after his trial in Afghanistan was overturned, and do so within their good conscience, or are they forced, coerced, into staying the course of a politicized Islam dictated by their severe interpretations of their scriptures? That will be the great challenge of the century, to see how Islam responds to this. In BBC's article "What Islam says on religious freedom", as to whether or not apostates should be killed, there are different opinions. This is good and right, that such debate should take place within the faith, for if the translation of the ancient teachings are only coercive, and without personal redemption, then this is what politicizes it into becoming repressive. Imagine a faith that takes away your freedom to believe? This is their conundrum (again) because it has happened, and though it may have worked a thousand years ago as Islamics went on violently coercing through the world with their Jihad, subduing simple and illiterate people, it will not work today. They have to come to grips with this reality. And once they understand this, that coercion is not the way anymore, that such behavior is invalid in today's planetary world consciousness, then they will become more introspective, and not politicized as today. Tall order, to be sure, but that may be their first steps towards a modernized Islam, one that is reformed in the way Christianity came to be reformed. Can it happen? I certainly hope so, for their sake, because in each person within Islam, man and woman, beats a heart that is no different from the rest of humanity on the planet.
So 'peace and submission'? Yes, but not to man. Only to God. And for that, you need to de-politicize Islam and give its people religious freedom. Kill the politics and save the religion, which appears counterintuitive at first blush, but it is actually their only way out. If they manage to do that, to de-polticize their faith and give religious freedom, then Islam and human rights can walk hand in hand. Then its men and women answer truly only to God. Otherwise, they close off their options, and in a world built up of modern human agreements rather than coercions, they self destruct. Checkmate.
|Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 07:24 pm: |
Politics versus Religion?
A day later this article, Hopes and fears of Afghan Christians, almost exclusively illustrates my point above, that Islam must de-politicize. One Afghan says:
"Some political groups use Islam as a vehicle for their advantage; to get power and to keep power. They are still using it. This is the crux of the matter, that politics and religion cannot mix, or else it brings belief in God to the level of the temporal and profane. The speaker, a Christian, ends with:
"These groups are discredited in Afghan society. They have used Abdul Rahman to promote their power. Afghans feel at ease with Christians. It is only a few political groups who don't."
"My purpose is only to worship God. I find from this religion that I can." As it should be.
It is not that politics have no place within the Islamic world in which to air their grievances and address serious wrongs, some perceived and some real, against their world. But it should not invoke religion to address political issues. Use politics for politics, but let religion be for God. The few brave souls who can do this are then doing God's work, and will, and not man's. That is the major leap that Christianity, and its secular offsprings, could do. Can Islam do the same, to worship God for God, and not God for man?
|Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 03:47 pm: |
Op-eds at http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm
In reading some of these contributed articles, many first hand accounts, I must admit I am deeply saddened by what I see. The West has tried sincerely to accommodate the faith of Islam as if it were on equal footing with other world beliefs, even to the point of allowing a double standard in excusing the atrocities committed against human beings in violation of our hard fought for human rights, without any evidence of reciprocity. But they appear unequal, one built of rational ideas while the other sunk into deep confusion with irrationality and contradictions. The result is violence. How long will the West keep excusing this violence against humanity? It is a very sad testament to how fragile are the freedoms won, and how easily they can perish at the hands of those who would kill. Is there no consistency in Western ideology's response towards the violation of our human rights, that to call on those with barabaric practices who hate our rights not be given equal worth? Where is the equality for men and women in a world where horrible crimes against them are ignored by the same people who champion our equal rights? Or are we still a race of slaves, and Islam the new master? How will history judge? Is this the legacy Mohammed left our world, of violence and the death of reason? Who will rescue Islam from its inherently violent and coercive follies? Who? I despair for a future world where double standards are tolerated, and terrorism rewarded with kind understanding, almost apology. After Hitler's rein of terror, and resulting terrible war, don't we know apeasement does not work? Those articles are a wake up call, from within their own. Who is listening?
|Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 03:28 am: |
Ivan, you quoted a moderate Afghan Muslim as saying "Afghans feel at ease with Christians. It is only a few political groups who don't."
This statement obscures the issue in two ways:
1) Muslims have been able historically to feel "at ease" with Christians as long as those Christians remain subservient and second-class (given higher privileges now and then only if they could offer their talents and intelligence to the ruling courts). Someone should have asked this moderate Muslim if he feels at ease with a state of complete equality on all levels with Christians.
2) Rahman was not simply a Christian; he was a Muslim who left Islam and became a Christian. This moderate Muslim should be asked point-blank what should be done with such Muslims who leave Islam. When reporters too ignorant of the subtleties involved fail to ask the pertinent question, we get these sound-bites from apparently moderate Muslims who can, like our former friend Anonymous, cleverly dance around a direct admission.
|Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 09:45 am: |
THE BIG GAME
Thanks Ed for all your updates on how the Big Game is still being carried on, not by Communnism, but now by new forces of coercion against the mind of man. Same game, different players, all bent on power to control and enslave. The human reality is slow to change, to make a better world. Better to be vigilent and alert. I would lose faith, were it not the assertive knowledge that there exists a greater reality behind the being of Who we are, far greater and smarter than the small little coercions we can do against ourselves. Focus on the biggest possible picture, and remember that life in this universe is infinitely smarter than the small puny brains lodged in the skulls of men. We are Who we are, and in that is a far greater freedom to find agreement with each other and all existence. That is the real reality, not the small little games of fear based and not overly intelligent men. That far bigger Game, to which we in our minds and hearts are open, but to which they have closed themselves off, is to light our way to humnity's future. That Game, God willing, is worth the play.
|Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
ISLAM MEANS PEACE?
Zen Buddhism means peace
Yoga mens peace
Tao means peace
Agape means peace
Islam means disturbances
Islam means retribution
Islam means insult
Islam means deceit-taqquia
Islam means suicide bombings
Islam means intolerance
Islam means women abuse
Islam means forced female circumcision
Islam means death for apostasy
Islam means death by beheading
Islam means stoning death for adultery
Islam means stoning death for homosexuality
Islam means death fatwas for questioning Islam
Islam means violation of human rights
Islam means submission to Islam
Islam means slavery
Islam means conquest
Islam means war
JESUS TEACHINGS MEANS PEACE
|Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 01:07 pm: |
Well, Anon, throw in so called 'honor' killings of women, and the Mohammed cartoon riot deaths, plus general garden variety terrorism from Baghdad to Beslan, and you've got bases covered.
Alas, such is the Islam reality of today, perhaps it will be different someday. I sure hope so. How unhappy can a people be and still function normally? In reality, it doesn't work, too coercive against decent human beings. They need to reexamine their basic premises, without threats to those who do. It will take courage and strength to challenge the status quo of Islam today. God help them.
Example of a deep systemic problem: Religious stampede deaths in Kashmir.
|Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 03:04 pm: |
When you have a society, such as in Kashmir (a major city, not just some backwater village), where religious stampedes resulting in multiple deaths are common, where mass-murders between rival factions of Muslims (Sunni-Shia) are common, and where according to the journalist Bernard Henri-Levy videotapes of the Daniel Pearl beheading are selling like hotcakes at the front doors of the major mosque in that former capital city -- then obviously, you have a cultural predisposition for dangerous fanaticism that is spilling over into the non-Muslim world.
