The arch-terrorist's real reason for waging jihad has nothing to do with Israel or U.S. foreign policy.Raymond Ibrahim Ever since 9/11, when Osama bin Laden was thrust into the spotlight, he has made it a point to occasionally submit questions to Americans — questions which he apparently thinks are unanswerable. In his last message “commemorating” 9/11, for instance, after rehashing the storyline that the jihad on America wholly revolves around U.S. support for Israel — former grievances cited throughout the years include America’s “exploitation” of women and failure to sign the environmental Kyoto Protocol — bin Laden concluded with the following musing: “You should ask yourselves whether your security, your blood, your sons, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation are more dear to you than the security and economy of the Israelis.” Read more ... Source: PJM
 By Dr. Walid Phares
It is unprecedented in American counter terrorism annals: in one day the nation was dealing with three separate Jihadist plots to blow up civilian and other targets inside the Homeland. Although the cases were addressed at different time periods by the FBI and other agencies, nevertheless, the thickening web of Terror attempts breached the crossing line of US national security. This week, authorities revealed three conspiracies by American Jihadists: Michael C. Finton, a 29-year-old man who wished to follow the steps of American-born Taliban John Walker Lindh, was arrested after trying to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian national was arrested after placing what he believed was a bomb at a downtown Dallas skyscraper. But perhaps the most troubling case is of Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi who set up shop in suburban Denver , scouting the Web and visiting beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda. Sources called the alleged plot one of the most significant terror threats to the U.S. since 9-11. Add to the list the North Carolina Jihad cell, led by Saifullah Boyd, which was planning on attacking civilian and military targets across the country.
The immediate question raised by an increasingly worried public is about the connection between all these terror cases: are they all connected? While law enforcement and certainly judicial authorities proceed in a bottom up reasoning, that is to build the case for a global connection between all what is happening with the help of legal evidence, analysts in the field of counter terrorism and conflict are already realizing the meaning of what is happening inside America. In my book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America (2005-2006) I clearly projected that Jihadists, individuals and cells will be mushrooming and expanding inside the United States within few years from then and that they will precisely do what they are trying to do now. I have also projected how large they will become, with time. It was a simple deduction: if the Government doesn’t counter this ideological growth, Jihadists will keep coming. And in fact they kept coming, spreading crossing the barriers of ethnicities, races, nationalities and geographical frontiers. The Jihadists committed to harm the US , and based inside our borders, are now by the hundreds. When I suggested this fact on CNN in 2006, and reiterated it on Oprah’s show so that the public realizes what is to come, I raised a few eyes brows. Now unfortunately, we are meeting the cells of Jihadism in our cities and little towns, and sadly the expectation is that we will see more, and we may unfortunately not be able to stop them all from reaching their goals.
The North Carolina cell, the New York subway plot, the Dallas attempt, the Illinois case, added to the previous cases of the shooting of a soldier in Arkansas, the precedent New York cells, Georgia’s young Jihadists, all the way back to the infamous Virginia paintball network, if anything gives us the genome of what is morphing inside the country -- a vast body of dispersed cells with at least one binding force -- the Jihadi ideology. The question thus is to find out who is propagating the doctrines of Jihadism: who is funding it; who is protecting the indoctrination operation which leads naturally to the rise of homegrown or foreign linked, lone wolves or packs of Jihadists, Terrorists. That is the real question: where is the factory?
What should the US Government do? Well, it must first of all come to the front of the threat and lead the nation against it. This is not a matter of only local police or law enforcement efforts. President Obama and Congressional leaders from both parties must give this spreading plague a top priority: for if one of these groups is successful, our national economy will crumble again, or at least will be wounded even more severely, let alone the human consequences of terror. Americans are watching with great concerns, these terror plots being revealed. They expect their elected officials to address these fears before the worse happens.
Dr Walid Phares is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad and the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Dr Phares is an advisor to the US House Caucus on Counter Terrorism, Source: Walid Phares
 By Supna Zaidi
In Philadelphia, I recently crossed paths with a small, chubby cheeked African-American girl swathed in a black cotton ankle length head-scarf. Her amorphous little body walked passed me, holding hands with her niqab clad mother without eye contact or a smile.
Normally, I wouldn’t think anything of this. Since 9/11 the increase in hijabs, niqabs and other "Islamic" dress by women has grown highlighting the politicized nature of Muslim identity in the U.S. But to see such a little girl wearing clothing that purports to protect her sexuality from strangers seemed grossly at odds with her prepubescence. But then I realized that the child was probably being mentally prepared for the full face covering her mother wore when she reached puberty. The dress length hijab on this 5-7 year old girl, was merely a transitional garment.
Unlike most parts of the US, The niqab is a very common garment in Philadelphia. The city has a very large convert community of African Americans to Islam, who have been "evangelized" by particularly politicized, anti-establishment Salafi Muslims. The Salafi ideology is the same as that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and shares the same ultra-conservative tendencies of the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. In Philadelphia it is normal to see as many as ten niqabis in a day, where one would be hard pressed to see one or two in Los Angeles or Houston.
