On the History of Once and Future Wars. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » On the History of Once and Future Wars. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 11:00 am:   

On the History of Once and Future Wars.

What better place to write history than now, today, to determine the victors? They say history is biased by the victors. Let it be biased, because we will write who they the victors are, and the history remembered of past events will be determined by the present into the future. What we think and do, and write, today will determine what will happen tomorrow. So this is a discussion dedicated to the future of war. Will it be defined by human understanding and truths, or will it be defined by failures and conflicts? War had been with us from time unremembered, and still it persists today. To those who accuse historians of distorting human events, we will answer that we are the writers, and they the humans who bring events. In the end we will see, can they, or us, conquer war?

What better place to start than with today? So here is a speech by General Casey, US Army Chief of Staff. He speaks the Army Family.
"Soldiers, civilians and families of the United States Army,

I am extremely proud to be taking charge of an organization that is rightly regarded as the best in the world. I have watched the men and women of our Army in action for the past several years in the most demanding combat environment. I am proud of the courage, competence and commitment of our Soldiers and civilians both to the ideals that made this country great and to making a difference in our world. You epitomize what is best about America. You and your families carry a heavy burden in today's war, with a hard road ahead. Your willingness to sacrifice to build a better future for others and to preserve our way of life is a great strength of our nation. In every generation, when faced with difficult challenges, Americans have risen to the occasion. Today, such heroes fill the Army's ranks. It is your efforts that will make victory possible.

We are locked in a war against a global extremist network that is fixed on defeating the United States and destroying our way of life. This foe will not go away nor will they give up easily, and the next decade will likely be one of persistent conflict. We are engaged in a long war.

At stake are the power of our values and our civilization, exemplified by the promise of America, to confront and defeat the menace of extremist terrorists. At stake is whether the authority of those who treasure the rights of free individuals will stand firm against the ruthless and pitiless men who wantonly slay the defenseless. At stake is whether the future will be framed by the individual freedoms we hold so dear or dominated by a demented form of extremism. At stake is whether we will continue to expand freedom, opportunity and decency for those who thirst for it, or let fall the darkness of extremism and terror.

We have been at war for over five years, fighting for our freedom, our security and our future as a nation. We have made hard sacrifices. There will be more. Faced with such a long and difficult struggle, it is useful to remind ourselves that the Army exists to field forces for victory. We are in this war to win. We have fought this way since 1775. We always will.

As Soldiers, we will lead the nation to victory over this enemy. Our combat veterans know well the meaning of "Army Strong." They have been "baptized in fire and blood, and they have come out as steel." That steel endures. Our Warrior Ethos has it right:
- I will always place the mission first.
- I will never quit.
- I will never accept defeat.
- I will never leave a fallen comrade.

Seldom in our history have Soldiers faced greater challenges. We serve at a time when the stakes for our nation and our way of life are high, and the demands on our force significant. We will continue to reflect the very best of our nation by defeating the enemies of freedom and the proponents of terror, by defending our homeland and by assisting our nation to build a better future for coming generations.

I could not be more proud to be a Soldier today and to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and your families during this time of great danger and uncertainty. Together we are, and always will be, ARMY STRONG."


George W. Casey, Jr.
General, U.S. Army
Chief of Staff

Let us fight for our freedoms, while the enemy will fight to take our freedoms away from us. Our freedoms are hard won, and those who fight for it, our men and women with courage, will place their mission first, to preserve them into the future of our children and their children, for all history. We are the righteous who pursue freedom for all humanity, and though the enemy brought this fight to our doorstep, it will be our doing to bring humanity's freedom to theirs. There is no bargaining on how the future will look for our humanity, for we will be free.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 01:22 pm:   

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1647618.ece

The above link was found in the article referred to by Ivan on the right column. I quote:
===
“This recognises that our forces are stretched. There’s no question about that,” Mr Gates said. But he said that there was no way to orchestrate the “surge” of an additional 21,000 troops into Iraq and still give soldiers a clear 12-month break between tours of duty.

... Senator John Warner, a former Navy Secretary and one of the party’s most respected elder statesmen, said: “I feel strongly that we must carefully monitor the possible risks to the [all-volunteer] system that these extensions may generate.”
===

Let me put in my words one 'Thirukkural' - a great Tamil literature that has 1,330 couplets. What follows is the meaning of just one couplet.
===
The bullock cart has a very strong axle. In contrast the peacock feather is very light. Still the axle would break if we continue loading the cart with peacock feathers without limit.
===

The Iraq war was started on false excuses. It does not seem to be going in the right direction. Should we persist in a folly? Is it not wise to own up our mistake in attacking Iraq and withdraw?

I wonder what would be the stand of Gen. Casey once he is free of the duty and discipline of the Armed Forces.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 02:45 pm:   

Will the Iraqis find their true path to freedom if American and Allied forces were to withdraw suddenly without having accomplished their mission? That is the great unknown of history being written today. Who should determine their fate? We, or the Iraqi people? But if the Iraqi nation is weakened by the enemies of freedom with persistent and heinously inhuman violence, some of whom are foreigners with their own agenda, then should we help them? That is the conundrum faced in Iraq today. Who will write their history, Mohideen? Power of will, desire for freedom, or appeasement to those who wish them to remain under tyranny? Was it right to have deposed an evil dictator and his even more evil sons? What kind of legacy will this deposing leave in Iraq? Are the people desirous of freedom, or do they prefer oppression? And what are our responsibillities to their desires? Should we help them? Or do we leave them like fallen comrades in battle? But we don't leave our comrades, do we?

Yes, we must pull out of Iraq, and leave their destiny to themselves, since the war's mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, along with any 'safe havens' for those who would work terror to bring back their own form of tyranny, religious extremistic or otherwise. But do we do a stupidly wrong and cowardly thing, and abandon them as fallen in battle? The Iraqi people have suffered greatly by the doings of their religious fanatics who suicidally kill. Do we turn our back on them? No. We must pursue that evil empire on all fronts, including Iraq, until the freedom loving Iraqi people, those who we all agree are not different in their desire for freedom than we are, and pursue those who are evil until they are vanquished. Do we do this stupidly, when there is no chance of our changing the hearts and souls of the evil empire?

Why not give it a short time more, fulfill our duties begun, help the Iraqis who desire freedom to have a fighting chance at winning? Then, if this battle is turning out wrong, despite ours and their best efforts, then withdraw in a disciplined manner, not in a route, and regroup to fight them on another day, another front, for their viciousness knows no bounds. As Casey said, it will be a very long war. But fighting evil is a long war, is it not? And religious evil that knows no bounds to its violence and cause for suffering is the most difficult to fight. Ours is not to run from this battle, but to pursue it to the ends of the Earth. This is how history will be made, when we are victorious and evil is vanquished. Freedom will win.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 02:50 pm:   

BTW, Mohideen, please answer this question. Do you have a sinister insinuation in your words above?

quote:

I wonder what would be the stand of Gen. Casey once he is free of the duty and discipline of the Armed Forces.


Are you implying that Gen. Casey is practicing deceit, in that his support for this Iraq war brought to finality is only an expedience of the moment, because he is in charge? Or is his position because he believes in his words spoken to the families of the US Army, that he believes in freedom? Which is it Mohideen, in your words above? Please explain, or else that line and post will be deleted, since it implies Casey is dishonest. Please explain. Thank you.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 10:41 pm:   

it implies Casey is dishonest
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 02:50 pm: Ivan


Casey is not dishonest. The founder of Budhdhism - Gautama Budhdha won a war; then he reflected on that war and concluded that attachment to worldly goods was the root of evil and founded Budhdhism. Was Budhdha dishonest when he led his troops to victory? When he led his troops to victory all his concentration was on winning the war.

Likewise Gen. Casey is 100% honest in claiming that he is, and we are "ARMY STRONG."

Remember we are talking about 'future history.' I expect a similar change of outlook in Casey as was in Budhdha.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 10:47 pm:   

Ours is not to run from this battle, but to pursue it to the ends of the Earth.
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 02:45 pm: Ivan


Tactical withdrawal is not running from the battle. This Iraq war was started on false premises and is tainted because of that. When we withdraw from a tainted war we are demonstrating our higher morals and not running from battle.

As regards Muslim war mongers if and when they attack us or even attempt to attack us we shall retaliate with full force, conviction, justice, and moral on our side. Then victory would be ours, not when continuing a tainted war.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 11:16 pm:   

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/11152.htm
===
In his sermon, translated by Palestinian Media Watch, Radwan said it was important to "remind our Arab and Muslim nation, its leaders and people, its scholars and students, that Palestine and the Al Aqsa mosque will not be liberated through summits nor by international resolutions, but it will be liberated through the rifle."
===

The Muslims believe that the Jews would hide behind the rocks and the trees to escape the smell of the body of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him. This is expected after the descent of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him. Now we call those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah as Christians. By that reasoning, the people who would hunt the hiding Jews to kill them follow the orders of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him. Who are they: Christias or Muslims?

When Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would descend from Heaven is known to God alone. There is no point in fighting over a future incident which might happen tomorrow or might even be millions of years away.

Peace is achieved by living under the current circumstances and establishing justice today.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 08:03 am:   

Casey is not dishonest.
Posted on Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 10:41 pm: Mohideen Ibramsha


Was Robert McNamara dishonest?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070414/cm_huffpost/045854
===
Robert McNamara went to the World Bank after directing the Vietnam war which, he later admitted, he knew at the time the U.S. could not win.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 10:43 am:   

Muslims would fight over fairytales?

Come on, Mohideen, act like a modern sensible human, not some primitive 7th century superstitious desert Arab. When you write:

quote:

When Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would descend from Heaven is known to God alone. There is no point in fighting over a future incident which might happen tomorrow or might even be millions of years away.


