Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Check your knowledge about Islam and the “Palestinian” Arabs.


Islam was conceived in the Arabian Peninsula a place where existence was hard and violence a daily fact. Islam would not have been accepted if it was a religion/ideology of love and kindness. Till today, violence and extremism animates Islam. What ever reason to express hate and violence, it will always be welcome : caricatures, difference in opinions, freedom of expression etc. Whoever does not agree with Islam is a target for hate and violence.


Listen to Brigitte Gabriel. She is Christian, born in Lebanon and knows Islam!


Just Open :


Tuesday, July 15, 2008


by Nicholas Guariglia

 It isn't smart to walk alone late at night on the outskirts of Newark, New Jersey. I discovered this for myself last October, when I was returning home from a friend's house. Just 100 yards from my apartment, and ironically just 200 yards from a police station, a man jumped out of some dark bushes near the side of the road and attacked me.

His first swing simply grazed my chin, thankfully, so I was able to remain even-footed and upright. I instinctively dropped my bag, put my hands up to cover my face, and backpedaled to the center of the street –– where the orange city lights illuminated the scene –– to avoid the ensuing punches being thrown.

Just then a car promptly pulled up to the two of us. The vehicle was not full of good Samaritans coming to my assistance, as my original impulse had hoped. No, this intuition was wrong; four males leaped out of the car to assist the original assailant in the attack, literally skipping over to the altercation, yelling and taunting, surrounding and cornering, and, let's just say, making it known that they did not have my interests at heart.

Somehow I managed to go unharmed, losing only a measly history book and a few pens. The suspects were apprehended within the half-hour by the authorities and today stand trial for the murder of an innocent New Jersey man whom they later admitted to killing a week before my encounter with them.

When confrontations of this sort happen, one's impulses and instincts become ever the more involuntary; your neurotransmitters race, making you feel events are moving both fast and slow; your adrenalin soars, making you feel both loose and stiff simultaneously, generating a surreal spontaneity in your thoughts and actions. It is a very strange feeling, hard to adequately articulate and put into words.

I have been involved in a few small scraps before, some lost and some won. They tend to be over meaninglessness; a dispute at a party or a misunderstanding. Counterparts during these types of altercations should not be considered "enemies," in the philosophical sense, because such petty quarrels with no real purpose are able to be absolved away with a handshake or an apology issued.

It is one thing to get into a bar fight over a verbal insult. It is quite another to be encircled by five murderers on a city street just outside Newark. The former is stupid and involves inconsequential participants. The latter is a life-and-death collision between an innocent victim and irreconcilable foes; irreconcilable enemies –– even if you do not know their character, even if their assault on you is impersonal in nature, even if you are unaware of their lethal intent. You are their enemy, and thus they yours, and they, not you, have made it so.

Welcome to the Middle East

This simple distinction, complicated for so many to comprehend, is what separates the Arab Levant and Persian Gulf subcontinent from the rest of the world. This distinction between reconcilable and irreconcilable counterparts is what separates a perhaps cruel and cold-killing machine like the Burmese military junta from the likes of Khalid Mashal or Hassan Nasrallah.

I do not mean to suggest the dictatorship of Burma is similar to the "inconsequential participants" of a barroom brawl. Nor should we "reconcile" ourselves to the junta's gross human rights violations. On any moral and level playing field, they too deserve a good whipping (particularly in light of recent events). But the irreconcilability of some adversaries stands in stark contrast to the reconcilability of others. In regards to some, coexistence is not possible and, depending on your frame of reference, not preferable either.

Do members of the Burmese junta awaken each morning with our utter destruction in mind? How many Burmese children have been indoctrinated and conscripted into becoming human missiles and human bombs, with Westerners as their targets, all on the false promise of afterlife promiscuity?

When it comes to our grievances with the Burmese junta, the international community can at least attempt to muster up the will and energy to compel the regime's acquiescence, if for no other reason than the regime's view of its own self-preservation.

Our Jihadist opponents in the Mideast share no such predisposition; to the contrary, rational self-preservation is viewed scornfully... which brings us to the recent hullabaloo about Hamas.

However inarticulate and hackneyed President Bush may have delivered it –– which wouldn't be something new, would it? –– his speech in Israel was spot on and furthered the spirit of this historical lesson: some adversaries are irrational, do not think like us, and are thus irreconcilable. Mr. Bush stated, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Sen. Obama, ostentatiously, thought Bush was talking about him, becoming indignant overnight, claiming his opponents were politicizing foreign policy –– never missing an opportunity to tie Sen. McCain to Bush –– and in doing so politicized something himself that ought to be universally recognized and appreciated. But as we will see from various subsequent follow-ups and clarifications, this "something," this recognition, is not appreciated in some quarters.

Philosopher Sam Harris examines the neuroscience behind propositions of this sort –– some adversaries are irrational, do not think like us, and are thus irreconcilable –– in his work, The End of Faith:

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition: Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.

What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home... Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.

The link between a belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably... Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people.

This may be a tough pill for a student of diplomacy to swallow. But the psychosomatic argument is valid. There is both a pragmatic difference, as well as a deeper psychological difference, between a pathological killer entering your home at 3 a.m. and an obnoxious drunkard at the other end of a bar challenging you to "take it outside."

One scenario presents an adversary who, for whatever reason, is dangerously chemically imbalanced; the other presents an adversary who, for reasons quite well known, is hindered due to his state of inebriation. The drunkard's intoxicated state of mind, and the belligerent actions it generates, is why he is your opponent at the moment; the psycho-killer is your natural enemy because of his natural state of mind.

Here again, we see irreconcilability clash with reconcilability. The drunkard can sober up, or be talked out of his antagonism by more clear-headed friends, whereas the intruder gets his deepest psychological, emotional, and perhaps sexual fixes off binding, torturing, and killing unknown and unsuspecting innocents. Both are your enemy, but they are different enemies, for different reasons, and in different constructs.

While each scenario might result in a varying consequence –– perhaps the intruder is an unarmed weakling and can be physically restrained; perhaps the drunkard has a concealed pocket knife under his jacket –– there is still an imperative distinction to be made between the two altercations, both in philosophical terminology and in real-world actuality. Namely, despite the multitude of possibilities each scenario presents, we would all invariably prefer the drunkard outside the bar than the pathological killer inside our home.

So when Sen. Obama states, unpretentiously yet rather naively, that the Hamas and Hezbollah Jihadist cartels have "legitimate grievances" –– really, which ones? –– and that there is little difference between negotiating with Islamist zealots and rational counterparts, we must dispense Occam's razor. "There are rarely purely ideological movements out there," Obama recently explained, continuing, "We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms."

By under-appreciating how Hamas and Hezbollah, rather willingly, place themselves "beyond the reach" of peaceful means due to the extent of their beliefs, we are granted with yet another example whereby a sophisticated Westerner makes the sin of assuming his religious adversaries –– who quote religious text and make the case for their killings in religious nomenclature –– are simply saying what they are saying for propaganda purposes or for domestic consumption. "They don't really –– they can't really –– believe that stuff," the assumption goes.

That the three-year Illinois senator might actually attest to this logic, or at the least articulates it in public, is more worrisome than either Hamas recently endorsing the Democrat candidate or Obama's foreign policy "advisor" Robert Malley holding meetings with, and openly having very sympathetic views of, the Hamas gang.

People who are constantly being video taped and recorded are susceptible to inadvertently make some revealing admissions, especially off-the-cuff. But these quotes –– "legitimate grievances," "encourage actors to think in practical... terms," etc. –– were from a sit-down interview, and as such, paradoxically say more about Mr. Obama's position than anything Bush, or anyone else, has or has not said about it on their own.

Would someone be so sanguine if they were tasked to convince David Berkowitz that his neighbor's dog was possessed of no demon and was not, in fact, commanding him to kill people? Can anyone stare into the eyes of Charles Manson, or study his behavioral patterns, and not feel a sense of unequivocal derangement?

If Manson were to ascertain control of a large piece of territory somewhere far away, and called it a country, and then made bold and violent claims about the state of the world and what he intended to do to it, would Sen. Obama invite him to the White House, unconditionally, to tell him he ought to "think in practical" terms?

It is a sad truth that such crackpots, and their deranged theories, are not simply relegated to their individual enterprises. Sometimes these crackpots, and their theories, form crackpot theories, metastasizing and organizing into unified polities, political parties, and broad-based movements. We have that in the Palestinian territories with Hamas, and in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

To be fair, other than Jimmy Carter and some of Obama's aides, most abstemious policymakers reject the idea of negotiating with movements like Hamas. Sen. Obama might have already stated –– as he boasts on his website –– that he would like to meet, without diplomatic preconditions and during the first year of his presidency, with the dictators of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. But why then did Sen. Obama feel Mr. Carter's Gaza foray and wreath-laying with Hamas constituted a bridge too far? Sen. Obama explained:

We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements... Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization.

While seemingly different, these two concepts of diplomacy –– one promoting dialogue with terrorists, the other promoting dialogue only with the states that support terrorists –– showcase an underlying schism in theory, and provide for us a question of fundamental principle: Just where should the United States place a premium on legitimacy?

Is Sen. Obama against negotiating with Hamas because they are "intent on Israel's destruction," have not recognized Israel's "right to exist," and will not "renounce terrorism" –– or because they have not yet ascertained the sovereign legitimacy of a state? If the answer is the former, then on what basis is Sen. Obama prepared to meet with the leadership of Iran, which is also intent on Israel's destruction and obstinate in foreswearing terrorism? If the answer is the latter, then are we to assume an Obama administration will recognize and arrange a diplomatic relationship with Hamas if it were to, say, consume the West Bank (as it has overtaken Gaza), comprising itself as a state?

Are we to prepare ourselves for the State Department to start having direct dialogue with Hezbollah chieftains if Hassan Nasrallah's followers kill off Lebanese democrats and rule over Beirut's government apparatus, as they are so desperately trying to do? What if al Qaeda itself bifurcates into a militant wing and a newly formed "political wing" –– and just so happened to declare al Qaedastan its own sovereign real estate?

Of course, not all talking is appeasement. Had the initial Newark mugger asked for my wallet, and had he given me time to concur before attacking, I probably would have concurred. Had I known that the assailants had weapons in their car, or had I been aware of their homicidal history, I certainly would have concurred. Had all of the five suspects attacked at once for a sustained period, rather than one at a time for brief moments each, I could have been killed.

But none of this happened. I was presented with a scenario where I was incapable of talking or negotiating; a scenario indeed where I was incapable of capitulating, of doing what they wanted, even if I tried.

Hamas and Hezbollah present to us similar scenarios: we are a disinclined participant, extraction from the region is impossible no matter how hard we persist in it, and the possibilities range from an intolerable status quo to an intolerable and irreconcilable confrontation. They are not just any old enemy; more home-intruder than barroom jerk, more Berkowitz with Kalashnikovs than Burmese junta.

To think of this irreconcilability simply as a matter of satisfying the "legitimate grievances" of Hamas and Hezbollah is to put ourselves –– those of us who stand proudly on the other side of this struggle –– in a horrible position. We should never concede any such grievances to any such people, in the manner that conceding bourgeois largess to the Bolsheviks, or a lack of Lebensraum and a raw deal at Versailles to the Third Reich, would be foolish, asinine, and indeed a form of self-imposed national suicide.


Nicholas Guariglia is a polemic and essayist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.



by Jack Engelhard

They voted for terror.

We keep hearing –– from our candidates for president and even from Jewish leaders –– that the Palestinian Arabs want peace just as much as the Israelis.

Really? This will come as a shock mostly to the Palestinian Arabs. They voted for terror.

They voted for Hamas.

Can we get this much straight in this world of mumbo jumbo?

This rhetorical banditry, that Gaza's Arabs "really want peace," should have been stifled onward from January 2006, when those same Arabs went to the polls, pulled the levers and awarded Hamas 76 of the 132 seats up for grabs in the PA "parliament." The rest went to Fatah, which is similarly terror-intoxicated but at least makes a pretense of "peace."

Hamas declares straight out, even in English, that it wants Israel destroyed and replaced with a Palestinian Islamic state.

The US administration wanted "democracy" and "free elections" in Gaza, as did the Israeli government, and got exactly what it wished for (Hamas!), so congratulations. But let's hear no more speeches that define Hamas as a group that somehow infiltrated and invaded Gaza. No, the people were given a choice between war and peace, and they chose war.

Jimmy Carter verified the results!

With all the speechifying and punditry going on during this election season, it's tough to keep score as to who said what, and yet it appears to be unanimous that the "peace process" must continue and that a "two state-solution" must be found. Hello? To Islamic terrorists peace means war, and a Palestinian state already exists. It is called Jordan.

Was that the sound of clapping at AIPAC, the so-called "powerful Jewish lobby"? Yes, that was applause you heard when Barack Obama, swearing his allegiance to Israel, also spoke in favor of a "two-state solution" and rather than the silence that I'd expected, members of this "powerful Jewish lobby" erupted in applause.

This is what Obama told AIPAC, a message also heard from George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and other "friends" of Israel, including Jewish leaders in America and Israel: "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."

In other words, this nation, Israel, which sits on about one percent of the Middle East, must get split down the middle to make room for a nation, the Arab nation, that occupies 10 percent of the earth's surface. If such a transfer ever happens, there is absolutely no doubt that it will be Hamas all over again, and this time right in the heartland.

This vision, of an Israel cluttered into ghettos, replaced by "cohesive" and "contiguous" terrorists, is what AIPAC applauded.

As for "powerful Jewish lobbies" in general, like AIPAC; on their watch Israel handed off Sinai, Gaza, much of Hebron, swaths of Judea and Samaria –– and there's talk of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In other words, with all this "power," nothing can stop an Israeli prime minister with a three-percent approval rating from relinquishing Biblical territory and singing, "This land is my land."

Do these Jewish leaders approve even more "land for peace"? Ask the people of Sderot how wonderful this works.

Yes, they approve, these Jewish leaders. They applaud. They would even applaud the division of Jerusalem and giving up the high ground to Syria. There is sure to be a wild ovation when New York philanthropist Mort Zuckerman raises millions to "resettle" the Arabs –– the same millions he raised for the Arabs to resettle Gaza. (We know how terrific that turned out.)

Are we Jews that stupid? Yes. We're so busy "repairing the world" (tikkun olam) that we've forgotten that our homes come first.

There was more cheering and delight at AIPAC when Obama (or was it all the rest of them?) mentioned Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon in heroic terms. Israel hasn't had a decent prime minister since maybe Golda Meir. Corruption didn't begin with Ehud Olmert. He learned from the best (or rather the worst) of them, and yes, this includes the sainted Yitzhak Rabin who had his own money laundering issues, as did Ariel Sharon.

AIPAC is described in the press as "hawkish." I prefer "childish." If this is what we can expect from our Jewish hawks, beware the doves. Those of us (like AFSI) who favor a strong Israel, unconditionally, are finding ourselves outnumbered by our own Jewish brothers and sisters who, along with our politicians and media elites, have bought the jihadist narrative.

It's getting awfully lonely out here.

Jack Engelhard's latest novel, the newsroom thriller, The Bathsheba Deadline, is now ready in paperback and available from and other outlets. Engelhard wrote the international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal, which was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.



Monday, July 14, 2008

The Australian Western society's war within.

By Brett Mason
IT may begin with a chuckle, but it could easily end in tears. At least, if we are not careful. One may be tempted to scoff at the demand to legalise polygamy made recently by Khalil Chami of Sydney's Islamic Welfare Centre. But with the recent announcement by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the adoption of sharia law in Britain seems unavoidable, the joke may turn out to be on us.

Britain provides an instructive lesson on the interaction between increasingly radicalised sections of the Muslim diaspora community and its Western host society.

From Dundee to Dover, traditional British values, already weakened to the point of collapse by a decades-long elite infatuation with mushy multiculturalism and cultural relativism, cannot provide resistance against the growing tide of extreme demands by radical self-styled community spokesmen.

The same way that the claim of racism has been used to shut down any debate on cultural identity, immigration and social cohesion, so is Islamophobia increasingly used to silence dissent. To merely raise certain issues is to give offence, and offending sensibilities is a hanging offence in our postmodern times.

While radicals agitate, a politically correct establishment, at pains to prove how enlightened and tolerant it is, even if it means tolerating the intolerance of others, usually stands on the sidelines, if not actively cheering on another challenge to the ostensibly oppressive, hegemonic Western culture and polity.

In January last year, Britain's Channel 4 television broadcast a documentary on jihadi incitement in mosques throughout England. The material revealed by this undercover investigative report was quite incendiary in nature. One Saudi-trained imam called for British Muslims to "dismantle democracy" by "living as a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take it over".

Another Islamic radical praised the Taliban for killing British soldiers and argued that women who declined to wear the burka should be beaten into submission.

After the program was aired, British authorities wasted no time springing into action. The West Midlands Police lodged criminal charges,
not against the extremist imams but against the TV network. Responding to a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain, the police accused Channel 4 of inciting racial hatred by means of an ostensibly distorted documentary that demonised Islam. When the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately declined to pursue the matter, police referred the complaint to the British government broadcast oversight agency, OFCOM.

Earlier this year, an officer from the Wiltshire Police ordered a motorist to remove England's flag of St George from his automobile because it was "racist towards immigrants".

Stand-up comedian Ben Elton recently asserted that fear of "provoking the radical elements of Islam" caused the BBC to censor jokes about Muslim clerics. "There's no doubt about it," Elton said, "the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass."

This comes on the heels of a legion of other examples of often pre-emptive surrenders to yet unvoiced radical demands, such as some British banks withdrawing toy piggy banks or public institutions turning Christmas into an amorphous Winter Festival, all for the fear of offending Muslim sensibilities.

All this is rather ironic, since under the twin dogmas of multiculturalism and cultural relativism, all cultures and beliefs are meant to be equal. Like George Orwell's animals, however, some seem to be more equal than others. Commitment to cultural diversity all too often seems to disguise contempt for the dominant national culture that historically bound the society.

No wonder such large sections of the British establishment don't offer any resistance to the claims of fundamentalist radicals.

The case against Channel 4 was ultimately dismissed and the broadcaster won a pound stg. 100,000 ($206,000) civil judgment against the West Midlands Police. But even if sanity prevailed after much time and expense, the totalitarian echoes of this affair clearly have a chilling effect on freedom of _expression. While a TV network has the requisite resources to wage a vigorous legal defence, less well-heeled victims of the thought police would be in real strife.

All this is worrying to the silent majority of Muslims who are not interested in political agitation but simply want to rear their families in peace, freedom and prosperity, so often lacking in countries where they or their ancestors have come from. It's hard to blame the moderates within the Muslim community for not speaking out more against the extremists when they see the establishment and the authorities so often and so easily buckling to radicals.

In Australia, federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland summarily dismissed Chami's demand for the legalisation of polygamy. But lest we feel too comfortable, it should be noted that the example of Britain demonstrates how quickly a national sense of cultural self-confidence can erode. Britain serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unrestrained political correctness and cultural relativism.

After all, if Westminster democracy and Wahhabi theocracy are ethically equal, there is no reason to resist when freedom comes under assault from feudalism.

The essential question we face is not about the rule of law but about which law is to rule. Events in Britain teach us that Chami's proposal represents the thin end of the wedge in the creeping campaign to introduce Islamic jurisprudence into our legal system.

A nation with two legal systems, reflecting conflicting social and political philosophies, is a house divided and, as history shows, it cannot stand.

We must be culturally self-confident enough to assert that the monopoly status of common law and democracy in Australia is entirely non-negotiable. As Peter Costello said not so long ago: "If a person wants to live under sharia law, there are countries where they may feel at ease, but not Australia."

Liberal Brett Mason represents Queensland in the Australian Senate.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Political correctness in the west promoted by the left is working in favor of the Islamists,Australia is heading in same direction as Uk...[MB}


Iran has resumed A-bomb project, says West.

By Con Coughlin

Iran has resumed work on constructing highly sophisticated equipment that nuclear experts say is primarily used for building atomic weapons, according to the latest intelligence reports received by Western diplomats.

The work is aimed at developing the blueprint provided by Dr AQ Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who sold Iran details of how to build atom bombs in the early 1990s.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which has overall responsibility for the country's nuclear programme, has set up several civilian companies to work on the programme whose activities are being deliberately concealed from the United Nations nuclear inspection teams.

The companies, based on the outskirts of Tehran, are working on constructing components for the advanced P2 gas centrifuge, which can enrich uranium to weapons grade two to three times faster than conventional P1 centrifuges.

Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment programme at Natanz, which Tehran insists is designed to produce fuel for nuclear power, runs on P1 centrifuges. But Iranian nuclear scientists recently conducted successful tests on a prototype P2 centrifuge at Natanz, and the Revolutionary Guard has now set up a network of companies to build components for the advanced centrifuges.

This has raised concerns among Western experts that Iran is continuing work on its nuclear weapons programme, despite Tehran's protestations that its intentions are peaceful.

"If Iran's nuclear intentions were peaceful there would be no need for it to undertake this work in secret," said an official familiar with the intelligence reports.

A previous clandestine attempt by Iran to develop P2 centrifuges was halted in 2004 after the existence of a civilian company set up by the Revolutionary Guard was exposed. UN nuclear inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium at the company when they inspected the premises.

Reports that Iran has resumed work on sophisticated uranium enrichment technology follow Tehran's announcement at the weekend that it has no intention of halting its uranium enrichment programme at Natanz.

Iranian officials were speaking the day after they had formally submitted their response to a package put together by the world's leading powers – including Britain – offering a number of incentives in return for halting enrichment.

While European officials yesterday refused to disclose details of the Iranian response, one said that "it was not something that made us jump up and down for joy".

An Iranian government spokesman said: "Iran's stand regarding its peaceful nuclear programme has not changed."

According to recent intelligence reports, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, personally ordered the Revolutionary Guard to set up companies for the secret manufacture of components for P2 centrifuges this year.

One of the companies is in a residential building in Amir Abad, western Tehran, where its work is unlikely to be detected by UN nuclear inspectors. One of the facilities is said to be run by a company owned by the Revolutionary Guard.

The operation is a direct copy of the Revolutionary Guard's previous attempt to develop P2 centrifuges, when research work was undertaken by the Kalaye Electric Company, which claimed it was manufacturing watches.

When its true activity was revealed to UN nuclear inspectors in 2004, they found the company had succeeded in building the centrifuges and enriching small quantities of uranium to weapons grade.

Senior officials from Iran's Atomic Energy Agency are supervising the current clandestine programme, which is based on the atomic weapons blueprint sold to Iran by Dr Khan in 1994.

Reports that Iran is actively working on Dr Khan's blueprint will deepen suspicions that Tehran has resumed work on its nuclear weapons programme.


Con Coughlin


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.