Right On! America, stay the course in Iraq
Michael Freund, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 10, 2007
Has the United States lost the will to fight? Just when it appears that the tide might be turning against al-Qaida in Iraq, a growing chorus of US senators and congressmen are calling on President George W. Bush to carry out a rapid withdrawal of American military forces.
It has only been a month since Bush's military "surge" reached its full capacity, but that hasn't stopped the weak knees of the critics from growing ever more wobbly.
And though various media accounts now indicate that the injection of additional US troops already has Osama bin-Laden's Iraqi disciples on the run, the impatience of some shortsighted politicians in Washington threatens to hand the terrorists the devastating victory which they failed to achieve on the battlefield.
Indeed, if you listen carefully, you can almost hear the sounds of laughter bursting forth in Teheran, Damascus and other terror capitals in the Middle East.
The leaders of the jihadist movement are surely preparing to break out the non-alcoholic equivalent of champagne as they toast what seems like an impending American reversal.
But before the decision-makers in Washington hastily embrace retreat, they might want to take a step back and consider just how detrimental, demoralizing and even destructive withdrawal can be.
FOR PROOF, they need only look to Israel's recent experience in this regard.
Twice in the past seven years the Jewish state has turned tail and fled, pulling its forces out of Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. Tired of fighting a determined foe, successive Israeli governments decided to throw in the towel and hope for the best.
In both instances, Israel's retreat was carried out in a rapid and precipitous manner, with little thought given to the day after. The result, of course, was nothing short of disastrous.
The extremists of Hizbullah and Hamas drew strength from Israel's respective pullouts, pointing to them as tangible proof that violence and bloodshed not only pay, but pay quite handsomely.
After years of promising to outlast the vaunted Israeli military machine, Hamas and Hizbullah did just that, seizing on Israel's loss of resolve and riding a newfound wave of popularity in their wake.
The terrorist groups benefited politically, organizationally and militarily, capitalizing on Israel's move by winning new adherents to their cause and consolidating their power.
Consequently, Hamas is now in control of Gaza, and Hizbullah is running a virtual state within a state in Lebanon.
Domestically, Israelis lost a great deal of faith in the military and in its ability to get the job done when necessary. For a country under siege, nothing could be more perilous.
So instead of leaving the problem behind, pulling out has only energized Israel's foes, weakened the country and its resolve, and brought the threat posed by the terrorists still closer to home.
There is no reason to think that an American withdrawal from Iraq would prove any different.
JUST ASK Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's number two. In a videotape issued last week, he once again reaffirmed that his organization views Iraq as the central battleground in its confrontation with the West.
Calling on Muslims worldwide to support the anti-American insurgency, al-Zawahiri pointed to the US's loss of resolve as a reason to celebrate. "Rejoice, for victory is near," he said, "the herds of crusaders have begun to split up and their sole concern has become searching for a way out."
In this respect, proponents of a rapid US withdrawal are simply playing into the enemy's hands. By broadcasting vacillation and weakness, they are undermining America's efforts far more effectively than any tape al-Zawahiri could ever release.
Sure, Iraq does not border America. But it doesn't have to. Short of another 9/11-style attack, there is nothing that would do more to invigorate the bad guys than to see the US in retreat.
The chaos that would ensue, not only in Iraq but throughout the region, would inevitably bring about cataclysmic results for all concerned.
As Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said at a news conference in Baghdad on Monday, "The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country or maybe to regional wars." These are possibilities which cannot, and must not, be taken lightly.
THE FACT IS that what happens in Iraq matters. Not just in Baghdad, but in Teheran, Pyongyang and in Gaza City too. A weakened America means a strengthened foe, one even more determined to press forward with attacking Israel and the West.
As Israel's experiences with withdrawal over the past decade have made clear, retreat in the face of terror is simply not an option, and one can only hope that this lesson will not be lost on the powers that be in Washington.
For in the tinderbox that is the Middle East, an American pullout from Iraq might just be the spark that will lead to an even greater conflagration.
Rabu, 11 Juli 2007
Questioning Whether Islam Is Religion of Peace
BY YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
July 9, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/58062
The latest batch of attacks by Islamic terrorists raised fresh concerns among Muslims over what they fear may be "heinous attempts" to link terror with Islam.
British Muslims, who number 1.6 million, are reportedly funding advertising campaigns across Britain that proclaim Islam is "the religion of peace" — in the process also implicitly warning fellow Britons against criticizing their faith.
Yet a year ago, a weighty Muslim writer and pundit, Abdelrahman Al Rashed, manager of the pan-Arab TV network Al-Arabiya Television, famously launched a stormy debate when he opined, "While all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are now Muslims."
Ever since, the question among Muslim scholars and activists is precisely how much of the terror inspired by Islam is due to the faith itself — and how much is due to the way it is being preached.
Clearly, the issue is enormously delicate, fraught with the pitfalls of prejudice and all sorts of other sensitivities.
But as hundreds of thousands of people from New York to Baghdad are butchered under Islam's banners, failing to tackle it head-on is unacceptable.
Reasonable Muslims now agree that when a religion veers so far off course, it loses immunity to inquisition. "We ought to go through very serious questioning and soul-searching," a founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Dr. Maher Hathout, wrote on "The American Muslim" Web site Thursday. "How did we, as a group, fail to nip this ugly phenomenon in the bud?" he asks. "How did we indulge in the luxury of theoretical debates, and craft all kinds of euphemisms to let this go on, spill out, and grow?"