Do you really expect that anyone should fight over such gibberish drivel? Why would anyone fight over a fairytale? Get real.

Your response to my question on Gen. Casey was good, in that you expressed a 'personal opinion' on his future thoughts. Naturally, that is not how it read, which expressed that he is 'not free' in his duty to think as he does. I object to this line of reasoning, and bringing in Buddha or McNamara does not in any way reflect the freedom Casey has in pursuing battle to preserve our freedoms. Your statement was explicit: "I wonder what would be the stand of Gen. Casey once he is free of the duty and discipline of the Armed Forces." It's the 'once free of duty' that implies he is not sincere in his statement while on duty. How can you justify such an assumption on your part? By what evidence?

As far as hunting Jews or Christian because of the 'smell of the body of Prophet Jesus' is concerned, there is nothing in what you say that even begins to approximate sanity. First of all, many people of this world believe Jesus was not a prophet but the Messiah. However, this discussion should continue on the Religious Dialogue thread, not here. So I agree with yours: "There is no point in fighting over a future incident which might happen tomorrow or might even be millions of years away." Or how about it is never to happen? It's all fairytales, and if you wish to believe in such, and then propose actions based on such beliefs, they are totally your own. To act on killing Jews and anyone on such fairytales may get you off by claiming insanity. No sane and reasonable man would ever act on such sickening gibberish.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 12:34 pm:   

Is war really about defending our perception of freedom from those who have a different perception of freedom?

If so can there be compromise? It is apparent from what I read above about Jesus and Jews and the "dishonesty" of U.S. government and military commanders, that a difference in perceptions is to blame.

Mohideen you are right. Jesus will not return for at least 4.5 billion years (when the sun burns out) :-). And as far as U.S. military commanders being honest . . . well lets just say all leaders (of countries) have agendas and most times military commanders have to bend to fit into those agenda.

Ivan you are right, we may not be able to pull out of Iraq because of the mess WE created! Mohideen is right, the war was started and tainted because GW Bush had an agenda.

So WHO is wrong in this situation?!! Why haven't we (peace lovers on both sides) placed blame, found these culprits and brought them to justice? Do we fear the collapse that might follow making wholesale changes to our current political, religious, and governmental systems? Of course we do. We fear economic collapse. We fear invasion from others if we weaken our government and military. We fear anarchy. We fear change. Thus we do nothing. Thus WE ARE the culprits. Whether we are the educated or the ignorant. WE ARE the culprits, and this long drawn out war is the JUSTICE that we must face, for we have brought it down upon ourselves with inaction, apathy, and ignorance.


Naive


P.S. Mohideen the common people can be galvanized once they decide to give up archaic patterns of thought and ritual. That requires education and an independent sense of freedom, ethics, and morality. This is not a jab at your faith, but ask yourself how much harder it would be to inspire people who follow ritual and words in religious text zealously. Furthermore, the perception of ideals cannot come from holy books (in other words faith based logic), because those who follow will then fall right back into the trap of dogmatic behavior. They will be FOLLOWERS.

I believe citizens earn the right to be citizens through some type of civic duty. We have abandoned rites of passage which usually taught an individual the value of earning a place in society. People who feel like they have earned their spot on the team, usually care more about the team. This is the problem here. People feel entitled and are thus apathetic in terms of punishing corruption as long as it doesn't affect them. We need some new means (not a ritual) to make people feel responsible to and for the actions of their government (which does act in their name).

Those are 2 means of galvanizing the common folk, but they would take time. Usually some charismatic leader appears and the ignorant follow. That has been the general, and most effective short term pattern for galvanizing common folk. But alas it is also the most short lived.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 02:54 pm:   


quote:

Is war really about defending our perception of freedom from those who have a different perception of freedom?



Wars are for men to power over men. Think how different a war when men fight so that men cannot power over men. That, I think, is the difference between war for conquest and war for freedom. Not a different perception of freedom, but a different perception of the right to defend our freedoms from conquest, from those who would power over us, to take freedom away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 02:24 pm:   

People who feel like they have earned their spot on the team, usually care more about the team. This is the problem here.
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 12:34 pm: Naive


Unfortunately birth seems to be sufficient to become a citizen. In US it is worse. An immigrant becomes a permanent resident; a permanent resident becomes a citizen. Such a citizen can become a Governor of a state but is not qualified to become the President of America.

If we desire that a citizen feels like a member of a team we should abandon the practice of granting citizenship on the basis of birth. How many would approve such a move?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 02:44 pm:   

To act on killing Jews and anyone ...
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 10:43 am: Ivan


There is absolutely no justification to kill anyone now on the basis of the belief that Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would descend and then in his reign the Jews would be killed before his descent has actually occured.

If any Muslim recommends the killing of any person on the strength of a future event before that event has taken place he or she commits the gravest sin in Islam. A life could be taken only by due process of law for a crime already committed by the guilty who gets killed because of that crime.

Future is known to God alone and none else. Since Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last prophet none could know the future after him. This is violated by Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, after his descent as he would be a prophet. Until then the predictions made are just extrapolations of past. Such predictions might turn out to be true but there is no guarantee.

All predictions are just approximations of the future. The approximation of one might be closer to that of another after the prediction's time has passed. No action could be taken on the basis of a prediction.

This is one reason why the war on Iraq was wrong. The war on Iraq was started on the presumption that Iraq would attack and we started a pre-emptive war. We are in a mess may be probably because we started a pre-emptive war.

Let me repeat there is no justification to kill a Jew just because he or she happens to be Jew.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 03:02 pm:   

We venture a suggestion on the basis of the following two quotes.

Quote 1:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/war.czar/
===
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House aides, with U.S. President George W. Bush's blessing, are actively trying to hire a new point person to help pilot the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an administration official told CNN.

"There's an urgency to get this done," the official said, in referring to the administration's new security plan for Iraq. "Implementation and execution are critical now."

The "war czar" would report directly to Bush with the power to tell Cabinet secretaries what to do -- and yet have the diplomatic skills not "to use that tone of voice," the official said.

... The official title would be assistant to the president for Iraq and Afghanistan policy implementation, the official added. The idea behind the post is to make sure "Washington is responsive to military and civilian needs" on a timely basis and reduce bureaucratic problems that have hampered war efforts, the official said.

Pressed on why the new position is being created now, after more than five years of war in Afghanistan and four years in Iraq, the official acknowledged that "implementation and execution is as important" as "policy development."
===

Quote 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/washington/16bank.html?ref=business
===
Officially, Mr. Wolfowitz and the bank are now to wait for a full report by the bank’s board on his leadership and charges of favoritism in dealing with Ms. Riza, who was employed at the bank until 2005. But bank officials said that in delaying a finding, the board seemed to be buying time for Mr. Wolfowitz to consider resigning.
===

Mr. Wolfowitz was one of the architects of the Iraq war. Under the circumstances President Bush should invite the current World Bank President Wolfowitz to take up the responsibility of 'War Czar.' We know that President Bush has confidence in Mr. Wolfowitz.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 08:51 am:   

3255%2Cft.html,http://biznes.onet.pl/14,1405259,,3255,ft.html
===
The US position will be critical. It has voiced its “full support” for Mr Wolfowitz and is determined not to let staff protests and newspaper leaks run him out of the bank.

While it is in Mr Bush’s power to stop anyone else from driving Mr Wolfowitz out, it is not in Mr Bush’s gift to give him a manageable institution to run.

If this becomes a domestic political issue – which it need not do, as Mr Wolfowitz is not a member of the administration – the White House will almost certainly refuse to let him go, regardless of the cost to the bank itself. If it does not, and the turmoil at the bank continues unabated, the US will have to decide whether at some point to whisper in Mr Wolfowitz’s ear that the game is up.

Much will rest on the counsel of Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state.
===

When would the US whisper?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 11:39 am:   

Turkish ruling party warns army
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6603377.stm


quote:

The army, which led coups in the past, said it was concerned by the party's choice of presidential candidate.

Mr Cicek said any army intervention was "inconceivable in a democratic state".
...
The European Union earlier warned the army not to interfere in politics, saying the controversy was a test case for the military to respect democracy.


But what if this 'democratic' process interferes with secular freedoms in order to establish a religious theocracy? Then is this not self-canceling to warn the army to not interfere with the politics that undermine human freedoms? Why is the EU even involved in Turkey's internal affairs? No, it is not inconceivable for the army to protect its right to safeguard secular freedoms if these freedoms are being undermined by religious fundamentalists who want to impose Sharia. In fact, it is their duty to protect society's freedoms from such a 'democratic' process, if the process is committing 'social suicide' where freedom is lost.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:54 am:   

In fact, it is their duty to protect society's freedoms from such a 'democratic' process, if the process is committing 'social suicide' where freedom is lost.
Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 11:39 am: Ivan


The Turkish government has effectively deflected the army's reason for intervention by suggesting a change in the constitution to get the President elected by the people.

If - for argument's sake - the people elect Gul as President would the army intervene? Should it?

Let me say this: In 1965 when we as students agitated against the imposition of Hindi, the then Congress Government used its force to break-up the strike. The result: Congress is yet to form government in Tamilnadu.

If any army goes against the people, eventually that very army would either be transformed or be destroyed. We hope that the Turkish Army and her supporters would not be foolish to challenge the people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:04 am:   


quote:

If any army goes against the people, eventually that very army would either be transformed or be destroyed. We hope that the Turkish Army and her supporters would not be foolish to challenge the people.


