 by Khaled Abu Toameh Jordanian citizens learned about the real circumstances in which the intelligence officer was killed from foreign media outlets, first and foremost Al-Jazeera.
It was the first time they were told that the Jordanian General Intelligence Department was working closely with the CIA against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist groups. The revelations have since embarrassed the Jordanian authorities, whose spokesmen and media continue their attempts to conceal or downplay the role their security forces are playing in the fight against Muslim terrorists in different parts of the world. In announcing the death of General Intelligence officer Captain Sharif Ali bin Zeid, the Jordanian government said that he was on a "humanitarian mission" in Afghanistan. The officer was killed together with seven CIA employees when a Jordanian citizen blew himself up in the eastern Afghan province ofKhost. The suicide bomber, identified as Hammam Khalil al-Balawi, had duped the Jordanian authorities into thinking that he had important information that could lead them and the CIA to Al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Why are most of the Arab dictators afraid or reluctant to publicly admit that their countries are at war with Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist groups? Failure to acknowledge that they are part of this war underscores the state of fear and denial that the Arab dictatorships continue to live in with regards to the threat from Islamic radicals. These rulers and their governments, the majority of whom are unelected, are actually afraid of the Arab and Islamic masses. They are afraid of exposing their connection to the US because, for decades, these dictatorships have been telling the masses that Israel and the US are their real enemies, and not Al-Qaeda and the terrorists who have hijacked Islam. Additionally, these dictatorships are afraid of being accused by Arabs and Muslims of participating in a "war of Crusaders and infidels" against Islam. This is because the majority of the Arab and Islamic regimes have been telling their constituents that this is actually a war waged by the West against Islam. There is also no reason why the US should be helping these regimes in concealing the truth. The battle against Al-Qaeda and Islamic terror groups cannot be won as long as Washington's allies in the Arab and Islamic world continue to hide the truth from their people. It is time for these dictatorships to stop their double talk and to openly admit that moderate Muslims are at war with a tiny minority of thugs and murderers who have hijacked their religion. The Jordanians are not alone in trying to hide the fact that their security services are actively involved in the war against Islamic fundamentalism. The Palestinian Authority, whose security forces are waging a war on Hamas supporters and extremists in the West Bank, has also been doing its utmost to hide its security coordination with Israel. In fact, the Palestinian Authority continues to insist that it never helped Israel during the last war in the Gaza Strip although Israeli security officials have confirmed that such assistance had been provided. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority maintains that the massive crackdown that its forces have been waging against Hamas in the West Bank over the past few years is solely directed against "criminals" and "outlaws." Similarly, the Saudis, Egyptians, Moroccans and Yemenis have also been very reluctant to expose their close ties with the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies involved in the battle against Islamic fundamentalism. Forces belonging to these countries have been involved in the fight against radical Islam on various fronts such as the border between Afghanistan andPakistan and the one between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Hudson New York 
 The recent Christmas terror attempt by the Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab raised several concerns about failure of the system in the U.S. to connect the dots.
There is no single doubt that this event among many others such as the Fort Hood massacre point to a serious problem in connecting the data.
The question that must be raised is, "Have we only failed to connect the dots or have we failed to see them to begin with?"
Since Sept. 11 and in fact before it, we failed miserably to see several clear dots and threats that could have changed our approach to the problem of radical Islam and enhanced our capabilities in fighting it.
Some of the dots that we failed to see include the following: - We failed to see that in most approved Islamic Shariah books, jihad is predominantly taught in a violent manner. We believed in our dreams and imaginations that jihad is a peaceful concept instead of doing our homework to learn how it is defined by mainstream Islamic books and media. We obviously failed to confront the reality until the reality confronted us.
- We could not see that the problem of terrorism is clearly linked to a religious ideology. Our political correctness made us unable to see the most apparent thing, which is, when thousands of terror attacks and suicide bombings are conducted predominantly by dedicated and devout Muslims who belong to several economical and educational levels, it is imperative to think of the ideology as the number one cause for the problem.
- We did not recognize that Shariah, still today, allows stoning of women until death for adultery, kills people for converting from Islam, and promotes wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam. It is a violent and inhumane law that carries major threat to the future of our civilizations.
- We were unable to see the clear link between teaching violence and barbarism in Islamic jurisprudence books and the development of a violent mind that can ultimately lead to terrorism and barbarism.
- We kept talking about moderate and radical Islam without setting parameters to define them. This made us support some radical Islamic groups, organizations, and individuals thinking that they are “moderates.”
- We failed to comprehend that the lack of a strong reaction in the Muslim street against the terrorists is indicative of a serious cultural problem that encourages and supports radical Islam.
- We failed to see that allowing radicals in our military who clearly express sympathy and support for our enemy — such as the case of Nidal Hasan who committed the Fort Hood massacre — is a form of insanity.
- We could not realize that carrying a U.S. passport or having U.S. citizenship does not grant immunity from becoming radicalized.
- We could not figure out that Muslims killing one another in extremely barbaric manners in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be due to or explained by the presence of an Arab-Israeli conflict or by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. We failed to ask the basic question: Why do Muslims kill one another?
- We failed to see that disrespect for the life of non-Muslims, as currently taught in main stream Islamic jurisprudence books, is a — if not the — main underlying factor behind terrorism. We simply could not see that the barbarism practiced by radical Islam has its roots in what we call “moderate Islam,” or Shariah.
In brief, our failure to defeat radical Islam is not simply a failure in connecting dots. It is primarily a failure to see these dots.