When one keeps in mind that Kashmir is not alone in manifesting this cultural pathology, but that this cultural pathology is all too common in the Muslim world from Nigeria to Algeria to Sudan to Turkey and on and on and on; and when one keeps in mind that this cultural pathology is directly linked to a reverence of Mohammed as the most perfect man in history who MUST be emulated by all Muslims and that this same Mohammed believed he received a command from God Himself to subdue the entire world and put it under Islamic law.... well, we have a problem Houston.
This is a problem that transcends the Cold War, that goes back 1400 years. The Communists and the Nazis/Fascists did not have the benefit of a culture that goes back centuries. Nor did they have the benefit of a strongly entrenched belief in God's literal commands that are the Absolute Truth and forever remain unchanged -- commands for subduing the world under Islamic law, and commands to prepare the world for the Last Judgement, which every (good) Muslim believes in literally.
|Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 03:40 pm: |
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
The founding Fathers of this great American nation were a lot more astute of the future than we think. They knew that to allow for Church to dictate matters in the temporal world of State, it would be to take dictates as they apply to the 'hereafter' to the living one of here and now. Let religion concern itself with the hereafter, but it is not its place to be concerned with reality as we know it. So the founding father had a very good idea to separate church and state. In doing so, they saved us from the error that afflicted all ancient societies, where the dictates of the priests (who are concerned with hereafter) were imposed on the living (who are alive now) and thus twisted reality into what essentially became ridiculous nonsense. You cannot mix the two. And when we stopped this, we had the tremendous evolutionary success of the modern world. Thanks to the Founding Fathers for this. When they separated the two, with great foresight, they did future generations a very great service, for which we should be thankful today.
This was a thought that came to me when I was reading the last posts on "Dialogue with a Muslim" where this 'hereafter' is being imposed on the 'here' which is wrong. In particular, thanks to this (anonymous) posted line: "B) May apply to behavioral ethics in the afterlife but has no bearing on behaviors in real life." That says a lot.
|Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 03:04 pm: |
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is ... a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century," she said. "It is a clash between freedom and oppression."
From TIME, April 30, 2006
The People Who Shape our World
|Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 07:41 pm: |
"Pros and Cons" of Islam's Reform, a postcript to Wafa Sultan.
ALLAH – A PERFECT GOD – A GOD OF REASON
In order to reform Islam we must start with the following declaration:
ALLAH AS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE - THE CREATOR OF ALL LIVING THINGS IS PERFECT.
ALLAH AS A PERFECT GOD - IS A GOD OF REASON
ALL TEACHINGS OF ALLAH - A PERFECT GOD - MUST BE PERFECT
ANY WRITINGS IN ANY RELIGIOUS TEXT THAT ARE NOT PERFECT ARE NOT THE TEACHINGS OF ALLAH BUT THE TEACHINGS OF MAN
AS A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON - ALLAH IS ALL PEACE AND LOVE AND GOODNESS
ALL MANKIND ARE THE CHILDREN OF ALLAH
ALL CHILDREN OF ALLAH ARE CREATED EQUAL AND THEIR LIVES ARE SACRED TO ALLAH
ALLAH IS NOT AN IRRATIONAL BEING. IF ALLAH IS IRRATIONAL THEN ALLAH IS NOT PERFECT AND THEREFORE SINCE ALLAH CANNOT BE IMPERFECT AN IRRATIONAL ALLAH IS NOT GOD
The above lays the intellectual framework for an Islamic Reformation.
All teachings in the Koran and all Islamic texts (written or verbal) that are not PERFECT are not the teachings of ALLAH - A PERFECT GOD - A GOD OF REASON but the teachings of man. ...
Terrorists’ Bill of Rights However, the argument's main point is here, that (unreformed) Islam is unconstitutional:
Thursday, 14 June 2007
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most glorious documents promoting individual liberty ever written.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Can a religion or a cult become so powerful and so uncivilized that it can hide behind the Constitution to preach an ideology of hatred and advocate a plan to destroy our society and subvert our government? We need to consider whether our Constitution enables and protects “religions” that are being used to put our very society and our freedoms in jeopardy.
Faithful Muslims believe that sovereignty belongs to Allah. They believe the only important “constitution” is the Quran, and before allegiance to a nation comes fidelity to Allah. Islam of all sects demands obedience to Islamic law, not the laws of men or political institutions. A Muslim will never abide by an oath of office when Islamic principles are at stake. When they swear an oath on the Quran, it is to show Islamic supremacy, not to prove they are telling the truth.
"It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option." Qur'an 33:36
Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no compensating scriptures that can be used to substitute for the barbaric avocations. There are no calls in Islam for compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific prescriptions for “an eye for an eye”, eternal warfare, religious hegemony, slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror, establishing a caste social system, and the perpetuating discrimination against women. The only way to reform it is to censor vast sections of the Quran and Hadith, which would be absurd....
It must be called something else, and it cannot be recognized as a protected ideology under the First Amendment. We have hate-crime laws. How about admitting that there is a hate religion, and its name is Islam, cult of fascism?
"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust." Quran 5:51
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Bible (Matthew 5:44)
Any religion that seeks to create its own “State” and its own legal system and seeks to mobilize its own militia is itself not interested in separation of church and State, and has no right to use that separation to create hegemony.
This should have been posted a year ago, but the second part was not yet available. Can Islam reform? This is a most difficult question. As a 'personal' faith, yes, naturally. As a 'political' faith, no, not within our constitutional laws of 'separation of church and state'. Can reformed Islam abide by a God of Reason?
|Posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 01:15 am: |
Can Turkey avoid the "Sharia trap"?
Women condemn Turkey constitution, BBC News
It looks like Turkey is only one step away from reinstituting women slavery under the deceitful term "protection".
Protection from whom? From their freedom to be human beings?
Slavery is about to return to Turkey, at least for women, and then it's only another step for rejection of equal human rights,
and secular rule of law, which means slavery for men as well to theocratic law. What will make them different from other Sharia states, once freedom is lost?
Like Iran? There is absolutely no way Turkey may qualify for the European Union, under these conditions. I think that issue is closed.
Once Sharia rules, it is the end of human freedom. Then watch Turkey slide socially and economically into third world status.
|Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 09:24 pm: |
When we were young, and race was not an issue...
BBC News: Columbia University students denounced this noose on a teacher's door
When I was a young teen growing up in New York City, my friends were of all races and ethnic backgrounds. Though my friends were mostly at ease with each other, we were well aware of 'no go' areas of which we had to be mindful not to find ourselves or risk being attacked. One of my best friends was Louis Baez, a Puerto Rican, who lived with his mother and siblings, father absent or possibly dead. Another good friend was Jacques Lawrence, a Jamaican, whose fisherman father remained in Jamaica. Lionel was from Haiti. Bobby Carter was from the South, black. My 'white' friends were Jewish, Marc Hymowitz, a smart kid with whom I was very close. Another was Ivan Kalita, blond and blue eyed Russian, who grew up in Venezuela and was the most fearless 'street fighter' I knew, and he taught me. Paul Arlia, Italian, lived with his mother, he wanted to be a physicist and later bought his own airplane. Billy Coleman, reformed Jew, and I were best buddies, sharing Bob Dylan albums. Mostly, we were all poor. Roman N., from lower East Side, went on to Harvard and became a successful CFO at an investment bank. Some I lost touch with, but others remained life long friends. Robert Ragan was my first American friend, he of French Canadian and Czech background, we are still friends. Howard Christiensen, American of Danish background, and I still visit, since he moved out West. Later we all went our separate ways, not because of race or ethnicity, but because life took us there. If we had stayed friends, none of it would have mattered, but we moved away, or lost touch, to my regrets.