No, they would not "go against the people", but rather would support the people's right to be free of religious oppression and slef serving corrupting powers. Freedom can be undone democratically, hence Hitler rose to power through a vote, but once freedom is gone, it is very hard, and often bloody, to get it back. If the democratic process in Turkey destroys its own freedom to hold elections, what had they gained? Nothing. If that is the risk to society, then the military and police have the right to safeguard the public interest, to not self destruct and lose its freedoms. Education here is more important than guns, but in Turkey's specific condition, there is a competing ideology of government that wants to impose religious Sharia law, what they imagine in their simple minded ideas that it is God's word, rather than finding agreement democratically to rule themselves as a free people. Once they fall under the spell of religious fanaticism, they will be lost. Most of the voters are simple peasants from the country who believe whatever their religious masters tell them, while most who are secularists are educated people of a different strata of society. How does one leak such desire for freedom to the masses who obey the masters? That, I think, is the greatest challenge to modern Turkey. Can it remain modern, or will it regress back to a Taliban like society of the first millennium? What happened in Afghanistan? What happened in Iran today? Turkey is watching, and their military do not want to have to fight their own people to avoid such primitive regressions for their society. No, Mohideen is wrong. The army would not be destroyed by the people if it safeguards their freedoms. Rather, they will thank them when the religious theocratic oppressors are vaquished, and their freedoms are ensured.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 09:53 am:   

Iran deports thousands of Afghans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6615585.stm


quote:

Iran says it has collected 50,000 Afghans for deportation, and argues it is the right of every country to send home illegal workers.



Could this be Europe's 'final solution' to its agitating criminally inclined new immigrants? If Iran can do it, why can't they? Mass deportations of 'undesirables' had occurred in the past. It's a heartless thing, but no society can long survive if it allows its social predators reign. Multiculturalism must take that into account, or else the consequences will be dealt with more painfully in the future, when civil war results.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:10 am:   

Most of the voters are simple peasants from the country who believe whatever their religious masters tell them, while most who are secularists are educated people of a different strata of society.
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:04 am: Ivan


The above statement clearly illustrates the dilemma the turkish military faces. The masses are not educated. The military possibly accepts educated only in its cadres - I do not know - I presume. The media by its very nature is of the educated, for the educated and by the educated. So what was and is happening in many countries with less than 50% literacy is that two or more elite groups compete for power duping the uneducated majority.

Decades back in India, the poor were offered financial rewards for a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Their votes were bought. In the most advanced democracy in USA the votes are not bought but through perception management the votes are steered the right way. That was what happened in 2004. Ed saw through the game and ensured that such perception management does not succeed in 2006. Coming back to Turkey the real solution - as Ivan recommends - is education.

Unfortunately education takes generations to change society. However democracy is short on patience. So if the current Turkish government succeeds in its attempt - say perceived attempt - to annul Attaturk and bring a different form of government, either the Turkish military accepts that or there would be bloodshed.

Another development is much more worrying than the struggle inside Turkey.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070508/65086382.html
===
MOSCOW REGION, May 8 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Strategic Missile Forces will complete the deployment of silo-based Topol-M ICBMs by 2010, the SMF commander in chief said Tuesday.

"Alongside the deployment of Topol-M mobile complexes, we are planning to finalize the deployment of fixed-site Topol-M systems by 2010," Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said.

... Gen. Baluyevsky also said Russia does not intend to use the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty to provide an asymmetric response to U.S. missile shield plans.

"If someone thinks Russia's position on American missile defense and the CFE are linked, they are wrong," he told a briefing in Moscow.

He said Russia could respond with less expensive options, adding that the missile defense program was onerous even for the American budget.

He said Moscow will respond without fail if it sees missile defense as a threat to its national interests.

"Exactly what measures will be taken is a technical matter," he said.

Gen. Baluyevsky said should it break out, a new "Cold War" would set U.S.-Russian relations back 50 years, adding it is vital to prevent such a situation.
===

If the current Bush administration restarts the cold war we can as well write off the UN.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:19 am:   

Could this be Europe's 'final solution' to its agitating criminally inclined new immigrants?
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 09:53 am: Ivan


No. Illegal workers could be deported, not unintegrated immigrants. These two - illegal workers and immigrants clinging to their old way of life - are very different entities.

Europe's problem is with her immigrants. Europe should not adopt the Iranian solution.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 01:51 pm:   

When would the US whisper?
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 08:51 am: Mohideen Ibramsha


We think the time to whisper has arrived. The US got estranged with Europe when it launched the Iraq war. We are given to understand that France and Germany went along with the US decision to appoint Wolfowitz as World Bank chair to mend their estranged relations with US. Now virtually all seem to be looking forward to Wolfowitz leaving the World Bank.

If President Bush and VP Cheney are indeed friends of Wolfowitz they should invite him to become the War Czar before the Board of Directors of the World Bank meet to decide. If they invite him now to become the War Czar it would not look as 'face saving.' Further as the Europeans now agree for US to nominate the replacement for Wolfowitz Bush would not draw a blank as he did with 'War Czar.' See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08wolfowitz.html?_r=1&ref=business& oref=slogin for details of the deal offered by Europe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 06:42 pm:   

THE INTERNET'S ROLE IN FORT DIX PLOT

Where is the countervailing message from Islam on the Internet?," he asked. "They aren't going to believe anything we in the West have to say. It has to come from Islam."

http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2007/05/the_internets_r.html

Here an alliance of free men and women bound by the Constitution of the United States, lead by decendents of the founding families, whose linage goes back to the dawn of Christianity raised a banner in opposition to the Jihadists.

One master tactician gifted by analytic brillience opposed the game masters and tacticians of Al Qeada, prediction by prediction while exposing the deceptions of the current administration.

Here the voice, a whisper in the dark of moderate Islam that opposes the Jihadists is given freedom to speak. Do we agree with that voice's views, no. But we can agree to disagree and argue in peace with no bombs.

Here starts the opposition to the Jihadists, not on Jihad Watch or a dozen other such sites. A safe place has been given to voices in opposition. The anti-Jihadist voices are weak and whispers in the dark now, but will grow over time. The Internet binds them. Learn from the Alliance of Patriots and the ancient families of Christianity with regards to what is possible to do within the confines of a secular state with seperation of church and state.

Anon Anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:31 am:   


quote:

Could this be Europe's 'final solution' to its agitating criminally inclined new immigrants?
Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 09:53 am: Ivan


No. Illegal workers could be deported, not unintegrated immigrants. These two - illegal workers and immigrants clinging to their old way of life - are very different entities.

Europe's problem is with her immigrants. Europe should not adopt the Iranian solution.


Posted by Mohideen, Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:19 am:

Here was my full quote:

quote:

Could this be Europe's 'final solution' to its agitating criminally inclined new immigrants? If Iran can do it, why can't they? Mass deportations of 'undesirables' had occurred in the past. It's a heartless thing, but no society can long survive if it allows its social predators reign. Multiculturalism must take that into account, or else the consequences will be dealt with more painfully in the future, when civil war results.


The emphasis added is the 'criminally inclined' portion of the statement, not whether or not the immigrants were integrated into European society. Europe's social consciousness is large and generous enough to accomodate the sons and daughters of their unassimilated parent immigrants. But when these children of immigrants turn against their adopted country, such as we saw in recent riots, and loot and burn cars, or otherwise attack European citizens from Norway to Italy, then they are not merely 'unassimilated', but actually criminal hostiles. It is these criminal acting out immigrants who should be expelled, en masse, without any regrets. Their parents were given a chance, and their children respond with criminal acts, or some insipient maladjusted mentally retarted jihad, then they can go.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:11 pm:   

It is these criminal acting out immigrants who should be expelled, en masse, without any regrets.
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:31 am: Ivan


Iran is expelling illegal immigrants and thus they could be deported to their country of origin.

As regards temporary workers they simply have to return to the country of their origin once the temporary visa expires. The problem is with the permanent residents and citizens. Even in the case of permanent residents there could be some justification in cancelling their permanent residency and thus they should return to the country that issued them passports. However once a person becomes a citizen of one country, often the other country withdraws the citizenship. Such citizens - immigrant citizens - must remain within the territory of the country of their current citizenship. As regards those who are citizens by birth they also need to remain within the territory of the country of their birth.

Historically the undesirables from Britain were sent to Australia. Then Australia was under the control of the British and they were actually transferred from one part of their country to another part. The British criminals were not sent to non-British territory.

Likewise Europe or any other country is free to carve out some space exclusively for the criminals and restrain them inside that carved out space.

We have no objection to the action taken by a country with respect to her criminal citizens as long as they do not become the burden of another country.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:35 pm:   


quote:

Even in the case of permanent residents there could be some justification in cancelling their permanent residency and thus they should return to the country that issued them passports. However once a person becomes a citizen of one country, often the other country withdraws the citizenship. Such citizens - immigrant citizens - must remain within the territory of the country of their current citizenship.