The bare facts are there for all to see: Over the past 40 years or so, Islam's millions of fanatical preachers and political operatives have represented the religion as one of an "oppressed" people, victimized for centuries by the multiple ogres of Christianity, Judaism, and secularism. Listen to many preachers, read several interpretations of the Muslim holy book, or go to a variety of madrassas from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, and you will quickly learn that Islam's central value, bar none, is jihad.
Far from a religion of peace, these clerics have "weaponized" Islam's text and the Koran into a war manifesto against even fellow Muslims — as between Shiites and Sunnis.
Raising the bar further, most Muslim scholarship of today maintains the refrain that Islam is not meant to be another religion, but the most definitive of God's revelations to man. As Muslim children are told daily, the Prophet Muhammad is not only the last of God's prophets, but the most authoritative.
Thus, it follows that Muslims merit greater privilege. A Muslim, for example, may take any number of non-Muslim wives, but the reverse is illegal. Abandoning Islam is punishable by jail or death. No other religion is acceptable.
The next step in such a logical progression is clearly the necessity to force others to submit. Islam has become imbued with a kind of droit du seigneur — the extrajudicial, absolute rights of a lord of the manor — which cannot be argued with.
Saudis, for example — and this includes their most moderate and modernized leaders — feel it is perfectly natural to fund the building of hundreds of mosques in Europe, from London to Cologne, but cannot find a shred of logic in allowing the construction of a single church or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, even though millions of Christian and Asian expatriates work there.
The scholarly journeys down such roads have served to legitimize the excessive aggression in hundreds of the religious edicts issued weekly by both legitimate and rogue Muslim scholars — including the charlatans of Al Qaeda, who decree that killing infidels is a Muslim duty.
A Saudi expert on Islamic movements, Mshari Al Zaydi, who is the opinion page editor of the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, went to the heart of the matter in a remarkable essay a few days ago, in which he pointedly noted that Saudi religious leaders have never issued an outright renunciation of the religious thinking of Osama bin Laden.
The most the Saudi religious establishment has done, Mr. Zaydi wrote, is to "mildly state that Mr. bin Laden was simply an ‘erroneous mujtahid,'" — a term referring to those qualified to issue juridical opinions and edicts such as fatwas — "as though this man was not responsible for setting the Muslim world ablaze, taking it back centuries and much farther than its original backwardness." In Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, the Muslim Brotherhood contests for power based on a single slogan: "Islam is the solution." Could it be that their version of Islam is also the problem?
BY YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
July 9, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/58062
The latest batch of attacks by Islamic terrorists raised fresh concerns among Muslims over what they fear may be "heinous attempts" to link terror with Islam.
British Muslims, who number 1.6 million, are reportedly funding advertising campaigns across Britain that proclaim Islam is "the religion of peace" — in the process also implicitly warning fellow Britons against criticizing their faith.
Yet a year ago, a weighty Muslim writer and pundit, Abdelrahman Al Rashed, manager of the pan-Arab TV network Al-Arabiya Television, famously launched a stormy debate when he opined, "While all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are now Muslims."
Ever since, the question among Muslim scholars and activists is precisely how much of the terror inspired by Islam is due to the faith itself — and how much is due to the way it is being preached.
Clearly, the issue is enormously delicate, fraught with the pitfalls of prejudice and all sorts of other sensitivities.
But as hundreds of thousands of people from New York to Baghdad are butchered under Islam's banners, failing to tackle it head-on is unacceptable.
Reasonable Muslims now agree that when a religion veers so far off course, it loses immunity to inquisition. "We ought to go through very serious questioning and soul-searching," a founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Dr. Maher Hathout, wrote on "The American Muslim" Web site Thursday. "How did we, as a group, fail to nip this ugly phenomenon in the bud?" he asks. "How did we indulge in the luxury of theoretical debates, and craft all kinds of euphemisms to let this go on, spill out, and grow?"
The bare facts are there for all to see: Over the past 40 years or so, Islam's millions of fanatical preachers and political operatives have represented the religion as one of an "oppressed" people, victimized for centuries by the multiple ogres of Christianity, Judaism, and secularism. Listen to many preachers, read several interpretations of the Muslim holy book, or go to a variety of madrassas from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, and you will quickly learn that Islam's central value, bar none, is jihad.
Far from a religion of peace, these clerics have "weaponized" Islam's text and the Koran into a war manifesto against even fellow Muslims — as between Shiites and Sunnis.
Raising the bar further, most Muslim scholarship of today maintains the refrain that Islam is not meant to be another religion, but the most definitive of God's revelations to man. As Muslim children are told daily, the Prophet Muhammad is not only the last of God's prophets, but the most authoritative.
Thus, it follows that Muslims merit greater privilege. A Muslim, for example, may take any number of non-Muslim wives, but the reverse is illegal. Abandoning Islam is punishable by jail or death. No other religion is acceptable.
The next step in such a logical progression is clearly the necessity to force others to submit. Islam has become imbued with a kind of droit du seigneur — the extrajudicial, absolute rights of a lord of the manor — which cannot be argued with.