We were of different backgrounds and races, and I only named a few. My Chinese friends, or Indian and Native American, came later, and Japanese too. The only time I felt the pain of race was with Bobby Carter. We were not really that close, just friends, but one day he came over with some other black friends, and without provocation punched me in the throat. I lost my breath, had trouble speaking, but we fought, throwing punches. His elbow caught me in the small of my back, and it hurt there for months, like a pulled muscle. We never were friends again, that was it. I had fights with others, mostly kids I didn't know, and it did not matter. But having a friend turn on you for no reason, just to prove to his other friends that he can beat up on 'whitey' was painful, not physically but psychologically, emotionally. I felt betrayed.
So I can understand how these 'no go' areas are psychologically damaging, really painful, that anyone from any race is forbidden to go to a certain park or neighborhood. It makes no sense. City street gangs make no sense. I was invited to join, but I always had homework to do, so turned down the offers. And then I too moved away. There should never exist 'no go' areas in any civilized setting, anywhere. To allow for this to happen is not only emotionally painful to everyone, but is a return of primitivism we cannot allow if humanity is to move forward. I know all my friends would agree.
|Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 03:30 pm: |
United Nations out of date?
It looks like the UN is out of date in more ways than one:
Much-needed makeover for UN icon - BBC News.
When I was a little kid in New York we used to have school outings lauding the UN. I liked the artwork and statuary, but never felt comfortable in those large rooms and hallways. I don't know why, but now looking back, I must have had that 'asbestos' moment.
Occasionally he points to an exposed pipe and tells you it is lined with "that miracle building material from the 50s - asbestos".
Elsewhere in the building, water from the nearby East River seeps through the walls. Puddles sometimes form on basement floors and it is not unusual to see buckets catching drips from leaking pumps.
It's only a matter of time to see that the UN has outlived its usefulness, in more ways than one.
Ivan/saud Laura B.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 09:27 pm: |
Sad Laura B. I can't imagine this was easy for her, and I feel sorry.
Trying to 'fit in' with enslaving tyranny over women
This JP article, "Laura Bush's embrace of tyranny", explains why her behavior in trying to 'fit in' with Saudi women was inappropriate. I agree. My heart goes out to her for this photo op in native costume, but it was done wrong. She should have been more sympathetic with women's plight in the Muslim world, rather than acquiesce demurely to Alibaba's demands. I understand her position, but she should have shown less 'caring' and more backbone here. The Saudi regime is evil:
Women in Saudi Arabia do not have human rights. As Amnesty International puts it, "The abuse of women's rights in Saudi Arabia is not simply the unfortunate consequence of overzealous security forces and religious police. It is the inevitable result of a state policy which gives women fewer rights than men, which means that women face discrimination in all walks of life and which allows men with authority to exercise their power without any fear of being held to account for their actions."
For instance, women in Saudi Arabia cannot choose whom they marry and they have no real power to divorce their husbands. Men on the other hand can lawfully marry up to four women and divorce any of them simply by announcing that they have divorced them. And once they are divorced, they are by law and practice denied custody of their children.
Marital rape and physical abuse are not generally considered crimes and therefore women have no legal recourse for dealing with abusive husbands, or fathers or brothers. Since they are legally barred from serving as lawyers, and Islam weighs a woman's court testimony as worth half the testimony of a man, even if they were able to press charges against their male tormentors, Saudi women are effectively denied recourse in the local courts.
For more on this, read whole article and see commentaries by JW readers: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018615.php#comments
It was the wrong thing to do for a photo op, and her smile looks strained.
UAE at LGF, the irony of a free woman amidst slave women
|Posted on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 10:57 pm: |
Would you buy a used car from this man?
Saudi King, BBC News:
"I have not spoken about some subjects because I did not want either to be dishonest or evasive with you." - King Abdullah
Just saying that already put me on my guard, but I'm used to openness and truth, not takiyya. He's lying by denying he's lying!
A few minutes before we thought the interview was going to begin, someone came to speak to us.
The king would not, it seemed, be prepared to talk about Iraq, or the possibility that the Americans might bomb Iran.
Nor would he speak about the BAE arms contract between the UK and Saudi Arabia, with its attendant allegations of corrupt payments.
Make of it what you will. I know what I think...
|Posted on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 05:18 pm: |
We Demand the Right to Protest the War at the RNC!
Thursday, 11/1 @ 4 PM
St. Paul Police Community Services Unit
1169 Rice Street, St. Paul (Rice & Arlington)
We hope to bring together tens of thousands of people to march on the RNC to end the war on September 1st, 2008. To build that kind of demonstration, one of the main issues from peace and justice organizations around the country is "will you have permits". Not having the permits is real obstacle to building the demonstration.
Any protest involving very large numbers of people coming from around the country requires serious preparation. The Republicans would never accept waiting until 6 or less months out to make concrete logistical preparations for their convention. They are making those preparations now. Likewise we cannot afford to wait. We are working to bring together more people than those attending the RNC, with far fewer resources. We deserve time to prepare too.
At pervious national political conventions there were no permits issued until the last moment, and in some cases the terms of the permits were unacceptable, such as forcing demonstrators into isolated 'protest pens.' We need to fight for our right to protest the war on Iraq!
We will have a picket & press conference outside & will then go submit our permit. If you cannot come, but support our efforts, please call or email Mayor Coleman at: 651-266-8510 or email@example.com &/or your city council member at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 651.266.8560. For more information email email@example.com or call 612.379.3899. Join us on line on myspace & facebook. For information about all the activities for the RNC, including the demonstration, go to protestrnc2008.org .
Organized by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War
Endorsed by the Anti-War Cmte, Twin Cities Peace Campaign, Welfare Rights Cmte.
The above is posted by a member of the former Alliance of Patriots steering committee.
Efforts to hinder this protest are being made by corporate leaders and former republican administration officials serving on the Board of Directors of large U.S. Corporations.
Plans to contain the protestors and prevent them from being allowed near the convention site are being developed by Federal, State and Local Law enforcement officials. These plans are being coordinated with private security companies employed by corporations in the planned protest area. This effort involves sharing of intelligence data between Corporate Officials and Law Enforcement entities.
Parallel security operations by corporate security contract employees and Corporate Security Officials are in progress. These plans are tied to efforts to hinder planning and execution of the protest by the anti-war activists.
This information is provided to assist the protest movement in planning and executing its peaceful protest.
Ex members of the Alliance of Patriots will provide intelligence data on the activities of law enforcement entities and corporations to the protest leadership via cutouts.
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 06:10 am: |
Intelligence Assessment 2008 Republican National Convention
Federal, State, Local and Corporate Security entities are currently engaged in planning to contain, disrupt and induce the 2008 RNC Protest Movement to engage in disruptive activities in an effort to discredit them and cast them in a negative media spotlight. This effort is part of a psychological warfare campaign being waged against the protest movement by Corporate Entities and the current republican administration
These security entities are sharing information, intelligence and coordinating activities at the national level. These entities are linked via National Security Networks and Corporate Communication links. Data from Homeland security intelligence fusion centers is being shared with Corporate Security Officials.
