Singer-activist Ferhat Mehenni’s campaign for liberal self-government.
Posted Mon, 06/22/2009 - 21:35 by Jugurten
Democracy in Algeria
from http://www.kabylia.info/
On the margins of the Arab world, the United States has some little noticed allies. These are ethnic or religious minorities who have never accepted the inevitability of strongman rule. Some of them have fallen on hard times-the Maronite Christians of Lebanon are scattered and defeated for now; the Copts, in Egypt, have been lying low for decades-but others see their fortunes rising. The Kurds of northern Iraq flourished under the protection of American jets in the last years of Saddam Hussein and are throwing themselves into the rebuilding of their country. Less familiar is the story of the Kabyles of Algeria and the bard-activist Ferhat Mehenni, who is one of their better-known leaders.
Read more
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iran and the US -- and the Problem of Afghanistan
Iran and US through Afghanistan
Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law - Persian Journal
Iranian.ws
Iran sees its cooperation in the Afghanistan exactly contrary to the US view. This means, Iran is not interested in helping the West solve its problems in Afghanistan and then go to other problems. It sees the cooperation in Afghanistan as something that comes at the end. When other problems of the USA and Iran are solved, then Iran may help the USA in Afghanistan as an advantage or a concession to the US.
The US Administration, under President Obama, in a major shift in U.S. policy, declared that the United States wanted to invite Iran to a conference on the future of Afghanistan, which was held at the end of March 2009. Iran's government spokesman, Elham, responded that the Islamic Republic would consider such a request, (1) and later Iran actually took part in it. At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki said the United States came to Afghanistan aiming to root out extremism, restore security and fight the drugs trade."All indicators in regard to these three areas show that the conditions have deteriorated sharply," he told state television. (2)
However, two things were obvious in Mr. Elham's remarks: First, the US and the West (NATO), were in "need" of help in Afghanistan. Second: They have "asked" Iran for help and Iran was going to consider the possible help because: "it was ready to help Afghanistan as it battles a growing Taliban insurgency".
While Iran and the United States sat at the same table to discuss Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, the Bush administration later called Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil.
Iranian regime felt betrayed. Instead of getting some of the "spoil" in return for its services in war, it was made target of more criticisms. This was a source that put the government of Iran in attack from inside. The extremists that had asked the government not to cooperate in Afghan issues were made bolder and they took the American position in Afghanistan vis a vis Iran as a proof that were right. They ask what are the guarantees that we do not get the same response after helping the Americans in Afghanistan?
Iran and the US both want:
1- The Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and disconnected with Pakistan
2- The stability of state in Afghanistan ( Iran is more concerned about areas close to Iran)
3- The control on narcotic drugs (Iran and US both want this but for their own reasons. Both of them are consumption centers, but Iran is also a transit route. US is worried the drugs get the money for Taliban and Al-Qaida and other terrorists)
4- They both do fear from Sunni terrorism headed by Al-Qaida.
At the same time, they have conflicts
1- The US does not wish to see the dominance of Iran in Afghanistan
2- The US is afraid of Shiite terrorism (3)
3- Iran does not want to see the American or Western plans succeed anywhere.
4- The Iranian regime hates to see the growth of democratic institutions in Afghanistan
5- Iranian regime does not want Afghanistan to be used as a base for Western (US) military operations against Iran.
6- Iran is more afraid of the USA than Taliban.
Kayhan Newspaper, close to the Supreme Leader, in an article (under the title of: "NATO's begging of Iran along with arrogance!") has mentioned: "In a move to take distance from their previous positions based on ignoring the influence of Iran in Afghanistan, the Europe and the USA have been forced to invite Iran to the gathering of the G-8 in the same field, while NATO and the USA confess that they are close to total defeat in Afghanistan and they see Iran as the only way to escape however, the Foreign Minister of Italy has said: this is an opportunity for Iran to get out of isolation (!)." (4)
Also, Aleddin Borojerdi, the Chairman of National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Majles have said: "Iran is against stabilization of the presence of [foreign] forces in Afghanistan, the experience in Afghanistan has proved that presence of foreign forces would lead to the deterioration of extremism and terrorism in that region." (5)
A review of these points leavers no doubt about the different ways of Iran and the US in looking at the problems in Afghanistan. Iran and USA have not the same time lines for cooperation in Afghanistan.
In fact what happened in the actual meeting on Afghanistan, indicated to the same fact. Iran not only did not take any step that could be interpreted as cooperating with the USA, but it avoided to let this event be a stage in the developments in the relations of Iran and US through Afghanistan.
There was something of a controversy between Iran and the U.S. regarding whether or not the delegations of the two states met at the Afghanistan conference in the Hague (31 March 2009).