European nations from Italy and France to the UK, are debating banning the niqab. The arguments against the garment range from labeling it as a symbol of Islamic female oppression to the security and safety risk the face covering poses to the public at large. On the other hand, supporters of the niqab focus on religious freedom, cultural diversity and the right to personal choice, hallmarks of western societies, which should not be denied Muslims in the West.
The niqab/burka debate has not reached national media scrutiny yet in the US. It may with Philadelphia as a contentious starting point. Multiple robberies in the past two years were committed by burka clad women and men highlighting the security risk the niqab poses to the public. But, how likely is an all out national ban?
Unlike European nations, the U.S. anti-niqabi position must contend with the First Amendment and its protection of religion. The First Amendment requires that a state restriction against a religious practice survive strict scrutiny. This is the highest standard before our judiciary where the state must provide a compelling argument on the ground’s of protecting the public health and safety.
Many writers, like Daniel Pipes, have written repeatedly that this requirement is met by the security and identification risks face coverings like the niqab and burka pose in the public space. Pointing to Philadelphia alone, he cites:
"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania boasts multiple robberies (3 banks and 1 real estate leasing office) in a sixteen-month period in 2007-08, including the murder of a police officer."
With the conclusion:
"Some observers would ban hijabs from public places, but what legal grounds exist for doing so? Following my rule of thumb that Muslims enjoy the same rights and obligations as other citizens, but not special rights or obligations, a woman’s freedom of expression grants her the option to wear a hijab.
In contrast, burqas and niqabs should be banned in all public spaces because they present a security risk. Anyone might lurk under those shrouds - female or male, Muslim or non-Muslim, decent citizen, fugitive, or criminal - with who knows what evil purposes."
Bank robberies are only the beginning. Photographs for legitimate identification purposes have become an issue in multiple states, including Florida, where women refuse to show their face. Women appearing before a judge in civil disputes refuse to testify if they are asked to reveal their face, ignoring the legitimate legal need to ascertain a witness’ character by demeanor, body language and facial expression.
In schools neither students nor teachers should be permitted to wear the niqab since it interferes with the learning process. A teacher, for example, compromises the student-teacher relationship by creating a harmful barrier between herself and her students, limiting trust and clear communication necessary in class. Students, on the other hand, isolate themselves from their peer group and their teacher, limiting communication and bonding, which assist in the learning process as well.
The state right to marginalize the face coverings of any kind in public for the safety of all citizens is supported by "soft" policy arguments as well. It is a well known fact that most Muslims do not wear the niqab. Rather, it is a garment worn by women in a few Arab countries, but unfortunately, due to increased Wahhabi proselytizing around the globe, more and more women are being told that it is necessary in order to be considered a good Muslim. Its pre-Islamic history is evident in Yemen, where some tribes socialize women to keep their faces covered before their own husbands and children until death. Yet, many Muslims and Muslim clerics demand that it be worn to keep women marginalized in society.
At the end of the day, it should not matter whether one believes the niqab is religiously legitimate or "cultural," it should simply be illegal.
US law protects everyone’s right to believe what they like, but not practice anything if it violates the law. Mormons know polygamy is illegal. Evangelical Christians cannot deny minor children medical treatment where the doctor raises the issue before a judge. A doctor or pharmacist cannot deny a patient birth control just because he or she believes using it is a sin.
The niqab prevents girls from integrating into mainstream society. It supports the creation of parallel societies within mainstream American society that advocates an anti-establishment attitude makes American born citizens feel foreign. Lastly, the garment is a threat to a cohesive American identity for all, where individuals of all faiths or none are expected to come together and respect each other’s backgrounds.
American citizens should take note of the debates Europeans are currently engaged in over religious dress. Philadelphia offers a unique opportunity for its local citizens to ask their congressmen and law enforcement officers why there is no policy on the niqab given its prevalence there. Source: Muslim World Today
 By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Al Jazeera network Monday that the Arab world should built up its “security capabilities” as a signal to Iran to think twice about developing a nuclear weapon.He said that the Islamic Republic has to understand “that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.” However, he stopped short of saying that war will break out with Iran and stated that the Obama administration still prefers diplomatic and economic measures to persuade Iran to cooperate with international atomic energy inspectors. The Arab world buys billions of dollars of weapons from the United States and other countries, but the Defense Secretary voiced doubt regarding a claim that American arm sales to the region have reached $100 billion. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who last month said Iran is preparing new proposals for talks with the world’s major powers, continues to maintain that Iran will not negotiate what he called its “undeniable” rights to develop nuclear power. Diplomatic pressure on Iran is expected to increase after the American Congress ends its summer recess and its members meet to consider tougher sanctions against Iran. However, China and Russia, which have invested heavily in Iran’s nuclear facilities, have indicated they will continue to oppose crippling sanctions if the issue reaches the United Nations Security Council. Mohamed ElBaradei, outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated on Monday that the agency has reached an “impasse” with Iran. Source: INN
U.S. Iran Policy: Better Late Than Never But Too Little Too Late