The fusion center currently involve in this effort to contain, and hinder the RNC protest movement is listed below
Minnesota is forming an intelligence center in conjunction with state, local, and federal partners. This center will be co-located in one facility. Currently, Indiana has deployed a Web site to facilitate collection of information and dissemination of intelligence over a three-state area. This Web site is utilized by Minnesota law enforcement and other public and private partners.
Recent purchases by the center indicate it is assembling databases and building network interfaces to track individuals and groups likely to engage in protest activities at the RNC.
The information being assembled by the fusion center includes surveillance video of the protest area allowing local law enforcement entities to move rapidly to contain protestors. This data is being relayed from the fusion center to local law enforce entities and practice drills are being conducted by local law enforcement activities prior to the 2008 RNC.
9/13/07 - Huffington Post - Call the Riot Squad: Cops Tune Up for Republican National Convention
Six Minnesota law enforcement agencies were able to field 48 officers at the drop of a hat on a Friday afternoon in summer -- a time when most of those guys would rather be home with the kids. Or up at the lake fishing. Or on a bar stool with a beer. Or maybe trolling for "not gay" senators in a men's room at the airport. Go figure.
A convenient drill? A tune-up fight for a heavyweight title match with all those protesters coming to town next September?
Probably. The cops knew a radical element was in town. Here was an opportunity for different agencies to practice working together in real world conditions; an opportunity to develop strategies for hassling protesters who were developing strategies for hassling next fall's Republican National Convention.
Data from a local source who monitors police radio transmissions indicates that intelligence regarding these protestors was being provide from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) via the intelligence fusion center and from Corporate Security entities. Radio nets monitored used FCC data to track transmissions by Corporate Security entities, DHS, FBI State and Local law enforcement officers. Scanners purchesed off the shelf were used to intercept these communications. The communications were tape recorded and analysed to reconstruct who was talking to who and what data was being passed. From this data analysts were able to reconstruct the surveillence assets being used to locate the protestors and were able to identify that DHS assets were being used to spy on American citizens.
Analysis of the media coverage after this incident indicates that Corporate Communications departments and Law Enforcement activities was coordinated to case this protest in a negative light.
These actions are part of a psychological campaign to induce the local population in the RNC area that protestors are disreputable, violent and radical. These themes have been adopted as national level talking points and Corporate communications departments are using them to draft press releases in preparation for the 2008 RNC.
Analysis of local law enforcement budget expenditures, which are open source, indicate DHS funds are being used to purchase radios, communication technology, riot control agents, and riot gear in preparation for the 2008 RNC.
These funds are not being used to for anti-terrorism measures as intended but rather to suppress protest movements.
In terms of analysis of the networks currently being massed against the RNC protestors. Corporate Security entities have ramped up hiring senior ex law enforcement officials and emergency managers from Federal State and Local Governments. These officials were hired in order to capitalize on their contacts with existing Federal State and Local law enforcement entities in order to gain access to data from these entities which can be used by Corporations.
Bush releases national strategy for sharing intelligence
By Ben Bain
Published on November 1, 2007
The Bush administration has released the first comprehensive national strategy for how federal, state, local and tribal officials; foreign governments; and the private sector should share terrorism-related intelligence.
Analysis of current law enforcement plans indicates that 2008 RNC protest detention centers are being planned to be set up in locations close to the convention center. The placement of these centers has been planned to ensure that media coverage will document the police dragging violent disreputable protestors into them as the media films them. This is designed to ensure that the Protest Movement is cast in the most negative light possible. Corporate Communications Departments are involved in planning the coverage of these sites and have begun working on press releases tailored to induce the local, national and international media to view this protest as being the work of violent, left wing radicals.
End of Assesment
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 07:45 am: |
Previous national poltical conferences have been the scene of dramtic clashes between Police and Protestors.
the following is provided to put into context what happened in the past and what fear is driving the use of intelligence and corporate assets to limit, contain and cast in a negative light protestors at the 2008 RNC
The 1968 National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968, for the purposes of choosing the Democratic nominee for the 1968 U.S. presidential election.
1968 already had been a tumultuous year for the United States, with the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY), and widespread protests of the Vietnam War. The convention achieved notoriety due to clashes between protesters and police, and due to the generally chaotic atmosphere of the event. The turmoil was widely publicized by the mass media on-hand for the convention, resulting in a nationwide debate about the convention and leading to a flood of articles and books about the event.
2004 Republican National Convention protest activity includes the broad range of marches, rallies, performances, demonstrations, exhibits, and acts of civil disobedience in New York City to protest the 2004 Republican National Convention and the nomination of President George W. Bush for the 2004 U.S. presidential election, as well as a much smaller number of people who marched to support Bush at the convention.
Hundreds of groups organized protests, including United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 800 anti-war and social justice groups, and International ANSWER. Over 1800 individuals were arrested by the authorities, a record for a political convention in the U.S.  However 90% of those charges were eventually dropped
At present faculty members of Universities that participated in the 1968 DNC protests have been linked and focused on the 2008 RNC to provide assistance in coordinating and planning this protest.
These faculty members have access to students, communication systems, databases and the resources of universities around the nation and internationally.
From universities links to allied organizations on them such as Amnesty International, Students for Social Justice, Students for a Democratic Society and like organizations are being forged.
These organizations are being advised and assisted by intelligence and security personnel forced from their jobs by the current administration. They are being trained in covert communications practices, intelligence analysis, pyschological warfare and other techniques. Intelligence on the actions of police, government officials and security services is being relayed via cell phones, the internet and email to these protest coordinators.
Faculty professors that were beaten, gassed and arrested during the 1968 protests serve as an advisory pannel to the protest organizers and are working behind the scenes to support them. They recognize the actions of DHS, Law Enforcement and Corporate interests behind the scenes and are moving to mass the capabilities of America's Universities to counter it.
Cross linking to Rainbow Coalition and others is also occuring.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this on the streets of the city of St Paul.
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 08:57 am: |
Take a laidoff Senior Intelligence Officer, trained in Deep Attacks, reconstruction of networks, and construction and running of agent networks in the East Block during the hieght of the Cold War and mix with full and unfettered access to the full resources of three large modern Universities.
What you get is revolution.
These univerities have SATCOM communications, high speed internet, access to all scientic and technical databases. They are home to social movements and organizations such as Amnesty International and others. They are also home to some of the greatest minds in Political Science, Psychology, Sociology and a hundred other disciplines.
Next take classes, discussions, advice and assistance by this same laid off senior intelligence officer on subjects ranging from cryptographics, analysis, covert communications techniques, the organization of the Department of Defense, its decison making process and internal workings of the CIA.
Then throw in 24 years of knowledge of all aspects of nuclear weapons design, weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical warfare Signals Intelligence along with the details of our nuclear launch system, military bases and national command authority
The question is what has this officer been doing for 4 years at these universities in plain view given his access to some of the brightest students in the United States.
I do not think I want to be at the RNC in 2008.
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 11:24 am: |
"Beat them (lightly)" - the face of slavery, sometimes swollen. Q4:34
A video at MEMRI, Middle East Media Research Institute, advises young Muslim men how to treat their women, with physical violence. Click on image of this young man to see it, English subtitled.
Fox News: "Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html
Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.
He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.
"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.
"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.
So physical force, because man is stronger physically than woman, seems a 'natural' proposition for men to beat women? Isn't this somewhat a perversion of humanity? In the same article it says:
He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.