Not necessarily true. There can be cases so undesirable to society that citizenship is stripped away, no voting rights, no right to legal recourse, and the criminals are either imprisoned for life, or sent out of the country. In the case of recently arrived immigrant families that have spawned odious offsprings who want to hurt and blow up people for their illbegotten political-religious causes, they can be sent back to their countries of origin. First choice is either imprisonment or forced emmigration, second choice is some God foresaken land in the Arctic circle, like outer Siberia. These had been done historically, so no reason why Europe cannot do it again. Knowing European mentality, I think they had shown immense restraint to not have done this already!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:07 am:   

First choice is either imprisonment or forced emmigration, second choice is some God foresaken land in the Arctic circle, like outer Siberia.
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:35 pm: Ivan


Is outer Siberia without a government?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Tomsk,_Siberia_(Government)
===
TOMSK, a government of western Siberia, extending from the Chinese frontier northwards to 6° N., and bounded by the government of Tobolsk on the N.W., by Yeniseisk on the N.E. and E., by north-western Mongolia on the S.E. and by the province of Semipalatinsk on the S. and W. Its area, 327,284 sq. m., is more than one and a half times that of France.
===

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Yeniseisk,_Siberia_(Government)
===
YENISEISK, a government of E. Siberia, extending from the Chinese frontier to the shores of the Arctic Ocean, with an area of 986,908 sq. m. It has the governments of Tobolsk and Tomsk on the W., Yakutsk and Irkutsk on the E., N.W. Mongolia on the S. and the Arctic Ocean on the N. Its southern extremity being in 51° 45' N. and its northern (Cape Chelyuskin) in 77° 38', it combines a great variety of orographical types, from the Sayan alpine regions in the S. to the tundras of the Arctic littoral.
===

When criminals are sent from one land to another the government of the other land should accept them. It looks like even Outer Siberia has government. Unless these governments are slaves to Europe, Europe cannot send her criminal citizens there. Europe has to manage her criminal citizens within her own territory.

Isn't there a rule regarding sovereignty of governments?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:19 am:   


quote:

When criminals are sent from one land to another the government of the other land should accept them. It looks like even Outer Siberia has government. Unless these governments are slaves to Europe, Europe cannot send her criminal citizens there. Europe has to manage her criminal citizens within her own territory.


But what if the Europeans are invaded by a hostile ideology from outside their terrirory? Should this inner enemy not be sent back from whence they came, put ouside the gate if you will? They can always return to the countries from which they escaped, regardless of how well received they are in their land of origin, if they fail to appreciate the largess of European society, or are so miserable in the lands of freedom that they cannot stand it anymore. Let them return 'home' of their own free choice first. But if they persist in destabilizing the peace of their adopted country, there is no obligation for Europe to keep them. Send them back home with a one way ticket and no return. Fair enough?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:43 am:   

Syrian reformer 'jailed 12 years'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6641949.stm

This is fighting 'Communism' all over again? If anti-freedom forces loom large in countries like Syria, or other Middle Eastern countries, or north Africa, or Asia, are we not back to fighting the same war we fought against Soviet Communism? The Evil Empire continues to stifle human freedoms, and it must and will be fought for as long as it takes to set humanity free of this regressive tendency towards oppression of minds. Our minds, as a new and conscious humanity, demand that we have the rights to freedom, our inalienable universal human rights, protected by law. Any government that fails to protect our freedoms is a tyranny. And that war against tyranny is not over, it simply moved to another place.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 02:45 pm:   

Send them back home with a one way ticket and no return. Fair enough?
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:19 am: Ivan


How about giving them life jackets; taking them by ship beyond Europe's marine border and throw them into the sea with the stern warning that any attempt to reenter Europe would be met with force. I am all for removing the criminals. I am not for their home country getting burdened with them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 02:57 pm:   

This is fighting 'Communism' all over again?
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:43 am: Ivan


When did we defeat Communism? All that happened after the Afghan war was the disintegration of the USSR. Still the veto power was transferred to Russia, which was communist waiting for the right opportunity. Communism was indeed wounded through military action. It was not defeated through debates and discussions.

As long as the business class tries to squeeze the labor of its due wages and reduce them to 'economic slaves' the poor would regroup in one place or another.

There is one way to really bury communism. Make the labor a partner with capital. The profits are shared equally between the share holders and the workers. In this model, the salary given to the worker is treated as an advance from his share of the profit. In this model there is no owner and there is no worker. Given this model there would be no communism as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:18 pm:   


quote:

How about giving them life jackets; taking them by ship beyond Europe's marine border and throw them into the sea with the stern warning that any attempt to reenter Europe would be met with force. I am all for removing the criminals. I am not for their home country getting burdened with them.


No Mohideen. They came here, they get sent back. No 'lifejackets' or anything, they already soaked up enough welfare state largess as is. One way ticket is the last piece of money offered to them, and after that it is for them 'inshallah' and goodbye.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:22 pm:   


quote:

When did we defeat Communism? All that happened after the Afghan war was the disintegration of the USSR. Still the veto power was transferred to Russia, which was communist waiting for the right opportunity. Communism was indeed wounded through military action. It was not defeated through debates and discussions.


Who today wants to admit he or she is a true Communist? Fidel Castro? North Korea? Really, you are so out of touch with reality, Mohideen, that it is laughable. No defeated with dialogue? Are you kidding? What do you think the whole Cold War was about, from intellectuals to the man on the street? Get real, your lack or reality is ridiculous! Afghanistan or the Taleban, or al Qaeda, didn't defeat Communism. We who love freedom, we did.

And don't forget to answer my direct question to you on the Religious Dialogue thread... Do you believe in the separation of church and state, or the separation of religious powers and secular government, as safeguarded by our Constitution? You live in America, so answer the question!

Ivan

BANNED for Mr. Ibramsha failiure to answer the question. 5/11/2007 - Eds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 06:23 pm:   

Hello Mon, did I miss somethin?

nz382.jpg

Keep smilin Mo, don't mind "I and I". Listen to Jah!

"Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow
I and I will see you through,
'Cos every day we pay the price with a little sacrifice
Jammin till the jam is through."
:-)

Le Chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:16 am:   

Sentenced Home
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/sentencedhome/

Deportation had been going on since 2002, even for second generation children of refugee asylum seekers, when they go afoul of the law. Since 9/11 freedom is earned, not guaranteed for decendents of immigrants. If they join violent gangs, they may be shipped 'home' to their parents' country of origin. This is fact, and legal. Congress passed a law. See: US Immigration Policy

See more on 1996 Immigration Act, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 10:40 am:   

New France in search of national unity and cultural pride, as a free people.

Guy Moquet in this (translated to English) Wiki article writes in his famous letter, as he was about to be executed for his resistance to Nazism:
"My small mom cherished,
my very adored little brother,
my small loved dad,

I will die! What I ask you, you, in particular my small mom, it is to be courageous. I am it and I want to be it as much as those which passed before me. Admittedly, I would have liked to live. But what I wish of all my heart, it is that my serf death with something. I did not have time to kiss Jean. I kissed my two brothers Roger and Rino. As for true I cannot do it alas! I hope that all my businesses will be returned to you they could be used for Serge, who I it discount will be proud to carry them one day. With you small dad, if I made you thus that with my small mom, many sorrows, I greet you last once. Knows that I made my to better follow the way than you traced me.

A last good-bye with all my friends, with my brother whom I love much. That it studies well to be later a man.

17 years and half, my life was short, I do not regret any, if is not to leave you all. I will die with Tintin, Michels. Mom, which I ask you, which I want that you promise to me, it is to be courageous and to overcome your sorrow.

I cannot put some more. I leave you all, all, you mom, Serge, dad, by kissing you of all my heart of child. Courage!

Your Guy who loves you

Guy

Last thoughts: You all which remain, are worthy of us, the 27 who will die!"

He was executed 16 August 1941, in the cause of freedom. This is the letter Nicolas Sarkozy, France's new president, will read to all the school children of France as his first act. Let freedom of the new France ring true. Vive la France!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 08:50 pm:   

Europe also cracking down on illegal workers, with deportations and fines.

EU targeting illegal employment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6660077.stm

quote:

Employers would have to check that anyone they hired had a residence permit, and businesses would have to notify national authorities.

Fines for offenders would include the cost of repatriating the worker, as well as payment of any unpaid tax or social security.


They would be tougher still on 'human taffickers', those who profit from hauling this dismal cargo. It's about time, with tougher border security too. This mass immigration of demographic conquest of Europe will not succeed. A precedence is set, new arrivals may not always be allowed to stay. Some may be sent home.

quote:

Mr Frattini also wants to encourage circular migration, where migrant workers return temporarily or permanently to their country of origin, taking their new skills with them.



Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 08:53 pm:   

US immigration deal struck, 'Z visas' would allow illegals in, eventually.


Here is the American solution, though not finalized:

Democrats strike immigration bill deal with the White House
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig18may18,1,629195.story ?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

quote:

The rough outlines of a deal have been circulating and include a "Z visa" that would allow illegal immigrants to transition to citizenship, provided they meet many requirements.

These include a $5,000 fine that can be paid over time, processing fees for the visa, and a requirement that the head of household return to their home country within eight years.

The bill also includes the Dream Act, a provision for illegal immigrants, who were brought in as children and are enrolled in college or the military. They would be immediately eligible for the Z visa. As long as they remain employed or in school and do not have a criminal record they could become eligible for legal permanent resident status, a step toward citizenship, in three years.

All illegal immigrants who entered before Jan. 1, 2007, would be eligible for the Z visa.


Also increased border security. Now employers will become liable with new identity cards:

quote:

Work-site enforcement would include a tamper-proof ID, probably a Social Security card, that some Senate aides said would have to be presented in combination with a passport or tamper-proof driver's license. Creating an identity verification system has been a priority for the senators so they can create tough penalties for employers who continue to hire illegally.


It looks like a compromise Americans, like their European counterparts, both invaded by illegals, can live with.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 01:50 pm:   

Rap with a conscience?

French rapper relishes moral role
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6670069.stm

_42943549_maliknew203body.jpg
Al Malik feels enriched by his cross-cultural experience


quote:

His latest album Gibraltar has already won four awards, including the prestigious Victoire de la Musique. It's an original mix of hip-hop, slam poetry and French philosophy.



There is hope for France and its multi-cultural future, when philosophy blends with music.
"We shouldn't be excessively pessimistic or positive, but fair. The best thing you can do to make the world a better place is to improve yourself. I think in France we have all the tools available to do that." -- Abd Al Malik

It doesn't have to be a 'war of cultures', but it can be a peaceful coexistence where equal values are equally respected. We are all human beings of equal worth, when not coercing one another, to make the world a better place.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 06:57 pm:   

Lock and chains on the internet?