 A group of liberal Muslims in Norway is calling on the Islamic Council of Norway to demonstrate in order to support Muhammed cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.(Pictured)"It wasn't a mistake that the caricatures of Muhammed were printed, and in any case it doesn't justify violence. Muslims have just a great interest in protecting freedom of expression as all others. Therefore Muslims should also support Kurt Westergaard," writer Shakil Rehman of the liberal Muslim network LIM (Equality, integration, multiculturalism) told Klassekampen. Rehman is looking for a response from the Islamic Council of Norway after the attack on Westergaard. He calls on the Islamic Council to arrange a demonstration to support freedom of speech. If the Islamic Council doesn't rise to the challenge, his network themselves will take the initiative. "I'm afraid they won't rise to the challenge, because they don't want to lose face in the Muslim world. But if they support freedom of speech, they should also be able to show that they mean it in practice," says Rehman. "Muhammed didn't want to be depicted because he didn't want to be worshipped like an idol. When Muslims think the prophet is insulted by being depicted, then they make him into precisely such an idol. Therefore there shouldn't be any problem to make a caricature of him. I will go so far to say that Muslim leaders are unqualified." Q: Maybe they respond most to the strong connotations of violence? A: He was also an army chief. That is one of his worse sides. We should be able to criticize that. Muslims shouldn't be so holy that we can't criticize him," says Rehman. Norweigan-Somali SV politician Hamsa Mohamed was against publishing the Muhammed caricatures in 2005, but now he's changed his mind. "For me it's completely fine now. I don't respond as vigorously as before. Afterward I saw that people responded unnecessarily vigorously from the Muslim side. Caricatures are drawn all over the world," says Mohammed, who sympathizes with Rehman's liberal view of Islam. "Many say that the Prophet himself had a lot of tolerance, but that it was his followers who did the opposite of what the Prophet stood for. I agree with the interpretations. Many Somalis I speak to are discussing this now, and think that the reaction to the caricatures was an over-reaction," says Mohamed. He would like to participate in a demonstration for freedom of speech, but he's skeptic about a demonstration with only supports urt Westergaard. He also thinks that it's important to correct the image created after the tragic incident in Aarhus. "What happened in Aarhus, made the possibly positive impression that we've succeeded in creating for Muslims change around in minutes. Even of people become more tolerant, and admit that we've overreacted, one person can destroy for all of us," says Mohamed. He's just come back from Christmas vacation in Hargeisa in Somalia. He met there many who were concerened about the rise of the Al-Shabab terror organization. He thinks it's important to prevent youth from being recruited by such extreme groups. "We can do that by preventing stigmatization. The media is also responsible here. When Somali youth experience stigmatization, there many can think of looking towards communities who think extreme things about the majority society, among them there are those who are violent," says Mohamed. In 2006 the Anti-racist Center and 43 other organization took the initiative for a big demonstration for freedom of speech and against threats and violence. This came in response to the riots following the publication of the Muhammed cartoons. The Islamic Council was invited, but decided not to participate. The head of the Anti-racist Center, Kari Helene Partapuoli, thinks such a demonstration is a good idea, but is skeptical about the liberal Muslims fronting it. Partapuoli says it's important to be careful. If liberal Muslims front the demonstration, what does that say about the other Muslims? It would be better if the initiative came from "Norwegian Muslims" or "Muslims in Norway". She thinks that one shouldn't demand of Norwegian Muslims to distance themselves from what one Muslim did in Denmark. Partapuoli says that it's reasonable to demand that society understand the difference between extremists and common Norwegian Muslims. A demonstration done in the right way might get the majority to understand this. General Secretary Shoaib Sultan of the Islamic Council of Norway says they will make a decision about the request for a demonstration for fredom of speech and against violence in the ordinary way, but that there are no plans to support anything.Sultan says that if the main slogan would be like in 2006 "Respect freedom of speech. No to violence and threats" then they support it. Sources: Klassekampen, VG (Norwegian)
Video with Franklin Graham talking about living under Sharia Law in Islamic countries.
 Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Representative Sue Myrick (R, NC-9), who is leading the charge nationally on issues related to terrorism. The founder of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, she has recently called for an investigation of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). FP: Rep. Sue Myrick, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Myrick: Thank you Jamie. FP: It is an honor to speak with you. I’d like to talk to you today about a few things connected to our terror war, especially the tragedy that just occurred at Fort Hood and also your call for CAIR to be investigated. Let’s start with the jihad at Fort Hood. What are your thoughts? Myrick: My first thoughts were of the families of the victims. These are our soldiers, the people who sign up to defend our country, and you just can’t imagine what their loved ones are going through.
But this isn’t something that we can ignore. The shooter was radicalized and was a jihadist.
The several terror plots uncovered across the country over the past few months all have one common thing: they are all connected by a radical global ideology that is self-identified by its believers as jihadist, or “jihadiyya.”
These men were from different backgrounds and races, yet they were all guided by this radical ideology.
The American people need to wake up and realize this is not going to stop. We need to seriously address the issue of this radical ideology.
That is why I have been working with many mainstream moderate Muslims, and trying to help empower them to speak out and confront this radical ideology within their community. FP: And this radical ideology has been very much been protected and bolstered by groups like CAIR. Tell us why you have called for an investigation of that supposed Muslim “civil rights” organization. Myrick: The FBI has publicly stated CAIR has ties to HAMAS, a designated terrorist organization. This was clearly stated in a letter the FBI sent to Sen. Jon Kyl on April 28, 2009: Read more here,,,, Source: FPM
 On Friday, I wrote about the confused message being put out by the various groups which were taking to London’s streets yesterday, including one led by Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, to oppose the ‘sharia now’ demonstration by al Muhajiroun. My post provoked an unexpected reaction – an extraordinary ad feminam attack upon me, on the Guardian’s Comment is free blog, by the ‘reformist’ Muslim Ed Husain which accuses me of displaying zealotry and ignorance and being filled with anger, venom and hatred not to mention also being demented. Such fame! It could turn a girl’s head.
The first question is why Ed Husain was so exercised by what I wrote. After all, this was not his fight; I had made no mention of him or his ‘anti-Islamist’ Quilliam organisation. Much more astonishing was that he was leaping to the defence of none other than Inayat Bunglawala and the MCB. The MCB is an Islamist body which wants to theocratise Britain according to the precepts of Islam.
Last March, the government suspended links with it after its deputy Secretary-General, Daud Abdullah, signed a declaration that was seen as calling for violence against Israel and condoning attacks on British troops in Iraq.
Earlier this year, it boycotted Britain’s annual Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration ceremony. Its Secretary-General, Dr Abdul Bari, has said Britain should adopt Islamic practices such as arranged marriages and that Britons should follow the teachings of Islam. Moderate it is not.