The VOA reported: "Senior U.S. and Iranian leaders met Tuesday on the sidelines of an international conference in the Hague aimed at re-energizing international commitments for war-torn Afghanistan. Participants agreed to boost security and development in the central Asian nation.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the meeting that took place between U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke and Iran's deputy foreign minister Mehdi Akhundzadeh as brief but cordial. She said the two sides had agreed to stay in touch." (6)
According to a semi-official news agency in Iran, Mehr, the spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran denied any meeting, official or otherwise, between the representatives of Iran and the U.S. in and around the Hague conference.(7)
Shahrzad news reports that Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen claimed on a television talk show that the night before the conference he met the U.S. representative, and Holbrooke expressed an inclination to meet the Iranian representative unofficially. Therefore, Verhagen as the host arranged for the two to sit at the same table during lunch. (8)
Whatever its nature may have been, the two sides had some kind of contact. Based on the exact words of the Iranian side and whatever they may have meant, however, it may be equally possible to say no "contact" between Holbrooke and Akhundadeh took place. For instance, an employee of the Iranian diplomatic mission in The Hague who was not a member of the Iranian delegation to the conference may have represented the Iranian side.
What did Akhundzadeh, the Iranian representative have to say? According to a report on Zamaneh, a Persian web site sponsored by Radio Holland, "The point that the other side is trying to convey that this [i.e. the meeting] occurred, for whatever reason, perhaps indicates to a certain extent that they are in a hurry, or they want to exploit this in a certain way." (9) The fact that each side persists in interpreting this "contact" in its own way (the U.S. calling it a promising move and Iran calling it "nothing") has certain meanings quite independent of the nature of that contact:
1- The U.S. side is eager, perhaps even overeager to elicit a response from the Iranian side towards establishment of bilateral relations.
2- The U.S. expects much from Iran in response to the Nowruz message of President Obama to Iran.
3- Disregarding other possibilities, the U.S. has interpreted Khamenei's response to President Obama as keeping the door open for negotiation and simply looking for a face-saving way.
4- The U.S. is ignoring indications that Khamenei's response was an attempt to throw the ball back into the U.S. court. The supreme leader repeated he is waiting for the change.
5- The Iranian side did not consider its presence in the Hague conference on Afghanistan "as publicly declared time and again before the conference" as a step in the line of U.S.-Iran negotiations. In fact, the delegation criticized the U.S. presence in Afghanistan as an enhanced presence intended to find a military solution for a problem that cannot be solved militarily.
The conclusion is that Iran is not interested in the stability of Afghanistan the way the US sees it. Iran more likely prefers:
1- To see the defeat of US plans for Afghanistan as a yet another indication that the US policies do not work in the region.
2- Iran likes stability in the parts of Afghanistan near to its borders. The rest of Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al-Qaida can create problems for the US, it is welcomed and even persuaded. As far the US relations with the regime of Iran are concerned, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
3- Iran may cooperate with the US for the preservation or continuation of "stability", but it will cost the US in other places and cases.
Notes
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(3) http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p06s02-wosc.html
(4) http://www.magiran/npview.asp?ID=1815268 ) March 2, 2009, No. 19312, P. 2
(5) http://www5.iran.ir/View/fullstory/Tools/PrintVersion/?NewsId=384684
(6) http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-31-voa45.cfm
(7) http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2009/04/085771.php
(8) http://www.shahrzadnews.org/news.php5?id=2212
(9) http://www.bitaraf.com/showlink.php?id=1053060
Bahman Aghai Diba, Washington based Iran analyst, is a former Iranian diplomat and currently a consultant to the World Resources Company
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29145.shtml
first published Apr 14, 2009
Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law - Persian Journal
Iranian.ws
Iran sees its cooperation in the Afghanistan exactly contrary to the US view. This means, Iran is not interested in helping the West solve its problems in Afghanistan and then go to other problems. It sees the cooperation in Afghanistan as something that comes at the end. When other problems of the USA and Iran are solved, then Iran may help the USA in Afghanistan as an advantage or a concession to the US.
The US Administration, under President Obama, in a major shift in U.S. policy, declared that the United States wanted to invite Iran to a conference on the future of Afghanistan, which was held at the end of March 2009. Iran's government spokesman, Elham, responded that the Islamic Republic would consider such a request, (1) and later Iran actually took part in it. At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki said the United States came to Afghanistan aiming to root out extremism, restore security and fight the drugs trade."All indicators in regard to these three areas show that the conditions have deteriorated sharply," he told state television. (2)
However, two things were obvious in Mr. Elham's remarks: First, the US and the West (NATO), were in "need" of help in Afghanistan. Second: They have "asked" Iran for help and Iran was going to consider the possible help because: "it was ready to help Afghanistan as it battles a growing Taliban insurgency".
While Iran and the United States sat at the same table to discuss Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, the Bush administration later called Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil.
Iranian regime felt betrayed. Instead of getting some of the "spoil" in return for its services in war, it was made target of more criticisms. This was a source that put the government of Iran in attack from inside. The extremists that had asked the government not to cooperate in Afghan issues were made bolder and they took the American position in Afghanistan vis a vis Iran as a proof that were right. They ask what are the guarantees that we do not get the same response after helping the Americans in Afghanistan?
Iran and the US both want:
1- The Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and disconnected with Pakistan
2- The stability of state in Afghanistan ( Iran is more concerned about areas close to Iran)
3- The control on narcotic drugs (Iran and US both want this but for their own reasons. Both of them are consumption centers, but Iran is also a transit route. US is worried the drugs get the money for Taliban and Al-Qaida and other terrorists)
4- They both do fear from Sunni terrorism headed by Al-Qaida.