"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."
Well, should a woman now feel better knowing her beating will only leave bruises on her breasts or buttocks, arms and legs, but not on her face? This is unbelievable, and I suspect most Americans, or Europeans who cherish in our civilization that women are equal to men, would be appalled to learn this. But if their Allah tells them to do this, as imagined in Mohammed's head, then this is the law - Sharia law. And if a woman's face is swollen, either she was truly deserving of her beating (lightly), or the man transgressed. So what is his punishment? A light beating with a handkerchief? No! Nothing... nothing at all. You see, it's all the woman's fault.... Sick men, sick culture, sick Mohammed's imaginings... the whole thing is sickening. What a travesty of humanness.
Here is what their great high priest of Allah taught them, in Qur'an 4:34:
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."
How else? Why beat them, leaving what the term "scourge" means to the husband, of course. This 'noblesavage' cleric gives further advice:
Why of course, the face and hands, sticking out from under the woman's black shroud full body covering, may show the abuse, especially if swollen and blackened. This is unacceptable in any modern civilized society.
"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.
To read more on this, see Dhimmy Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018662.php and here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm
Therefore, hitting or beating wives in Sura 4:34 is a gigantic social and cultural step backwards and challenges whether God through Gabriel brought down the Quran in the first place so late in history, after the love of God was shown through Christ. He never said that husbands should hit their wives, and neither did the New Testament authors.
I personally find this aspect of Mohammed's directives for 'right living' most disturbingly offensive of all of them, and there are many, viz. killing infidels and Jews, subduing Christians into servitude (dhimmi status with jazya tax burden), killing apostates to Islam, taking women and children as slaves, religious jihad, etc. I personally am disgusted by this. Women are human beings, with human rights to their being Who they are. We of the modern world must never strike them.
Where are the Women's Lib people on this?
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 01:06 pm: |
Secular Islam Summit: Islam’s Rebel Women Make Their Mark
by Alamgir Hussain
13 Mar, 2007
With the Islamic world, already lost to the darkness of fanatic orthodoxy of Islam, there is an urgent need to effect an immediate enlightenment to save the West, where a significant and fast-growing community of increasingly fanatic Muslims have found their home. There is a need to effect a revolutionary change in the attitudes of the Muslims in two to three decades to save the West. When I pressed Ibn Warraq at the summit about his views on the future impact of Islam in the Western world, he reluctantly termed it “depressing”, especially in Europe.
If such a change in the attitudes of the Muslims in such a short time is at all to happen, probably those loud, scathing and defiant voices at the summit coming mainly from the female speakers, would play a pioneering role. Those who hope that a passive diffusion of enlightenment would trickle into the Muslim populace, have little idea about the history of Islam; neither do they take note of the fast-rising radicalism among the Muslims, including in the West. What is needed is proactive forcing of an enlightenment down the throats of the Muslims in double-quick time. Our hope lies in those brave and defiant rebel women of Islam more, if not mostly. So far, the rebel men of Islam are only playing the second fiddle.
The above is posted to indicate that this issue is recognized by many and that it is part of a larger problem that must be addressed
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 07:24 pm: |
When things were simple, before there was Jihad...
Will our innocence ever return?
We had a beautiful country... free.
le chef d'hier
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 08:22 pm: |
If only we could go back to that time.
I post the following regarding the Republican Revolution.
The Republican Revolution is what the Republican Party dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.
The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952) under Republican Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr..
Large Republican gains were made in statehouses as well when the GOP picked up twelve governor seats and 472 legislative seats. In so doing, it took control of 20 state legislatures from the Democrats. Prior to this, Republican had not held the majority of governorships since 1972. In addition, this was the first time in 50 years that the GOP controlled a majority of state legislatures.
Discontent against the Democrats was foreshadowed by a string of elections after 1992, the more notable among them being the capture of the mayoralties of New York and Los Angeles by the Republicans in 1993. In that same year, Christine Todd Whitman captured the New Jersey governorship from the Democrats and Bret Schundler became the mayor of overwhelmingly Democratic Jersey City. The pace of Republican victories in off-year elections gained momentum. Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison took a senate seat from the Democrats in Texas. Republican Ron Lewis picked up a congressional seat from Democrats in Kentucky in May 1994.
Democratic President Bill Clinton said in his January 1996 State of the Union Address, "The era of big government is over." Later in 1996, Republicans would fail to defeat Clinton's re-election bid.
When the 104th United States Congress convened in January 1995, House Republicans voted former Minority Whip Newt Gingrich – the chief architect of their victory and author of the Contract with America – Speaker of the House, while the new senatorial Republican majority chose Bob Dole, previously Minority Leader, as Majority Leader. With their newfound power, Republicans pursued an ambitious agenda but were often forced to compromise with President Clinton, who wielded veto power.
In the House, the Republican takeover was accompanied by significant structural changes in House rules. The relative power of once-powerful committee and subcommittee chairs was weakened, centralizing power within the Republican House delegation under the party leadership. For example, a six-year term limit was imposed on committee chairmanships, and a "subcommittee bill of rights" passed in the 1970s was repealed. Speaker Gingrich also bypassed the seniority system in appointing conservative loyalists to lead key committees such as Appropriations, Judiciary, and Commerce. In the Senate, changes were less substantial.
The 1994 election also marked the end of the Conservative Coalition, a bipartisan coalition of conservative Republicans and Democrats (often referred to as "boll weevil Democrats" for their association with the U.S. South), which had often managed to control Congressional outcomes since the New Deal era.
A anonymous poster wanted to know what has been going on for 4 years at the universities were a senior intelligence officer has been located.
Prior to the Republican Revolution conservative Christian Groups founded colleges and used connections to get their graduates into the federal government following the Republican Revolution.
In reponse to this a senior intelligence officer who was thrown out by the current administration has been taking classes and acting on the behalf of instructors as a defactor adjunct instructor. Students at these universities are being educated to be leaders and movers in buisiness, government and social services. During the class the students would be additional instruction on the application of information warfare, revolution, use of covert communications, along with the details of the corruption and arrogence of the Republican Leadership. Further discussions on the use of networks, contacts and analysis of information followed. These students were then introduced to national and international organizations such as Amnesty International, Students for a Democratic Society and the like. They were then introduced to the application of the internet as a command and control system which could be used to conduct global decentralized operations. These students were then turned loose on the Republicans. These students along with former and current intelligence officers then coordianted the disclosures that broke the republican hold on power.
In effect what this senior intelligence officer has done has recreate the CIA's farm where they train agents. This time on a scale that included unversities with student populations that ran to up to 40,000 students. He massed this capability and its digital and human networks against the Republicans.
From these universites with access to their computer labs, databases and knowledge of the united states intelligence system, media cycles and dirty secrets he coordianted through cutouts human agents cell phone relays and internet postings a psychological war against the republicans using the same skills he used to run and agent network through the Eastblock in Europe at the hieght of the Cold War.
People forget the enormous capability to process integrate and dissemiante data via networks that exists on universities.
Take a expert in cryptographics, irregular warfare, pysops and drop him at three univerisities and give him access to the University's communication and computer systems and you have a human intelligence and cyber counter-revolution.