By Barry Rubin There are more signs that the Obama administration is switching gears on its Middle East policy. The recent visit of several U.S. officials to Israel did not bring any major friction over the construction on settlements issue which is probably far deader than people think. There are two factors involved in bringing about this new phase: First, it is dawning on the administration that its Middle East policy isn’t working so well. The phrase “no success in six months” is being heard. That obviously isn’t enough time to solve the world’s problems but to fail to have a single positive development anywhere in the globe--given the high expectations generated by this administration and its over-optimism--is humiliating. And as they look ahead they don’t see any successes on the horizon. Second, the administration has to gear up for its sanctions-building plan on Iran. The leaks say that the basic timetable is clear. In August and September, the United States will try to mobilize international support (Europe, Russia, and China) for increasing sanctions. If Iran hasn’t changed course by the end of September—and it won’t—these sanctions will be put into effect. What’s on the list? Cutting exports of gasoline and other ready-to-use petroleum products—something Congress is already passing--and no insurance for companies trading with Iran are highest on the list. There might also be boycotts of companies trading or investing with Iran. All of this would be a step forward, but of course there are numerous problems: -What will the Europeans support and implement? Probably less than the United States wants. While Obama has done everything possible to please the Europeans—and they have declared their love for him—getting them to act is something else. -What will the Russians and Chinese back? Clearly, they will only go for even less impressive sanctions at best. -How will Iran react? By ignoring the sanctions and trying to go around them. They will not find China and Russia helpful in that pursuit. As for Russia, Obama is viewed there with actual contempt.Presumably, the administration will not get tough with those countries no matter what they do, or don’t do. -By making the main theme of its foreign policy, “partnership” rather than unilateralism, the administration has tied its own hands so that the United States cannot get too far out ahead of its allies. And it’s also too little too late, not because Iran is so much closer to getting the nuclear weapons and long-range missiles but because the Tehran regime has made up its mind. The time to do this was before the Iranian election, not after—as the Obama administration mistakenly chose. Read all here: http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/07/us-iran-policy-better-late-than-never.html
Saudis Make Fun of Obama Middle East Policy; Administration, Media, Pretend Not to Notice
Saturday, August 1, 2009 By Barry RubinSaudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal is visiting Washington. He praised the Obama administration and then hammered nails into the coffin of its Middle East policy. There was nothing subtle about the Saudi response.For the first time, a non-radical Arab regime—that is, one nominally allied with the United States—has openly ridiculed the U.S. government’s new policy. Naturally, the prince was full of praise for the Obama administration, in general. In specific, he did the opposite.Consider this statement by the foreign minister-prince: "Today, Israel is trying to distract by shifting attention from the core issue -- an end to the occupation that began in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state-- to incidental issues such as academic concerns and civil aviation methods. This is not the way to peace."But wait a minute! These weren’t Israeli ideas, this was the American plan. So the Saudis point 1 was: Forget about it, Obama.Point 2 was, of course, the very trap the administration set for itself. The Arabs want Israel to agree to withdraw from the entire West Bank, Golan Heights, and east Jerusalem. Then they want it to accept a Palestinian state. Then they want it to agree to take in millions of Palestinian refugees.At that point, they’ll talk about what they’ll do in exchange. This is, after all, the Saudi peace plan that everyone tries to make sound more moderate by leaving out all of the details.Point 3 is that the parties should go to an immediate comprehensive agreement based on those prior Israeli concessions. This last point has its amusing side. In 2000, Arab states and the Palestinian Authority pushed for a total, comprehensive agreement as fast as possible. So the U.S. president held a meeting in Switzerland with his Saudi counterpart, and a negotiating conference with the Palestinians and Israelis at Camp David. In both cases, the Arab side refused to give any ground whatsoever. [Oh, and prediction: Even if Israel withdrew from all the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and Golan Heights; agreed to a Palestinian state; and accepted back any Palestinian who wanted to live there, the Saudis still wouldn't permit Israeli airliners to overfly their kingdom and foster academic exchanges.]The Bush administration, advised by President Bill Clinton who was a victim of that 1990s' peace process, learned something: the Arabs are not so eager to make peace. The Obama administration thought this was just more Bush evil mischief. Now it is starting to learn otherwise.But what about Saudi help on pressing Iran? Predictable, privately they will demand the United States save them, practically and publicly they will do nothing constructive.What about Saudi help in stabilizing Iraq? The regime will continue to look the other way as wealthy, well-connected Saudis send money and dispatch Sunni men to fight against the Shia-Kurdish regime there. All of this was obvious on January 20, 2009. More than six months have been wasted. Claiming to have hit the ground running, the Obama administration hit the ground fumbling. Source: http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/saudis-make-fun-of-obama-middle-east.html
H/T: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073103764.html
 If America should not impose “its own” democratic system, can it stay neutral when oppressive regimes and forces impose their “own repressive” systems?By Dr. Walid Phares Another issue raised by President Barack Obama during his July 11th speech at Accra is the “relative” notion of democracy. In contrast with the previous administration’s call for a U.S.-backing for the “spread of democracy,” Obama underlined that “America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation. The essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny.” In fact, the difference between the previous and the current U.S. approach is not about the “role,” as no one in Washington’s government has had any project to “impose” democracy, or specific institutions. The George W. Bush approach tried to say that all nations yearn for democracy and freedom with the same intensity, if given the opportunity. The Obama approach says the same about the ultimate quest but recommends stirring away from fermenting, inciting, or pushing for it. He said: “Each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions.” Read more ... Source: FSM
Meet the man who is Islamabad and Washington's new Public Enemy No. 1. BY IMTIAZ ALI | JULY 9 In May of last year, a convoy of journalists made its way from Peshawar up into the remote reaches of South Waziristan. They were responding to an invitation from the diminutive, diabetic, and hypertensive commander of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban. With characteristic grandiosity, the commander laid out a lavish feast for the reporters before sharing his reason for summoning them: an official declaration of jihad against U.S forces across the border in Afghanistan. Meet Baitullah Mehsud -- Pakistan's biggest problem, and the man who has taken his country of 176 million to the center of the West's war on terror. Once described by a Pakistani general as a "soldier of peace," he now carries a 50 million rupee (about $615,300) bounty on his head from Pakistan and a $5 million one from the United States.