At the same time, they have conflicts
1- The US does not wish to see the dominance of Iran in Afghanistan
2- The US is afraid of Shiite terrorism (3)
3- Iran does not want to see the American or Western plans succeed anywhere.
4- The Iranian regime hates to see the growth of democratic institutions in Afghanistan
5- Iranian regime does not want Afghanistan to be used as a base for Western (US) military operations against Iran.
6- Iran is more afraid of the USA than Taliban.
Kayhan Newspaper, close to the Supreme Leader, in an article (under the title of: "NATO's begging of Iran along with arrogance!") has mentioned: "In a move to take distance from their previous positions based on ignoring the influence of Iran in Afghanistan, the Europe and the USA have been forced to invite Iran to the gathering of the G-8 in the same field, while NATO and the USA confess that they are close to total defeat in Afghanistan and they see Iran as the only way to escape however, the Foreign Minister of Italy has said: this is an opportunity for Iran to get out of isolation (!)." (4)
Also, Aleddin Borojerdi, the Chairman of National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Majles have said: "Iran is against stabilization of the presence of [foreign] forces in Afghanistan, the experience in Afghanistan has proved that presence of foreign forces would lead to the deterioration of extremism and terrorism in that region." (5)
A review of these points leavers no doubt about the different ways of Iran and the US in looking at the problems in Afghanistan. Iran and USA have not the same time lines for cooperation in Afghanistan.
In fact what happened in the actual meeting on Afghanistan, indicated to the same fact. Iran not only did not take any step that could be interpreted as cooperating with the USA, but it avoided to let this event be a stage in the developments in the relations of Iran and US through Afghanistan.
There was something of a controversy between Iran and the U.S. regarding whether or not the delegations of the two states met at the Afghanistan conference in the Hague (31 March 2009).
The VOA reported: "Senior U.S. and Iranian leaders met Tuesday on the sidelines of an international conference in the Hague aimed at re-energizing international commitments for war-torn Afghanistan. Participants agreed to boost security and development in the central Asian nation.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the meeting that took place between U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke and Iran's deputy foreign minister Mehdi Akhundzadeh as brief but cordial. She said the two sides had agreed to stay in touch." (6)
According to a semi-official news agency in Iran, Mehr, the spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran denied any meeting, official or otherwise, between the representatives of Iran and the U.S. in and around the Hague conference.(7)
Shahrzad news reports that Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen claimed on a television talk show that the night before the conference he met the U.S. representative, and Holbrooke expressed an inclination to meet the Iranian representative unofficially. Therefore, Verhagen as the host arranged for the two to sit at the same table during lunch. (8)
Whatever its nature may have been, the two sides had some kind of contact. Based on the exact words of the Iranian side and whatever they may have meant, however, it may be equally possible to say no "contact" between Holbrooke and Akhundadeh took place. For instance, an employee of the Iranian diplomatic mission in The Hague who was not a member of the Iranian delegation to the conference may have represented the Iranian side.
What did Akhundzadeh, the Iranian representative have to say? According to a report on Zamaneh, a Persian web site sponsored by Radio Holland, "The point that the other side is trying to convey that this [i.e. the meeting] occurred, for whatever reason, perhaps indicates to a certain extent that they are in a hurry, or they want to exploit this in a certain way." (9) The fact that each side persists in interpreting this "contact" in its own way (the U.S. calling it a promising move and Iran calling it "nothing") has certain meanings quite independent of the nature of that contact:
1- The U.S. side is eager, perhaps even overeager to elicit a response from the Iranian side towards establishment of bilateral relations.
2- The U.S. expects much from Iran in response to the Nowruz message of President Obama to Iran.
3- Disregarding other possibilities, the U.S. has interpreted Khamenei's response to President Obama as keeping the door open for negotiation and simply looking for a face-saving way.
4- The U.S. is ignoring indications that Khamenei's response was an attempt to throw the ball back into the U.S. court. The supreme leader repeated he is waiting for the change.
5- The Iranian side did not consider its presence in the Hague conference on Afghanistan "as publicly declared time and again before the conference" as a step in the line of U.S.-Iran negotiations. In fact, the delegation criticized the U.S. presence in Afghanistan as an enhanced presence intended to find a military solution for a problem that cannot be solved militarily.
The conclusion is that Iran is not interested in the stability of Afghanistan the way the US sees it. Iran more likely prefers:
1- To see the defeat of US plans for Afghanistan as a yet another indication that the US policies do not work in the region.
2- Iran likes stability in the parts of Afghanistan near to its borders. The rest of Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al-Qaida can create problems for the US, it is welcomed and even persuaded. As far the US relations with the regime of Iran are concerned, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
3- Iran may cooperate with the US for the preservation or continuation of "stability", but it will cost the US in other places and cases.