Saudis, for example — and this includes their most moderate and modernized leaders — feel it is perfectly natural to fund the building of hundreds of mosques in Europe, from London to Cologne, but cannot find a shred of logic in allowing the construction of a single church or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, even though millions of Christian and Asian expatriates work there.
The scholarly journeys down such roads have served to legitimize the excessive aggression in hundreds of the religious edicts issued weekly by both legitimate and rogue Muslim scholars — including the charlatans of Al Qaeda, who decree that killing infidels is a Muslim duty.
A Saudi expert on Islamic movements, Mshari Al Zaydi, who is the opinion page editor of the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, went to the heart of the matter in a remarkable essay a few days ago, in which he pointedly noted that Saudi religious leaders have never issued an outright renunciation of the religious thinking of Osama bin Laden.
The most the Saudi religious establishment has done, Mr. Zaydi wrote, is to "mildly state that Mr. bin Laden was simply an ‘erroneous mujtahid,'" — a term referring to those qualified to issue juridical opinions and edicts such as fatwas — "as though this man was not responsible for setting the Muslim world ablaze, taking it back centuries and much farther than its original backwardness." In Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, the Muslim Brotherhood contests for power based on a single slogan: "Islam is the solution." Could it be that their version of Islam is also the problem?
Selasa, 10 Juli 2007
Muslims declare sovereignty over U.S., UK
Posted: July 9, 2007
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Protesters at London Central Mosque
Across town from the site of the recent attempted car-bomb attacks, several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.
"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"
Choudary was a co-founder of Al Muhajiroun, the now-banned group tied to suspects in the July 7, 2005, London transport bombings and a cheerleader of the 9/11 attacks.
"Democracy, hypocrisy," Choudary chanted as the crowd echoed him. "Tony Blair, terrorist! Tony Blair, murderer! Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!"
Listen to Anjem Choudary:
The Muslim leader's charge, along with interviews with protesters and a "literal foaming-at-the-mouth" diatribe by another speaker, were captured on tape June 22 by nationally syndicated talk radio host Rusty Humphries.
Humphries, who was in London with WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, recorded angry Muslim leader Abu Saif, who kept his voice at a fever pitch through declarations such as: "Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims."
Abu Saif is believed to be a member of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, which states its aim is to unify Muslims and establish Islamic rule over the world. The group's Cambridge cell reportedly had tried to recruit the Iraqi doctor now suspected of mounting the attack on Glasgow's airport June 30. The failed car-bomb assault followed two similar attempts in London the previous day.
Abu Saif spoke with disdain of Blair's appointment as a special envoy to the Middle East, issuing an apparent threat.
"Inshallah," meaning "Allah willing," he told the crowd, Blair will "go to the Middle East as an envoy, and he'll come back in a box. Inshallah. What box that is, we leave that up to you."
Humphries estimated nearly 3,000 Muslims were gathered in front of the mosque in north London June 22, after Friday prayers, to protest Queen Elizabeth's knighting of Indian author Salman Rushdie, the target of a death-sentence fatwa for "insulting" Islam's prophet Muhammad in his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses."
Listen to Abu Saif address protesters:
For Humphries, the response of the Muslims at Islam's largest house of worship in the UK was telling.
"Not one said, 'You're not speaking for me' or 'Not in my name.' They stood there and watched and applauded," he told WND.
Like the UK, Humphries said, the U.S. has three major vulnerabilities to patient, fundamentalist Muslims who believe their purpose for living in the West is to help fulfill Islamic prophecies: The loss of border control, the inability to say no and lack of assimilation.
"I feel like I'm Rusty Revere. I'm out there yelling the Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming," he said. "But we don't want to hear it. We don't want to hurt people's feelings."
Rusty Humphries interviews Abu Saif
Humphries' interview with Abu Saif underscored the radically different vision many of Britain's citizens have for the country's future.
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."
"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."
Listen to interview with Abu Saif:
Humphries asked: "Do you call for that?"
"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
Abu Saif explained Islam, like Christianity, has a prophetic tradition.
"One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house."
The reference, many Muslims believe today, is to America's symbol of executive power.
Protesters at London Central Mosque
Islamic leaders in the U.S. largely have been careful to not assert publicly the Muslim belief that Islam ultimately will gain worldwide supremacy. As WND reported, Omar Ahmad, the founder of a prominent U.S.-based Islamic lobby group, denies a newspaper report that he told a group of Muslims in the San Francisco Bay area they are in America not to assimilate but to help bring about Islam's rule over the nation.
Like other protesters, Abu Saif presented a typical list of grievances Muslims have with the U.S. and Britain, such as the nations' part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wars in Afghanistan and Iran.
But the Islamic leader admitted he believes Jews and Christians will always hate Muslims, because Allah has said it is so.
"There's nothing we can do to be friends?" Humphries asked.
Abu Saif replied: "There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim."
He also had a simple solution to the conflict in the Holy Land.
"We want the Jews to leave Israel, and to hand the whole of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank – the whole of Israel to the Muslims. Only then will the Muslims stop."
Hear Abu Saif's views on Israel:
'Politics of terror'
BBC-TV last week highlighted Hizb ut-Tahrir in a program called "Politics of Terror," noting "the attempted terrorist attacks on London and Glasgow have once again focused attention on the rise of political Islam."
If al-Qaida is to be defeated, the narrator said, "the key battlefield is in the realm of ideas. Today's would-be suicide bombers are almost invariably yesterday's campaigners for political Islam."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
During the Prime Minister's Questions session in Parliament Wednesday, opposition leader David Cameron left the new premier, Gordon Brown, stammering after demanding to know why the government had not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir after promising to do so two years ago.
Brown replied: "Of course in all these details – and I have had to deal with this in the Treasury, when we're dealing with terrorist finance – you have to have evidence to do so."
The answer was met by a chorus of jeers from MPs.
Cameron responded: "The prime minister said we need evidence to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. This organization said, and I quote, 'Jews should be killed wherever they are found.' What more evidence do we need before we ban this organization? It is poisoning the minds of young people. Two years ago the government said it should be banned. I ask again, when will this be done?"
Brown seemed even more hesitant this time.
"We can ban it under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and, of course, of course, of course ... I think the leader of the opposition forgets I've been at this job for five days ... ," he said, as jeers once again filled the chamber.
Brown already, in fact, has issued a ban of another kind – prohibiting his ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in connection with the worldwide terrorism threat. He also has instructed his team to drop the phrase "war on terror," Britain's Daily Express reported.
The paper says the "shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more 'consensual' tone than existed under Tony Blair."
The New York Times reported last week many Britons were happy with Brown's tempered approach to the foiled terrorist attacks just days after he succeeded Blair.
Brown, wrote London-based reporter Alan Cowell, "played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism."
Posted: July 9, 2007
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Protesters at London Central Mosque
Across town from the site of the recent attempted car-bomb attacks, several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.
"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!"
Choudary was a co-founder of Al Muhajiroun, the now-banned group tied to suspects in the July 7, 2005, London transport bombings and a cheerleader of the 9/11 attacks.
"Democracy, hypocrisy," Choudary chanted as the crowd echoed him. "Tony Blair, terrorist! Tony Blair, murderer! Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!"
Listen to Anjem Choudary:
The Muslim leader's charge, along with interviews with protesters and a "literal foaming-at-the-mouth" diatribe by another speaker, were captured on tape June 22 by nationally syndicated talk radio host Rusty Humphries.
Humphries, who was in London with WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, recorded angry Muslim leader Abu Saif, who kept his voice at a fever pitch through declarations such as: "Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims."
Abu Saif is believed to be a member of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, which states its aim is to unify Muslims and establish Islamic rule over the world. The group's Cambridge cell reportedly had tried to recruit the Iraqi doctor now suspected of mounting the attack on Glasgow's airport June 30. The failed car-bomb assault followed two similar attempts in London the previous day.
Abu Saif spoke with disdain of Blair's appointment as a special envoy to the Middle East, issuing an apparent threat.
"Inshallah," meaning "Allah willing," he told the crowd, Blair will "go to the Middle East as an envoy, and he'll come back in a box. Inshallah. What box that is, we leave that up to you."
Humphries estimated nearly 3,000 Muslims were gathered in front of the mosque in north London June 22, after Friday prayers, to protest Queen Elizabeth's knighting of Indian author Salman Rushdie, the target of a death-sentence fatwa for "insulting" Islam's prophet Muhammad in his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses."
Listen to Abu Saif address protesters:
For Humphries, the response of the Muslims at Islam's largest house of worship in the UK was telling.
"Not one said, 'You're not speaking for me' or 'Not in my name.' They stood there and watched and applauded," he told WND.
Like the UK, Humphries said, the U.S. has three major vulnerabilities to patient, fundamentalist Muslims who believe their purpose for living in the West is to help fulfill Islamic prophecies: The loss of border control, the inability to say no and lack of assimilation.
"I feel like I'm Rusty Revere. I'm out there yelling the Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming," he said. "But we don't want to hear it. We don't want to hurt people's feelings."
Rusty Humphries interviews Abu Saif
Humphries' interview with Abu Saif underscored the radically different vision many of Britain's citizens have for the country's future.
The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, "because freedom is an absolute term."
"Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America," he asked in an attempt to explain. "Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none."
Listen to interview with Abu Saif:
Humphries asked: "Do you call for that?"
"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
Abu Saif explained Islam, like Christianity, has a prophetic tradition.
"One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house."
The reference, many Muslims believe today, is to America's symbol of executive power.
Protesters at London Central Mosque
Islamic leaders in the U.S. largely have been careful to not assert publicly the Muslim belief that Islam ultimately will gain worldwide supremacy. As WND reported, Omar Ahmad, the founder of a prominent U.S.-based Islamic lobby group, denies a newspaper report that he told a group of Muslims in the San Francisco Bay area they are in America not to assimilate but to help bring about Islam's rule over the nation.
Like other protesters, Abu Saif presented a typical list of grievances Muslims have with the U.S. and Britain, such as the nations' part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wars in Afghanistan and Iran.
But the Islamic leader admitted he believes Jews and Christians will always hate Muslims, because Allah has said it is so.
"There's nothing we can do to be friends?" Humphries asked.
Abu Saif replied: "There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim."
He also had a simple solution to the conflict in the Holy Land.
"We want the Jews to leave Israel, and to hand the whole of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank – the whole of Israel to the Muslims. Only then will the Muslims stop."
Hear Abu Saif's views on Israel:
'Politics of terror'
BBC-TV last week highlighted Hizb ut-Tahrir in a program called "Politics of Terror," noting "the attempted terrorist attacks on London and Glasgow have once again focused attention on the rise of political Islam."
If al-Qaida is to be defeated, the narrator said, "the key battlefield is in the realm of ideas. Today's would-be suicide bombers are almost invariably yesterday's campaigners for political Islam."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
During the Prime Minister's Questions session in Parliament Wednesday, opposition leader David Cameron left the new premier, Gordon Brown, stammering after demanding to know why the government had not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir after promising to do so two years ago.
Brown replied: "Of course in all these details – and I have had to deal with this in the Treasury, when we're dealing with terrorist finance – you have to have evidence to do so."
The answer was met by a chorus of jeers from MPs.
Cameron responded: "The prime minister said we need evidence to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. This organization said, and I quote, 'Jews should be killed wherever they are found.' What more evidence do we need before we ban this organization? It is poisoning the minds of young people. Two years ago the government said it should be banned. I ask again, when will this be done?"
Brown seemed even more hesitant this time.
"We can ban it under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and, of course, of course, of course ... I think the leader of the opposition forgets I've been at this job for five days ... ," he said, as jeers once again filled the chamber.
Brown already, in fact, has issued a ban of another kind – prohibiting his ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in connection with the worldwide terrorism threat. He also has instructed his team to drop the phrase "war on terror," Britain's Daily Express reported.
The paper says the "shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more 'consensual' tone than existed under Tony Blair."
The New York Times reported last week many Britons were happy with Brown's tempered approach to the foiled terrorist attacks just days after he succeeded Blair.
Brown, wrote London-based reporter Alan Cowell, "played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism."
Senin, 09 Juli 2007
Look at England-a Western Democracy who granted Refuge to Islamics-they were given freedom and are now biting the hand that fed them-just the beginning-until the West understands that upholding behavioral standards is OK, until we insist on assimilation, the erosion of our culture will continue!
__________________________________________________________________------------------
'ISLAMOPHOBIA' IDIOCY By AMIR TAHERI
July 3, 2007 -- LONDON
THE car-bomb/suicide-terror operations in London and Glasgow should have provided a fresh opportunity for reminding everyone, especially Muslims in Britain, that terrorism in the name of Islam still poses a major threat to public peace and safety . Yet this is not what is happening.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam - but, at the same time, keeps inviting "Muslim community leaders" to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim "leaders" rather than Buddhist monks?
Brown hasn't deemed fit to tell it like it is: that Muslims in Britain, indeed all over the world, must come out and condemn terrorism in unambiguous terms.
Instead, we are hearing that the attacks may have been prompted by "Muslim bitterness" about Salman Rushdie's knighting, the latest addition to the Islamist litany of woes. Some "moderate community leaders," like a certain Baroness Uddin, drop hints that Muslims have "foreign-policy issues" that might make them unhappy. The barely coded message: Unless Britain reshapes its foreign policy to please al Qaeda, it must expect to be attacked.
The most that "the moderate community leaders" concede is a "yes, but" position: Yes, it is not quite right to blow up innocent people - but, then again, we must understand how anger at the policies of the government of those same innocent people might prompt some Muslim youths to want to slaughter everyone.
Worse still, Ken Livingstone, London's quixotic leftist mayor, has shifted the blame from the terrorists to the British at large, who are supposedly tempted by "Islamophobia."
Thus, Livingstone works his way into a logical impasse: Do we dislike them because they want to kill us, or do they want to kill us because we dislike them? He implies that the main blame must lie with the British government and its U.S. allies, especially President Bush, who has declared war on terror rather than seeking to cuddle it.
But can one accuse Britain of "Islamophobia"? The answer is an emphatic no.
Britain and a few other Western democracies are the only places on earth where Muslims of all persuasions can practice their faith in full freedom. A thick directory of Muslim institutions in Britain lists more than 300 different sects - most of them banned and persecuted in every Muslim country on earth.
A Shiite Muslim can't build a mosque in Cairo; his Sunni brother can't have a mosque of his own in Tehran. Editions of the Koran printed in Egypt or Saudi Arabia are seized as contraband in Iran; Egypt and most other Muslim nations in turn ban the import of Korans printed in Iran. The works of a majority of Muslim writers and philosophers are banned in most Muslim countries.
In Britain, all mosques are allowed; no Muslim author or philosopher is banned. More importantly, rival Muslim sects do not massacre each other, as is the case in half a dozen Muslim-majority countries.
The only time that the British media practice self-censorship is when an item might be seen as remotely anti-Islamic. Every British publisher has turned down at least one book proposal for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. " Taking Muslim sensibilities into account" is also the reason given for the cancellation of some art exhibitions and the selection of works on display in others.
Even the most rabid anti-West and pro-terror Islamist clerics are granted visas to come to the United Kingdom and spread their message of hatred (at times, as guests of Mayor Livingstone and his friends). Hamas and Hezbollah are strongly present in Britain; the Islamic Liberation Party, banned in all Muslim countries, has its headquarters in London.
Pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah militants are featured on British TV almost every evening. The Islamic Republic of Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei, maintains a "personal office" in London with twice as many personnel as Iran's official embassy .
The latest "Islamophobia" charges come as Prime Minister Brown has appointed two Muslims to his ministerial team, the first in U.K. history.
The terrorists who tried to kill people in London and Glasgow are the same ones killing people in Baghdad and Karachi. They are the same who killed tens of thousands of Egyptians and perhaps as many as a quarter-million Algerians over the decades. They are motivated not by any religious grievance but by an insatiable appetite for political power. They want to seize control of societies, break them into submission and impose on every individual a mad tyranny of terror in the name of God.
If Islam is the religion of peace, then the real Islamphobes are those who planted the car bombs in London and Glasgow - not the poor Brits who are censoring themselves and curbing their hard-won freedoms in order not to offend "the Muslim community."
______________
Not enough for the Palestinians-ever the victims they demand more be released and that they are being ridiculed by the West-are you listening Western leaders? Do you not see the absurdity of this prisoner release for more terror strategy? Or are you too frightened, too weak to do what needs to be done?
Analysis: 250 freed won't help Abbas
While most Palestinians will welcome the release of 250 security prisoners from Israeli jails, such a move is unlikely to boost the standing of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah.
All the freed prisoners are expected to belong to Fatah. The other Palestinian groups, which have thousands of prisoners in these jails, are already complaining that Abbas cares only about members of his faction.
Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad have expressed deep concern over the government's decision to distinguish between the prisoners on the basis of their political affiliation.
"Israel is mistaken to think that the release of Fatah prisoners will strengthen Abbas," said a senior representative of the PFLP in the West Bank. "The families of the other prisoners will never forgive him for abandoning their sons. This move proves that he's the president of only some of the Palestinians."
Even Fatah leaders are unhappy with the decision to release only 250 prisoners. They say the number is too small and point out that most of the inmates were scheduled to be released soon anyway, after completing their sentences.
Moreover, the Fatah leaders are disappointed that the decision does not include prisoners with "blood on their hands" and those who are serving lengthy sentences.
"We were hoping that Israel would release prisoners who have been behind bars for more than 20 years," said Ashraf al-Ajrami, the PA Minister for Prisoners Affairs. "We welcome the decision, but it's not enough. In order to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, Israel must release prisoners who have been in prison for many years."
The prisoners issue has always been considered one of the most sensitive for the Palestinians. Families of the nearly 10,000 prisoners have long been exerting heavy pressure on the PA leadership to work hard toward freeing their offspring.
The pressure intensified after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, when many Palestinians were expecting Israel to release thousands of prisoners as a gesture to Yasser Arafat. But even when Israel released hundreds of prisoners, including some with Jewish blood on their hands, the Palestinians still complained that the move was insufficient.
"The Israeli decision [to release 250 Fatah prisoners] is a humiliation for Abbas and the entire Palestinian people," said Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip. "The release of prisoners who are about to complete their sentences won't help Abbas. The Palestinians won't buy this deception."
The families of the remaining prisoners are likely to step up their pressure on Abbas following the release of these inmates. And when he fails to deliver, Abbas's credibility will be dealt yet another blow. As a senior Fatah official admitted on Sunday, "The release of the Fatah prisoners could only make matters worse for us, because it will look as if Israel is rewarding Fatah for agreeing to collaborate with the Israelis and Americans."
Hamas Kids TV:
Fight the Jews and bring Resurrection
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Farfur may be dead, but his message continues. A week after the children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers showed the Mickey Mouse lookalike being beaten to death by an actor portraying an Israeli interrogator, the show was back on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV. The squeaky-voiced mouse was gone, but Friday’s program continued to preach hatred and praise Shahada – death as a martyr for Allah.
This week’s messages came from the young viewers, who phoned into the show, expressed their views to the child host, Saraa’ and demonstrated how well they have absorbed the violent lessons of the show and possibly children’s programming.
One young caller proclaimed:
"Awake oh children, awake to action, your destiny is one, and it is to become a Shahid [Martyr] for Allah.”
Later in the show, a nine-year old girl paraphrased the Hadith (Islamic tradition attributed to Muhammad) that has been broadcast numerous times by Fatah and Hamas religious and educational leaders – that the Hour (of resurrection) is dependent on Muslims’ fighting and killing the Jews.
Click to view video on YouTube or PMW website
Shahad, 9 years old, on the phone:
Saraa’: What would you like to share with us?
Shahad: The Noble Hadith.
Saraa’: Go on.
Shahad: The Prophet [Muhammad] said: The Hour [Resurrection] will not
take place until you fight the Jews, they will be east of the river and you to the west, and the rock and the tree will say: Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and fight him!
Saraa’: Thank you very much, Shahad.
[Al Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 6, 2007]
Fight the Jews and bring Resurrection
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Farfur may be dead, but his message continues. A week after the children’s program Tomorrow’s Pioneers showed the Mickey Mouse lookalike being beaten to death by an actor portraying an Israeli interrogator, the show was back on Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV. The squeaky-voiced mouse was gone, but Friday’s program continued to preach hatred and praise Shahada – death as a martyr for Allah.
This week’s messages came from the young viewers, who phoned into the show, expressed their views to the child host, Saraa’ and demonstrated how well they have absorbed the violent lessons of the show and possibly children’s programming.
One young caller proclaimed:
"Awake oh children, awake to action, your destiny is one, and it is to become a Shahid [Martyr] for Allah.”
Later in the show, a nine-year old girl paraphrased the Hadith (Islamic tradition attributed to Muhammad) that has been broadcast numerous times by Fatah and Hamas religious and educational leaders – that the Hour (of resurrection) is dependent on Muslims’ fighting and killing the Jews.
Click to view video on YouTube or PMW website
Shahad, 9 years old, on the phone:
Saraa’: What would you like to share with us?
Shahad: The Noble Hadith.
Saraa’: Go on.
Shahad: The Prophet [Muhammad] said: The Hour [Resurrection] will not
take place until you fight the Jews, they will be east of the river and you to the west, and the rock and the tree will say: Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and fight him!
Saraa’: Thank you very much, Shahad.
[Al Aqsa TV (Hamas), July 6, 2007]
Minggu, 08 Juli 2007
Exploding the Myths of Islamic Terrorism
By Ken Connor
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Though the bombs failed to detonate, this week's attacks in London have exploded persistent myths about Islamic terrorism. These myths—perpetuated by the politically correct, the unreasonably optimistic, and the willfully ignorant—have crippled the West's ability to adequately confront the Islamic threat. Unless the West finally wakes up and faces reality, our chance for long-term survival is questionable. Hopefully the bombs of London will be our wakeup call.
The first myth to go up in smoke after this week's failed attempts at terror is that radical Islamic theology is the result of poverty and illiteracy. Some commentators would have us believe that terrorism would cease if all Muslim children were educated and affluent, and therefore, America's foreign policy should focus on economic aid and education. It is increasingly clear, however, that many of the men behind the London bombings were physicians. Highly educated with well-paying jobs in a prosperous nation, these men certainly do not fit the profile so often painted of Islamic terrorists. One thing is clear: it is not poverty or ignorance that drives Muslims to terrorism. Even those who are highly educated and trained to "cure" were willing to kill in the name of Allah.
Saudi police graduates swear upon the Quran to protect the country, the king and Islam, in Riyadh June 26, 2007. The graduates will work at Saudi border posts and airports, where Saudi authorities are trying to control drug trafficking and arms smuggling. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (SAUDI ARABIA)
Related Media:
Feeling vs. Faith: An Episcopal Muslim?
Medved's show used for distortions and unfair reporting against Islam?
VIDEO: Romney: On Radical Islam
Warnings of Islam from the people who know
VIDEO: Thompson: Combating Terror
VIDEO: Red Mosque Seige Continues
A second myth, which has dominated the thinking of some fellow conservatives, is that democracy is the surefire antidote to terrorism. They maintain that if Muslims lived in freedom and were able to elect their leaders in a democratic way, then our terrorist enemies would lose their desire to kill innocents. President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." It now seems clear, however, that even those who enjoy freedom and democracy can be won over by radical theology. The medical professionals implicated in this week's attacks were living miles away from tyranny and were enjoying all of the benefits of modern Western Democracy. But, it was not enough to blunt their impulse to inflict terror. Their interpretation of Islam inspired them to bomb the very nation which offered them freedom. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that once men and women live in democracy, then terrorism will cease. It is not that simple.
Third, many would have us believe that terrorism is caused solely by Western foreign policy, especially the Iraq War. In the wake of this week's attempted bombings, however, a remarkable article appeared in London's Daily Mail which provides valuable insight into the minds of radical Muslims. According to the article, written by a former fanatic, Hassan Butt, British Muslim terrorist groups "laugh in celebration" when pundits say that the sole cause of terrorism is our foreign policy. According to Butt, although Western foreign policy did anger him, "what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice" (emphasis added).
These terrorists are not just retaliating against unpopular policies overseas. Even if every last Westerner left the Middle East, these radicals would still pursue their worldwide Islamic State. Their goal stems from a particular understanding of Islam that has won adherents around the world. These Muslims believe that it is God's will for them to conquer the whole world, by violence if necessary. In light of the violence they have perpetrated, can there be any doubt that ideas have consequences? It is past time to confront the violent ideas of many Muslims.
One of the most obvious differences between Islam and Western Christianity is the relationship between politics and religion. Mohammad, in addition to being a religious leader, was a military commander and political ruler. From the beginning, there has been little distinction between religion and politics in the Muslim world. For Islamic radicals, the differences between evangelizing and conquering are inconsequential, because politics and religion go hand-in-hand. This is in obvious contrast with the example of Jesus Christ, who pursued no worldly political ambitions and who even surrendered himself into the hands of political leaders to be crucified. As Christ continually reminded his disciples, his kingdom was not of this world. He did not offer his disciples a political agenda. Though the Christian faithful have always seen it as their duty to pursue justice in the political arena, it has also been recognized that, ultimately, the Church and the state are two separate entities.
If Islam is true, and if Mohammad has truly brought to the world a perfect legal code, then we should gladly convert and submit to Islamic law. If, on the other hand, the Christian faith of our forefathers is true, then we should resist Islam and share with Muslims the Good News of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Christianity and Islam posit competing truth claims. Unlike Mohammad, Christ adjured his followers to love their enemies—not kill them. For decades now, many in the West have preferred to think that truth does not matter. Many have also deluded themselves into thinking that salvation comes through wealth and education, or democracy and freedom. Therefore, even as our government confronts the military threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, the Church—the Body of Christ—must confront Islam's violent ideas with the peace of the Gospel. The Church would do well to reclaim and proclaim the true treasure of the Western world, the Christian faith. Neither wealth nor democracy will be enough to change the hearts of radical Muslims. The Gospel of Christ, however, is more than sufficient.
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.
By Ken Connor
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Though the bombs failed to detonate, this week's attacks in London have exploded persistent myths about Islamic terrorism. These myths—perpetuated by the politically correct, the unreasonably optimistic, and the willfully ignorant—have crippled the West's ability to adequately confront the Islamic threat. Unless the West finally wakes up and faces reality, our chance for long-term survival is questionable. Hopefully the bombs of London will be our wakeup call.
The first myth to go up in smoke after this week's failed attempts at terror is that radical Islamic theology is the result of poverty and illiteracy. Some commentators would have us believe that terrorism would cease if all Muslim children were educated and affluent, and therefore, America's foreign policy should focus on economic aid and education. It is increasingly clear, however, that many of the men behind the London bombings were physicians. Highly educated with well-paying jobs in a prosperous nation, these men certainly do not fit the profile so often painted of Islamic terrorists. One thing is clear: it is not poverty or ignorance that drives Muslims to terrorism. Even those who are highly educated and trained to "cure" were willing to kill in the name of Allah.
Saudi police graduates swear upon the Quran to protect the country, the king and Islam, in Riyadh June 26, 2007. The graduates will work at Saudi border posts and airports, where Saudi authorities are trying to control drug trafficking and arms smuggling. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (SAUDI ARABIA)
Related Media:
Feeling vs. Faith: An Episcopal Muslim?
Medved's show used for distortions and unfair reporting against Islam?
VIDEO: Romney: On Radical Islam
Warnings of Islam from the people who know
VIDEO: Thompson: Combating Terror
VIDEO: Red Mosque Seige Continues
A second myth, which has dominated the thinking of some fellow conservatives, is that democracy is the surefire antidote to terrorism. They maintain that if Muslims lived in freedom and were able to elect their leaders in a democratic way, then our terrorist enemies would lose their desire to kill innocents. President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." It now seems clear, however, that even those who enjoy freedom and democracy can be won over by radical theology. The medical professionals implicated in this week's attacks were living miles away from tyranny and were enjoying all of the benefits of modern Western Democracy. But, it was not enough to blunt their impulse to inflict terror. Their interpretation of Islam inspired them to bomb the very nation which offered them freedom. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that once men and women live in democracy, then terrorism will cease. It is not that simple.
Third, many would have us believe that terrorism is caused solely by Western foreign policy, especially the Iraq War. In the wake of this week's attempted bombings, however, a remarkable article appeared in London's Daily Mail which provides valuable insight into the minds of radical Muslims. According to the article, written by a former fanatic, Hassan Butt, British Muslim terrorist groups "laugh in celebration" when pundits say that the sole cause of terrorism is our foreign policy. According to Butt, although Western foreign policy did anger him, "what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice" (emphasis added).
These terrorists are not just retaliating against unpopular policies overseas. Even if every last Westerner left the Middle East, these radicals would still pursue their worldwide Islamic State. Their goal stems from a particular understanding of Islam that has won adherents around the world. These Muslims believe that it is God's will for them to conquer the whole world, by violence if necessary. In light of the violence they have perpetrated, can there be any doubt that ideas have consequences? It is past time to confront the violent ideas of many Muslims.
One of the most obvious differences between Islam and Western Christianity is the relationship between politics and religion. Mohammad, in addition to being a religious leader, was a military commander and political ruler. From the beginning, there has been little distinction between religion and politics in the Muslim world. For Islamic radicals, the differences between evangelizing and conquering are inconsequential, because politics and religion go hand-in-hand. This is in obvious contrast with the example of Jesus Christ, who pursued no worldly political ambitions and who even surrendered himself into the hands of political leaders to be crucified. As Christ continually reminded his disciples, his kingdom was not of this world. He did not offer his disciples a political agenda. Though the Christian faithful have always seen it as their duty to pursue justice in the political arena, it has also been recognized that, ultimately, the Church and the state are two separate entities.
If Islam is true, and if Mohammad has truly brought to the world a perfect legal code, then we should gladly convert and submit to Islamic law. If, on the other hand, the Christian faith of our forefathers is true, then we should resist Islam and share with Muslims the Good News of the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Christianity and Islam posit competing truth claims. Unlike Mohammad, Christ adjured his followers to love their enemies—not kill them. For decades now, many in the West have preferred to think that truth does not matter. Many have also deluded themselves into thinking that salvation comes through wealth and education, or democracy and freedom. Therefore, even as our government confronts the military threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, the Church—the Body of Christ—must confront Islam's violent ideas with the peace of the Gospel. The Church would do well to reclaim and proclaim the true treasure of the Western world, the Christian faith. Neither wealth nor democracy will be enough to change the hearts of radical Muslims. The Gospel of Christ, however, is more than sufficient.
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)