This is not surprising news, judging from the nations involved. Feedom of thought is simply not allowed there, no surprise. The internet to tyrannical regimes is an obvious threat, it means free flow of information, even dialogue. How they must hate this.

Global net censorship 'growing'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6665945.stm#list
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 05:04 pm:   

Reciprocity in accusations of 'Islamophobia'?

From WSJ OpEd by Tawfik Hamid, How to End 'Islamophobia'
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010123

Dr. Hamid says:

quote:

Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of "Islamophobia," a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. On May 17, this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism."


Worst? Killing innocents is worse, including suicide bombings of children in Israeli pizza parlors, aboard London buses, Marid and Mumbay trains, Bali nightclub, Beslan school... these are much worst. He says further, intelligently:

quote:

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.


To 'not be punished' by rigid interpretations of religious dogma, that is the key to end 'Islamophobia' for everyone, reciprocally. He ends:

quote:

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.


The last line should be in bold, that "Sharia law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies." Hear hear!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 01:54 pm:   

Swiss move to ban minarets
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6676271.stm

This is a development worth watching in the upcoming Swiss elections, which may send a message to the rest of Europe.

quote:

"We don't have anything against Muslims," said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People's Party.

"But we don't want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over."


Not extreme, a statement of fact, that Islamists may not 'take over' European culture or laws with their aggressive Sharia law, or its symbols.

Better to call it now, then fight a bigger war later on. The Swiss, as does all Europe, believe in a separation of church (mosque) and state, and all religious adherents must be subject to the secular laws of the land first, even if these conflict with their religious practices. Else they will be made feel unwelcome, if the law is broken, and they may be forced to leave.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anonymous
Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 01:28 am:   

Yeah, go fish.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016689.php

Now can you understand?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ps/Ivan & Eds
Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 07:27 pm:   

"Off the air" for a reason (PS to 'go fish' post above), and a voice of reason.

There's a reason why we felt we should go 'off the air' for the summer. We sensed a "witch hunt" coming, and now that a new Jihad terror threat materialized in the UK, and the world, with more likely, this is exactly what is happening. Part of it is already evident with major corporate onlines shutting down access to JihadWatch. So we will stay 'below the radar' for the time being, with a planned reopen on Sept. 1st. Hopefully by then the current confusion and hysteria in response to the new Islamic Jihad attacks on our western civilizational freedoms will have calmed down. But in this there is always some voice of reason and moderation, even if firm. We found this in the comments to "Irshad Manji and insulting Muhammad":
These are not insults to Islam, but a proclamation of what are our 'boundaries in reciprocity' with Islam.

First thing is what Muslims feel in their private hearts regarding us, the 'infidels', and if they hold some animosity to us and our way of life, it does not matter. That is their private matter, and if they hold some personal grudge in their belief system against the lands of the 'infidels', then it is their business, not ours. Their loss, not our responsibility, nor something we have to carry on our shoulders of guilt if they do not like us. Better to let it go. But where this becomes our affair is when they act upon this grudge and attack us. Then it becomes a political act, where their beliefs are politicized into actions against us, against our freedoms, our laws, our constitutional rights. Then it matters, because now they have politicized their religion into action, hostile actions, against us and our way of life. That is the first thing, not to ridicule Islam, nor their Koran, but to be clear that a personal faith is allowed, but its politicized version is not allowed.

Second, not all Muslims will harbor in their hearts this aggressive attitudes towards us and our way of life. There will be those who, though they profess their faith of Islam, are nevertheless willing to coexist within the cultures of freedom, so that by our rules of separation of church (or mosque) and state, they are free to practice their beliefs, privately, as they will. Where this becomes a trespass upon our values and way of life is when this is taken from the private domain into the public domain. Then they are trespassing against us. This includes visible signs of personal seclusion, such as women covered behind veils, or public displays of animosity towards us, such as vocally rude and at times violent demonstrations targeting our way of life. This also includes their mosques, where the voluble sermons and calls to their Allah affects the surrounding community. These are trespasses against us with noise pollution. The same applies to heir aggressive building programs of highly visible minarets towering over our living areas. They should be banned, or cut down to normal size without polluting our skyline. If a neighbor offers to build an edifice that will cut into his neighbors' natural light and views, there are procedures to insure against this. The same must apply to mosques and minarets, since their structures are an overt politicized proclamation of their faith.

Third, engage Muslims with dialogue, but not of the kind that extends Da'wa, but rather the other way, that they are made to understand that they may not trespass on our centuries of civilization and achievements with their religious dogmas. This is not to offend them, but rather to keep them from further offending us with unreasonable demands that we change our understanding of life and our place in it to suit their dogmatic views of the world. These dialogues must be controlled to not allow for them to seek to change policy, or law, to suit their dogmatism, but instead directed to force them into understanding our cultures with our most valuable asset, that which has brought to us our culture, and that is reason. Muslims must be directed to use reason, and not dogma, in their dialogues with our established cultures. If not, then we are brought down in such dialogues to their levels of dogma, a dogma that is socio-religiously imperialistic to promote a 7th century Arab-Muslim imperialism in the west. This must be forbidden at all cost in any dialogues with Muslims. There is no Da'wa in dialogue, nor threats of violence, or actual physical violence, if we are to talk freely. Criticism and dialogue are both sides of the same coin, and to threaten anyone who questions dogma is unacceptable to us, since it directly negatively impacts our natural freedoms to seek the truth.

Lastly fourth, Islamic Jihad must be explicitly outlawed. It goes against every maxim of human rights, of preserving our social freedoms, including our freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of belief. Reciprocity in these matters demands that they respect our freedoms same as we respect theirs. This means they are not free to impose their ideology on anyone else, whether by legal or illegal means, not by deceit, nor by violence. We cannot tolerate for Muslims to create for themselves exclusive enclaves in which no outsiders are allowed to enter. They may not act as common criminal gangs who attack anyone not belonging to their turf. It is all our turf, all of society, and neither Jihad nor physical threats against our common citizens can be tolerated. Intolerance and 'hate crimes' go both ways, reciprocally. None may be condoned in a free society of human beings, both men and women, who are equal before the law. Muslims must respect that, or else they behave criminally.


The purpose of these four points is to stop the insanity. To force religious dogma on the freedoms of the west, freedoms earned through great thought and very hard work, is a travesty and trespass against our rights. We must draw the boundaries in such simple terms so even the slowest of them will understand. They may not trespass against us further, at any level, and most of all, they may not do Jihad in our lands. Without being totally clear on these points, that our societies have a right to be free, the lands to which they migrated of their own free will to partake in the fruits of our social freedoms, they will remain confused as to what is permissible for them in their advances on us. We may not be tread on by their philosophy of life, at any level. Our tolerance of their religious beliefs, whether or not we agree with them, and regardless of whether they will us good or ill, may not be materialized into political actions against us. They must be made to understand this, with absolute clarity, that we will not be tolerant of their beliefs if they fail to be tolerant of ours. To do this, we must therefore demand reciprocity at all levels of our social behaviors, that they fully respect and obey our laws, and that our safety is guaranteed in their presence. We cannot co-exist in our societies if there are 'no go' areas for non-Muslims. This they must understand without a shadow of doubt.

When our leaders, and our constitutional laws, respect our rights as individuals, equally before the law, regardless of religious beliefs, or gender, then Jihad and threats of violence, or death fawas, or 'honor killing', threats against those who are not religious, forced marriages, female circumcision, and overtly aggressive behaviors towards common citizens, all these must be done away with. If there is to be reciprocity of equality before the law, then Muslims must be made to obey the laws of our lands, or else they will make themselves unwelcome. It is not their personal beliefs that are offensive to us, regardless of how they see us 'infidels' in their beliefs, but their actions, their politics, that must be confronted with absolute clarity, that these are not acceptable to us. Given time, they will understand. Or if not, then through a Darwinian process of elimination, they will not survive our freedoms, because then we are offended.

So when Irshad Manji says that the "Koran actually tells us that if somebody is mocking your religion, don't retaliate, walk away and only later engage in dialogue," do the same in return. This is what this 'boundaries of reciprocity' is all about: Respect for the other, with calm dialogue and understanding. It is also what defines in our free world the word 'tolerance', that we not allow trespass, that no one allows trespass against the other anywhere, within boundaries of the law. A free society means that we are all free to come and go in any part of it, without danger or harm. That is what human constitutional laws do, they protect us, both against trespass as well as against politicized aggressive inroads by dogmatic laws, religious or cultish, or otherwise. This is why in our lands we have a 'separation of church and state'. (assumed anonymous, no url, voice of reason)

The message is clear, either accept our Western freedoms and live with us in peace, or demand Sharia and be labeled trespassers of our "boundaries of reciprocity". A separation of church and state, and mosque, indeed. But lay low for now, the hunt for the 'witches of confusion' is on.

We hope everyone enjoys their 4th of July Independence Day, and remember the value of our freedoms in this beautiful land called America.

Ivan & Editors, Humancafe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 09:17 pm:   

I venture to write because I believe this forum had an impact on the 2006 elections that mandated the withdrawal of our sons and daughters from Iraq.

It is unfortunate that the numbers in the Congress and the Senate are not conducive to force the hand of this administration by passing a law that cannot be vetoed. To me this implies the people have to wait for a change in the Administration itself possibly after the 2008 election.

President Bush ended his message a few minutes back indicating that he would go by principle and not politics in deciding the actions to be taken by him as Commander-in-Chief. He had virtually declared that he would continue to ignore the opinion of the people and execute the war in Iraq.