Notes
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5282VN20090309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
(3) http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p06s02-wosc.html
(4) http://www.magiran/npview.asp?ID=1815268 ) March 2, 2009, No. 19312, P. 2
(5) http://www5.iran.ir/View/fullstory/Tools/PrintVersion/?NewsId=384684
(6) http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-31-voa45.cfm
(7) http://news.gooya.com/politics/archives/2009/04/085771.php
(8) http://www.shahrzadnews.org/news.php5?id=2212
(9) http://www.bitaraf.com/showlink.php?id=1053060
Bahman Aghai Diba, Washington based Iran analyst, is a former Iranian diplomat and currently a consultant to the World Resources Company
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29145.shtml
first published Apr 14, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Thinking Dangerous Thoughts . . .
. . . can get one in trouble
or can it?
This past weekend the NY based Islamic Thinkers Society crashed the Israel Day Parade in Manhattan. Keeping with their past track record they spewed nothing but hate while calling for the destruction of Israel.
Thinkers indeed. I think I need to get a gun for the next parade.
The above from Islamic "thinkers" think it's all right to call for the re-opening of Auschwitz
COMMENT by me (Leslie White)
Free Speech for them Musulims, okay, but with what's in the White House, how long can Americans expect to enjoy Free Speech because of the First Amendment?
The administration is rapidly becoming a tyranny of czars and an unbalance of powers in the government with the Executive branch grabbing it all. With the control of the Supreme Court, he's got two thirds and can start re-interpreting the Constitution in his favor. (Who's he? The clown in power.)
COMMENT at barenakedislam:
by fred g
I can think of a few good signs myself
“Anyone who supports Obama is the enemy of America”
“Muslims are child rapists, and Obama is a muslim!”
I could list a few more, but then Id have the newly formed Obama gestapo on my doorestep murdering me for exercising my free speech righs
Comment by barenakedislam on June 7, 2009 12:29 am
Not yet, Fred, we still have free speech but who know for how long? After he shuts down talk radio he’s coming for the bloggers. Next year I’ll be sure to go to that parade and I’ll take a few Marines with me.
And from another site comes this COMMENT:
This country is under attack by people even more sinister and power hungry than Hitler was. Our war is here and now. You and other patriots like us, are the leaders that will take this country back. We have the power, the will and the numbers to do so. If we all do our part, we can rid this republic of the leeches that are killing it.
and in answer to it:
Make NO mistake America, the time is coming, we WILL have open warfare in the streets and fields of this nation, it’s only a matter of time, and sooner or later, we will fight here and win, or we will lose and AMERICA will die!
Foregoing two Comments from What has our *Greatest Generation* become?
June 6th, 2009 . by TexasFred
http://texasfred.net/archives/4308
Want to read more?
OK, here's something to think about:
Overture to Civil War: There's Something Happening Here . . . and it ain't good at all
When the same idea comes from unconnected sources, separated by time and the wall that stands between life and death, it's more than a coincidence.
or can it?
This past weekend the NY based Islamic Thinkers Society crashed the Israel Day Parade in Manhattan. Keeping with their past track record they spewed nothing but hate while calling for the destruction of Israel.
Thinkers indeed. I think I need to get a gun for the next parade.
The above from Islamic "thinkers" think it's all right to call for the re-opening of Auschwitz
COMMENT by me (Leslie White)
Free Speech for them Musulims, okay, but with what's in the White House, how long can Americans expect to enjoy Free Speech because of the First Amendment?
The administration is rapidly becoming a tyranny of czars and an unbalance of powers in the government with the Executive branch grabbing it all. With the control of the Supreme Court, he's got two thirds and can start re-interpreting the Constitution in his favor. (Who's he? The clown in power.)
COMMENT at barenakedislam:
by fred g
I can think of a few good signs myself
“Anyone who supports Obama is the enemy of America”
“Muslims are child rapists, and Obama is a muslim!”
I could list a few more, but then Id have the newly formed Obama gestapo on my doorestep murdering me for exercising my free speech righs
Comment by barenakedislam on June 7, 2009 12:29 am
Not yet, Fred, we still have free speech but who know for how long? After he shuts down talk radio he’s coming for the bloggers. Next year I’ll be sure to go to that parade and I’ll take a few Marines with me.
And from another site comes this COMMENT:
This country is under attack by people even more sinister and power hungry than Hitler was. Our war is here and now. You and other patriots like us, are the leaders that will take this country back. We have the power, the will and the numbers to do so. If we all do our part, we can rid this republic of the leeches that are killing it.
and in answer to it:
Make NO mistake America, the time is coming, we WILL have open warfare in the streets and fields of this nation, it’s only a matter of time, and sooner or later, we will fight here and win, or we will lose and AMERICA will die!
Foregoing two Comments from What has our *Greatest Generation* become?
June 6th, 2009 . by TexasFred
http://texasfred.net/archives/4308
Want to read more?
OK, here's something to think about:
Overture to Civil War: There's Something Happening Here . . . and it ain't good at all
When the same idea comes from unconnected sources, separated by time and the wall that stands between life and death, it's more than a coincidence.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It
From Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It
Op-Ed
No Sharia
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it
[Excerpts]
Victory for European forces (A), or victory for Islam (B)
(A) A possible end result of a civil war resulting in a victory for the domestic population will be the total banishment of traditional Islam from a specific country. Widespread emigration/deportation and large scale conversion of Muslims in the country.