As I reported below, Bunglawala told me himself that he wants Britain to become an Islamic state. Yet Ed Husain, whose Quilliam organisation receives a great deal of money from the government in order to oppose Islamic extremism, actually extols Bunglawala for having moved to embrace liberal attitudes.
Ed Husain, who in 2007 vividly described in his own book Bunglawala’s anti-Jewish attitudes, now says Bunglawala should not be held to account for remarks he made in 1993 in support of Islamist extremism and from which he has now ‘distanced himself’.
People must decide for themselves whether Bunglawala’s apparent conversion to the causes of gay rights and freedom of speech is genuine. But what about his declared aim of turning Britain into an Islamic state? Does Ed Husain now think this too is evidence of Bunglawala’s ‘liberal’ attitudes? Or must we assume that Ed Husain too must not be held to account for his previous opposition to this Islamist goal?
Now let’s look at what Ed Husain says about me. His article sits underneath a strapline, almost certainly written by the Guardian rather than by him, which says: In her McCarthy-style paranoid parallel universe, the Spectator columnist views every Muslim a potential Islamist terrorist. You really do have to rub your eyes at this. In my blog post which provoked Ed Husain’s article, I praised and welcomed those truly moderate Muslims who were mounting a counter-demonstration against al Muhajiroun, particularly the group British Muslims for a Secular Democracy. I have never said or implied that ‘every Muslim’ is a ‘potential Islamist terrorist’. On the contrary, in everything I have ever written about the subject I have emphasised that there are many Muslims who sign up to secular western values and who are themselves victims of the jihadis. Read more here,,,,
Source: Melanie Phillips
 The United States government's stepped-up courting of Islamist groups is on display at the State Department web portal www.america.gov. The site bills itself as a place to "meet the people" and "explore the values and ideas that define the character of the United States." But when it comes to American Muslim organizations, that often means providing a U.S. government stamp of approval to organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) or apologists like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). A September 4 podcast about President Obama's Community Service Initiative illustrates how the federal government gives free and favorable publicity to Brotherhood-linked Islamists. America.gov noted the contribution of Dalia Mogahed (a protégé of terror-apologist John Esposito) to the president's initiative. Mogahed and Esposito work together at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. The two collaborated in writing a book. Read a favorable review here. Read more ...Source: IPT NewsState Department
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 By David J. Rusin The ongoing saga of Rifqa Bary — the teenager who fled from Ohio to Florida, citing fears that her Muslim parents would murder her for becoming a Christian — has underlined the dangers associated with leaving Islam. A 2008 Islamist Watch article summarizes the problem: All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate that a sane adult male must be put to death for abandoning Islam, though varying interpretations persist on whether females should be killed or merely imprisoned. Many Islamic states outlaw apostasy and seven list it as a capital offense. However, freelancers such as angry relatives present the greatest danger to ex-Muslims, as Sunni and Shiite scholars largely agree that Shari'a empowers individuals to punish converts. This tradition has followed Muslims to the Western world. A related menace is that Islamists often employ accusations of apostasy as weapons against moderate Muslims. Given the perils faced by converts from Islam, such charges are meant to intimidate anti-Islamist Muslims into silence — or worse. Islamic scholar Khalid Durán was an early Western target; in 2001 a Jordanian cleric deemed him an apostate following an attack on one of his books by CAIR. Two recent events indicate that Islamists continue to use similar tactics against those whom Durán would term "critical Muslims": - Taj Hargey — a British imam who has opposed the niqab, endorsed the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men, and promoted gender equality in mosques — won a lawsuit in April against the Muslim Weekly, which had asserted that he belongs to a splinter sect whose members are considered by Islamists to be apostates. (On a side note, last year the same paper apologized for defaming Daniel Pipes.) Hargey lamented that "iconoclastic thinkers, liberals, and non-conformists who dare to challenge this self-assumed religious authority in Islam by presenting a rational or alternative interpretation of their faith are invariably branded as apostates, heretics, and non-believers."
- Souad Sbai, an Italian MP and prominent activist for Muslim women's rights, went to court in June to testify against a man charged with appealing for her death. "I have heard very bad things about you and you have thus been exposed as a Christian," he wrote. "The claim by Akrane is an accusation of apostasy," Adnkronos International reported, "which under Islamic law calls for the death penalty, which can be carried out by any Muslim at any time." Sbai also criticized anti-terrorism police for "underestimating the 'Islamic value' of his words."
Why do Islamists label Durán, Hargey, Sbai, and other moderates as apostates? Because they fear them. We must respond by working not only to protect anti-Islamist Muslims from violence, but also to support and amplify their vital message of reform. Source: Islamist Watch
 By Ryan Mauro The war on terror is largely a result of a civil war within Islam. The extremists use terrorism, oppress those who don’t agree with them, and establish states based on strict Sharia law. The moderates, who may disagree with U.S. foreign policy but stand for freedom and democratic principles while opposing terrorism, may not have as powerful of a voice, but they are decisively winning this conflict, making advances in almost every part of the Islamic world. The Middle East is where the turnaround is the greatest. When the Iranian regime rigged the elections in favor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on June 12, the population began a peaceful uprising and today protests against Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, and chants calling for democracy and human rights are commonplace. The regime is today facing the greatest challenge to its very survival since its creation in 1979. This instability has already caused problems for terrorists relying upon Iranian support and when the regime one day inevitably falls, it will have positive consequences across the world. Read more ...Source: PJM
10 Questions Liberals Must Ask Themselves
Monday, July 6, 2009
posted by Dr. Tawfik Hamid In my opinion, there are self-explanatory answers to all of the following questions: Question #1: What would liberals say to women who are stoned to death for adultery, to gays facing capital punishment, and to Muslims beheaded for converting from Islam to another faith, all according to Islamic law? Will liberals say that they must show “tolerance” and accept this barbarism as a matter of respect for religious values or stand against inhumane laws? Question #2: Where can we find sharia books that clearly stand against the above violence? Instead of trying to convince the world that sharia law is peaceful and that it is all a matter of different interpretations, it would be much better if the Liberals asked the leading Islamic scholars to unambiguously declare that stoning women, killing gays, and beheading apostates are unacceptable. Question #3: Why do the liberal thinkers try to find justifications for terrorism such as poverty, lack of education, and the historical “feeling of injustice” among Muslims at the hands of the West? The Jews were exposed to some of the worst forms of suffering and torture in human history at the hands of the Nazis yet they have not performed terrorist acts against German civilians. Question #4: Muslims in the West enjoy rights as equal citizens. However, Jews in the Muslim world are called pigs and monkeys by leading Islamic scholars, Christians are not allowed easy access to build churches, and the Baha’i community is discriminated against in many parts of the Muslim world. Who should really feel angry? Question #5: Why are socioeconomic conditions and political circumstances often used to justify acts of terrorism committed by Muslims? Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus live under the same circumstances and do not instigate such a level of violence. What is the reason for this selectivity? Question #6: Why do liberals demonstrate against Israel for killing Palestinian civilians, which is unintentional and happens because Palestinian terrorists hide among the victims, yet do not use their passion to demonstrate against Hamas, who has intentionally killed ‘Palestinian’ civilians? Note: Hamas assassinated three children of their opponent Dahlan who was the head of Intelligence of the Palestinian authority. Question #7: The Arab-Israeli conflict is often viewed as a historical source of modern day terrorism, yet how could this possibly explain why Muslims have killed and mutilated the dead bodies of fellow Muslims in areas such as Iraq and Algeria? Question #8: If non-Muslims were to begin promoting the idea that “Muslims are pigs and monkeys,” would the liberals stand against this or would they remain silent as they usually do when Muslims call Jews by these names? Question #9: If a Muslim decided to follow in the “footsteps” of the Prophet Muhammad by marrying and having sex with a 9 year-old girl, would liberal thinkers stand against this or allow it to happen out of respect for religious freedom? Note: This story is mentioned in Al-Buchary, the most authentic hadith book in the Sunni world, but it is not in the Quran and the age of marriage is different in Sheia books. Question #10: How would liberals respond if radical Muslims declared war on them and used the standard sharia rule to offer the three choices of conversion to Islam, paying a humiliating tax called the jizya, or be killed? Would liberals respect these religious values by accepting one of these options OR stand against such barbarism in order to protect human civilization? Source: TawfikHamid.com via Lisistrata.com
 On President Obama's "New Era": "Obama has now clearly defined that he is different from the previous administration. So far, that clearly has been his goal: To show the Muslim world that they are different, and that this is the beginning of a new era, etc. I think once he has succeeded in creating the image that he is different, then I hope he will say look, I am different but -- and this was a statement I really liked -- I will always protect the security of Americans. American security is going to repeatedly be attacked in the name of Islam. When that happens, he can always point back to this speech and to negotiations with Iran and say 'I came with outstretched arms, I tried to include you…I told you some things about how fabulous you are.' And when all of that is rejected, then that’s when he can say 'Now let['s] really discuss what is wrong with your religion, and where do our [American] values clash with Islamic values?' Will he do that? That’s the real question. But I don’t know if he will do it. George Bush never did it. He used the term 'Islamofascism'; once but quickly took it back. So I don’t know. We will see."
On women's rights: "President Obama's speech didn’t do much for Muslim women. He defended their rights in Western countries to wear the hijab. He didn’t touch on Muslim women being confined, being forced into marriages or being victims of honor killings: These traditions and principles in the Koran and in Islam are being practiced in the West. He didn’t address that. I think he was just appeasing the Muslim world because they perceive -- they have these notions that Muslim women in Western countries -- are not allowed to wear the headscarf or cover themselves. I mean you can wear whatever you want in the United States. In Egypt where he spoke, women who do not wear their veil in public are subjected to very obscene remarks on the street and even sexual assault. Nowadays, even if they are covered they become victims of the same things: That is, in public, in Egypt, as a woman, you run 80% of the time the risk of being assaulted simply because you are a woman walking down the street. They are forced into marriages; their testimony in countries where Sharia is law is just half of that of a man. They can be divorced with no rights. They need guardians, a married guardian or they cannot sign any legal papers. The President simply did not address Sharia or Islamic law in relation to women."
On Islamic extremism: "Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. 'Islam is peace.' He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it's not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers -- the moderate Muslims -- take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it's as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam. Obama said 'let’s speak plainly to one another'; I would have liked him to have added, 'and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.' That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us…but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him…and Tony Blair…ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It's like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a 'sign of respect.' That said, some of the speech's passages were tough. I liked it the way he told them that 'we are in Afghanistan and we are not leaving,' and I liked what he said about Holocaust denial. But overall, the speech just didn't go far enough."
Source: Booker Rising
Islamist extremists who made headlines with their protest at a parade for returning soldiers were forced off the streets yesterday by an organised demonstration of moderate Muslims. There was a national outcry when the fundamentalists barracked members of the Royal Anglian Regiment during the troops’ homecoming in Luton in March. Photographs of the protesters, brandishing banners with slogans such as “Butchers of Basra” and “Cowards, killers, extremists”, were plastered across the front pages of the next day’s national newspapers. But the demonstration was also met with anger and dismay in the Bedfordshire town’s wider Muslim community. Related Links Moderate followers of Islam said the protest played into the hands of extreme right-wing groups and made their day-to-day lives on the streets of Luton more difficult. Read more ...Source: Times OnlineH/T: Islam Uncovered
Islamofobia degenerata e buon Buonsenso [Questa foto avrebbe dovuto essere scattata prima che Debbie dicesse che Sean è un fascista]
È piuttosto fastidioso sentire islamofascisti declamare ‘decapitate coloro che insultano l’Islam’ o ‘l’America ha meritato l’11 settembre’. È tanto fastidioso quanto sentire islamofobici declamare ‘uccidete i mussi’ oppure ‘bombardate la Mecca’. Ma è doppiamente fastidioso quando questo Sentire viene espresso da Personaggi pubblici.
I Muslims Against Sharia (Islamici Contro la Sharia) si considerano orgogliosamente parte della Comunità anti-islamista. In quanto ad islamici, alcuni hanno un’Esperienza diretta di cosa significhi vivere sotto l’Oppressione islamista. E sanno tutti fin troppo bene quali siano i Pilastri nella Lotta con l’Islamofascismo.
Comunque, alcuni anti-islamisti sono consumati dall’Odio, tanto che gli islamofascisti non rappresentano un Obiettivo abbastanza grande per loro: essi odiano tutti gli islamici. Razionalizzano il loro Odio dicendo che tutti gli islamici sono uguale e che non ci c’è alcun islamico moderato. Bill Warner, un islamofobo dalla Florida (Bill Warner, an Islamophobe from Florida), da non confondere con Bill Warner, il Direttore dello Study of Political Islam/ Studio dell’Islam Politico, riassume ciò piuttosto bene, dicendo: ‘Io, Bill Warner, concordo totalmente con Debbie Schlussel, lei mette il dito nella piaga nuovamente, è tutta una Frode, una Frode islamica, non c’è alcun islamico moderato (I (Bill Warner) totally agree with Debbie Schlussel , she hit the nail right on the head again, it is all a fraud, a Muslim fraud, there are no Moderate Muslims)’. La Cosa buona è che nessuno ascolta veramente Bill Warner, specialmente dopo che si è messo in ridicolo, poiché - questo auto-proclamatosi anti-jihadista - ha fatto Comunella con un lacché del CAIR, Jim Sutter, e l’islamofascista MT Akbar, tentando di diffamare Khalim Massoud di MASH e Pamela Geller di Atlas Shrug (teamed up with CAIR lackey Jim Sutter and Islamofascist MT Akbar in a pathetic attempt to defame Khalim Massoud of MASH and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs). La Cosa cattiva è che la Gente ascolta Debbie Schlussel. Anche io l’ascoltavo. Debbie ha fatto del Lavoro magnifico esponendo i legami fra il Governo e gli islamofascisti. Sfortunatamente, ciò non è tutto quel che ha fatto.
Mettendo a parte la Tendenza a diffamare altri anti-islamisti che non vedono le Cose esattamente come Debbie (lei chiama regolarmente Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, John Loftus, e Walid Shoebat bugiardi e frodatori), o la sua Tendenza a pensare che lei è l’unica vera diva conservatrice (a momenti stacca la testa ad uno dei suoi commentatori perché si è permesso di dire che Laura Ingraham è una conservatrice; Monica Crowley, secondo Debbie, è senza talento), Debbie non vede alcuna Differenza fra islamici e islamofascisti.
Il 25 maggio 2009, è stato un giorno nero per gli islamici anti-islamisti. Il Deputato Muftì del Dagestan, Akhmed-khadzhi Tagavev è stato assassinato, presumibilmente da Terroristi wahhabiti (Dagestan's Deputy Mufti, Akhmed-khadzhi Tagayev was murdered, presumably by Wahhabi terrorists). Ahmed Tagaev era conosciuto per la sua Posizione anti-estremista. Ha ripetutamente scritto in merito al Problema dell’Estremismo islamico nel suo Articolo in un Media locale e on-line.
Ma Debbie non la vede così. Nella sua demente Declamazione ‘la tua Fine nella Religione di Pace, intra-pacifica (Your Day in "Religion of Peace" Intra-"Peacefulness")’, Debbie scrive: ‘Non prendetevi in giro e non crediate che – come dichiarato dall’Agenzia News Interfax –Tagavev, il Deputato Capo Muftì del Dagestan, fosse una sorta di moderato semplicemente perché si opponeva all’Islam wahhabita ed è stato da esso ucciso. Il Tipo era estremista come molti Clerici islamici, ma semplicemente non era dalla stessa Parte estremista dei wahhabiti’. Mi chiedo quanto conoscesse Ahmed Tagaev. Io l’ho conosciuto, e non era affatto estremista. Combatteva gli estremisti ed ha pagato il Prezzo ultimo, ma per Debbie è semplicemente un altro islamico morto. Il Pensiero che probabilmente CAIR e ISNA stiano gioendo della Morte del loro Nemico, non dovrebbe fermarla per un Momento? Lo dubito. Per Gente come Debbie, l’unico islamico buono è un islamico morto.
Commentando ‘il Centro di coordinamento degli islamici del Caucauso del nord organizzerà presto un Incontro, per vedere come proteggere i Clerici islamici dagli estremisti’, Debbie scrive: ‘Correzione: i Clerici islamici sono estremisti’. Sicuro, la Maggioranza dei Clerici in America sono estremisti. Estremisti pagati dai Petrodollari wahhabiti. Gli stessi Petrodollari contro cui combatteva Ahmed Tagaev. Debbie definirebbe estremista pure Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, un Clerico islamico che è più pro-Israele della maggior Parte degli ebrei americani?
Diciamo che Debbie è così presa dall’Islamofobia, che non potendone fare a meno, gioisce ogni volta che un islamico muore. Ma dov’è finito il Buonsenso? Attitudini come la sua inducono islamici in Dubbio a pensare piuttosto ‘hey, questi anti-islamisti non sono così male, sono contro l’Islamismo, non contro gli islamici’ oppure inducono loro a pensare ‘Osama ha Ragione; essi odiano tutti gli islamici e dobbiamo difenderci’? Non capisce che lei sta causando più Danni che Cose positive quando si tratta di Guerra al Terrore? Oppure le interessa solo che sia soddisfatta la sua Rettitudine personale? I.A. Fonte: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/05/degenerate-islamophobia-vs-common-sense.html
The Obama Administration is reportedly looking into ways of funding a Palestinian government that also includes representatives of Hamas. This, despite the fact that the Islamist movement continues to stick to its radical ideology and reiterates its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and all the agreements that were signed between the Palestinians and Israelis since 1993. Ever since Hamas came to power as a result of the January 2006 parliamentary election, it has repeatedly rejected the conditions of the Quartet for dealing with its government, namely that it recognize Israel, abandon terrorism and accept previous agreements with the Jewish state. Attempts by the Egyptians and other Arab countries over the past three years to convince Hamas to soften its position have fallen on deaf ears. In late April, talks between Hamas and Fatah negotiators (in Cairo) over the formation of a Palestinian "unity" government failed after it became evident that the Islamist movement remained unwilling to make the slightest concession. According to Fatah representatives, the Hamas negotiators made it clear during the "conciliation" talks that they would never recognize Israel's right to exist or the Oslo Accords and other agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians. Moreover, the Hamas team emphasized their movement's "right" to continue "resistance operations" (including rocket attacks and suicide bombings, of course) against Israel. Mahmoud Abbas and Hosni Mubarak are reported to be extremely angry with Hamas for refusing to sit in a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel and is willing to renounce terrorism. Mubarak, according to reports in the Arab media, has even banned several top Hamas leaders from entering Egypt, holding them responsible for the failure of the talks with Fatah.
Abbas, on the other hand, is now considering the possibility of unilaterally forming a new government that would not include members of Hamas. But in Cairo and Ramallah there is deep concern over what is perceived as the new US policy of "appeasement" toward Hamas. The news about the Obama Administration's readiness to unconditionally channel funds to a government that consists of Hamas officials is regarded by Mubarak and Abbas as a severe blow to their efforts to convince Hamas to change. "Hamas should be weakened, not strengthened," said a senior aide to Abbas. "Hamas is not going to relinquish its radical policies as long as it feels that the Americans and Europeans are prepared to deal with it without demanding anything in return." An Egyptian diplomat expressed fear that Washington's new conciliatory approach toward Hamas and other extremists in the Arab and Islamic world will only undermine the moderates who already feel threatened by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Funding a government that consists of Hamas ministers means, in many ways, that the money will eventually end up in the hands of those who are planning rocket and suicide attacks. If Hamas is permitted to join any government without meeting the conditions of the international community, it will be seen by many Arabs and Muslims as a victory for violence. And such a move will only invite more terrorism. Appeasing Hamas means appeasing Osama bin Laden and the enemies of all the moderate Arabs and Muslims, as well as modern civilization. The terrorists will change, if at all, only once they realize that they are increasingly being isolated and have no chance of prevailing. Source: Hudson New York
(ENG) Watch the video 'Moderate Muslims' here: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/moderate-muslims/ (ITA) Gli islamici canadesi che si oppongono alla Shari’a sono minoritari e sono braccati
domenica 6 aprile 2008, di Marc Lebuis Traduzione e trascrizione del video (in inglese con sottotitoli in francese) : R. Spencer et les musulmans modérés (Robert Spencer e gli islamici moderati) inviato (a PointDeBasculeCanada) da Tazda Ecco la trascrizione del video tradotto (in francese) da Pistache l’insoumise. Vi invitiamo pure a sorvolare l’eccellente blog di Pistache. I riformatori islamici sono spesso presi di mira come Apostati (persone che hanno lasciato l’Islam), da parte dei jihadisti. Farzana Hassan Shahid, la nuova Presidentessa del Congresso Canadese Musulmano - Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), è l’ultima vittima temporale di questo fenomeno. Dopo che le sue opinioni liberali su un numero di questioni islamicamente ‘calde’ hanno cominciato ad essere conosciute, si è messa a ricevere delle minacce emananti da islamici partigiani dai modi duri, che vedono nelle sue prese di posizione dei segni della sua Diserzione dell’Islam. Uno fra loro l’ha chiamata ‘la sorellina di Satana’; un altro ha avvicinato suo marito in una moschea in Ontario ed ha preteso da lui che ‘controllasse sua moglie’. Farzana Hassan Shahid ha spiegato lei stessa: ‘c’è una paura latente tutto il tempo … questo sentimento di malessere fa parte della mia Vita quotidiana. Sono stata dichiarata Apostata per due volte, per essermi opposta alla Shari’a (Legge islamica).’ Hassan Shahid è un’altra Rappresentante del MCC ad essere stata presa di mira dai jihadisti. Fino a poco tempo fa, Tarek Fatah era il Direttore della Comunicazione del MCC. Ma in agosto, ha dato bruscamente le Dimissioni. Fatah era da tempo stato uno dei principali Portavoce islamici in Canada. E in quanto a Direttore della Comunicazione del MCC, non aveva mai evitato la Polemica, in merito a certe vedute in quanto a Diritti degli Omosessuali e ad altre questioni che deviano dall’Ortodossìa islamica. Delle vedute che Hassan Shahid ha ora ripreso. Fatah si era pure opposto alla Campagna condotta nel 2005 per introdurre in Canada delle Camere arbitrali basate sulla Shari’a. Ma invece di ricevere felicitazioni dalla Comunità islamica canadese, Fatah è divenuto l’Obiettivo di una Campagna di e-mails iniziata da un Gruppo di studenti, il Congresso Islamico Canadese (Canadian Islamic Congress). Il CIC ha affermato che Fatah NON rappresentava la Maggioranza degli islamici canadesi. Fatah ha commentato: « questo, è ciò che si può emettere di più vicino ad una minaccia di morte, perché questo mi classifica come apostata e blasfematore. » E Fatah, come Farzana Hassan Shahid, ha ricevuto delle minacce di morte molto chiare. Le voci della Moderazione o della Riforma in seno alla Comunità islamica sono in posizione nettamente svantaggiata, perché i jihadisti possono molto efficacemente utilizzare il Corano e la Sunnah contro di loro. In più, tutte le Scuole giuridiche dell’Islam spiegano che un Apostata DEVE essere ucciso, un Comandamento radicato negli Insegnamenti di Mohammad, che ha dichiarato: « Se qualcuno (islamico) abbandona la sua Religione, uccidetelo. » Perciò, minacciare di morte qualcuno può diventare un atto di Pietà . È ironico che gli Osservatori occidentali non-islamici, che sanno niente o molto poco dell’Islam, presumono che le Voci liberali o riformatrici siano predominanti nelle Comunità islamiche d’Occidente e altrove, mentre la Realtà è che delle persone come Farzana Hassan Shahid e Tarek Fatah hanno solo poca influenza fra gli islamici, e soprattutto, sono delle persone braccate. I riformatori islamici meritano tutto il Sostegno che si può dare loro, ma dovremmo smetterla di farci delle illusioni pensando che sono una Maggioranza. E soprattutto, i Rappresentanti del Governo e della Legge dovrebbero smettere di concepire delle Politiche basate sull’ipotesi che persone come Farzana Hassan Shahid e Tarek Fatah costituiscano veramente la Maggioranza. Robert Spencer per jihadWatch.org (traduzione in francese di Pistache ) Source: http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/spip.php?article356
1. Barbarians kill as West drifts
August 25, 2007 - Salim Mansour, Toronto Sun There comes a point at which diminishing returns on most issues begin to go negative. Such a point in denouncing Islamist terrorism and equally the Muslim majority's silence against this menace was reached sometime ago. As Islamist terrorism, however despicable, became mundane occurrence in the daily news cycle, the deafening silence of Muslims -- except for lonely voices of feeble opposition -- has given credence to growing numbers of non-Muslims that Islam is as much a religion of peace as the Klanmen's politics is an expression of multiculturalism. But there is another side to this abject reality. The Muslim majority's silence is greatly compounded by the appeasement mentality in the West of the mainstream liberal-left media, politicians trolling for ethnic votes and bureaucrats running public institutions.
An evidence of this comes from Scotland. Theodore Dalrymple, a retired physician and prolific writer, in New York's City Journal reports: "In an effort to ensure that no Muslim doctors ever again try to bomb Glasgow Airport, bureaucrats at Glasgow's public hospitals have decreed that henceforth no staff may eat lunch at their desks or in their offices during the holy month of Ramadan, so that fasting Muslims shall not be offended by the sight or smell of their food. Vending machines will also disappear from the premises during that period." It is as if more diversity training for public officials, more accommodation of demands made by fundamentalist Muslims, greater willingness to self-flagellate for sins long past of western colonialism, more policing of what might be politically incorrect speech and writing about Islamists or Saudi Arabia's official cult (Wahhabism) of bigotry masquerading as a world religion, will somehow mysteriously translate into taming suicide-bombers and their masters to reciprocate kindly to the liberal-left sensibilities of people in the West. Dalrymple observes stories such as the one from Scotland tell us something about how civilizations commit suicide -- they "collapse not because the barbarians are so strong, but because they themselves are so morally enfeebled." What do barbarians do? Kill indiscriminately as in the recent Aug. 14 massacre in northern Iraq reported by the New York Post with the headline "Savages Kill 175 in Iraq Bombings." Four trucks were exploded west of Mosul -- Iraq's third largest city in the Kurdish north -- in an area predominantly inhabited by Yazidis, a people practising pre-Islamic faith. The toll of dead and wounded among this poor dwindling minority living at the edge of the Iraqi society far exceeds the numbers first reported.
This savagery is the work of al-Qaida associates preparing more predictable bombings ahead of the mid-September report in Washington to be given by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. BOMBINGS AND OPINION There is now a pattern in al-Qaida bombings arranged to influence American public opinion during key moments in public policy debates and general elections. But the liberal-left media, such as the New York Times, remains fixated with faulting the Bush administration for the savagery of Islamists while providing oxygen to apologists of terror spinning their endless refrain of "root cause" being oil and Israel for violence originating in the Middle East. How morally enfeebled, as Dalrymple opines, is the West? Imagine the uproar denouncing any suggestion that the mainstream liberal-left media, in appearance at least, is treasonously on side with the newest enemies of freedom and democracy. Source: http://www.islamicpluralism.org/articles/2007a/070825drift.htm 2. Europe placates foes of freedom31st January 2009 - Salim Mansour Europe, or a significant segment of Europe, unfailingly discloses its frequent willingness to appease totalitarian foes of freedom.
In modern times Europe gladly has served as a cradle of fascism on the right, communism on the left and in between all sorts of variations of the two, joined at the hip with a common blood-soaked bigotry directed at Jews.
Since 9/11, and despite Muslim terrorists striking on European soil, that segment of Europe ready to appease any totalitarian assault on freedom has contorted itself to accommodate the Islamist agenda. The latest evidence of this is the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, for hate speech offending Islam and Muslims.
Wilders is the most daring critic of the Islamist assault on Holland, and Europe, since the murder of Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a self-confessed Muslim fanatic of Moroccan origin, and the marginalization in Dutch politics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born critic of Islam.
What brings Wilders into legal trouble with Dutch jurists is the 15-minute video he produced last year on Islam titled Fitna. In this short film Wilders juxtaposed verses from the Koran with passages from Hitler's rant, Mein Kampf, and urged Muslims to push for reform by removing "hate-filled" verses from their sacred text.
I do not share Wilders' views on the Koran, or on Islam, and I would be quite prepared to engage him if an opportunity presented itself. But I categorically disagree with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute him on the grounds of hate speech, thereby abridging the principle of free speech, for expressing his views on the Koran.
It is ironic that the announcement to prosecute Wilders comes on the eve of the 20th anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's notorious incitement (fatwa) to murder Salman Rushdie, the Indian-born writer, for his satirical novel The Satanic Verses.
Khomeini's incitement was an opening salvo in the Islamist agenda to silence any critic, Muslim or non-Muslim, of Islam and Arab-Muslim history.
Following Khomeini's directive to murder, Farag Foda -- a courageous and brilliant Egyptian critic of fundamentalist Muslims and Islam -- was gunned down in Cairo in April 1992. However Foda's compatriot and winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in literature, Naguib Mahfouz, survived a knife assault by Islamists in 1994.
Islamist effort to silence critics is part of a larger agenda for the full and unreformed imposition of Sharia -- laws derived from the Koran and codified in the first millennium of the Christian era -- within the Arab-Muslim world, and its acceptance by governments in Europe and North America to enable Muslims residing in the West to live by a pre-modern legal code.
'DEFAMATION'
This push is backed by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) at the UN to combat "defamation of religions" under the international human rights code for the purpose of judicially silencing critics of Islam and Muslims.
The prosecution of Wilders, as the Dutch judges contort themselves to do the bidding of the OIC, will warm the hearts of Islamists everywhere. But Europe and the West could not be more warned of what embracing the Islamist agenda means than taking full measure of the Arab-Muslim world turned into a cultural wasteland by the unremitting Islamist assault on civilization.
 A Palestinian woman wearing a hijab veil.The deadly face of Muslim extremism
Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan, National Post
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 The tragic death of a Mississauga, Ont., teenage girl -- allegedly at the hands of her own traditionally minded Muslim father -- has sent shock waves across the world. Canadians are justified in raising concerns as to whether this is a sign of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard.
Aqsa Parvez, a sprightly 16-year-old, beloved of her friends and peers at Applewood Heights Secondary School, was only trying to be herself, was only wishing for a normal adolescence amid Canada's rich cultural mosaic. Her father has now been charged with murder, and his son with obstruction, while a young life has been snuffed out -- likely in the name of honour and Islam.
Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse.
The hijab in particular has become a thorny issue among Muslim families. It has been elevated as a sort of "sixth pillar of Islam" among militant sects. Young teenage girls are often lectured over the virtues of the hijab by their family members. Once they hit puberty, compliance is deemed a non-negotiable religious requirement.
Go on reading here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=162281
A report, backed by some moderate Muslim groups, said members of the PKS and HTI groups were 'infiltrating' moderate Muslim groups. Indonesia's tradition of practising a moderate form of Islam is being undermined by extremists whose agenda includes the creation of an Islamic state or international caliphate, a report said on Thursday. The report, backed by some moderate Muslim groups, said members of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) group were "infiltrating" moderate Muslim groups and institutions such as schools to press their agenda. PKS, an Islamist party that could be a potential ally or coalition partner for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in this year's elections, has denied any secret agenda to implement Islamic law. Hizbut Tahrir says it supports sharia law and the creation of a caliphate through peaceful means. Read more ... Source: Reuters
 By Amil Imani There are some 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of which are Cultural Muslims who are generally called moderate Muslims. Muslims are born into Islam, where a great many never go through the process of deciding for themselves if they want to be Muslims. It is not a religion that they choose, it is a belief they inherit. For whatever reason, this great majority of Cultural Muslims are Muslims of sort without fully toeing the line of Islam. The real Muslims are the jihadists, a small minority who lives and dies by the dictates of the Quran and the Sunna, the life examples of Muhammad. The free world, rightfully alarmed by ever-varied and escalating assaults of the jihadists, myopically has directed its tentative and haphazard effort at countering them, believing that by so doing it can eliminate their threat and at the same time remain on good terms of live-and-let-live multiculturalism with the Cultural Muslims. This is a dangerous assumption that, if not abandoned, will likely culminate in an Armageddon-kind of conflagration. Read more ...Source: Amil Imani
 HOPE springs eternal, and Dan Gillerman, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is an optimist. He must be.
He believes that there is hope of some sort of settlement to the Palestinian problem in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s retaliatory strike against the Hamas terrorists in Gaza who ordered the eight-year rocket bombardment against Israel.
But his optimism rests not so much upon Palestinians as upon moderate Muslims and moderate Arabs who he hopes may now see that the world is not witnessing the clash of civilisations Samuel Huntington predicted in his best seller over a decade ago, but within a civilisation, the Islamic civilisation.
“Most of the horror, most of the killing, is within the world of Islam, whether it is in Dubai or Sharm el-Sheikh, or Afghanistan or Morocco, Muslims are killing each other,” he said in Sydney yesterday.
“We are not seeing moderates saying, ‘Enough is enough’. The wars in Lebanon and Gaza may bring about some sign of awakening to the fact terrorism is being exported by a extremist regime in Iran.”
The former business leader, who had some notable diplomatic successes during his 2003-2008 posting to the UN, including being elected as a vice president of the UN General Assembly, said the Gaza operation initially brought about an unprecedented level of support and understanding for Israel’s action from much of Europe, the US, nations like Australia and even from some parts of the Arab world.
As it dragged on, some of that support eroded but many nations conceded they would have acted in a similar fashion if their people had been under rocket attack for eight consecutive years.
“Moderate Arabs and moderate Muslims are awakening to the reality that Hamas is a monster that brought suicide bombings to the region, sometimes as young as 11-years-old, who would don their bomb belts sometimes helped by their parents,” he said.
“They know that Hamas holds the Palestinian people hostage, that it is persecuting its own people.”
Gillerman said no other country in the world had instituted the protective measures taken by the Israelis in their attempts to reduce civilian casualties, citing 250,000 telephone calls made to Palestinians to warn them to leave homes containing Hamas arms caches.
Yet civilians were killed, though not in the same proportions that they lost their lives in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq - and Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The difference between Israel and Hamas in their approach to civilian deaths was marked, he said, by the reality that Israelis sheltered their children and Hamas used them, and celebrated the death of every child. Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said there would be no peace until the Arabs learned to love their children, he said.
Four messages could be drawn from the conflict: That the Israelis were not to be messed with; that Hamas had been weakened; that the strike was about current and future events, and that extremists in Iran and other rogue regimes should learn that the Israelis will stand on the side of moderates in their conflicts with extremists. There was another “missing link”, he said - the number of world leaders eager to see a settlement, from the US, the UK, across Europe and in other parts of the world.
The solution Gillerman envisages is not just a two-state answer, but a 23-state solution that would also embrace the whole Arab world.
Which makes it more remarkable that two Western Sydney Councils, Marrickville and neighbouring Canterbury, would waste their ratepayers’ time and money by passing resolutions which gave both overt and tacit support to Hamas.
Apart from exposing the ignorance of the councillors who supported the resolutions, backing proscribed terror organisations like Hamas is unlikely to foster the ideals of peace embraced by the inner-urban Green councils. Perverse contradiction is the new green mantra.
Real support for the Palestinian people, including those in Gaza is coming from an entirely different source - the UK-based Portland Trust chaired by Sir Ronald Cohen, which has offices in London, Ramallah and Tel Aviv.
It is committed to promoting peace and stability between Palestinians and Israelis through economic development and has had some success raising funds for a $1 billion development in Ramallah, which includes 15,000 homes.
Its global conferences dedicated to rebuilding a Palestinian economy, giving Palestinians real futures, would be alien to the terrorist-supporting councillors.
Well-meaning idiots perhaps, but the futile motions will bring joy to extremist generators of international terrorism in Iran as they bundle up weapons for Hezbollah and Hamas. Moderate Arabs and moderate Muslims will only despair at such a demonstration of stupidity. Source: Daily Telegraph
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Posts