Now the people have to act. We are a democracy and we are law abiding. How could the people act?

Should the people act? President Bush talked of the dangers of losing the war in Iraq due to withdrawal. He feels that withdrawal would bring attacks to our homeland. He hopes - possibly believes - that he has the forces to secure victory in Iraq. I would wish him well.

But I would also consider the facts on the ground. One weapon used by the terrorists to which we have not found an answer is the suicide bomber. I wish there is one answer to that, but I do not see any now. So I would not rule out the possibility of defeat in Iraq.

I consider three possible outcomes:
1. Victory in Iraq.
2. Defeat in Iraq due to withdrawal.
3. Defeat in Iraq without withdrawal, that is, a military defeat in Iraq.

As regards the first outcome, victory in Iraq, we would be very happy.

As regards the second outcome, defeat due to (say premature) withdrawal from Iraq, we might lose face. However we would retain our prowess. The military would not be defeated; the military simply obeyed the civilian masters and withdrew. The fact that the military is in shape and is not broken would deter any adversary from attacking our homeland.

The third possibility of a military defeat in Iraq would embolden the enemy because then the military is broken.

If I were the Commander-in-Chief, I would retain the military muscle intact by withdrawing from Iraq as soon as the Iraqis fail the bench marks.

Given the current situation, the people of USA have to act. The Commander-in-Chief cannot continue the war if Congress withholds funds. However that is not going to happen.

Our army is a volunteer army. Here is where the people have a role to play. Advice the sons and daughters not to enlist in the defence forces until withdrawal from Iraq is complete. The same applies to National Guard because this administration has converted the National Guard into a defacto army on reserve.

This is a call to the parents, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, and children: Let there be a civil movement to boycott the enlisting in the Army until the withdrawal from Iraq is done. Once that is done, we would join the Armed Forces in large numbers and build our strength. God willing, I would be happy to enlist then, if that would help.
===

(posted by Ivan on behalf of Mohideen, per request)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/avert WW III
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 06:55 pm:   

When Deterrence of War fails... Trying to prevent WW III.


mid-Enewetak_atomic_detonations.ogg.jpg
Atomic weapons test

Caroline Glick writes a powerful argument in her Real Clear Politics web page, arguing that the present US administration missed some important cues to overcome the worldwide growing threat of Sharia Jihad, whereby a theocratic system of government based upon a specific type of interpretation of Islam is aggressively pursuing world domination. In her article: Trying to Prevent Word War III (which was lifted out of the discussion Islam and the nation-state at Dhimmiwatch), she offers a very clear eyed analysis of where America needs to go. Currently, in response to Iran's nuclear ambitions there is a flurry of 'shuttle diplomacy' by heads of state in response to this potential threat, both to Israel and the world at large. She says:

quote:

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continues to champion negotiations with the mullahs, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday Rice acknowledged that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East and possibly around the world." And then there is Israel. It appears that both the IDF and the government are earnestly preparing for the possibility of war. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's sudden visits to Moscow, Paris and London, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's trip to Washington this week were all devoted to the Iranian nuclear project.


This shuttle-diplomacy is further followed by Turkey's Erdogan:

quote:

This week Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan paid a sudden visit to London. There he met with Olmert, who was also in the city that day. The meeting took place less than two weeks after Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan visited Israel. In an analysis this week in The Asia Times, M.K. Bhadrakumar, India's former ambassador to Turkey tied Turkey's pro-Hamas government's sudden interest in speaking to Israel to the tension between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Bhadrakumar noted that Israel has close relations with Kurdish President Massoud Barzani. He hypothesized that the intensification of high-level discussions likely signals that a deal is being crafted which involves Turkey's position on Iran, and Iraqi Kurdistan's position on Turkey and the PKK. His view is buttressed by the fact that Erdogan is scheduled to meet with Bush at the White House on November 5.

Finally it is important to note Barak's crash-program aimed at purchasing and deploying missile defense systems capable of covering all of Israel as quickly as possible, and last week's media reports that US, British and Australian commandos are fighting Iranian forces inside of Iran close to the Iran-Iraq border by Basra.


Which somehow connects, though it is not clear how, with the recent Saudi King's visit to England. Why such a flurry of activity now? Is there a present threat of which we will not know until after the fact?

Also, per Caroline's web, there is the question of how effective is current military strategy in controlling the Jihad interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. In her article: America's Strategies for Victoy & Defeat she says:

quote:

The new American strategy in Iraq is based on a fairly simple assumption: The US goal in Iraq is to defeat its enemies, and to defeat its enemies the US must target them with the aim of defeating them. This is a strategy based on common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense seems to be the rarest of commodities in US foreign policy circles today. Outside of Iraq, and until recently in Iraq as well, the US has based its policies on the notion that it can bend its adversaries to its will by on the one hand signaling them in a threatening way, and on the other hand by trying to appease them where possible. And this is the heart of the failure.


This supposed "deterrence" strategy, "signaling them in a threatening way, and on the other hand by trying to appease them where possible," looks flawed from the start. In fact, the American advantage gained by a quick military victory in Iraq was not pressed to advantage, so opportunity was lost. She writes further:

quote:

They assumed that the invasion itself would strengthen America's deterrent capability and so work to America's advantage in its dealings with Iran and North Korea. Here, then, we see that the decision to invade Iraq was based in part on a continued American reliance on a strategy of signaling rather than confronting Iran and North Korea. If this hadn't been the case, Iraq probably would have been cast to the side.

Initially, the American strategy met with stunning success. Iran, North Korea, Syria and indeed the Arab world as a whole were terrified by the victorious American assault on Saddam. Unfortunately, rather than build on their momentum, the Americans did everything they could to assure these states that they had no reason to worry that a similar fate would befall them. Rather than maintain the offensive - by sealing Iraq's borders and then going after insurgents' bases in Iran and Syria - the US went on the defensive. And so it allowed Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to support and direct the insurgency. As a result of America's show of weakness, the lesson that its enemies took from its campaign in Iraq was that to deter the Americans, they should intensify their support for terror and their weapons of mass destruction programs.


So what started as a "stunning success" turned into an Iraqi quagmire, as we now know in retrospect.

If American policy was more clear eyed, like Ms. Glick, perhaps we would not have wasted 4 plus years trying to straighten out the Iraq mess, nor seen both Iraq and Afghanistan go the way of a Sharia based constitution, which is a major loss for the cause of Freedom. So the tenets of war were flawed enough to create conditions that ensure a continuation of war, since the defeat of the enemy never really took place. Will they do any better in Iran, when time comes? That will be seen. Now Pakistan is getting tripped up by its own duplicity ("war is deceit" spake Mohammed), by allowing a growing cancer inside their borders as well, both Taliban and Al Qaeda safe havens. How will all this play out in future wars?

If America, and the Western Alliance, keeps dropping the ball whenever they have both momentum and advantage, what can we expect? We are fighting a primitive simple people whose ideology based on 7th century philosophy of total obedience is a pushover. Can we not fight and subdue slaves? They are slaves, so fight them for what they are, and beat them. They will lay down their arms when it dawns on them that they are weaker. Do not stop half way, because they do not understand. That is all it will take, to make them accept their primitiveness and weakness in the face of a superior cultural enemy. Beat them! Can we do it? We had better, or else WW III is here.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ANON ANON
Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 05:22 pm:   

Baghdad Comes Alive
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990

Following the horror of sectarian violence unleased by failure to understand what we were walking into a fragile peace emerges.

Al Qeada understood well the forces pent up in Iraq and with a few well placed strikes ignighted a firestorm.

It was only with and by the near superhuman efforts of our soldiers that this storm was contained.

While the leaders played politics soldiers welded turrets onto Hummers made from scrap metal. They built improvised IED resistant trucks and died waiting for the military political leaders of this nation to relalize what they walked into.

Wounded they waited at Walter Reed in squalar while politicians dined on fine foods with access to the best of medical care.

It was not the President or the surge that brought this peace. It was the American soldier with his blood.

Such is the nature of the men and women that defend this nation and the make up of those that have lead it during this time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/moderates trust
Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 11:23 pm:   

Whom do you trust? -- jihadi fanatics, or moderates?

Amil Imani, Freedom of Iran, writes: Who’s the Bigger Threat: The Moderate Muslims or the Jihadists?


quote:

Is “Moderate Islam” an illusion? Moderate Islam is a wedge that will jam open the door to Jihad, and "evil will triumph when good Muslims do nothing." The great majority of Muslims are not adherents of the radical line. Yet, because the Islamists wage their war under the name of Islam, they receive immense direct and indirect support from the rank-and-file ordinary Muslims. It is this support of moderate Muslims that keeps the Jihadists alive. And it is the Jihadists who intend to show no mercy to any and all who do not share their theology, be they Muslims or not.

For the record, all Muslims, moderates, radicals, Shiite, Sunnis and other sects and sub-sects of Islam are in unanimous agreement that the Quran is the word of “Allah.” All Muslims are also in agreement that “Allah” spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Allah declares, “The book is not to be doubted."
...
[They who deny the Quran]: "They have incurred Allah's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers..." Quran 2:89



So not much room for doubt as to jihadis intents, if their Allah told them to follow Mohammad's "book is not to be doubted", which means of necessity anything in the Quran against the infidels and making the world safe for Allah must be followed to the letter.


quote:

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Quran 9:73

"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers" Quran (5:69).

The jihadists have searched the scripture and have selectively chosen those statements and precedents that they could use to legitimize their violent and primitive agenda. The Jihadists, for instance, claim that the Quran itself urges them to make jihad, “jahedoo fee sabeil-u-llah,” (make jihad for the cause of Allah.) The word “jihad” has at least two vastly different meanings. It means exertion. It also stands for making war, and it is the latter that the jihadists invoke as their mandate.