(B) A victory for Islam will allow all the rules of a victorious Islam to be applied. Traditional Islam will substitute for all liberal western versions of Islam that have grown in the country but still lack any real theoretical basis and a real doctrine.
Massive and nationwide expropriations, slavery of conquered women, continued slaughter of non-Christians and Christians known for opinions opposed to Islam and of moderate Muslims who initially try to protect non-Muslims, murder of minorities e g gays. A Muslim dictatorship without democracy similar to religious dictatorships in the Middle East, is established.
The sharia laws is the basis for a new constitution and the laws of the country. The institution of dhimmitude is introduced and will regulate the life of Christians and Jews. The rest of the population will slowly be eliminated. The GNP declines successively to less than 50 % of its former level, and an insignificant growth happen only during good years.
1.3. A preliminary discussion of a few phases
If the governments of a European country during the coming decades show an unwillingness to protect its European citizens from the inroads of Islamists, this attitude will sooner or later lead to violent conflicts between the traditional or new political anti-jihad forces, and the radical Islamic movement. It seems highly possible that the development phases 2-3 may last a long time in societies with strong democratic traditions, a good educational system and – from the beginning - a fairly homogenous ethnic population. The infiltration and dissemination of political Islam’s values among non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will then during a long period be carried out mainly with non-violent means. The methods of this missionary and pre-Revolutionary work during phases 2-4 show a pattern which will be analysed later. That work is often structured according to principles laid down by e g the Moslem Brotherhood for the expansion of political Islam in European countries.
This growth of Islamic influence can be counteracted by certain laws and policies.
Continue reading at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it
Op-Ed
No Sharia
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it
[Excerpts]
Victory for European forces (A), or victory for Islam (B)
(A) A possible end result of a civil war resulting in a victory for the domestic population will be the total banishment of traditional Islam from a specific country. Widespread emigration/deportation and large scale conversion of Muslims in the country.
(B) A victory for Islam will allow all the rules of a victorious Islam to be applied. Traditional Islam will substitute for all liberal western versions of Islam that have grown in the country but still lack any real theoretical basis and a real doctrine.
Massive and nationwide expropriations, slavery of conquered women, continued slaughter of non-Christians and Christians known for opinions opposed to Islam and of moderate Muslims who initially try to protect non-Muslims, murder of minorities e g gays. A Muslim dictatorship without democracy similar to religious dictatorships in the Middle East, is established.
The sharia laws is the basis for a new constitution and the laws of the country. The institution of dhimmitude is introduced and will regulate the life of Christians and Jews. The rest of the population will slowly be eliminated. The GNP declines successively to less than 50 % of its former level, and an insignificant growth happen only during good years.
1.3. A preliminary discussion of a few phases
If the governments of a European country during the coming decades show an unwillingness to protect its European citizens from the inroads of Islamists, this attitude will sooner or later lead to violent conflicts between the traditional or new political anti-jihad forces, and the radical Islamic movement. It seems highly possible that the development phases 2-3 may last a long time in societies with strong democratic traditions, a good educational system and – from the beginning - a fairly homogenous ethnic population. The infiltration and dissemination of political Islam’s values among non-Muslims and moderate Muslims will then during a long period be carried out mainly with non-violent means. The methods of this missionary and pre-Revolutionary work during phases 2-4 show a pattern which will be analysed later. That work is often structured according to principles laid down by e g the Moslem Brotherhood for the expansion of political Islam in European countries.
This growth of Islamic influence can be counteracted by certain laws and policies.
Continue reading at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/05/31/islamization-of-europe-and-policies-to-prevent-it
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Narcissist and his creatures
"The first thing Islam does is to destroy the self image of the believers. It convinces them that without Islam they are worthless creatures only fit for hellfire. It tells them that their culture is jahelyyah (ignorance) and their ancestral religion was taaghoti (satanic). They are made to despise their identity and selfhood and seek their glory in their submission to Islam and slavery to its deity who was Muhammad’s own alter ego. Islam has taken everything from its wretched believers. They are robbed from their identity and self pride. All they have now is Islam. That is why Islam for Muslims is more than just a religion. It is their identity. When you criticize Islam, they perceive it as an attack on their identity and cringe with pain. They take that not only as an insult but also as an assault on their person. Like a cornered animal they become vicious and fight back with all their might – a fight of survival. That is why you see such a violent reaction to a few silly cartoons."
--Ali Sina http://www.faithfreedom.org/
from http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/02/some-very-enlightening-thoughts-from.html
Read more there . . .
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Islamization of the United States - Progress Report 05-02-09
Islamization of the U.S. proceeds: The U.S. Army War College Has Been Infiltrated by Islamics
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/has-the-us-army-war-college-been-infiltrated-by-islamists/
The year's at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
Obama's in power
...All's right with the world!
(and progressing as planned)
--Borrowed from Robert Browning with one slight emendation to fit the situation at hand
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/has-the-us-army-war-college-been-infiltrated-by-islamists/
The year's at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
Obama's in power
...All's right with the world!