The way it worked was this the Senior Intelligence officer would assess the situation and talk about how it could be handled if he had a staff. He would then do a paper on the situation and present is as course work to the teacher and class. Once all understood the situation and work groups would forma nd commuication and instructions would flow via the internet and cell phones. Targets would be identified in the Repulican Elite and data on them would be collected. During class this data would be discussed as part of comments during the lecture. The senior intelligence officer would assess the comments discuss them and then offer advice and a opinion as part of the class discussion.
Coordination with groups such as the gay rights movement for information that could be exploited would follow and then dumped to the press to keep pressure on the Republicans and expose their hypocracy.
The senior intelligence officer would cycle from university to univeristy doing the same thing.
In the end his campaing of disclosure, psychological, warfare and media manipulation was sufficient to weaken the republicans so that the democrats could take them on.
That is what happened
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 10:20 pm: |
GW Bush shoots foot, dances on one leg.
Good stuff ANON, but what's the downside? Hillary?
... start singin the Blues... Hail to the Chef...
Social Change Agents
|Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 09:11 am: |
A social network is a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes.
Social network analysis views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. Research in a number of academic fields has shown that social networks operate on many levels, from families up to the level of nations, and play a critical role in determining the way problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in achieving their goals.
In its simplest form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the lines.
From a graduate student
Couple the power of social networks to the power of modern communications and the Internet and you have a force of enormous power one capable of bringing about vast change.
Study after study has shown that within societies and within organizations there exist social and informal networks of great power. Leaders or managers often wonder why their policies or plans fail. Study after study have shown that failure to account for the power of informal social networks is the root cause of this failure.
Social change agents grasp the power of these networks and through their influence on them are able to facilitate or oppose change. These networks operate at the most basic level and involve some of the most basic primal forces in the human pyschological make up.
These networks are largely invisible, they are not like formal networks whose members carry formal titles or command great wealth. The power of these social networks is however as great or greater than the formal networks in many cases.
In the case discussed above what one man was able to do was mobilize and use the informal power of social networks to induce change at the societal level.
He did so using access to computers, students, professors, the working class, middle class, religious caste and disenfrachised. This couple to decades of training in information warfare, and planning large scale operations was brought to bear on the elites governing this nation.
The following is provided to clarify the actions of a change agent.
A change agent, or agent of change, is someone who intentionally or indirectly causes or accelerates social, cultural, or behavioral change. Because of their importance, change agents are the object of scientific research. Captology, developed at the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, for instance, systematically studies how interactive computing products can be used to influence the mind.
Numerous driving forces motivate the behaviour of change agents. An agent who is constantly adapting to new practices is often motivated to find better ways to do things. These driving forces may be external—shaped by circumstances outside the agent's control, such as the state of society or the seasons— or internal—from a desire to make change.
Progression of change
Agent looks for better ways to do things
Agent performs change
Step 1: Agent determines the need for change
Step 2: Agent forms a tentative plan for proposed change
Step 3: Agent predicts probable reactions for proposed change
Step 4: Agent decides on change
Step 5: Agent forms a timetable for performing change
Step 6: Agent performs change
Stage 1: Employee denies change
Stage 2: Employee responds with anger and resistance
Stage 3: Employee accepts and adapts to change
Stage 4: Employee becomes committed to new environment
B.J. Fogg Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2002, trade paperback 205 pages, ISBN 1-55860-643-2
Individual in positions of power who fail to recognize change agents often also fail to recognize why their policies or directives fail.
Let us briefly examine the change agent discussed above. In this case we have a direct descendent of the founding families of the United States, one who is directly tied to the Mayflower in an unbroken chain. He has served in numerous conflicts around the globe and has won the societal distinction of being a War Combat Veteran. Additionally he has won numerous honors and holds advanced education credentials. He also holds the distinction of being self made, rising from poverty to the upper middle class based on skill, hard work and initiative. His family history includes descent from the nobility of Europe, generals, and military men and women who have fought in every war this nation has had. He family was at the fore front of the abolistonist movement during the civil war and helped run the underground rail road. During the civil rights period they helped the African American community gain entrance into the civil service sector. His family has supported civil rights for all. Additionally he and his family are very tolerant of religion and active in the Christian Church. By marriage he is linked to another individual of similiar linage whose family is equally distinguished. His family members are documented to have stood, faced and conversed with Joan of Arc.
Interms of social power these two change agents, the man discussed above and his wife command vast social power. The social capital they hold is huge.
In terms of history these two individual are Social Icons of western thought, behavior and culture. They rose from the ranks of the common people and have forged social networks that strech from the ghettos to the halls of congress.
Such is the nature of the Social Change Agents that took on the establishment and republican elite from the grass roots level.
Who Rules America?
|Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 09:26 am: |
What Social Science Can Tell Us About Social Change
by G. William Domhoff
What does the social science literature have to say about social change, especially for democratic countries like the United States? There are a handful of general findings, along with some specific ones that are spelled out in the additional documents listed in the box on the right.
First, social-psychological studies of small groups show that "moral exemplars" -- those who stand outside the general consensus and at first are labeled as "extremists" -- can often be very effective, but with one important qualification: they can't be too extreme or else they will be ignored. Thus, the trick for any social change agent is to be just extreme enough to be an "effective extremist."
Second, historical case studies of social change show that a very small number of highly organized and disciplined people, drawing great energy from their strong moral beliefs and supreme confidence in their shared theoretical analysis, can have a big impact.
Third, the change agents have to understand a key difference between themselves and other people. Most people are focused on the joys, pleasures, and necessities of their everyday lives, and will not leave these routines unless those routines are disrupted, whereas change agents sacrifice their everyday lives -- family, schooling, career -- to work on social change every waking minute. This means that change agents must be patient for unexpected social circumstances to create disruption, or else find effective ways to disrupt everyday life without alienating those they wish to become supporters of their cause.
Fourth, for all the universality of the change agents' moral vision, they have to take the social structure of the given society very seriously to have any chance at all, which means they have to pay attention to the country's history, culture, and form of government. Put another way, this means they have to resist any temptation to copy the methods and plans of change agents in other countries, which was a mistake made by most American activists on the Left throughout the 20th century.
Fifth -- and this one is my own personal conclusion from reading the literature -- the next generation of change agents should take the findings of the social sciences seriously. Put another way, it is not philosophy or "Grand Theory" that will be helpful, but the application of systematic social science findings. The other ways have had their chance, and they have failed to bring about large-scale social change. This is partly another way of saying that social structure, history, group dynamics, and strategy do matter. It may sound either abstract or mundane, but in fact none of these points was taken seriously by those who relied on the likes of Moscow or Mao or Gramsci or Marcuse or Derrida or Foucault to shape their actions in the 20th century.
|Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 07:34 pm: |
Symbolic interactionism is a major sociological perspective that is influential in many areas of the discipline. It is particularly important in microsociology and sociological social psychology.
Symbolic interactionism is derived from American pragmatism and particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead, who argued that people's selves are social products, but that these selves are also purposive and creative.
Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term "symbolic interactionism" and put forward an influential summary of the perspective: people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.
Sociologists working in this tradition have researched a wide range of topics using a variety of research methods. However, the majority of interactionist research uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of (1) social interaction and/or (2) individuals' selves.
Sociological areas that have been particularly influenced by symbolic interactionism include the sociology of emotion, deviance/criminology, collective behavior/social movements, and the sociology of sex. Interactionist concepts that have gained widespread usage include definition of the situation, emotion work, impression management, looking glass self, and total institution.