Mehsud is earning the ire of the Pakistani military and Western policymakers alike as his movement destabilizes Pakistan, and the United States has destroyed several of his hide-outs with drone strikes in recent months. His now-famous 2008 press conference -- which came almost exactly a decade after Osama bin Laden called for the killing of Americans in a similar announcement just across the border in Khost, Afghanistan -- was an extraordinary piece of stagecraft even for a commander with a certain penchant for public flare. By incautiously exposing his location to a big group of journalists, Mehsud should have facilitated his own capture; that he didn't serves as ongoing testament to the incompetence (and perhaps lack of will) of those who purport to pursue him. Mehsud's growing influence is of particular concern to Western policymakers because Pakistan represents the gravest general security threat to the international community -- the prospect of a nuclear-armed al Qaeda. Keeping Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of Islamist extremists is contingent on a stable Pakistani state, and Mehsud is the one man perhaps most capable of destabilizing it. According to journalists from the tribal region, Mehsud's force structure is diverse: It includes approximately 12,000 local fighters, many belonging to his own Mehsud tribe, and close to 4,000 foreign fighters, predominantly Arabs and Central Asians seasoned in the Afghan jihad of the 1980s. Many of them spent time in al Qaeda training camps and can't return to their home countries for fear of prosecution. By giving them a cause and a home -- in parts of South Waziristan where they are accessible to him on short notice -- Mehsud has expanded his corps of fighters. He also has a stable of teenage boys who have been indoctrinated to serve as suicide bombers. For the last five years, Mehsud has used this army to terrorize Pakistan with suicide bombings, hostage takings, and brazen military offensives. In one spectacular show of strength, he took close to 300 Pakistani soldiers, including officers, hostage in South Waziristan in August 2007. Mehsud demanded that his top militant prisoners be freed in exchange. It was a glorious moment for Mehsud when the government agreed after just 2½ months. Read it all here... Source: Foreign Policy
The trouble with Black Muslims
By Rudolf Okonkwo, June 28, 9:41 AM Even Obama cannot say it. But someone has to say it.
We cannot be talking about this season of hate without mentioning the steep decline into actionable hate by misguided black Muslims.
The first time I met a black Muslim in America was in the 90s. I had just arrived from England and this man wearing a bow tie and three-piece-suit approached me with a copy of the Final Call newspaper – the official mouthpiece of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. He wanted me to buy the newspaper but I resisted. He told me it was the bestselling newspaper in America. I told him I was new in America but I was sure the Final Call could not be the bestselling newspaper in America.
“You’ve been brainwashed,” the man said to me.
“By whom?” I asked.
“By the blue-eyed white devils who run the world.”
“O’ yeah.”
“They don’t want you to know the truth.”
“Like what?”
“Like all the great things our forefathers did.”
“Like what?”
“Bro, you have to open your eyes. We have to get on with the program of our forefathers.”
“And what is that program?”
That was how we began a discussion about the world and the place of the black man in it.
“Why are you a Muslim?” I asked him at one point.
“Because my people were Muslims before the blue-eyed white devils bought us and brought us to America as slaves and forced us to be Christians and to worship a blue-eyed Christ.”
“O’ yeah.”
“Yes!”
“But I am from Africa and my grandfather was never a Muslim nor was he a Christian.”
He was shocked when I said that.
“It is OK if you want to be a Muslim and follow Elijah Muhammed and changed your name to Muhammed, too. But don’t tell me you are trying to be like your forefathers,” I said.
And for four years, we continued our debate. Like some members of the Nation of Islam, he became a convert to Muslim while in prison on drug charges. He had accepted the myths of the Nation of Islam. He told with all the seriousness in his bones that the white man was made in a laboratory in Egypt by a black scientist named Yakub. By the time I left Virginia where I met him, he remained unchanged.
I must say that the Nation of Islam does not advocate militancy. Though separatist in ideology, it does not encourage its members to bear arms. Many young black men coming out of prison have instead joined the mainstream Islam. None of the Muslim converts arrested in recent bombing plots have been linked to the Nation of Islam.