(and progressing as planned)
--Borrowed from Robert Browning with one slight emendation to fit the situation at hand
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within
The Islamization of America: From Mecca to Medina and conquering Americans from within
By Aland Mizell
[From north-of africa.com Translated from the French by afrique du norde.com]
Many times the Ottoman Empire tried to take over the whole of Europe but failed to do so. The Ottoman Empire could not conquer the West by sword, but now Muslims are using a different strategy to conquer the West to bring it under the Islamic realm. Today the West is being the victim of their own values, such as freedom of speech and _expression, so that Muslims are using ‘Democracy’ as a tool and taking advantage of democracy to disseminate Islam to all the corners of the world.
After 9/11 many Muslims complained that Islam had been hijacked by Fundamentalism, and many Muslim leaders and political leaders publicly dissociated themselves from radical Islam, but behind closed doors they still continue to preach against the Westerns’ values. Many Muslims are thinking that the war is against Islam, but actually 9/11 accomplished one of their objectives, the application of universal Islamic values, particularly the jihad. After 9/11 thousands of books have been published, and many non-government organizations and Islamic centers have been established to teach Islam to infidels using American tax money. Numerous conferences have been held under the Interfaith Dialogue or Rumi Organization to disseminate Islam.
Not only in the aftermath of 9/11 did the environment open the door for Muslim missionaries to disseminate Islam in the USA, but also many American politicians, including President Bush when he visited the mosques, affirmed that the majority of Muslim who live in the United States are just ordinary people. America counts millions of Muslims among our citizens, and Muslim make an incredible valuable contribution to our society. Yet, the Muslims believe, ‘There is no God but Allah.’ In the past Americans considered that their country was founded upon Christian values and consequently that it was a Christian nation.
However, there is a new religion only a block away committed to change all aspects of the American way of life called ‘ISLAM.’ Before 9/11 this term was foreign to many Americans, but after 9/11 Islam has penetrated public schools, prestigious universities, state departments, Capital Hill, even law enforcement organizations under the banner of Interfaith Dialogue, and the American values of cultural tolerance and acceptance. According to U.S. news online, there are approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States and an estimated 1,450 mosques in the United States. Just in the Washington area there is a population of more than 50,000 Muslims including more than 30 mosques and Islamic centers According to John Esposito, a well-published professor at Georgetown University, the heaviest Muslim population live in the states of Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland Michigan Ohio, and Virginia. According to Martha Sawyer Allen, the number of Muslims soon will surpass the number of Methodists, and by year of 2010 the population of Muslim will reach more than 16 million. The estimated conversion rate among Americans is 135,000 per year.
What does Islamization mean? It means that from social, political, and cultural institutions to banking and economic operations — all aspects of the way of life — will bring the Islamic constitution, the Islamic code of law, to challenge the U.S. Constitution. It is a process by which the spiritual and political leaders disseminate Islam through missionary activities such as holding seminars on university campuses, opening cultural centers and charter schools, sending graduate students to study at ivy league institutions, building mosques, starting newspapers, infiltrating the most sensitive U.S. institutions such as the FBI, the State Department, and offices on Capital Hill, giving parties during Ramazan,, inviting Americans to Turkey and giving them tours to indoctrinate them, and asking Muslims to marry non-Muslims. Today these cultural centers are more active than mosques because in the mosque the imams cannot indoctrinate people as freely, but in the private houses and private institution, it is easy to do so. One must ask the question why tolerance meetings should be held in America and in the West in the first place since neither America nor the West is making news because of violence, committing atrocities with suicide bombings or killing innocent people because of false indoctrination of mostly the young.
These seminars on tolerance should be held where the root of problem grows, which is neither in America nor in the West. For example, many institutions and universities like Rice University, Georgetown University, the University of Chicago, and Southern Methodist University host conferences to discuss Islam. The questions are directed to lead to the position on why Islam is superior to all other religions and why it needs to be taught in the U.S. For example, NASA invited the Counsel on American Islamic Relation to teach sensitivity and diversity training workshops entitled ‘Understanding Islam and Muslims at NSA.’ Why has Islam become so delicate a topic and superior to all other religion that non-Muslim Americans should be trained and Islam be taught in American institutions? What about the beliefs of Jews, Christians and other faiths. Are representatives from those groups of faith been invited to discuss their faith as part of cultural sensitivity?
I do respect people as they are, no matter where they come from and regardless of their color, race, and faith, but Americans and the West have ignored the Muslims’ hatred of different cultures and the lack of tolerance in the Muslim world. In the Muslim world especially in the Arab countries world, anyone who is not Muslim, such as Christians and other faiths, sometimes even different Islamic sects, as seen currently in Iraq, live in constantly fear of terrorism if they choose to stay among Muslims. Muslims have one agenda no matter what American or westerns countries do as humanitarian acts for their people because it is not enough as long as they are infidels. Fethullah Gulen, the founder and spiritual leader of a worldwide educational movement who now lives in the U.S, wants to create an alternative system to capitalism, which as many argue, will eventually die. Based on this prospect, Mr. Gulen contends that when capitalism dies, Muslims will replace it with the Islamic system. Because Gulen and many other Muslims believe capitalism has not solved human problems and instead has created unequal distribution between the haves and have nots. In their view, however, Islam is a solution to the universal suffering. How can Islam become a universal religion and how can Islam replace capitalism? In other words, how can Islam destroy the American Empire? According to Gulen, the only way Muslims can become powerful is to stand on their own feet, which means by gaining economic independence from the West. How can Muslims be economically independent from the West? Gulen encourages his followers to get the positive things from the West, such as technology and education, and to leave the negative things, such as religion and social mores.