Erving Goffman, although he claimed not to have been a symbolic interactionist, is recognized as one of the major contributors to the perspective.
The above is posted to put into context what occured at three major universities. Consider the following image.
A former senior intelligence officer and expert in unconventional warfare walks into a Professor's office in a suite and tie. On the suite he is wearing a retired army tie pin and intelligence corp crest. The professor and faculty have had four years in which to review the writings and assessments of the officer and know his political agenda and views. They have also watched him build networks of contacts at the university through which he recieves and transmits information as well as coordinates information warfare against the Republican administration of the current president.
The officer knows the background of the professor, his role in the 1968 demonstrations at the DNC. As he enters the office he looks at the 60's power to the people posters and stands under them. They then have a discussion on upcoming courses next semester dealing with organizing communities and groups. They also discuss the need to take pysch 100 in conjunction with organizing communities and groups. The officer then remarks on the differences between the 68 DNC protests and the 2004 RNC protests and the effectiveness of the use of the Guantanimo on the Hudson River Theme in conjunction with the protest vice the riots of 68. He then muses about the 2008 RNC convention.
The professor nods and approves his course request. He then welcomes him to the Social Work program. As he leaves the professor informs him that he also uses a Palm Pilot to transmit information from WiFi hot spots and finds it very effective.
The senior intelligence officer smiles and walks out the door.
Such is what I saw occur.
Jihadists in the Tower
|Posted on Monday, November 05, 2007 - 04:29 am: |
Jihadists in the Tower
Tuesday, 29 August 2006
by: Julia A. Seymour, March 21, 2006
In 1997, Phares said he was interviewed by CNN about terrorists infiltrating the United States. He explained that “ ‘in America, terrorists can build 90 percent of their network on a campus, using all facilities from desks, meeting rooms, fax machines, computers, and on top of it arrange to get a budget from the Student government.’ It is only the last 10 percent, the final sprint toward the actual act of terrorism, that is illegal.”
Being aware of the past infiltration through the academic community should cause alarm as well as foster change to prevent it from continuing. Despite Yale’s recent admission of a former Taliban propagandist to their student body, there is some progress being made. While the Wahabi stream of thought and power is still obstructing change where it can, many people are seeking reform.
“Academic opposition to jihad-in-residence is on the rise. Other views, unable to be expressed through existing programs, are developing in their own fields, such as homeland security studies, terrorism studies, and conflict studies,” Phares writes.
I post the above to indicate what is going on on college campuses.
Circulating on three major universities is a former senior intelligence officer, who has been building a coalition of students faculty and members of international communities. They support domocracy seperation of church and state and the NEOCON agenda. They are opposed to Jihadists, who they view as being throw backs to an unenlightened age.
They however, support freedom of religion. Under the guise of Muslim freedom to worship, some universities have opened the door for Jihadists as indicated in the article above.
In reponse to this a senior intelligence officer has been organizing a group counter to the Jihadists using university high technology, adaption of existing off the self technology and intelligence trade craft.
In the battle against Jihadists on campus a major player in counter terrorism set up shop on campus as well.
It will be interesting to see what developes over time.
|Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 09:19 pm: |
Tonnight I was walking on campus and came across the Senior Intelligence Officer that directed the operations against George Walker Bush's administration.
It was a fatefull moment for me, as I was face to face with a man whose ancestors founded this nation and spoke with Joan of Arc, Napoleon and a host of others.
Taken economic hostage by the capitalist system he fought back and destroyed the hold on power the Republicans enjoyed.
|Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 12:14 am: |
Jihadist in the Ivory Tower syndrome?
RE: Jihadists in the Tower
This is a serious threat to our intellectual security:
“Students are misinformed by their professors, who were misinformed by theirs—who were funded by the Wahabis,” wrote Phares. “If you poison the factory, you devastate the streams and blur the nation’s vision. From academia you reach the media, government, foreign policy, and eventually the military.”
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I hope top people fighting this threat to our freedoms understand what is happening here, in academia. It must be stopped, in the name of intellectual freedom and the truth. Perversion of truth is their first weapon, the bombs and human suicides, using civilian aircraft full of passengers to kill, that is secondary. They must be stopped at the gate, which is at university.
|Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2007 - 10:47 am: |
Saudi Arabia is the most 'racist' nation on Earth?
A frank report from the Middle East on treatment of women 'guest' workers in the Middle Kingdoms, BBC: Reader's views: "Gulf maid abuse" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7096733.stm
"They usually start by complaining of routine physical ailments, but after a little gentle questioning, one by one they talk about being abused sexually by the men in the family.
Getting beaten and working 18 hours a day is almost routine.
I am a Bengali-speaking Indian, so the Bangladeshi maids speak quite personally to me.
There is no way we can do anything about it. Saudi Arabia is the most starkly racist place you can have."
Just read their Koran, nothing srange there... except slavery and violation of human rights. Maybe maids should read it, some good parts like "what the right hand possesses" and low status of women, before to go over?
|Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 10:22 am: |
In violation of our human right to 'free speech'.
- why even artists are afraid to speak out against the atrocities of the 'religion of peace'.
If you lost your freedom to question, or criticize responsibly, then you lost your freedom.
Artists too frightened to tackle radical Islam
"I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”
Read it all. Next time an artist claims he is exercising his 'freedom of speech' in his outrageous radical art, remind him of this. There is nothing 'radical' is confronting those who will not kill you for your free expression.
And if that doesn't convince them, that he or she had lost their freedom of expression, show them this: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018862.php . And this list grows...
|Posted on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 07:35 pm: |
"Freedom go to Hell!"... Really? We think the opposite.
(interactive) more on hate speech, not ours
Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
Not from us... from them! What primitives, 7th century style. They can go to hell, with all their hatreds of the rest of humanity. Hate speech? Ask them! This hatred is not our problem, but theirs, a crime against humanity of the 21st century. And so what are 'moderate' Muslims doing about this? Pretty much nothing. Why? Are they afraid of their own? Or is it because 'so it is written'? That is the question of the 21st century.
PS: Is this 'hate speech'?
Consider the following, shocking to politically-correct Infidels (non-Muslims), but common knowledge and acceptable to Muslims:
1. Muslims must instill terror into non-Muslims (Koran 8:12) as Mohammed said, "I've been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4:52:220).
2. Non-Muslims (Infidels) are sworn enemies (inveterate foes) of Muslims and Islam. (Koran 4:101)
3. Muslims' have the holy right, authority, and requirement to kill non-Muslims. (Koran 9:5 - known as the "Verse of the Sword").
4. Infidels (non-Muslims) are forbidden from killing Muslims (Koran 4:92).
5. Muslims are forbidden from having non-Muslims as friends. (Koran 5:51).
6. Muslims offer non-Muslims 3 choices regarding religion (Koran 9:29): 1. convert 2. die 3. be persecuted as 2nd class citizens (Dhimmis) and pay extortion tax (Jizya).
7. Muslims can lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Taqiyya (Koran 3:28, 16:106).
8. Muslims can omit the truth to non-Muslims to advance Islam and this is called Kitman.
9. Muslims believe they are the best (Koran 3:110) and non-Muslims are the vilest of creatures and deserve NO mercy (Koran 98:6).
10. 9/11 was justified by the "Kill AND be killed for Allah verse" (Koran 9:111).
11. Mohammed (51) married his favorite wife Aisha at 6. The marriage was consummated when he was 54 and she was 9.
12. Muslim men can marry anyone, up to 4 wives. Muslim women must ONLY marry Muslim men (4:3) thereby ensuring Islam does not weaken.
13. Only Mohammed had permission from Allah to marry as many wives as he wanted to (Koran 33:50).
14. Allah ordered Mohammed to marry his beautiful daughter-in-law called Zaynab bint Jahsh (Koran 33:37), yet cursed his aunt and uncle to hell (Koran entire Chapter 111).
15. Marriage AND divorce to pre-pubescent girls (not yet having 1st menstruation) is OK. (Koran 65:4)
16. Sex Slaves (concubines) were, and are today, legal in Islam (Koran 4:23-24).
17. Domestic Violence is OK, not husband beating, but only wife beating and sex slave beating, (Koran 4:34).
Chapter 4 is called Women and goes into great detail about how women and girls should be treated and mistreated.
18. To prove rape in Islamic law or Sharia law, Muslim females need four male Muslim witnesses in good standing (Koran 24:13).
Note: non-Muslims under Sharia (Islamic) law can't even accuse Muslims of any crimes.
19. Islamic heaven is an unlimited whorehouse of regenerating virgins (Koran 37:40-48, 44:51-55, 52:17-20, 55:56-58, 70-77, 56:7-40, and 78:31).
20. Islamic heaven also allows sodomy of young boys (Koran 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19).
21. Beheading is OK (Koran 47:4, 8:12) Mohammed personally help behead between 600 - 900 Qurayza Jews in Medina in 627 A.D. in one day.
22. Robbery and Theft of non-Muslim property is OK (The entire Chapter 8 of the Koran is known as Booty or Spoils).
23. Muslims that leave Islam (apostacy) MUST be killed. (Bukhari 4:52:260) Quoting Mohammed: "...if a Muslim discards his religion, kill him."
24. Mohammed is considered the ideal man to be imitated by Muslims, yet sinful. (Qur'an 47:21 and Qur'an 110)
25. The Koran has 114 Chapters called Surahs and is not presented in chronological order, but chapter length order, from longest (Chapter 1) to shortest (Chapter 114).
26. Many verses in the Koran conflict, so the concept of abrogation (Koran 2:106) applies. This means, later occurring verses make cancel out the earlier verses.
AGAIN: earlier verses may be in a later chapter as the chapters are not presented in chronological order, but in order of size, larger to smaller.
27. The last chapter written in the Koran, Chapter 9, is extremely violent. It is also the only chapter of 114 that does not start off with the blessing "In the name of G*d, the Compassionate, the Merciful."
28. Muslims are forbidden from doubting that the Koran is the actual word of Allah, "This book is not to be doubted." (Koran 2:1)
29. There are more than 100 verses in the Koran urging Muslims to make war against non-Muslims.
30. Even man's best friend (dogs) aren't safe in Islam, as Mohammed had many killed because the "angel Gabriel" didn't enter houses with dogs and/or pictures. (Bukhari 4:448)
For more non-PC information about Islam, please see Robert Spencer's jihadwatch.org
|Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 09:26 pm: |
Hurriyya and freedom, article by Andrew G. Bostom, in the American Thinker.
"The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law."
Hurriyya and the uniquely Western concept of freedom are completely at odds. Hurriyya "freedom" - as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized "Greatest Sufi Master", expressed it - "being perfect slavery." And this conception is not merely confined to the Sufis' perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the "master" and his human "slaves."
An individual Muslim, "...was expected to consider subordination of his own freedom to the beliefs, morality and customs of the group as the only proper course of behavior..."
Thus politically, Rosenthal concludes,
"...the individual was not expected to exercise any free choice as to how he wished to be governed...In general, ...governmental authority admitted of no participation of the individual as such, who therefore did not possess any real freedom vis a vis it."
Slavery per hurriyya becomes freedom? As per Ibn Arabi above, "Hurriyya "freedom" -- "being perfect slavery."" But not to a free people. The next war will once again be fought to liberate humanity from slavery, but this time it will be to liberate humanity from hurriyya. Same difference, fight against same despotism, same totalitarianism, same slavery.
The 19th century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt referred to Islam as a despotic (or in 20th century parlance, totalitarian) ideology, the Caliphate being "practically from the outset a despotism," and the Ottoman incarnation of this system exhibiting a "peculiar steadfastness." He explained the (Koranic) origins of this despotic system which fused immutably the religious and the temporal:
"All religions are exclusive, but Islam is quite notably so, and immediately it developed into a state which seemed to be all of a piece with the religion. The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law. Its statutes embrace all areas of life...and remain set and rigid; ...This is the power of Islam in itself. At the same time, the form of the world empire as well as of the states gradually detaching themselves from it cannot be anything but a despotic monarchy. The very reason and excuse for existence, the holy war, and the possible world conquest, do not brook any other form."
And Burckhardt cited as the "strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam," the legacy of Islamic realms having
"...been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it [Islam]. It [Islam] accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed [emphasis in original] of their past."
Despotism by any other name is still despotism, and hurriyya does not mean freedom.
Thomas Jefferson swore upon the altar of God:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." The war to liberate the human mind never ends, and never will end until all despotism is put down forever.
|Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 09:28 am: |
Amina and Sara Said Murdered by dishonorable father.
Why are the women's groups not rioting in the streets? Why the silence?
Read all the commentary.
|Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 01:53 pm: |
Two Down Syndrome women used to detonate by remote suicide bombs in crowded Baghdad market place.
Women after the horror
Al Qaeda use two Down's syndrome women to blow up 73 people in Baghdad markets
Al Qaeda fanatics plumbed sickening new depths yesterday when they turned two women with Down's syndrome into human bombs to kill 70 people in Baghdad.
The unwitting pawns were apparently fooled into wearing explosive vests which were then detonated remotely by mobile phones as the women mingled with crowds.
The two blasts caused carnage at two busy markets in the Iraqi capital's deadliest atrocity since last spring.
There is a lengthy discussion on this heinous act of heartless horror by jihadists on Jihadwatch:
Read it all. "Oh the horror, the horror."
What about the two women's with Downs Syndrome? What about their human rights?
|Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 07:42 pm: |
Sign the petition for young journalist in Afghanistan sentenced to death for protesting loss of human rights for women in his country: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared -to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html
Sign and pass it on, please. CC
|Posted on Sunday, June 01, 2008 - 10:43 am: |
TIME CAPSULE RELIGION
Any religion is a time capsule of what people believed when it established thousands of years ago.
People lived in fear and superstition then as now, but scientific understanding dispeled most of it.
Human rights dispels most of the abuses of man against man, espeicially of man against woman.
The worst of ancient fears and superstitions is fear and abuse of animals.
They are defenseless against our power over them, we must love them.
For any religion trapped in its time capsule to hate any animal, but especially dogs or pigs, both very intelligent and loving animals, is trapped inside that time capsule of thousand years ago.
Hatred of anything, except hatred itself, is locked in a time capsule of fear and ignorant superstitions.
A religion of hate is against our human rights, children's rights, women's rights, and animal rights.
A cult of fear and hate is not religion, not then, not now, but falls into "cult mentality" stuck in time.
The religion that killed men's lives for thousand years, taking women and children slaves, and fears animals, does not mean peace.
Rho, Greek letter, does not mean ROH "religion of hate." Add Chi, makes a "religion of love and peace."