While the so-called moderate Muslims are generally silent, either out of fear, lack of organization, or apathy, the Islamists work around the clock and around the world to further their agenda. Hardly a week passes without a Grand Mufti or an Ayatollah issuing pronouncements in support of radical Islam. The rank-and-file Islamist clergy, for their part, transmit these fatwas and edicts to their flocks in mosques and hammer them into the minds of impressionable children in madressehs. Through this grassroots process, radical Islam is recruiting greater and greater numbers of adherents. On the one hand, the Islamists engage in acts of violence to disrupt the functioning of societies, while on the other they cleverly exploit the freedom they enjoy in non-Islamic lands to subvert them from within.



The war with Islam against the West is already from within, with clever use of our laws to undo our freedoms and cultures. Should the West pay attention?


quote:

It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam...”submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth.  Both atheism/materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same.  Fascism is fascism.



The next war is built on the foundation of a 7th century based superstitious fanaticism, the one followed by the jihadists, and not answered for, or to, by the so called moderates of Islam. If they cannot hold their own mad fascists in check, then we will need to do it for them, but it will cost them, perhaps dearly.

There is always a price to be paid for war. In this case, their price for failing to reign in their own deviants is their loss of power, liberation of their women from semi-slavery, and introduction of western values of culture, especially our culture of religious freedom and personal responsibility. All this will cost the mullahs dearly.

Whom do you trust? The mullahs and their armies of fanatic jihaidsts, or the quiet moderates and their armies of quiet jihadists? Tough one... Read it all, excellent piece by Imani.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Bhutto
Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 09:49 am:   

Great woman killed, a tragic loss.

Benazir Bhutto killed in attack

_44322937_bhutto203b2afp.jpg


quote:

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack.

News of her death was confirmed by a military spokesman and members of her Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when gunfire and an explosion occurred.



There's our answer to Imani's above on jihadi fascists.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Pak
Posted on Friday, December 28, 2007 - 10:55 am:   

When fear rules a nation.

Now that Benazir Bhutto is killed, the Islamic nation of Pakistan responds:

'God help us' - Pakistanis react

Read all the comments people wrote in to BBC, ie., by FAISAL MAMSA, PSYCHIATRIST, KARACHi:

quote:

I felt as if I was living in a civil war. The city was being set on fire. The country had become paralysed.

I think that's a symbol of where Pakistan is going after this assassination. I believe most damage was done by the followers of her party, done in rage, I'm sure. But what has the common man done to deserve this?

We used to feel secure here. Foreign companies were investing in Pakistan, people could go out at night and feel safe. During Musharraf's rule we had an economic boom. After last night, I believe this country is being handed over to militants.

I hate to say it, I might be condemned or killed, but we need to take extreme security measures to curb whatever the militants are doing. I had high hopes for Benazir Bhutto. It was one of her main agendas to control the militants.



When fear gains over reason with religious jihadi-militant certitude, then there is reason to fear outcome. Pakistan is a 'pure' Islamic state, and fear rules, at least for now. Does reason, with ethical upright stature, have a chance? It depends on her people.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Castroism ends
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 10:06 am:   

Fidel Castro quits after a half century

_44436324_speech_ap203b.jpg

A new history can be written for Castro's Cuba, where a Socialism based government ruling a small Caribbean state for half a century may now develop into a modern free democratic state, if it is the will of the people. Castro said to his countrymen:

quote:

"To my dear compatriots, who gave me the immense honour in recent days of electing me a member of parliament ... I communicate to you that I will not aspire to or accept - I repeat not aspire to or accept - the positions of President of Council of State and Commander in Chief."



Will this be a new paradigm shift of Cub'as Emergent mass consciousness? History is being written today.

In BBC News, Fidel Castro announces retirement

quote:

Despite the announcement of his impending retirement, the Cuban leader insisted he was "not saying farewell".

"I just want to carry on fighting like a soldier of ideas," he added. "I will continue writing under the title, Reflections of Comrade Fidel."


Carry on ol' boy, fighting like a good soldier of ideas. We all do, whether or not we know we do.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

armageddon
Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 09:57 am:   

Countdown to Armageddon

91,000,000 potential jihadists may not seem like much, only 7% of the whole Muslim world population. Think again if the mullahs's army of the Umma is mobilized as one war machine. That is larger a population than most countries. But relax.

It's the other billion we should worry about: Jihad-armageddon? discussion on JWatch.

Armageddon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

believe it or else
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:21 pm:   

Believe it or else!

slide0001_image007.jpg

...no comment, no joke.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Fitna
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:31 pm:   

FITNA

Fitna.jpg

Watch it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Prince of Peace
Posted on Saturday, June 14, 2008 - 11:43 am:   

Who is Earth's guardian Angel of Peace?


1099jerusalem.jpg
Capture of Jerusalem (interactive) -Byzantium

We pray for peace. Who do we pray to? Who is Earth's guardian angel of peace, our Prince of Peace?

Those of us who pray to Jesus think of the Christ as the overlord angel of peace on Earth. Buddhists think of Buddha as the embodiment of peace within and without. Followers of other great historic spiritual figures and leaders all think of their own visions of peace as they pray to their overlord Spirit, or guardian spirits, from saints to gods. We had always done this, and we do it still today. We will always do this, because there is a larger psychic 'Being' of our 'emergent' collective consciousness, so when praying we are in effect praying to our own collective creation. That is the overlord guardian Spirit of the planet, the Christ figure as the Prince of Peace.

180px-Hagiasophia-christ.jpg (interactive)
12th century mosaic at Hagia Sophia, Constantinople

Some worshippers of separate faiths will tell you there are no differences in our worship to 'God' for peace. The Mohammedan praying for "Islam is peace" is as much praying to his overlord god Spirit of peace as is the Hebrew or Christian, or Hindu. And some genuine Muslims will truly believe this, that their prayers are for peace. But to make it true they at the same time must drop any ideas of world domination with Islam for Allah, in their thoughts and actions, if they are to be equal to others who want peace. A world dominating theocracy is not the way to world peace, if it divides the world between 'slave and free', or true believers and infidels. We are all free. It is delusional if by praying for peace to a Man, and not a Spirit of collective Earth consciousness, it is praying to a false world oversoul. Praying to a Man is calling on Earthly powers to overcome others by force, while praying to God, or an earthly overlord Angel guarding over us, is to pray to a higher power of consciousness to protect us from being violated by force. This latter, to "not be violated by force" is the prime definition of Peace. Who do you pray to? Not Man!

If anyone says to you, you must be 'punished' for failing to pray correctly, that person is not praying to the Angel of Peace but to a human Man. Beware of to whom you pray, or world peace will continue to be illusive. Two thousand years of war has proven we had been praying wrongly. The Prince of Peace is not a Man.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 12:13 pm:   

Interview on "Islamism" with Daniel Pipes:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021853.php

Daniel Pipes: Islam is a personal faith, and there are many different ways of understanding what it means to be a Muslim. One can be a Sufi, a mystic, one can be someone who lives by the law in a very strict way, one can be a nominal Muslim, who does not pay that much attention to his faith; all these and other ways are possible within the religion of Islam.

Islamism is a very specific approach, one that holds that Muslims would be powerful and rich were Muslims to follow the Islamic law in its complete detail. Islamists aspire to apply that law everywhere in the world, and see non-Muslims as inferior, and to be defeated. It’s an ideology that has its roots at the origins of Islam, but developed in its present state about 80 years ago. It is part of Islam, but not the whole of Islam.

Q: However, hard-line Muslims as well as some critics of Islam insist that you cannot be a real Muslim unless you follow the Islamic law – that would make the distinction between Islam and Islamism disappear?

DP: It is curious to note that Islamists and those who say that Islam itself is the problem both agree that I’m wrong, and that Islamism is Islam. The Islamists say that because they want to portray their version of Islam as the only one. And those who see Islam as the problem, conflate the religion and the ideology. I think it a mistake. Even if you believe that’s the case, and you’re a Westerner and a non-Muslim, I would argue that you’d have to adopt my point of view, because a Western government cannot fight Islam. Ours are not crusader states. Therefore, you have to fight the ideology of Islamism, not the religion of Islam. We know how to fight ideologies. We fought Fascism and Communism and now there’s Islamism. We can’t fight a religion. So if it’s reduced to a religion, then we lack the tools to protect ourselves.

Q: Would non-Islamist Islam mean a secularized, privatized Islam?

DP: Secularism means two different things. A secular person is one who is not religious. A secular society is one that divides religion from politics. Non-Islamist Islam needs not be secular in a personal sense; a person can be pious, but not Islamist. But it does mean secular in the latter sense, in that society divides politics from religion. For example, the Atatürk regime in Turkey is secular, you can be religious, but you cannot bring religion into the political sphere." ....

We cannot fight a religion, because we are not "crusaders", but we can fight against Fascist like politicized ideologies like "Islamism", a popularized brand of aggressive islam introduced nearly one century ago after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate.

Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

al-Naqbah
Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 11:06 am:   

Take back Egypt from the "Islamic Crusades" and Constantinople's "Catastrophe"

180px-Hagia_Sophia_Cathedral.jpg
St Sophia surrounded by minarets of conquest

Raymond Ibrahim: Today in History, Constantinople saves Western Civilization from Islam
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022228.php

"All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.” (Al-Tabari goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!”)"

That was "... on August 15, 718, the siege was lifted, and the dejected Muslim army made its way back to Dar al-Islam."