Also, he avoids confrontation with the U.S. because Muslims are not strong enough militarily nor economically to stand against America. However, Gulen wants to use America’s super power status to achieve his goals. From Glen’s point of view, the best way to defeat the enemy is to use the enemy’s own weapons against that enemy. What is the enemy’s weapon? The enemy’s weapons are democracy, technology, language, and the Western values. How can he use this against America or the West? He does so by establishing Islamic centers, non-governmental organizations, such as interfaith institutions, and cultural centers, by sending graduate students who get scholarships from Americans taxpayers, and by providing a good education, and particularly from the principle of freedom of speech to disseminate Islam. Muslims want to destroy America or the West from within, since it is hard to defeat them physically.
Many Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, believe that Islam is the religion of tolerance, peace, and freedom and that the adherents thus renounce any kind of violence and killing. Yet, in Afghanistan, Rahman captured world attention when he was charged with the death penalty for the offense of apostasy for converting to Christianity. When Muslims convert to the Christian faith, it is considered such an offense that they are subject to being killed, and many ex-Muslims live under fear of losing their life and do not have freedom and tolerance to worship to their God. On the other hand, when a Christian converts to Islam, his transformation is praised by Muslims, and he has the right to worship and even to work in better conditions, never having to hide his real identity. Why is that? Are the West and America cowards? Do Americans and Westerns have a double standard? Why do those who convert to Islam, like Cat Stevens, publicly enjoy and celebrate his new religion, travel safely, and never have to hide his face? Besides exercising these freedoms, he devoted himself to disseminate Islam without fear. Has Cat Stevens or any other Christian who converted to Islam faced the death penalty or received any threat? Why can Muslims build so many mosques yet Christians may not build churches in Muslim countries? Where are the American and Westerns leaders and why do they not address the issues of lack of tolerance in the Muslim world? For example, in the Netherlands, the former Muslim who converted to Christianity, Hirsi Ali, has to hide his face but also in this Western country face persecution.
One of the hallmarks of the West is freedom of speech and freedom of _expression, permitting critiques of claims about religion truths, but Islamic law does not allow such debate or criticism. The question many scholars as well as political leaders ask is whether Islam is compatible with democracy or whether Islam can be modernized? Specifically, can Islam tolerate freedom of _expression in America? Under the United States Constitution the State and Church are separated at least by the principle, whereas Islam does not make this distinction. For example, Italian journalist Fallaci in her book The Rage and the Pride, written after 9/11, criticizes Islam and its totalitarian forces in demolishing Western culture and civilization. She also criticizes the West for turning a blind eye to the threat of Islam. Ms. Fallaci argues that ‘Europe is no longer Europe. It is Eurabia,’ a colony of Islam where the Muslims have invaded not only in a mental or cultural sense, but in a physical sense as well. She cogently presents the case that Muslims have poisoned the meaning of democracy. Today, in Europe, there are more Muslims than Christians, and mosques are filled with devotees whereas the churches are filled with tourists. A clear denial of Judeo-Christian roots has become routine propaganda in schools and in media in Europe and now in America.
Islam has a universal agenda; it has a plan and a method. Mohammed did not just come to preach, but also he was a father, soldier, leader, husband, a precursor to the spiritual role of Islam in general in that Islam must dominate all aspects the of life. Many Muslims believe that the Qu’ran was sent to Mohammed from God via angels, so that it is God’s word. If this message is the word of God, can it be changed to be compatible now with the Western notion of democracy, to abandon the Shari law? Can Islam be modernized with the Western modernization? Many Muslims insist that Islam is consistence with democracy and can be modernized, but these ideologies are at their roots inconsistent and thus incompatible. Even the act of lying is permissible in Islam.
According to Islam, an individual can lie for three reasons: to make peace between a father and a mother, to save yourself, to lie to an enemy when you are at the war. Since many Muslims believe that they remain at war with non-Muslim in realms called a house of war and a house peace, you can lie to gain power, and then you can declare war or resist against non-Muslims as the Qumran says to lie to the unbelievers, Christians, and Jews. They are told to be nice on the surface until they gain the majority and then to take over and impose Qu’ranic law or Shari law on the population. Once the community accrues the majority, Americans cannot do anything but accept it like Europe is doing right now.
Bat Ye’or, an Egyptian author, explains in detail the systematic and calculated rise of Islam in Europe in her carefully documented record Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Once Muslims got their representatives in high public offices, then this will happen. President Bush, European heads of state, and Muslim leaders have already announced that this is a religion of tolerance. Yet, if anyone wants to understand Islam, the student of world affairs must read the history of Islam noting how Mohammed spread Islam beginning with a few people all over the world. In its beginning Islam secretly grew for more than two years because Mohammed and his companions had clandestine meetings until Mohammed got enough people and declared the time to spread Islam. Keeping secrets is very important for Muslims. Gulen repeatedly indoctrinates his followers about how to keep the secrets by using Mohammed as an example. For Gulen his followers must know the truth, but they are instructed that they cannot tell the truth everywhere to everybody.
Pope Benedict clearly defines the goal of Islam. The Qu’ran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. The Qu’ran, as the constitution of the Muslims, shapes society in all arenas. In this sense it exploits such freedoms initially allowing freedom in certain areas until the time is right to declare the necessity of society living only under the Islamic code. It cannot be its final goal to say. ‘Yes, now we too are a body with rights; now we are present in society just like the Catholics and the Protestants. If this were the situation, Islam would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature: it would be in alienation from itself.’ This alienation can be resolved only through the whole Islamization of society. For example, when a Muslim finds himself in America, he never identifies himself with the non-Muslims citizens because he does not find himself in a Muslim society (the salt of the earth). Why should everyone else who enjoys freedom of _expression today have to sacrifice because of the fanatical Muslims? After 9/11 Americans are not the same; their liberty and freedom link to their security because of the Islamic fundamentalism. Americans pay taxes, supporting Muslims who still preach hatred in the mosques. Why do Americans pay for extra security measures?
Islam has the universalism agenda to dominate the whole world. Gulen and his followers believe that Islam will be the stronghold in the West. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Gulen declared the hicret, a term referring to the time when Mohammed was exiled from his hometown in Mecca to Medina. There Mohammed initially made peace with the Israelites and encouraged his followers not to confront the Jews because in that time Jews were powerful. Even Mohammed prayed toward the Jerusalem in the early months. He established an Islamic state in Medina, where he was exiled, and then after he gained a majority, he came with an army of ten thousand to conquer Mecca without any bloodshed because the inhabitants of Mecca could not resist Mohammed’s army. Mohammed cleared the mosques of idols and ordered the people to pray toward Mecca rather than toward Jerusalem. Mohammed achieved these goals by his strategies and discipline.
During the time there was a bloody war going on between tribes, but he managed to bring all the tribes together by ordering his followers to marry with the different tribes, and he himself also married many wives from different tribes. Consequently, today Gulen, exiled to the U.S. from Turkey exactly follows the path of Mohammed and disseminates his Islamic goals throughout infidels’ lands, encouraging his fellows not to confront America, because he believes that Muslims have not reached that capacity yet. Many of his disciples get married to American non-Muslims to convert them to Islam and to become American citizens. Gulen acts not on a short-range plan, but on a long-term one.
However, many Muslims believe that Christians in the West and Americans in particular are responsible for the moral corruption, but as I mentioned earlier, Europe is not a Christian country because there are more Muslims in Europe than Christians. It is true that morality has decayed in Europe as well as in America, but that does not make the Bible corrupt, as Islam contends. Europe and American have moved further and further away from Biblical principles and by not practicing the heritage of Bible principles, then they have become morally corrupt. The other point related to corruption is that many Westerns or Americans do not follow the Bible, but if they do regard it as a guide to life, they make the Bible follow them because God gave them freedom, but many Westerners and Americans are abusing that freedom by violating its admonitions by turning instead to sex, drugs, family abuse, murders and so forth. The Muslim retort that the Bible is corrupt cannot be corroborated, but particularly the principle to love enemies rather than to kill them provides the line of demarcation between the faiths
By Aland Mizell
[1]
[1]
Allen, Martha Sawyer. "Growing Pains: Muslim Families Confront ’Americanization’."
NEWS)
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 29 May 1999.
Blank, Jonah. The Muslim Mainstream. U.S. News Online . 20 July 1998.
Esposito, John L. The Oxford History of Islam . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press:. 1999.
Ye¦or. Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickson University Press, 2005.
Aland Mizell is with the University of Texas at Dallas School of Social Science
[First published 6 August 2006]
http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=316
SPEAKING OF "ISLAMIZATION" . . .
AFP/Jim Watson
Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?"*
Key Witness in Presidential Passport Tampering Case Murdered
from Atlas Shrugs
"Do you remember this curious story during the Presidential election? A couple of months before rumblings began about Obama's birth circumstances and the discovery that BHO's COLB (certification of live birth) was a forgery, a story broke in late March2008 that State Department employees had tampered with the passport files of Barack Obama."
***
On April 8, 2008, Obama confessed to having taken a trip to Pakistan in 1981.Here is what Obama said - Jake Tapper was there:
"So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
-Obama
***
Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. (more here)
***
Fast forward: Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot Washington Times
A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.
Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department's Criminal Investigations Division.
Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.
Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.
City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.
"We don't have any information right now that connects his murder to that case," Cmdr. Anzallo said.
Police say a "shot spotter" device helped an officer locate Lt. Harris.
A State Department spokeswoman yesterday declined to comment, saying the investigation into the passport fraud is ongoing.
From and More at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/key-witness-in-presidential-passport-tampering-case-murdered.html
______________________________________
* Obama, the Manchurian candidate
[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]
In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.
Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)