The recent plot by some Muslim converts to bomb the Jewish synagogue in New York and the killing of an army recruiter by another Muslim convert in Arkansas have muddled things up. Before then, there was a group of Muslim converts, mainly from Haiti, who planned to blow up Chicago Sears Tower from their base in Florida.
Some of these people are carrying their misguided and misrepresented history and anger out in the open and are even planning to act on them. It concerns me. And it should concern you, too.
First of all, I came from a country where there are Muslims. Those who have Arabic features assume superior position over those who are black. In many instances, the black Muslims are totally disregarded, treated as inconsequential.
I have asked black Muslims mad at how white people treated black slaves to ask themselves were the millions of slaves the Arab world took from Africa were? They disappeared. They were used and disposed of. If not, the Arab world would be booming with its own share of black men and women.
I have asked black Muslims mad at the “war” between the West and Islam to look at the genocide in Darfur and find out how Muslims treat their black brothers and sisters.
In Africa, the homeland of all black people, Islam came from the Middle East and Christianity came from Europe and they all exerted inordinate damage. But where Islam touched, there is no recognition of the ways of life of the people. Islam, being a way of life, swallowed all that was African in the people.
All black people must think before they jump from frying pan to fire. And before you pick up arms to fight for those Talibans dying in Afghanistan, spare a minute for two million children who die of malaria each year in Sub-Saharan Africa. Those are your people. For real! Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-14375-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m6d28-The-trouble-with-Black-Muslims
The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday. According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hinted in a newspaper interview earlier in the week that the G8 is due to decide on new financial sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Berlusconi disclosed that he had spoken with the heads of the G8 nations and has discussed such steps with them. Read more ...Source: HaaretzH/T: Jihad Watch
By Phyllis Chesler Earlier today, Muslims demonstrated in Antwerp to oppose the banning of headscarves in two schools–and the new Swedish head of the European Union, Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, stated that the “27 member European Union must not dictate an Islamic dress code…(that) the European Union is a union of freedom.” As my readers know, yesterday, al-Qaeda threatened France because President Sarkozy had called for a ban on the burqa. Clearly, this is a major issue in Europe where anywhere from 30-50 million Muslims live. Paradoxically, various European countries have banned or restricted the far less restrictive headscarf (hijab) in schools, universities, and courtrooms–but have not yet restricted the far more smothering burqa. Perhaps hijab is seen as the “nose of the camel,” a garment which, if allowed, will lead Europe right down the slippery slope to more oppressively restricted clothing for Muslim-European women. Could this issue arise in America with its much smaller Muslim population? Is this an issue we must address? Read more ...Source: PJM
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbV9ZIJhlO0&feature=player_embedded I must say, this speech was hard to stomach. So much pandering, so many historical inaccuracies, so many half-truths, distortions and outright lies. One could write a book on the flaws of this shameful excuse for a speech, but for now I'm analyzing the most glaring inaccuracies in the first ten minutes. As is customary a full transcript follows: “I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo” Cairo is not a timeless city. Jerusalem has been a permanent settlement for an estimated 5,000 years. Rome was founded about 2,800 years ago. These are timeless cities. Cairo is barely 1,000 years old. The ancient capital of Egypt moved dozens of times, to sites ranging up and down the Nile River valley; none of them were Cairo. Then Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great, served as Egypt’s Capital for nearly 1,000 years (332BC-641AD), until the Arab Islamic conquest in 641AD. At that point the Arab military commander founded a garrison-city called Fustat to administrate the newly conquered territory. It wasn’t until 969AD that Cairo was founded nearby, and not until 1169AD that it became Egypt’s permanent capital. “The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.” The conflict and religious wars you speak of started shortly after Mohammed’s death in 632 AD. Muslim armies invaded and overran about half of the existing Christian world in the space of one century. The Islamic caliphate steamrolled over the Middle Eastern and North African domains of the Byzantine Empire, and an Islamic army crossed into Spain in the year 711AD, invading European territory unprovoked nearly 300 years before the First Crusade, and about 800 years before the beginning of the European colonial period. But of course the aggression was not only directed at the West and Christians. Islamic armies also conquered the ancient empire of Persia and by the dawn of the 8th century had carved out a foothold into the Indian subcontinent, slaughtering Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus along the way. “More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” What about the rights denied to infidels in Muslim-dominated lands for the past 1,400 years? What about their aspirations? The Christians and Jews in the Mediterranean world were relatively lucky. The Koran granted them "protected” status as Dhimmis. This was protection in the mafia sense, except the terms were much harsher. As people of the book, they were allowed to live as long as they paid exorbitant taxes, submitted to constant public humiliation, forfeited their legal rights and did not build any new Churches or Synagogues, or even repair existing structures. The non-monotheist civilizations to the East had it much worse. Mercy was the exception; the rule was slaughter and the abject destruction of their holy places.And why do you only mention European colonialism? Why not Islamic colonialism which started earlier and lasted longer? Let’s take the example of the country from which you chose to address the Muslim world. Egypt was held by European colonial empires for a total of 43 years: Napolean’s army briefly held the territory from 1798-1801, and the United Kingdom ruled from 1882-1922. Now let’s look about 200 miles across the Mediterranean, to a Christian country called Greece. Greece was occupied by the Islamic Ottoman Empire from the mid-1400’s through the year 1821: about 400 years, or about ten times longer than Egypt was occupied by the West. And Greece was just one province of the European portion of the Ottoman Empire, which occupied the entirety of the Balkan Peninsula and beyond. They ruled over the largely Christian inhabitants of this area for centuries, periodically pushing into central Europe as far as Vienna, and threatening to extinguish Christian civilization in Europe completely. And yet today, we don’t see Greeks or Slavs flying planes into buildings in Istanbul, or blowing up buses in Cairo. “Our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." Fair enough, but unfortunately for us this feeling wasn't mutual. John Adams accompanied Thomas Jefferson to England in 1786 to speak to the ambassador of the Islamic state of Tripoli in London. These two revered founders of our nation were in Europe to ascertain why Islamic pirates were attacking American merchant ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and enslaving their crews for no apparent reason. They reported the Tripolitan ambassador’s reasoning to the Continental Congress: “ ... that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. ” Source: http://occidentalsoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/skeptics-guide-to-president-obamas.html This puts us 10 minutes into Obama's 55-minute speech, and I'm already getting queasy.
Truth, Justice and Tolerance upside down
Walid Shoebat and Keith Davies, June 6. 2009
Our President just spoke in Cairo and he said he wanted to speak truth but the speech was a lie from start to finish. He tried to portray Islam as a tolerant religion. Try ask the families of the million and half Armenian Christians butchered by the Turks in the name of Allah, or the Hindus butchered in the tens of millions in India during the middle ages or try telling the 850,000 Jews who fled Arab countries between 1948 and 1973, or what about the millions of Christians and Black Muslims (not real Muslims according to the Arabs) butchered by the Arab Muslims in Darfur Sudan; just a few of the tolerant moments of Islam. Maybe we could examine the persecution of Copts, Maronites and other Middle Eastern Christians over the last several centuries including the current times. I personally have spoken to dozens of families about how their wives, daughters, aunts and nieces have been subjected to unspeakable rapes, kidnapping and imprisonment with no course for redress.
John Adams the second president may have signed a peace treaty with Tripoli (morocco) Pirates but did not compliment Islam, the President Obama took those words out of context and then on top omitted the castigation and condemnation of Islam by John Adams’ son; John Quincy Adam’s, the sixth president, who said quote “The essence of his doctrine (Islam) was violence, lust: to exalt brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”
President Obama continues with his lies about the “Justice, progress and dignity of all Human beings in Islam”. Well Mr. President, try asking that question from the wives of most Muslims; if only those women had a chance to taste Western freedom of expression. Our President deceives himself as he deceives others. He is a disgrace to the cause of civil rights, not for just Christians and Jews but to all that live under the yoke of Islam. The huge amount of evidence showing Islamic brutality today and of the past hat is denied by President Obama with omission and unfortunately also denied by many in our society, including most of the church in America and the West.
According to the philosophy of the left and our President, is that if you are a minority you have the right to be more privileged than the majority because of the past injustices that were inflicted on that minority. Affirmative action is for every minority except for Jews/Israelis because if you are a Jew living in the Middle East or Israel you have to be subservient to the Muslims and to our President Barack Hussein Obama, who is “proud of his Muslim heritage.”
If Islam is not a peaceful religion and Zionism is true then I am a proud extremist. The President does not speak the truth and should be impeached for hate crimes and racism against Jews, for despising and undermining our constitution, for attempting to bankrupt the country, for lying to the American people about what he promised them before being elected and allegedly for proposing a racist supreme court judge. America is still divided and not united because the truth is lost, lies are embraced and deception is the order of the day.
In regards to Israel the President made a clear and unequivocal statement at AIPAC about an undivided Jerusalem but that I am sure will be the next change in his position after he pounds the Jews into giving up Judea.
If you are a true liberal how can you justify Jews giving up their homes or expanding their economic welfare because they are Jews? Arabs want a state called Palestine, fine, if that is what they want why Jews can’t live in a state called Palestine as a peaceful minority just like Arabs live within Israel’s Green Line. If Jews cannot be part of “Palestine” then Arabs should not be part of Israel, kick them all out, let them live in their utopia terror state called Palestine. No, because if Israel were to do this they would be called an apartheid state but it is OK to be an Arab and be guilty of an Apartheid policy, which is called “freedom fighting” by the left and the Arabs. How tolerant Mr. President! And for those that say that Jews should not be there in the first place, that is another lie. Jews lived in JUDEA continuously for nearly 4000 years except between 1948 and 1967 when THEY were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians. In 1967 after the Six Day War did Jews return to reclaim the birthright of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hebron is in Judea, Bethlehem the burial place of Rachel is in Judea. If Judea does not belong to the Jews then neither does Tel Aviv or Haifa. Stand up Jews and make your case, stop being so practical and reasonable, your enemies are not interested in land, or economic development, or living in harmony with you, their religion of Islam forbids it, they are only interested in killing you, Islamic tolerance is a myth, a lie and a deception. When they shouted idbah-al-Yahud (slaughter the Jews) prior to 1948 war, prior to 1967 war and today in every mosque in the Middle East, what part of ‘slaughter the Jews’ do you Jews not understand?
When Israel withdrew all the Jews from Gaza, all this brought was more war, actually more Palestinian Arabs died when Israel gave them “freedom,” more Palestinian Arabs have been murdered by their own people; more Palestinian Arabs have been imprisoned by Hamas, due to Israel’s foolish policy which has also caused the death of dozens of Jews, as well as terrifying the whole population of towns in Southern Israel. Yet our rock star President wishes to direct Israel to make the exact same concessions in Judea and Samaria and expect a different result. In fact if Israel does do the President’s bidding, and withdraws from Judea and Samaria can we expect peace or another Gaza blueprint?
You do not have to be a committed right winger or Zionist ideologue, but use ones common sense to be able to understand that the most likely outcome would be another Gaza situation, but this time it will be even worse, because now you have every person in Israel that can be targeted by Hamas Rockets. Yes Hamas rockets, because every person who understands the security situation knows that if Israel hands control over Judea and Samaria to Abbas of the PLO, then Hamas will immediately overthrow him and you will have the same situation as Gaza. Abbas depends on Israel’s security forces for him to maintain power. The whole peace process with Abbas is a complete sham.
If the American administration truly understood the reality then it needs to be racist towards Hamas instead of the Jews, i.e. destroy the terrorists with uncompromising force then you may not get peace but you will have neutralized the enemy and disemboweled their ability from making war which is much better than the current status quo.
If Israel had some common sense it would use the above arguments in the public domain to make their case, but alas they stand silent. By their silence they will not get peace, they will not get security and they will continue to suffer. They suffer because they will not honor truth, they will not honor G-d’s Promise. Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/06/truth-justice-and-tolerance-upside-down/
 By Melanie Phillips It’s some small comfort at least that Lord Carlile, the sensible terrorism law watchdog, has taken a personal decision to conduct a review of the debacle in which 12 men, 11 of them Pakistani students plus one British national, were arrested a fortnight ago in Manchester, Liverpool and Lancashire amid claims of an enormous Easter terrorist bomb plot, but are not to be charged at all and with the 11 facing instead deportation on national security grounds. This looks like a fiasco of no small proportion. The police operation appeared to founder when the former head of the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terror Command, Bob Quick, inadvertently revealed details of the impending arrests on a carelessly exposed folder as he emerged from his car. He promptly fell upon his truncheon, and the story was that as a result of his carelessness the arrests had to be brought forward by 12 hours, thus causing police and intelligence officials to scramble to reel in all 12 suspects in what was described by the Prime Minister as a very big terrorist plot. Read more ...Source: FSM
 David Byers | March 17
TENSIONS between the United States and Iran increased further today after it emerged that American forces had shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraqi airspace.
US forces said that the drone was hovering around 60 miles north of Baghdad when it was destroyed last month, adding that the deviation was "not an accident" on the part of Iranian forces.
“The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle was in Iraqi airspace for nearly one hour and 10 minutes and well inside Iraqi territory before it was engaged," a military spokesman said.
“The pilots were directed to shoot the UAV down after determining there would be no possibility of collateral damage. The UAV was believed to be an Iranian ’Ababil 3’ model UAV."
The US did not say what it believed the drone to have been doing over Iraq, but America has long accused the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of providing training and funding to Shia insurgents who commit attacks against US troops and Iraqi forces.
“This was not an accident on the part of the Iranians,” the spokesman added.
The report came as it emerged that the reformist candidate Mohammed Khatami, the former Iranian President, looked likely to withdraw from the race to be the next Iranian leader.
Mr Khatami was set to be a strong candidate against Mr Ahmadinejad's hardline government, but is believed to have pulled out of the race to prevent the opposition vote from being split between him and Mir Hossein Mousavi, Iran's influential former Prime Minister, who has also entered the race.
Washington has been tentatively seeking to unfreeze relations with Tehran since President Obama's election last November.
As part of his promise to change foreign policy in the aftermath of President Bush, the new US leader has pledged to offer diplomatic engagement with US foes, including Iran, to test if there might be scope for negotiated solutions to conflicts.
Last week, however, Mr Obama said he had extended one of the many levels of sanctions against Iran, imposed in 1995 over charges that Tehran dealt in terrorism and sought weapons of mass destruction.
In addition, Washington remains concerned about the growing ties between the two Shia-majority neighbours, repeatedly accusing Iranian-linked groups of attacking US troops in Iraq.
Under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-led regime, Baghdad and Tehran fought a devastating 1980-1988 war in which around one million people died. Source: The Australian
 By Chidanand Rajghatta WASHINGTON: The United States is lining up billions of dollars in new economic and military aid to Pakistan despite reports that Islamabad is using American tax-payer money for deals with the Taliban and accounts of US arms ending up in the hands of the extremists. Amid an ongoing review of the so-called Af-Pak policy initiated by the Obama administration, Washington, under pressure from influential Senator John Kerry among other lawmakers and lobbyists, is said to be considering a one-time $5 billion aid to Pakistan over and above the $1.5 billion annual package for ten years currently under review for passage through Congress. Releasing a report by the think-tank Atlantic Council on Wednesday, Kerry, who is also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is in a position to pilot the aid package, raised the prospect of a total collapse in Pakistan if it was not helped urgently. "If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," he said. "The stakes could not be higher, and [this] report could not be more timely." The 27-page report calls for "a total of $4-5 billion above the (Biden)-Kerry-Lugar proposals and beyond the IMF and other loans from the US. and other sources," for Pakistan. Of this, it recommends, about $3 billion should go to the economic and social sectors directly. About $1 billion of fresh or redirected funds would go to security forces -- both military and law enforcement. Read more ...Source: TNNH/T: Weasel Zippers
 Sarah Baxter in Washington | January 18, 2009
BARACK OBAMA is planning to reach out to the Islamic world, seeking a rapprochement with Muslim opinion alienated by the Bush administration.
He believes a personal initiative will dramatise his wish to reassure Muslims, and intends to give a speech in an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office as a sign of his engagement.
He has not said where. Egypt and Pakistan are obvious possibilities, but there has been speculation that he could choose Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, where he spent part of his childhood.
Obama will be sworn in as president with his full Muslim-sounding name of Barack Hussein Obama, in keeping with White House tradition.
“This Tuesday, we can reaffirm our own veneration and love for our country and our democracy,” he said yesterday in a radio address. “We can once again provide an example to the world.”
His inauguration presents a “unique opportunity to reboot America’s image in the world and also in the Muslim world in particular”, he said in an interview.
Obama intends to prohibit the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, by the CIA, and to shut the secret “black site” prisons where terrorist suspects have been questioned. In future, interrogations will follow the rules set out in the US army field manual, which conform to the Geneva conventions. However, he is considering retaining a secret loophole, which would allow the CIA to use some methods outside the army rulebook.
One move that has been ruled out is the immediate closure of the Guantanamo detention centre for terrorist suspects, the focus of much Muslim anger.
Although Obama is committed to closing it - and the process has begun - he has hinted it could take as long as four years.
He said in a recent interview that he would consider it a failure if he had not closed the prison by the end of his first term in 2012. There had been speculation it could take a year because of problems in resettling potentially dangerous detainees, but not four years.
Obama was preparing a diplomatic offensive to tackle the problems of the Middle East as Israel last night declared a ceasefire in Gaza. He believes peace is impossible without diplomatic action across the region from Palestine to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“We’ve got a regional set of problems,” Obama said. “They’re not going to be solved in isolation, and we’ve got to be active in all these areas in order for us to be successful in any of these areas.
“Very early on in the administration I will announce a team and an approach that allows us to get engaged in the Middle East on day one,” he said.
“The American people and the players in the region are going to know that we are serious about dealing with the Middle East, dealing with Iran, dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan on the diplomatic front and not just on the military front.”
Obama said America’s financial crisis and recession would not deter him from acting in the Middle East.
“I know some people have said, ‘You have this big economic crisis on your hands, and so President Obama is going to put off issues like this until his second term or later in his first term’,” he said. “I don’t think we have that luxury.”
“That doesn’t mean that we close a deal or we have some big, grand, Camp David-type event early in my administration. It does mean that we have a team in place which is hitting the ground and starting to engage constructively.” Source: The Australian
  That, my friends, will be the headlines sometime in the next ten days. Yes bunky, before Obama is sworn in as President of the United States Israel will wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities so that the blame can be put on outgoing President George W Bush and leave Obama free to pursue a new direction in the Middle East. Whether this is done with or without the knowledge or support of the States I can't say, but according to all reports the Perspective research department has received this seems to be the most logical choice. Israel and the States have to do something about Iranian nuclear ambitions sooner or later and this seems like the prefect opportunity. Oh sure, the other Arab states will scream bloody murder, but don't kid yourself, deep down they will all breath a sigh of relief. Israel has nuclear weapons but they are also rational, so nobody is too worried. But, a nuclear armed Iran is another matter entirely. Just as Iraq could not be allowed to gain a nuclear capability, so too must Iran be stopped, and timing is everything. Should be an interesting week so hang on to your hats, and remember, you heard it here first! Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available as an E-Book H E R E ! and as a paperback H E R E ! Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com
 A group of clerics and religious scholars have issued a fatwa or edict that says jihad will be obligatory for every Pakistani citizen if India attacks the country. The fatwa was announced at a conference organised by the Tahaffuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz at Jamia Naeemia seminary in Lahore on Monday.
The meeting, chaired by Federal Minister Noorul Haq Qadri, was arranged to discuss Pakistan's security concerns.
Besides declaring that jihad would be obligatory for all Pakistanis in case of an attack by India, a communique issued by the clerics said the Pakistan government should end its support to the United States in its war on the western border in case of hostilities with India. The conference demanded that Pakistan should shrug off the Indian pressure and adopt a courageous and independent stance befitting a sovereign state. The clerics called on the government to expose Indian conspiracies hatched against Pakistan before the world.
The communique said the clerics and scholars reaffirmed the belief that the basic purpose of Pakistan's nuclear capability was to ensure the security of the country against any foreign aggression. Source: India Defence
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