"Delivery for Constantinople came from the least expected source—the Egyptian crew of the Alexandrian ships. During the night, they all fled to Constantinople, acclaiming the Christian emperor. Why? Because they were all primarily still Christian—Copts—and, contrary to the many apologetics that suggest the Copts “welcomed” the invading Muslims, as this anecdote clearly reveals, had no great love for Islamic rule. Theophanes says that, as the Copts were fleeing in desertion to the city, “the sea looked entirely made of wood.” Taking advantage of this, Leo released from the citadel once again the fire-ships. Considering the loss of manpower with the Copts’ desertion, the confrontation was more a rout than a battle."

140px-Cairo,_Old_Cairo,_Hanging_Church,_Egypt,_Oct_2004.jpg
Famous Coptic church in Cairo

Read it all... it was our history right down to "al-Naqbah".

... and then there's Russia: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022251.php

Take back your freedoms from the barbarians!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pakistan, what now?
Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:05 pm:   

Musharraf is down, now what Pakistan?

After Musharraf, the Deluge by Robert Spencer


quote:

Pakistan’s Musharraf has resigned, and everyone seems happy. Pakistanis danced in the streets and fired guns in the air, and one retired soldier in Peshawar even declared: “The root cause of all problems has gone.”
...
But what else could he have done? Terror Free Tomorrow polls conducted in August 2007 and January 2008 both found that a consistent level of about 75% of Pakistanis consider “implementing strict Sharia law throughout Pakistan” an “important” priority for the Pakistani government. Since the strict implementation of Sharia is the goal of the Taliban and groups allied to it within Pakistan itself, if Musharraf had acted energetically against the pro-Taliban elements within the ISI and the government in general, he probably would not have lasted in power as long as he did.



If this is the 'wish of the people' to have Sharia Law, then how can Pakistan refuse to comply?

Then there is this: Pakistani women burned by acid LA Times article

quote:

Liaqat and Akbar are among Pakistan's many female victims of arson and acid attacks. Such tales tend to involve a spurned or crazy lover and end in a life of despair and seclusion for the woman.
These two instead became beauticians. ...
"Every person wishes that he or she is beautiful," says Liaqat, 21. "But in my view, your face is not everything. Real beauty lies inside a person, not outside."




41652262-16132127-140105.jpg
Horror of their suffering is pictured here: la denuncia: ecco i volti della violenza sulle donne
CAUTION: AVISO AI LETTORI/ GRAPHIC HORROR OF CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN

75% want WHAT in Pakistan? Have they asked the women?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Why our $$?
Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:03 am:   

Why are We supporting Pakistan and other Islamic states, when the Real wealth is being transferred to Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc?... with our petrodollars! !!!

Read Fitzgerald: Why is the American government funding Pakistan?


quote:

Where's that Muslim sharing? Where's that Muslim caring? Why should the American taxpayers, whose government now has obligations (see Peter Peterson's Committee) amounting to more than fifty trillion dollars, have to pay to keep Muslims in Pakistan or Iraq or Afghanistan sufficiently "prosperous" so that, in the view of the innocents who presume to protect and instruct us, they will not give rise to those "extremists" who, some devoutly believe, are the only ones we need worry about, in that colossally misleading "war on terror" we hear so much about?

Why does it have to be our money? Why does it have to be Infidel money? Why not some of the more than ten trillion dollars that the Saudis and other Muslim oil states, most of those tiny sheikdoms with populations of less than a million, have raked in without the slightest effort on their part since 1973 alone? Where's that Umma fellow-feeling? Where’s that supranational Islamic solidarity? Or is it only a loyalty to members of the Umma when they are fighting against, or perceived to be fighting against, Infidels?




Read it all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Israel's Naqbah
Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 - 09:55 am:   

Israel's al-Naqbah, the real Mandate for Palestine.

Fitzgerald: The situation of Israel is changing

What will really solve the Jihad (holy war) by Arabs against Israel?

Jerusalem_Israel_Map.png
The real al-Naqbah "Catastrophe" is Israel's survival.

"This understanding is not being brought about by any great improvement in Israel's efforts at explaining itself, nor by any great improvement in the largely atrocious and biased coverage of Israel's attempts to defend itself, but rather by the behavior of Muslims toward Infidels around the world. Each bomb attack on a bus in London, each slitting of the throats of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, each murder or threat of murder in Amsterdam or Denmark, each example of Muslim outrage in turn forces people, nolens-volens, to realize how absurd is the presentation of Islam as merely a "religion," and to listen more keenly to the articulate defectors from Islam, such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq, and to those who, having grown up within the Muslim world as non-Muslims, have also managed to survive, get to the West, and to testify.

All of this, and even the greater heed paid to the texts (and thus the tenets) of Islam, has changed the situation for Israel, and will continue to do so. For much more of the outside world is willing to listen, and is beginning to comprehend, that what the Arabs have done since the Six-Day War is absurd. They have carefully created out of the Gazan Arabs and the "West Bank" Arabs a totally fictitious "Palestinian people" (with lots of clever backdating), in order to misrepresent the Jihad against Israel by repackaging it as a "war for the legitimate rights of the 'Palestinian' people." They keep using phrases that juridically are simply false, such as that deadly word "occupied." Israel is the intended beneficiary of, and sole successor state to, the Mandate for Palestine. Thus it has a prior and convincing claim, should it choose to exercise it, to both Gaza and what the Jordanians renamed as "the West Bank," in addition to its claim to territory taken in a war of self-defense. It is absurd -- but so many things about the coverage of the Arab Muslim war on Israel are absurd. It is absurd to keep talking about part of the territory allocated by the League of Nations as "occupied" by Israel, when the League was attempting to do justice after the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire to others among the many peoples of the Middle East, not just to the dominant and dominating Arabs. It would be far more accurate to describe those portions of Judea and Samaria (as they have been known since before the time of Jesus, who had no trouble with those toponyms either) that comprise the soi-disant "West Bank" as "Arab-occupied parts of Judea and Samaria." How strange it sounds. But get it repeated ten thousand times, and it will not sound strange at all.
Those Muslim acts of aggression against non-Muslims, and acts of aggression of every kind -- for are not Muslim demands for changes in the very institutions, legal and political and social, of the Infidel nation-states that have so generously and heedlessly allowed Muslims to settle deep within, not acts of aggression of the most disturbing and threatening kind? -- serve to push more and more Infidels into a state of receptivity to the truth. And in the case of Israel the truth is this: a Jihad is and has always been waged against it, and there is no "solution" to this Jihad based on further Israeli surrenders of tangible assets and of Jewish claims that Israeli governments have muted, or refused to articulate at all. Those claims are based on appeals to law, history, and to a sense of distributive justice or fairness: the Arabs have 22 states, with 14 million square miles of land, and untold natural resources and riches as a result; Israel is less than 1/1,000th the size)."

Territorial concessions by Israel is not the answer. Breaking up Gaza and West Bank into two annexed areas for Arab control by Egypt and Jordan is the better way, as it should have been in the original Mandate for Palestine. Jerusalem remains firmly in Jewish hands with a small concession to the Arabs for their al-Aqsa Mosque, only, and the "Palestinian State" dissolved. Yes, the "absurd peace talks" are dead. There is no "holy war" here but Arab supremacist land grabbing with a 1300 years history of conquest for their so-called religion. Israel as a Jewish homeland is not the problem.

Read it all, with commentaries in link.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Israel land issues
Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 01:20 pm:   


quote:

Territorial concessions by Israel is not the answer. Breaking up Gaza and West Bank into two annexed areas for Arab control by Egypt and Jordan is the better way, as it should have been in the original Mandate for Palestine. Jerusalem remains firmly in Jewish hands with a small concession to the Arabs for their al-Aqsa Mosque, only, and the "Palestinian State" dissolved.



The trouble with "annexing" Gaza and West Bank to adjoining states will not remove the problem of Arab call for Israel's annihilation. Furthermore, much of Israel's water comes from the West Bank, so without absolute guarantees (which in the Arab world never exist) of access to water source, there can be no surrendering this territory to anyone else. Just some points, but important ones. Agreed, the Jewish homeland is not the problem, but the problem of hostile neighbors and internal Arab populations (who think the Middle East can ONLY be Arab Muslim) cannot be solved with land grants.

I don't know what solution can work there... Big problem for not only Israelis but for whole world. So there must be some way to preserve Israel's existence in this hostile Arab sea of jihad "holy war" against the infidel presence in the M.E. One way is to decommission our oil dependence on that region, and start pulling away from Arab oil. That makes the most sense, and therefore weaken the jihad internally, while offering less financial aid to those whose posture towards their neighbors is warlike, calling for their annihilation. If they don't change their warlike nature, then cut them off entirely... even if it means a humanitarian crisis. Let Arabs take care of Arabs in that case.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 09:40 pm:   

"Let Arabs take care of Arabs in that case."

They do not want to for very good reasons, it is better to keep the Pali Arabs in a state of victimhood as perpetual refugees, poor and violently angry, to serve the Arab cause. Why would they help?

Pali Arabs are human sacrifice to Allah's jihad against the infidels and Israel.

Anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 01:08 pm:   

'Tutu must consider Arab fanaticism'


quote:

"It is not the criticism of Israel that's been muted. It is the absence of any criticism directed at the Arab world that has been muted," said Hier in a statement released Friday.
"If Bishop Tutu is looking for bias, let him direct his attention at the United Nations, where 57 Muslim countries have paralyzed the General Assembly, preventing it from dealing with the single most important issue of our time - international terrorism - and never allowing it to issue a single condemnation against Hamas, Hizbullah, or the suicide attacks perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists," he continued.



Let there be fairness in criticism, and call the perpetrators of fanatic fundamentalist terror where the real blame belongs, on the 57 Arab nations dominated UN, which is the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Read it all.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration