Pay attention HOW WORLD'S HYPOCRISY WORKS: Canada has disputed territories issue! Occupied land! What does Canada do to assert her presence? Canada is immediately building two military bases—not building ‘settlements‘—and sending to assert her presence in the disputed land.
So all of a sudden Canada—the country that is treating Israel with great hostility—has disputed territory issue! Though the Bible does not tell us that this disputed land is the cradle of the Canadian Nation…rather, it is land in the North Pole—not historical land the Canadians longed to return to its for 2000…but you see what is happening without one U.N. Security Council meeting, without a meeting of the G8, or a murmur from the world; without objections and out cry of any organization!
Why and for what Israel apologizing all the time? This is OUR LAND, and you Kofi Anna, Tzipi Livni and Condoleezza Rice, listen well, listen closely: We are not selling our land and our land is not an item in the international bazaar! Our land is not an item at the negotiation table!
We are not interested in “peace.” All we are interested is in returning our nation to his Biblical and historical land. For the past one hundred and twenty (120) years we have not done badly gathering our people to their Homeland from all corners of the world and that despite your on going disturbance and disruption! Despite the fact that there are traitors amongst us, we will continue doing just that!
This is the land of the Jewish Nation; forget giving the land away to the blood sucking, Islamofascistic enemy. If you want to give to the Arabs a state, choose another place, any where in the world, to include the North Pole. Perhaps you need to approach Canada and she may agree to give the Arabs the North Pole. How about that? Will the Canadians agree? Do you get the hypocrisy?! It is about time you do! (Origin text in Hebrew by Tsafrir Ronen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Times
Arctic military bases signal new Cold War
August 11, 2007
URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2238243.ece
Canada fired a warning shot in a new Cold War over the vast resources of the far North by announcing last night that it will build two new military bases in the Arctic wilderness.
A week after Russia laid claim to the North Pole in what is rapidly becoming a global scramble for the region’s vast oil and gas reserves, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said that Canada would open a new army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay, and a deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island. The country is also beefing up its military presence in the far North with 900 Rangers.
“Canada’s Government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it,” Mr. Harper said. The move comes a week after Russia planted a rustproof titanium flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole in a blatant attempt to stake a claim to the billions of tonnes of untapped energy resources believed to be under the Arctic Ocean.
Under international law, each of five Arctic countries–Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark–controls an economic zone within 200 miles of its continental shelf. But the limits of that shelf are in dispute, and as Russia seeks to expand its gas and oil reserves, the region is at the centre of a battle for energy rights and ownership. Last week’s Russian expedition, when two mini-submarines reached the seabed 13,980ft (4,261m) beneath the North Pole, was part of a push by Moscow to find evidence for its claim that the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked by a single continental shelf, thus making the polar region a geological extension of Russia.
The vessels recovered samples from the seabed in an attempt to demonstrate that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf that runs through the Arctic, is an extension of Russian territory. The United Nations rejected that claim in 2002, citing lack of proof, but Moscow is expected to make its case again in 2009. Denmark and Canada also argue that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories. Norway is also conducting a survey to strengthen its case. All five Arctic nations are competing to secure subsurface rights to the seabed.
One study by the US Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic has as much as 25 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. Canada was furious at the attempted Russian land grab. “This isn’t the 15th century,” Peter MacKay, the Canadian Foreign Minister, said. “You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say, ‘We’re claiming this territory’.”
The move has clearly rattled the Harper administration, which is under domestic pressure to beef up its sovereignty claims to the disputed region.
Mr Harper said that his announcement of the new military facilities would “tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic”. Standing next to Gordon O’Connor, his Defence Minister, and a group of Rangers–a rifle-toting Inuit volunteer force–Mr. Harper added: “Protecting national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government.”
Last month Mr. Harper announced that six to eight new navy patrol ships would be built to guard the Northwest Passage sea route in the Arctic..
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The vanishing jihad exposés
Mark Steyn column
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?
Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.
The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?
For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.
Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:
"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."
Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.
As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.
In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" and its chairman as a "specially designated global terrorist." As the Treasury concluded, "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief."
Indeed, this "charity" seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he's called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.
So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?
Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.
We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.
Suppose you've got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-steyn-jihad-1797347-exposs-column
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Surge-could it be working?
A Ranking Senate Democrat Concedes Surge Is Working
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 9, 2007
WASHINGTON — The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate — the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois — is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.
His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.
To read more:
Ooops, Israel Pays Hamas Leaders Back Pay
Error or corruption? Salam Fayyad's Palestinian government transferred to Hamas payments for 3,500 of its executive members, despite ruptures in the relationship between the two factions since the Hamas revolt in Gaza. At the beginning they claimed that it was an IT error, but after an enquiry a Treasury director was stopped for collaboration with Hamas. Some of these funds were released by Israel as part of the good will gestures shown towards Mahmoud Abbas.
600 millimeter rockets that can carry hundreds of kilograms of explosives – up to 500 – and can reach Tel Aviv.
Syrian rockets aimed at Tel Aviv
Long-range rockets already in place on Golan; is Syria preparing for war?
Ron Ben Yishai
The latest official IDF intelligence branch assessment, adopted by the Israeli government, is that Syria is not planning to attack Israel. At least not in the coming months.
The accelerated preparations for war undertaken by the Syrian army recently, according to the assessment, are not aimed at launching an offensive, but rather, stem from fears in Damascus that the IDF plans to attack Syria. As proof of this, IDF intelligence researchers point to the fact that the Syrian army has not fundamentally changed its deployment, which is still mostly defensive, vis-à-vis Israel.
To read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3435543,00.html
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Please watch this important video
It supports the existence and foundation of Israel-make use of the information-thank you don and chana
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened
It supports the existence and foundation of Israel-make use of the information-thank you don and chana
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened
Don’t junk the pre-conditions in the road map
A standard example of unfair negotiations is when one side “moves the goalposts” by increasing its demands just as the other side tries to fulfill them. The “peace process” with the Palestinians suffers from the opposite problem: whenever there seems to be an opportunity for the Palestinians to move in the right direction, the goalposts are quickly moved toward them, thereby eliminating any incentive for and bringing a halt to the much-desired progress.Such is the case with Prime Minister Olmert’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas on Monday. At that meeting, Olmert reportedly discussed “fundamental issues” with the purpose of developing a “framework” for a Palestinian state. In other words, Olmert seems to be caving in to pressure from the US to fudge the sequencing of the road map, which clearly requires that terrorism be fought first and a Palestinian state negotiated later.
To read more: http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
A standard example of unfair negotiations is when one side “moves the goalposts” by increasing its demands just as the other side tries to fulfill them. The “peace process” with the Palestinians suffers from the opposite problem: whenever there seems to be an opportunity for the Palestinians to move in the right direction, the goalposts are quickly moved toward them, thereby eliminating any incentive for and bringing a halt to the much-desired progress.Such is the case with Prime Minister Olmert’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas on Monday. At that meeting, Olmert reportedly discussed “fundamental issues” with the purpose of developing a “framework” for a Palestinian state. In other words, Olmert seems to be caving in to pressure from the US to fudge the sequencing of the road map, which clearly requires that terrorism be fought first and a Palestinian state negotiated later.
To read more: http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
Lessons Still Remain Intact
Israelis must oppose the eviction of Jews from Hebron
by Ariel Sharon (1994)
It wasn’t easy for me to come out with a public call last week to Israeli residents to oppose the evacuation of Jews from Hebron. Hebron is Jerusalem, NOT Yamit.
I called for passive, non-violent resistance against the declared intentions of the government in Hebron. It was only because I am convinced that the security and inalienable rights of Jews in every part of Eretz Yisrael will be irreversibly eroded if the government carries out its plans in Hebron, that I decided that we must arise and passively resist the uprooting of Jews from Hebron. And if, G-d forbid, the government does carry out its intention, it should know, in advance, that we will return to Hebron.
I have no doubt that the Jews in Israel and abroad feel that the government of Israel has lost its sense of Jewish-Zionist direction. The mere thought of sending IDF soldiers to evacuate Jews from Hebron is clear proof of this. Jews feel, justifiably, that the fate and future of the State of Israel is being threatened.
For most of my life I have obeyed orders as well as issued them as a soldier and commander in the IDF. Therefore, I am aware of the absolute importance of the duty incumbent on every soldier to carry out the legal orders, in order to preserve the military system which defends us.
At the same time, warning must be given, that if the Israeli government dares to uproot Jews from the heart of Eretz-Yisrael – a situation will develop in which the military will eventually have nothing to defend except itself, and will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate. After all, the IDF was organized to defend the Zionist settlement drive, which was threatened from the start as a result of Arab aggression, even before we returned home to Hebron. It was only with tremendous pain that we were able, in 1948, to retain part of Jerusalem.
If the government uproots the Jews of Hebron, it will be uprooting a vital cornerstone of the IDF -- which is indispensable for the defense of all parts of Israel. Therefore, although every soldier and commander must obey the legal orders of the government, so too, must every citizen in a democratic country ask himself what he is supposed to do when he is convinced that the policy of the government endangers him, his future and his family.
This question is a particularly burning one, with regard to the security of the Jewish state which is increasingly being jeopardized as the government continues to give the PLO a hold on our land by undermining and uprooting Jews from their homes.
Every Jew must feel as if he is personally going to be ousted from Hebron. Each one of us must understand that if we will not stand up to stop the uprooting of Jews form Hebron, we may very well – in the future – be uprooted from Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba or from any other place.
In contrast to the days of exile, it is not only the right, but the obligation of every Jew, in a Jewish democratic state, to stand up and warn his government, through passive resistance, of the disaster that it is bringing upon all of us. What Jews could not do in Germany and Poland before their extermination, they must do in their own country. They have to rise en masse and resist.
Written by Ariel Sharon, April 15, 1994
This article entitled "Israel Is Being Used As A Guinea Pig For The Oslo Peace Experiment" appeared in The Jewish Press.
Reported again: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/hebron-expulsion-august-7-2007.html
Comment: We certainly have a current government that does not believe in the previous ideas. Sharon's words should be heard today. Olmert has the luxury of Sharon's inability to ever defend the disconnect between 1994 and 2007 policies and no one is calling Olmert on his rush to judgment day as he acts as though the past never mattered. Shameful behavior for an Israeli PM!
by Ariel Sharon (1994)
It wasn’t easy for me to come out with a public call last week to Israeli residents to oppose the evacuation of Jews from Hebron. Hebron is Jerusalem, NOT Yamit.
I called for passive, non-violent resistance against the declared intentions of the government in Hebron. It was only because I am convinced that the security and inalienable rights of Jews in every part of Eretz Yisrael will be irreversibly eroded if the government carries out its plans in Hebron, that I decided that we must arise and passively resist the uprooting of Jews from Hebron. And if, G-d forbid, the government does carry out its intention, it should know, in advance, that we will return to Hebron.
I have no doubt that the Jews in Israel and abroad feel that the government of Israel has lost its sense of Jewish-Zionist direction. The mere thought of sending IDF soldiers to evacuate Jews from Hebron is clear proof of this. Jews feel, justifiably, that the fate and future of the State of Israel is being threatened.
For most of my life I have obeyed orders as well as issued them as a soldier and commander in the IDF. Therefore, I am aware of the absolute importance of the duty incumbent on every soldier to carry out the legal orders, in order to preserve the military system which defends us.
At the same time, warning must be given, that if the Israeli government dares to uproot Jews from the heart of Eretz-Yisrael – a situation will develop in which the military will eventually have nothing to defend except itself, and will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate. After all, the IDF was organized to defend the Zionist settlement drive, which was threatened from the start as a result of Arab aggression, even before we returned home to Hebron. It was only with tremendous pain that we were able, in 1948, to retain part of Jerusalem.
If the government uproots the Jews of Hebron, it will be uprooting a vital cornerstone of the IDF -- which is indispensable for the defense of all parts of Israel. Therefore, although every soldier and commander must obey the legal orders of the government, so too, must every citizen in a democratic country ask himself what he is supposed to do when he is convinced that the policy of the government endangers him, his future and his family.
This question is a particularly burning one, with regard to the security of the Jewish state which is increasingly being jeopardized as the government continues to give the PLO a hold on our land by undermining and uprooting Jews from their homes.
Every Jew must feel as if he is personally going to be ousted from Hebron. Each one of us must understand that if we will not stand up to stop the uprooting of Jews form Hebron, we may very well – in the future – be uprooted from Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba or from any other place.
In contrast to the days of exile, it is not only the right, but the obligation of every Jew, in a Jewish democratic state, to stand up and warn his government, through passive resistance, of the disaster that it is bringing upon all of us. What Jews could not do in Germany and Poland before their extermination, they must do in their own country. They have to rise en masse and resist.
Written by Ariel Sharon, April 15, 1994
This article entitled "Israel Is Being Used As A Guinea Pig For The Oslo Peace Experiment" appeared in The Jewish Press.
Reported again: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/hebron-expulsion-august-7-2007.html
Comment: We certainly have a current government that does not believe in the previous ideas. Sharon's words should be heard today. Olmert has the luxury of Sharon's inability to ever defend the disconnect between 1994 and 2007 policies and no one is calling Olmert on his rush to judgment day as he acts as though the past never mattered. Shameful behavior for an Israeli PM!
Egyptian Court in Controversial Ruling: Christians Who Convert to Islam, Cannot Convert Back
A public debate has been underway in Egypt over the regime's treatment of
the country's Christians. This debate emerged following lawsuits by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reconverted to Christianity, and who were now demanding that the Egyptian Interior Ministry issue them new official documents in their original names and with "Christian" in the "religion" entry field.
In April 2007, the Egyptian administrative court rejected an appeal by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reverted to Christianity, and
also accused them of apostasy against Islam - the punishment for which is death, according to the common interpretation.
Two months after the court ruling, the plaintiffs' appeal was accepted. The
Supreme Administrative Court instructed the Interior Ministry to permit the plaintiffs to have their identity cards again denote them as Christians, and called for a new law banning "playing" with religions. Further ruling in the case was postponed until September 2007.(1)
To read more: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD167507.
A public debate has been underway in Egypt over the regime's treatment of
the country's Christians. This debate emerged following lawsuits by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reconverted to Christianity, and who were now demanding that the Egyptian Interior Ministry issue them new official documents in their original names and with "Christian" in the "religion" entry field.
In April 2007, the Egyptian administrative court rejected an appeal by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reverted to Christianity, and
also accused them of apostasy against Islam - the punishment for which is death, according to the common interpretation.
Two months after the court ruling, the plaintiffs' appeal was accepted. The
Supreme Administrative Court instructed the Interior Ministry to permit the plaintiffs to have their identity cards again denote them as Christians, and called for a new law banning "playing" with religions. Further ruling in the case was postponed until September 2007.(1)
To read more: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD167507.
The arrogance...!
Notice the audacity of Abbas. Not only does he expect to be given the weapons, he refuses to call Jordan by its official name. Transjordan was the name first used in modern times to describe the country of Jordan.
The Palestinian Authority has asked for authorization from the Israeli government to import arms from Egypt and Jordan. According to the PA, "these arms are necessary for Fatah to defend itself against another rebellion by Hamas and to maintain order in Transjordan."
The Palestinian Authority has asked for authorization from the Israeli government to import arms from Egypt and Jordan. According to the PA, "these arms are necessary for Fatah to defend itself against another rebellion by Hamas and to maintain order in Transjordan."
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
I Don’t CAIR if Muslims are Offended
By Mike S. AdamsWednesday, August 8, 2007
Dear www.DrAdams.org
I've written about a number of threats to the First Amendment in recent years. But few have riled me up as much as a recent letter written by attorney Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com). Sandler was hired by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) after the organization learned that Robert Spencer was about to give a speech called "The Truth About CAIR" at the National Conservative Student Conference held by the Young America's Foundation (YAF).
Here's what Sandler wrote to my friend Ron Robinson, President of YAF:"You should be aware that Mr. Spencer, a well-known purveyor of hatredand bigotry against Muslims, has a history of false and defamatory statements. Several of those statements have falsely accused CAIR of activity that would constitute a federal offense."
After failing to provide a single "false and defamatory" statement by Spencer, Sandler went on to exercise his constitutional right to praise CAIR for its work in fighting terrorism. (Note: This is not to suggest that such praise is in any way deserved, just that it is protected by the First Amendment).After, a) citing specific evidence in support of the notion that CAIR is an anti-terrorist organization, and b) citing no evidence of false and defamatory statements by Spencer (nor any of the evidence supporting Spencer's contrary opinion), Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) made a rather outrageous request that is worth reproducing in its entirety:"For these reasons, we demand that YAF cancel the subject session (at which Spencer is speaking), or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated at that session. Our clients have instructed us to pursue every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that aremade at the session. Please let us know by the close of business today whether you intend to comply with these requests. Joseph E. Sandler, sandler@sandlerreiff.com, (202) 479-1111"
This notion of preventing “offense” by forcing people to relinquish their First Amendment Rights is itself offensive. Certainly, when one of my Muslim friends offends me - by forcing his wife to leave the room without speaking as soon as I come over - I just let it go. But maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I should start my own organization called CAIRS, The Council Against Islamic Repression and Sexism.
But, for the time being, please join me in the fight against Muslim censors (and the lawyers who love them) by taking the time to do at least one of four things today:1. Write Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.2. Call Joseph E. Sandler (202-479-1111) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.3. Fax a Xerox copy of the First Amendment to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.4. Fax a Xerox copy of your extended middle finger to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.
For those of you who follow option #1 or #2, there are a few questions you should ask Mr. Sandler: What exactly are the false and defamatory statements made by Spencer that would justify the prior restraint of free speech? Why not sue over those statements instead of threatening to sue over statements not yet made? And, finally, is it not also defamatory to falsely accuse someone of defamation?
I plan to follow option #4. And I also plan to write about this incident in my weekly internet column. That is, unless Mr. Sandler tries to stop me beforehand.
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.
By Mike S. AdamsWednesday, August 8, 2007
Dear www.DrAdams.org
I've written about a number of threats to the First Amendment in recent years. But few have riled me up as much as a recent letter written by attorney Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com). Sandler was hired by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) after the organization learned that Robert Spencer was about to give a speech called "The Truth About CAIR" at the National Conservative Student Conference held by the Young America's Foundation (YAF).
Here's what Sandler wrote to my friend Ron Robinson, President of YAF:"You should be aware that Mr. Spencer, a well-known purveyor of hatredand bigotry against Muslims, has a history of false and defamatory statements. Several of those statements have falsely accused CAIR of activity that would constitute a federal offense."
After failing to provide a single "false and defamatory" statement by Spencer, Sandler went on to exercise his constitutional right to praise CAIR for its work in fighting terrorism. (Note: This is not to suggest that such praise is in any way deserved, just that it is protected by the First Amendment).After, a) citing specific evidence in support of the notion that CAIR is an anti-terrorist organization, and b) citing no evidence of false and defamatory statements by Spencer (nor any of the evidence supporting Spencer's contrary opinion), Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) made a rather outrageous request that is worth reproducing in its entirety:"For these reasons, we demand that YAF cancel the subject session (at which Spencer is speaking), or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated at that session. Our clients have instructed us to pursue every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that aremade at the session. Please let us know by the close of business today whether you intend to comply with these requests. Joseph E. Sandler, sandler@sandlerreiff.com, (202) 479-1111"
This notion of preventing “offense” by forcing people to relinquish their First Amendment Rights is itself offensive. Certainly, when one of my Muslim friends offends me - by forcing his wife to leave the room without speaking as soon as I come over - I just let it go. But maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I should start my own organization called CAIRS, The Council Against Islamic Repression and Sexism.
But, for the time being, please join me in the fight against Muslim censors (and the lawyers who love them) by taking the time to do at least one of four things today:1. Write Joseph E. Sandler (sandler@sandlerreiff.com) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.2. Call Joseph E. Sandler (202-479-1111) and tell him to stop helping Muslim extremists wage a Jihad against the First Amendment in the United States of America.3. Fax a Xerox copy of the First Amendment to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.4. Fax a Xerox copy of your extended middle finger to Sandler, Reiff & Young at (202) 479-1115.
For those of you who follow option #1 or #2, there are a few questions you should ask Mr. Sandler: What exactly are the false and defamatory statements made by Spencer that would justify the prior restraint of free speech? Why not sue over those statements instead of threatening to sue over statements not yet made? And, finally, is it not also defamatory to falsely accuse someone of defamation?
I plan to follow option #4. And I also plan to write about this incident in my weekly internet column. That is, unless Mr. Sandler tries to stop me beforehand.
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.
According to Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr. Musharraf, America's comments regarding possible attacks against Al-Qaida in Pakistan affects efforts for the fight against terror. He says that only the Pakistani security forces can affront Al-Qaida and combat terrorism. According to Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr. Musharraf, America's comments regarding possible attacks against Al-Qaida in Pakistan affects efforts for the fight against terror. He says that only the Pakistani security forces can affront Al-Qaida and combat terrorism. According to Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr. Musharraf, America's comments regarding possible attacks against Al-Qaida in Pakistan affects efforts for the fight against terror. He says that only the Pakistani security forces can affront Al-Qaida and combat terrorism. According to Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr. Musharraf, America's comments regarding possible attacks against Al-Qaida in Pakistan affects efforts for the fight against terror. He says that only the Pakistani security forces can affront Al-Qaida and combat terrorism.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
HOME GAME
This evening I met with several women for dinner ; over the pasta, sandwiches, salads, etc. we discussed - not the latest styles or home renovation - but politics! The subject ranged from the present government which is so corrupt and ready to give away everything for nothing, possible candidates for the next government - with emphasis on integrity and national concern, and how to direct one's energies toward this end.
Later several of us walked to the German Colony to a small theatre to view a film called "Home Game". It centered on the August, 2005 expulsion of Jews from the Gush Katif community of Netzer Hazani. Even though we were all familiar with the outcome one could not help but wish for that miracle as we saw the residents voluntarily turning in the weapons that they carried for safety - not to be used against their brethren who had been charged by the government with expelling them from their beloved creation - Netzer Hazani.
We heard the pleas of parents and children - crying as they begged the soldiers not to force them out of their homes. Trying to reason where there was no reason. Appealing for justice where there was no court. Asking the soldiers where they were supposed to sleep that night and nights to follow. No answers.
Although the country - and the world - had watched the horror of the expulsion on tv "Home Game" provided a close-up of the anguish of decent families whose lives were ripped apart as they stood by - helpless. Many of them expressed caring for the soldiers who had been assigned the task of removing them from their homes and destroying their beautiful community. The faces of the soldiers - many trying to contain their own emotions - often embracing the inconsolable - often displayed their own reluctance to carry out the orders they had been given. The faces of the narrators - young basketball players whose game interfaced with the details of the expulsion - revealed the deteriorating reality as the day passed.
The last moments were most difficult to watch - as Israeli flags were flown from rooftops, buildings set on fire, and a parade of mourners leaving their community - burning. Going to where? We who had given laws of morality and justice to the world had set them aside when it came to our own! Where was humanity we wanted to scream?!! ................No listeners.
We heard that 'they' were being brought to Jerusalem - to the Kotel.
Hundreds of people from all over Israel made their way to the Kotel that evening - to embrace the Jewish refugees from Netzer Hazani. We brought fruit and other refreshments; some people carried foam rubber mattresses for the newly homeless. News had spread that meals and places to sleep had been undertaken by one of the yeshivot near the Kotel but ordinary citizens wanted desperately to help......these were the good and caring people of Israel .
The plaza in front of the Wall was packed ; someone from a yeshiva had a drum with which he accompanied the singing of songs from our holy books - as the men danced in circles. It seemed strange to see exuberant movement in the face of such solemnity; perhaps it was prayer through dance to get G-d's attention. I stood next to a young girl who had come from one of the northern communities 'just to be there'. She wept uncontrollably, trembling, and clung to me. We all stood there weeping.
Suddenly, there was silence. A path opened in front of me. For a moment I thought of the parting of the Red Sea but, as people began to walk through the aisle and I saw their faces I was reminded more of the two rows formed at a Jewish funeral to permit mourners to walk through. It was a terrible thought. Here were the people of Netzer Hazani who had traveled by bus for hours after they had been expelled from their homes.
Unforgettable were the tear-stained faces of the young and old, parents wheeling strollers or carrying their babies, young confused children clinging to their parents and grandparents as the endless line made its way through the throngs that had gathered to receive them.
I saw Anita Tucker - the upbeat celery lady whom we had visited at Netzer Hazani on several occasions. As she passed through she said something to the effect that she was now a 'spiritual person who had come to the Kotel, the House of G-d", her material belongings having been left behind. Those were not her exact words but the meaning was clear as she made her way to the Kotel with others.
That evening was the continuation of what had happened at Netzer Hazani earlier on that day of infamy. To date, those who were expelled from that once vibrant community -and all of the others - have still not received the accommodations that have been falsely publicized by the government. Their desire to be kept together as a community for mutual cooperation and support has been ignored. They have had to continue paying mortgages on the rubble of their former homes! Many have lost their belongings that were crated ; some were rat infested. Another miscarriage of justice by the government.
Families from Gush Katif have had to face many crises during the last two years. The caravillas (small houses with red rooves) and Ir Emunah tent city have not provided them with their needs. These primitive dwellings are inadequate in quantity and quality. Some families have not been able to weather the personal difficulties; separations, divorces, unemployment, disillusioned and troubled teenagers, sleeplessness, bedwetting, are just some of the problems. The government has been delinquent in providing basic services
and compensation to its loyal citizens - the cream of the crop. Some organizations and private citizens both in Israel and abroad have provided funding and clothing but it has not covered all of the ongoing basic needs of the refugees who are trying to carry on with courage.
In the United States, $14 million dollars had been collected to compensate the expellees for the green-houses which had been left behind 'to provide the Arabs an economic benefit'. The money was never received by them and no one appears to know what has happened to the funds!! The 'civilized' world watched in silence at the looting and burning of many of those properties as well as synagogues - this where there had been beautiful productive communities - until that day.
The expulsion was planned - it was told - as a 'painful concession in the interest of peace'. We all knew beforehand that this was untrue -that this was a diversionary tactic perpetrated by corrupt leadership. We all knew that the enemy would just move closer to Israeli cities and continue their attacks; the terrorists had announced this before the abandonment of the communities yet the leadership disregarded the threats.
The residents of Sderot can attest to this. Such continued irresponsibility on the part of the government!
Tragically, today we are in Act 2 of the same play. The scenery has changed a bit as the playing ground is smaller.The plot is the same although the director has changed; it is now Ehud Olmert who is continuing the production begun by the first director, Ariel Sharon. Olmert, having been part of the Sharon government, is well aware of the catastrophic results to the 10,000 people of Gush Katif and the 4 communities of northern Samaria. Despite this, he is ready and willing to repeat that disaster and create another 100,000 refugees while further abandoning historical legal Jewish territory!!
Ehud Olmert has acquiesced to the demands of outsiders in order to help fulfill the dream of the Palestinian Arabs! Should the Prime Minister of Israel not be concerned with fulfilling the dreams of his own people - the Jewish nation?!!!!! His ineptness and poor judgment as evidenced during the Lebanon 2 War last summer should have been enough to bring about his resignation. His culpability in the results of the war has been presented in the first part of the Winograd report; there is no need to wait for the final version. Despite only 3% support in the nation and a poll that stated that 0% would vote for him today, Olmert has insisted that he is the one to rectify the situation. His arrogance does not permit him to admit that he is the problem!
He clings without dignity to the position of prime minister - still able to weaken and endanger the country.
As we face the threat of more war we have the same failed leaders.
The film, "Home Game", must serve as a reminder and rallying point against the irresponsible actions of a government that must be changed before it can do further harm to the State of Israel. If, indeed, Israel is a democracy, it must behave like one. The country is not the personal property of its elected officials; they may not be permitted to give away that which does not belong to them!
For 2000 years others deprived us of our state; today we have that state and it is being dismantled by our own leaders whose personal desires take precedence over national interests. We must not be silent if we want to survive. NOW is the hour for us to act with responsibility - to uproot the corruption and choose leaders with integrity. NOW is the hour for us to let the government and the media know that we demand change - NOW!!!
This evening I met with several women for dinner ; over the pasta, sandwiches, salads, etc. we discussed - not the latest styles or home renovation - but politics! The subject ranged from the present government which is so corrupt and ready to give away everything for nothing, possible candidates for the next government - with emphasis on integrity and national concern, and how to direct one's energies toward this end.
Later several of us walked to the German Colony to a small theatre to view a film called "Home Game". It centered on the August, 2005 expulsion of Jews from the Gush Katif community of Netzer Hazani. Even though we were all familiar with the outcome one could not help but wish for that miracle as we saw the residents voluntarily turning in the weapons that they carried for safety - not to be used against their brethren who had been charged by the government with expelling them from their beloved creation - Netzer Hazani.
We heard the pleas of parents and children - crying as they begged the soldiers not to force them out of their homes. Trying to reason where there was no reason. Appealing for justice where there was no court. Asking the soldiers where they were supposed to sleep that night and nights to follow. No answers.
Although the country - and the world - had watched the horror of the expulsion on tv "Home Game" provided a close-up of the anguish of decent families whose lives were ripped apart as they stood by - helpless. Many of them expressed caring for the soldiers who had been assigned the task of removing them from their homes and destroying their beautiful community. The faces of the soldiers - many trying to contain their own emotions - often embracing the inconsolable - often displayed their own reluctance to carry out the orders they had been given. The faces of the narrators - young basketball players whose game interfaced with the details of the expulsion - revealed the deteriorating reality as the day passed.
The last moments were most difficult to watch - as Israeli flags were flown from rooftops, buildings set on fire, and a parade of mourners leaving their community - burning. Going to where? We who had given laws of morality and justice to the world had set them aside when it came to our own! Where was humanity we wanted to scream?!! ................No listeners.
We heard that 'they' were being brought to Jerusalem - to the Kotel.
Hundreds of people from all over Israel made their way to the Kotel that evening - to embrace the Jewish refugees from Netzer Hazani. We brought fruit and other refreshments; some people carried foam rubber mattresses for the newly homeless. News had spread that meals and places to sleep had been undertaken by one of the yeshivot near the Kotel but ordinary citizens wanted desperately to help......these were the good and caring people of Israel .
The plaza in front of the Wall was packed ; someone from a yeshiva had a drum with which he accompanied the singing of songs from our holy books - as the men danced in circles. It seemed strange to see exuberant movement in the face of such solemnity; perhaps it was prayer through dance to get G-d's attention. I stood next to a young girl who had come from one of the northern communities 'just to be there'. She wept uncontrollably, trembling, and clung to me. We all stood there weeping.
Suddenly, there was silence. A path opened in front of me. For a moment I thought of the parting of the Red Sea but, as people began to walk through the aisle and I saw their faces I was reminded more of the two rows formed at a Jewish funeral to permit mourners to walk through. It was a terrible thought. Here were the people of Netzer Hazani who had traveled by bus for hours after they had been expelled from their homes.
Unforgettable were the tear-stained faces of the young and old, parents wheeling strollers or carrying their babies, young confused children clinging to their parents and grandparents as the endless line made its way through the throngs that had gathered to receive them.
I saw Anita Tucker - the upbeat celery lady whom we had visited at Netzer Hazani on several occasions. As she passed through she said something to the effect that she was now a 'spiritual person who had come to the Kotel, the House of G-d", her material belongings having been left behind. Those were not her exact words but the meaning was clear as she made her way to the Kotel with others.
That evening was the continuation of what had happened at Netzer Hazani earlier on that day of infamy. To date, those who were expelled from that once vibrant community -and all of the others - have still not received the accommodations that have been falsely publicized by the government. Their desire to be kept together as a community for mutual cooperation and support has been ignored. They have had to continue paying mortgages on the rubble of their former homes! Many have lost their belongings that were crated ; some were rat infested. Another miscarriage of justice by the government.
Families from Gush Katif have had to face many crises during the last two years. The caravillas (small houses with red rooves) and Ir Emunah tent city have not provided them with their needs. These primitive dwellings are inadequate in quantity and quality. Some families have not been able to weather the personal difficulties; separations, divorces, unemployment, disillusioned and troubled teenagers, sleeplessness, bedwetting, are just some of the problems. The government has been delinquent in providing basic services
and compensation to its loyal citizens - the cream of the crop. Some organizations and private citizens both in Israel and abroad have provided funding and clothing but it has not covered all of the ongoing basic needs of the refugees who are trying to carry on with courage.
In the United States, $14 million dollars had been collected to compensate the expellees for the green-houses which had been left behind 'to provide the Arabs an economic benefit'. The money was never received by them and no one appears to know what has happened to the funds!! The 'civilized' world watched in silence at the looting and burning of many of those properties as well as synagogues - this where there had been beautiful productive communities - until that day.
The expulsion was planned - it was told - as a 'painful concession in the interest of peace'. We all knew beforehand that this was untrue -that this was a diversionary tactic perpetrated by corrupt leadership. We all knew that the enemy would just move closer to Israeli cities and continue their attacks; the terrorists had announced this before the abandonment of the communities yet the leadership disregarded the threats.
The residents of Sderot can attest to this. Such continued irresponsibility on the part of the government!
Tragically, today we are in Act 2 of the same play. The scenery has changed a bit as the playing ground is smaller.The plot is the same although the director has changed; it is now Ehud Olmert who is continuing the production begun by the first director, Ariel Sharon. Olmert, having been part of the Sharon government, is well aware of the catastrophic results to the 10,000 people of Gush Katif and the 4 communities of northern Samaria. Despite this, he is ready and willing to repeat that disaster and create another 100,000 refugees while further abandoning historical legal Jewish territory!!
Ehud Olmert has acquiesced to the demands of outsiders in order to help fulfill the dream of the Palestinian Arabs! Should the Prime Minister of Israel not be concerned with fulfilling the dreams of his own people - the Jewish nation?!!!!! His ineptness and poor judgment as evidenced during the Lebanon 2 War last summer should have been enough to bring about his resignation. His culpability in the results of the war has been presented in the first part of the Winograd report; there is no need to wait for the final version. Despite only 3% support in the nation and a poll that stated that 0% would vote for him today, Olmert has insisted that he is the one to rectify the situation. His arrogance does not permit him to admit that he is the problem!
He clings without dignity to the position of prime minister - still able to weaken and endanger the country.
As we face the threat of more war we have the same failed leaders.
The film, "Home Game", must serve as a reminder and rallying point against the irresponsible actions of a government that must be changed before it can do further harm to the State of Israel. If, indeed, Israel is a democracy, it must behave like one. The country is not the personal property of its elected officials; they may not be permitted to give away that which does not belong to them!
For 2000 years others deprived us of our state; today we have that state and it is being dismantled by our own leaders whose personal desires take precedence over national interests. We must not be silent if we want to survive. NOW is the hour for us to act with responsibility - to uproot the corruption and choose leaders with integrity. NOW is the hour for us to let the government and the media know that we demand change - NOW!!!
Monday, August 06, 2007
A PM with less than 3% approval rating; state report out indicating how he and his cohorts mismanaged last year's war; leadership that does not shed a tear for the ongoing missile attacks on our Southern cities; leaders who realize that homicide bombing attacks continue from the disputed territories (almost daily); leaders who know Fatah never ratified its "edited" covenant and thus stands the edict to eradicate Israel. This leadership now wants to give more concessions and a state to Terrorists. Olmert has no courage, he cannot stand up against the USA government and say "No, no more rewards for terrorism"!
PM: Palestinian state to be created as soon as possible
JPost staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 6, 2007
It is our mutual aim to reach the joint vision of establishing two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security and "we want to do this as soon as possible," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas during Monday afternoon's meeting in Jericho.
Olmert sought to give Abbas the feeling that he had real intentions to move forward with the establishment of a Palestinian state and the two spoke of the fundamental issues that would be the basis for its creation.
Abbas asked Olmert to free more Palestinian prisoners and to allow Palestinian fugitives who were expelled to Europe or Gaza to return to the West Bank. He requested that Israel remove checkpoints in the West Bank and allow Palestinians more freedom of movement. Olmert promised to consider the PA chairman's requests.
Army Radio quoted Prime Minister's Office officials as saying that the "chemistry" of the talks was good.
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh condemned the meeting, saying that it was merely a "public relations exercise." He said that the talks served no other purpose since "Israel refuses to cede its demands."
Hamiyeh went onto say that the meeting simply served US interests to stamp its authority on the Middle East and to attack countries in the region.
Hamas accused Abbas of cooperating with Israel to find ways to harm the Islamist group. Izza Trishk, a member of Hamas's political faction, said that Olmert and Abbas were planning to try and isolate the movement and topple it from power, Army Radio reported.
Jibril Rajoub, a former PA security commander closely associated with Abbas, also saw no purpose in the meeting, saying that the Israeli government was incapable of advancing the peace process.
Rahoub, who had just returned from Egypt, urged Abbas to restore contacts with Hamas and to put an end to the situation of "two Palestinian Authorities - one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank."
Abbas is set to travel to Egypt Tuesday and update Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the conclusions of his meeting with Olmert.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri criticized Abbas for meeting Olmert, saying the meeting was "aimed at beautifying the ugly image of the Israeli occupation before the world."
"All meetings will be of no benefit to the Palestinian people," Abu Zuhri said.
PM: Palestinian state to be created as soon as possible
JPost staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 6, 2007
It is our mutual aim to reach the joint vision of establishing two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security and "we want to do this as soon as possible," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas during Monday afternoon's meeting in Jericho.
Olmert sought to give Abbas the feeling that he had real intentions to move forward with the establishment of a Palestinian state and the two spoke of the fundamental issues that would be the basis for its creation.
Abbas asked Olmert to free more Palestinian prisoners and to allow Palestinian fugitives who were expelled to Europe or Gaza to return to the West Bank. He requested that Israel remove checkpoints in the West Bank and allow Palestinians more freedom of movement. Olmert promised to consider the PA chairman's requests.
Army Radio quoted Prime Minister's Office officials as saying that the "chemistry" of the talks was good.
Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh condemned the meeting, saying that it was merely a "public relations exercise." He said that the talks served no other purpose since "Israel refuses to cede its demands."
Hamiyeh went onto say that the meeting simply served US interests to stamp its authority on the Middle East and to attack countries in the region.
Hamas accused Abbas of cooperating with Israel to find ways to harm the Islamist group. Izza Trishk, a member of Hamas's political faction, said that Olmert and Abbas were planning to try and isolate the movement and topple it from power, Army Radio reported.
Jibril Rajoub, a former PA security commander closely associated with Abbas, also saw no purpose in the meeting, saying that the Israeli government was incapable of advancing the peace process.
Rahoub, who had just returned from Egypt, urged Abbas to restore contacts with Hamas and to put an end to the situation of "two Palestinian Authorities - one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank."
Abbas is set to travel to Egypt Tuesday and update Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the conclusions of his meeting with Olmert.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri criticized Abbas for meeting Olmert, saying the meeting was "aimed at beautifying the ugly image of the Israeli occupation before the world."
"All meetings will be of no benefit to the Palestinian people," Abu Zuhri said.
‘He Who Wants Peace Should Prepare for War’
By Arieh Eldad
Thus spoke the Romans. We often appear to have forgotten this ancient rule.
Thus Israel was caught sleeping on the eve of the Yom Kippur War and again in last summer’s Lebanese War. Because of our intense desire for peace on our northern border, we closed our eyes to Hezbollah’s arming and entrenchment. Our army was not prepared for the war in Lebanon - as the war’s outcome made clear.
But even more than these two examples, we should focus on the lessons of the summer and fall of 2000. In July of that year, Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat held peace talks sponsored by U.S. President Clinton. The Camp David talks collapsed because of the Arabs’ refusal to accept even Barak’s munificent, some would say suicidal, proposals (97% of the territory, with a compensatory section of the Negev thrown in to make up for the remaining 3%, and a division of Jerusalem). At the time Arafat returned to Ramallah and ordered his forces to begin the second Intifada.
Had Barak understood that the Arabs interpreted his proposals as a sign of extreme weakness, and therefore as an incentive to engage in that little bit of additional terrorism that would complete the collapse of the State of Israel, he would not have offered Arafat the next phase of the Palestinian’s phased plan, but Barak did not understand, and, moreover, did not prepare for the possible result of failed peace talks: war. The army did chatter much about it being a low-level conflict, but in the course of a year and a half did not succeed in preventing the mass murder in our streets. Only after Barak was replaced by Ariel Sharon, and after over a thousand of our people had been killed, and after the Seder night atrocity in the Park Hotel, only then did Israel open Operation Defensive Shield in the spring of 2002 and begin to fight the Arabs as necessary. Defensive Shield was a turning point in the second Intifada because only then did Israel realize that it was necessary to fight the Arabs in Shechem and Jenin rather than in shopping malls in Netanya.
A lesson must be learned from these events. Israel is again preparing with gusto for the previous war and Israeli soldiers are training now for the way they should have fought the Hezbollah, but Olmert’s spins about “peace with Syria” and peace conferences with the Palestinians and Arab states in the fall place Israel in serious danger of a multi-front war if and when these talks collapse.
The peace talks are bound to amount to nothing even if Israel should agree to willingly commit suicide and establish a Fatah state in Judea and Samaria , which will become a Hamas state as soon as Hamas chooses to fight. Olmert, despairing of any possibility of staying in office, may well agree to this. He may take similar risks with the Syrians. For a worthless piece of paper he may retreat from all of the Golan including the shoreline of the Kinneret. If he doesn’t agree, a war of the October 2000 type is expected.
Is Israel ready for such a war with Olmert at its head? Olmert is the most egregious failure and most corrupt prime minister Israel has had, who in the last war proved that he cannot make a correct decision and when he does make decisions he doesn’t understand their meaning or implications. Opinion polls after the war showed that only 3% of Israelis had confidence in Olmert. If we take into consideration that 10% of the adult population is hearing impaired, and above the age of 65, 1 out of every 3, we can assume that the 3% who supported Olmert simply did not hear the question correctly. Is Israel ready to take on the existential danger of a war with a leader who cannot be counted on? Whose peace efforts, too, are nothing more than “spin” by promoters and P.R. men and corrupt officials seeking ways to prolong their time in power?
Considering that Olmert’s American partner to the peace conference trap is a U.S. president who has not managed to win in Iraq and who is seeking a feather in his peace-cap before he leaves the public stage, why would we choose to take advice from someone who has failed in both war and peace? Considering that Hamas won the Palestinian elections thanks to the foolishness of the U.S. State Department and the White House, who insisted on allowing this terror organization to run in democratic elections, maybe we should more carefully examine their new proposals, which are to determine our fate. Considering that our Palestinian “partner” is Abu Mazen, who failed to protect even his own office in Gaza when faced with Hamas and who has been unable to take any practical step at all, who is irrelevant as a leader, perhaps we should not take this train plummeting to the depths with Olmert as conductor.
By Arieh Eldad
Thus spoke the Romans. We often appear to have forgotten this ancient rule.
Thus Israel was caught sleeping on the eve of the Yom Kippur War and again in last summer’s Lebanese War. Because of our intense desire for peace on our northern border, we closed our eyes to Hezbollah’s arming and entrenchment. Our army was not prepared for the war in Lebanon - as the war’s outcome made clear.
But even more than these two examples, we should focus on the lessons of the summer and fall of 2000. In July of that year, Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat held peace talks sponsored by U.S. President Clinton. The Camp David talks collapsed because of the Arabs’ refusal to accept even Barak’s munificent, some would say suicidal, proposals (97% of the territory, with a compensatory section of the Negev thrown in to make up for the remaining 3%, and a division of Jerusalem). At the time Arafat returned to Ramallah and ordered his forces to begin the second Intifada.
Had Barak understood that the Arabs interpreted his proposals as a sign of extreme weakness, and therefore as an incentive to engage in that little bit of additional terrorism that would complete the collapse of the State of Israel, he would not have offered Arafat the next phase of the Palestinian’s phased plan, but Barak did not understand, and, moreover, did not prepare for the possible result of failed peace talks: war. The army did chatter much about it being a low-level conflict, but in the course of a year and a half did not succeed in preventing the mass murder in our streets. Only after Barak was replaced by Ariel Sharon, and after over a thousand of our people had been killed, and after the Seder night atrocity in the Park Hotel, only then did Israel open Operation Defensive Shield in the spring of 2002 and begin to fight the Arabs as necessary. Defensive Shield was a turning point in the second Intifada because only then did Israel realize that it was necessary to fight the Arabs in Shechem and Jenin rather than in shopping malls in Netanya.
A lesson must be learned from these events. Israel is again preparing with gusto for the previous war and Israeli soldiers are training now for the way they should have fought the Hezbollah, but Olmert’s spins about “peace with Syria” and peace conferences with the Palestinians and Arab states in the fall place Israel in serious danger of a multi-front war if and when these talks collapse.
The peace talks are bound to amount to nothing even if Israel should agree to willingly commit suicide and establish a Fatah state in Judea and Samaria , which will become a Hamas state as soon as Hamas chooses to fight. Olmert, despairing of any possibility of staying in office, may well agree to this. He may take similar risks with the Syrians. For a worthless piece of paper he may retreat from all of the Golan including the shoreline of the Kinneret. If he doesn’t agree, a war of the October 2000 type is expected.
Is Israel ready for such a war with Olmert at its head? Olmert is the most egregious failure and most corrupt prime minister Israel has had, who in the last war proved that he cannot make a correct decision and when he does make decisions he doesn’t understand their meaning or implications. Opinion polls after the war showed that only 3% of Israelis had confidence in Olmert. If we take into consideration that 10% of the adult population is hearing impaired, and above the age of 65, 1 out of every 3, we can assume that the 3% who supported Olmert simply did not hear the question correctly. Is Israel ready to take on the existential danger of a war with a leader who cannot be counted on? Whose peace efforts, too, are nothing more than “spin” by promoters and P.R. men and corrupt officials seeking ways to prolong their time in power?
Considering that Olmert’s American partner to the peace conference trap is a U.S. president who has not managed to win in Iraq and who is seeking a feather in his peace-cap before he leaves the public stage, why would we choose to take advice from someone who has failed in both war and peace? Considering that Hamas won the Palestinian elections thanks to the foolishness of the U.S. State Department and the White House, who insisted on allowing this terror organization to run in democratic elections, maybe we should more carefully examine their new proposals, which are to determine our fate. Considering that our Palestinian “partner” is Abu Mazen, who failed to protect even his own office in Gaza when faced with Hamas and who has been unable to take any practical step at all, who is irrelevant as a leader, perhaps we should not take this train plummeting to the depths with Olmert as conductor.
Part One-Islamic Extremism-where does it come from?
The Al-Qaeda Reader
By Janet LevyFrontPageMagazine.com 7/17/2007
Recently, a shoeless President George Bush accompanied by female aides in makeshift hijabs (Islamic prayer scarves) spoke at the rededication of the Islamic Center of Washington. The president sang the praises of a “religion of peace,” despite the fact that the Center is a Saudi-funded promulgator of Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam that critics say has spawned Muslim fundamentalism and extremism. He extolled a “faith that has enriched civilization for centuries” as he stood surrounded by representatives from the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America, organizations that fund the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated Islamic terrorist groups. Bush emphasized America’s solidarity with Muslims in the fight to preserve religious freedom and liberty and to combat terrorism. In his speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center, Bush thanked Muslim leaders who oppose extremism and railed against “radical extremists who use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund acts of violence.”
Yet, this public reassurance by Bush amidst the apologists and supporters of jihad belies new evidence of just how closely Islamic extremism derives its strength and core beliefs from the basic tenets of the Islamic faith itself. A recently translated collection of Al Qaeda treatises, The Al-Qaeda Reader, calls into question many of the operating conceptions the Western world holds about the religion of Mohammed and its attitudes toward the West. Written by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, the #1 and #2 Al Qaeda leaders, and translated by Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam historian who works for the Library of Congress, The Al-Qaeda Reader contains exhortations and religious exegeses directed to Muslims, as well as propaganda tracts and warnings to non-Muslims of their imminent defeat and the consequences they will suffer for their perfidious actions, plus, invitations to embrace Islam. A timely and critically important collection, it provides a clearer picture of our enemies and casts serious doubt on the President’s assumptions of shared Muslim/Western aims.
In their entreaties to fellow Muslims, Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri pronounce the requirements of their faith. They base their beliefs on the Koran’s delineation of a world with two camps: the Dar-al-Harb, the world of the infidel or the world of war, and the Dar-al-Islam, the domain of peace inhabited by faithful Muslims. Bin Laden and Zawahiri declare the obligation of Muslims is to follow the only authentic sources of Islamic jurisprudence: the Koran, the Sunna (the codified legal and social practices of Islam) and the rulings of religious leaders, the ulema. Their treatises include strict definitions of true Islam which prohibits relationships and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims or kuffirs. They denounce separation of church and state, condemn democracy and affirm the sanctity of jihad.
Moderate Islam Rejected
In his description of authentic Islam, Osama Bin Laden informs Muslims that their return to past glory and the end of their enslavement by infidels is incumbent upon their adherence to the true word of Allah. So-called “moderate” constructs of Islam, employed merely to appease non-believers, must be rejected. Zawahiri cautions that moderate Islam is not true Islam and that the primary goal of Islam is to wage jihad against non-Muslims and establish a worldwide caliphate under the sharia, or Islamic principles of law. Anything less is considered antithetical to Islam and thereby constitutes apostasy. Any modifications to Islamic doctrine as defined in the Koran and the Sunna is strictly prohibited, rendering impossible any moderate interpretations of Islam. In summary, the very foundations of the religion must be carefully followed without deviation and the word of Allah deemed timeless and immutable.
Coexistence with Non-Muslims Prohibited
Zawahiri and Bin Laden enjoin their Muslim brethren from befriending or engaging in peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. Followers are reminded to abide by the precepts of the “Doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity” found in Koranic teachings and interpretations and to emulate the example of Mohammed who attacked and subjugated infidels. Any expression of friendship with non-believers indicates a lack of faith and insufficient love for Allah. It is impossible to befriend someone who opposes Allah. Fraternizing with infidels is evil, defiles the soul and jeopardizes the relationship with Allah. It is also forbidden to assist non-believers, fight for them or join them in any military endeavors. Muslims must establish their superiority to non-Muslims to engender the necessary hostility to effectively wage jihad, according to the interpretations of Islamic belief given by Zawahiri and Bin Laden.
Separation of Church & State Outlawed
These Al-Qaeda leaders state emphatically to fellow Muslims in their fatwas, or rulings on Islamic law, that no separation of church and state is possible under Islam. For example, they quote: “Whatever the subject of your disputes, the final decision rests in Allah alone” [42:10] and “It is not fitting for true believers – men or women – to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise” [33:36].
The concept here is that Islam is more than a religion; it is an all-encompassing way of life that governs all social, economic, political and personal matters. The concept of “leaving to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is blasphemous in Islam. The concept of a nation state that presides over secular affairs contradicts the teachings of Islam and threatens the overriding exclusive loyalty of Muslims to the Umma, or community of Muslims. Zawahiri and Bin Laden caution against this form of apostasy and emphasize the Muslim obligation to impose their religion on all spheres of life.
Part Two tomorrow
By Janet LevyFrontPageMagazine.com 7/17/2007
Recently, a shoeless President George Bush accompanied by female aides in makeshift hijabs (Islamic prayer scarves) spoke at the rededication of the Islamic Center of Washington. The president sang the praises of a “religion of peace,” despite the fact that the Center is a Saudi-funded promulgator of Wahhabism, a strict form of Islam that critics say has spawned Muslim fundamentalism and extremism. He extolled a “faith that has enriched civilization for centuries” as he stood surrounded by representatives from the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America, organizations that fund the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated Islamic terrorist groups. Bush emphasized America’s solidarity with Muslims in the fight to preserve religious freedom and liberty and to combat terrorism. In his speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center, Bush thanked Muslim leaders who oppose extremism and railed against “radical extremists who use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund acts of violence.”
Yet, this public reassurance by Bush amidst the apologists and supporters of jihad belies new evidence of just how closely Islamic extremism derives its strength and core beliefs from the basic tenets of the Islamic faith itself. A recently translated collection of Al Qaeda treatises, The Al-Qaeda Reader, calls into question many of the operating conceptions the Western world holds about the religion of Mohammed and its attitudes toward the West. Written by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, the #1 and #2 Al Qaeda leaders, and translated by Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam historian who works for the Library of Congress, The Al-Qaeda Reader contains exhortations and religious exegeses directed to Muslims, as well as propaganda tracts and warnings to non-Muslims of their imminent defeat and the consequences they will suffer for their perfidious actions, plus, invitations to embrace Islam. A timely and critically important collection, it provides a clearer picture of our enemies and casts serious doubt on the President’s assumptions of shared Muslim/Western aims.
In their entreaties to fellow Muslims, Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri pronounce the requirements of their faith. They base their beliefs on the Koran’s delineation of a world with two camps: the Dar-al-Harb, the world of the infidel or the world of war, and the Dar-al-Islam, the domain of peace inhabited by faithful Muslims. Bin Laden and Zawahiri declare the obligation of Muslims is to follow the only authentic sources of Islamic jurisprudence: the Koran, the Sunna (the codified legal and social practices of Islam) and the rulings of religious leaders, the ulema. Their treatises include strict definitions of true Islam which prohibits relationships and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims or kuffirs. They denounce separation of church and state, condemn democracy and affirm the sanctity of jihad.
Moderate Islam Rejected
In his description of authentic Islam, Osama Bin Laden informs Muslims that their return to past glory and the end of their enslavement by infidels is incumbent upon their adherence to the true word of Allah. So-called “moderate” constructs of Islam, employed merely to appease non-believers, must be rejected. Zawahiri cautions that moderate Islam is not true Islam and that the primary goal of Islam is to wage jihad against non-Muslims and establish a worldwide caliphate under the sharia, or Islamic principles of law. Anything less is considered antithetical to Islam and thereby constitutes apostasy. Any modifications to Islamic doctrine as defined in the Koran and the Sunna is strictly prohibited, rendering impossible any moderate interpretations of Islam. In summary, the very foundations of the religion must be carefully followed without deviation and the word of Allah deemed timeless and immutable.
Coexistence with Non-Muslims Prohibited
Zawahiri and Bin Laden enjoin their Muslim brethren from befriending or engaging in peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. Followers are reminded to abide by the precepts of the “Doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity” found in Koranic teachings and interpretations and to emulate the example of Mohammed who attacked and subjugated infidels. Any expression of friendship with non-believers indicates a lack of faith and insufficient love for Allah. It is impossible to befriend someone who opposes Allah. Fraternizing with infidels is evil, defiles the soul and jeopardizes the relationship with Allah. It is also forbidden to assist non-believers, fight for them or join them in any military endeavors. Muslims must establish their superiority to non-Muslims to engender the necessary hostility to effectively wage jihad, according to the interpretations of Islamic belief given by Zawahiri and Bin Laden.
Separation of Church & State Outlawed
These Al-Qaeda leaders state emphatically to fellow Muslims in their fatwas, or rulings on Islamic law, that no separation of church and state is possible under Islam. For example, they quote: “Whatever the subject of your disputes, the final decision rests in Allah alone” [42:10] and “It is not fitting for true believers – men or women – to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise” [33:36].
The concept here is that Islam is more than a religion; it is an all-encompassing way of life that governs all social, economic, political and personal matters. The concept of “leaving to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is blasphemous in Islam. The concept of a nation state that presides over secular affairs contradicts the teachings of Islam and threatens the overriding exclusive loyalty of Muslims to the Umma, or community of Muslims. Zawahiri and Bin Laden caution against this form of apostasy and emphasize the Muslim obligation to impose their religion on all spheres of life.
Part Two tomorrow
The Muslim Brotherhood "Project" (Continued)
By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/11/2006
[NOTE: The following English translation of The Project has been prepared by Scott Burgess and was first published in serial form by The Daily Ablution in December 2005 (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). It is copyrighted and reprinted here with his permission. It is based on the French text of The Project published in Sylvain Besson, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005), pp. 193-205.]
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent and Merciful
S/5/100 report
1/12/1982 [December 1, 1982]
Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy
(Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions)
This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or "political Islam"]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us.
The following are the principal points of departure of this policy:
Point of Departure 1: To know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for its planning and execution.
Point of Departure 2: To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.
Point of Departure 3: To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.
Point of Departure 4: To reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.
Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centers of power through institutional action.
Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to "cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement".To read more:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=61829F93-7A81-4654-A2E8-F0A5E6DD3DC4
Facts Every Westerner Should Possess-II
Arab culture is based on tribal loyalties, lacking internal democracy and centered on competing tribal interests. This tradition is so strong that it has undermined any effort at unity, assuring failure to form an integrated govt.
· Palestinians see their history as one of struggle against Zionism and Israel. But the reality is more complicated, and marked by repeated failures to create a coherent body politic, even when historical opportunities beckoned.
· The first failure occurred in the 1920s, when the British Mandatory government in Palestine encouraged the two national communities - Jewish and Arab - to establish communal institutions of self-government to look after education, welfare, housing, and local administration.
· The Jews - then less than 20 percent of British Palestine's population - set up what became known as the National Committee (Vaad Leumi), based on an elected body, the Representative Assembly of Palestinian Jews. Regular elections to this assembly took place, sometimes with more than a dozen parties competing.
· This autonomous institution became the forerunner of the political structure of the nascent Jewish state, and its leaders - David Ben-Gurion among them - emerged as Israel's future political elite.
· The Arabs living on this land, however, never created similar embryonic state structures: an Arab Higher Committee was established, made up of regional and tribal notables, but no elections ever took place.
· The mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, became its chairman, but it never succeeded in creating a generally accepted national leadership or in providing the Arab community the panoply of educational and welfare services offered to the Jewish community by its elected institutions.
· The second failure occurred during the Arab Revolt against British rule in Palestine in 1936-1939, which was accompanied by attacks against Jewish civilians.
· A split within the Arab community resulted in two armed militias - one based on the Husseini clan, the other on the more moderate Nashashibis. They turned on one another. More Arabs were killed by contending militias than by the British or Jewish forces.
· The third failure - even more tragic - occurred in 1947-1948, when Palestinian Arabs rejected the United Nations partition plan. This would have provided separate Arab and Jewish states after the departure of the British.
· While Jews accepted this compromise, the Arabs, supported by the Arab League countries, rejected it and went to war against the emerging state of Israel.
· The Arab defeat in this endeavor, and the resulting refugee problem, was a defining moment for the Arabs who once lived in the land now called Israel.
· What sometimes gets lost in this narrative is these Arabs were unable to devise coherent political institutions and a unified military command with which to confront the much smaller Jewish community.
· By contrast, the besieged Jewish community, under Ben-Gurion and the Jewish self-defense force (the Haganah) was able to mobilize, through its democratic institutions and with only marginal dissent, the resources needed for a successful military campaign.
· Many Palestinian political leaders absconded to Beirut or Cairo once violence broke out. The Husseini clan set up its militia in the Jerusalem area. Near Tel Aviv, in adjoining Jaffa, a competing militia under Hassan Salameh, took control. In the north of the country, a Syrian-based militia, under Fawzi al-Kaukji, attacked Jewish villages.
· Disunity made the Arab defeat almost inevitable. Moreover, the scars of the 1930s virtual civil war have still not healed.
· The last failure occurred when the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization set up the autonomous Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
· Arafat created a security state.
· He did this instead of instead of creating the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state, with various functions slowly transferred from the Israeli Army to the Palestinian Authority.
· Arafat and his Fatah-based supporters (Abbas) established almost a dozen competing security services - sometimes indistinguishable from clan-based militias - which consumed more than 60 percent the Palestinian Authority's budget, at the expense of education, housing, welfare, and refugee rehabilitation.
· Into this vacuum burst Hamas, with its network of schools, welfare services, community centers, and support organizations. The Hamas takeover of Gaza was but the latest step in this development.
· It is easy to blame the current Palestinian crisis on individuals - be it Arafat or Abbas. It is even easier to blame the Israeli occupation or American policies. It is easiest to accept no responsibility and thus become perceived by the West as the victims.
· To victims flow monies, sympathy and weapons. It also gives the Arab people an external target to focus upon so their daily plight can be tolerated.
· A victim population deceived by its own leaders nonetheless is easily controlled by these same leaders.
· From 1948 until the present these Arabs have had the opportunity, the funding and international support to not only create a unified governing structure but also to create the necessary social and welfare infrastructure needed for the creation of a sovereign state. It is their behavior that has led them to the current dysfunctional place. Arafat and Abbas, given the management opportunity under Oslo in the 1990’s failed miserably even when handed the control by Israel. In part this was due to lack of ability and it was also due to other Arab countries and organizations intentionally interfering and causing havoc. There is much Arab blame to go around!
Thanks to: Daily Star, July 18,2007
Aggie Hoffman for her introductory comments
Sunday, August 05, 2007
'Establish Islamic state'
Radical UK Islamist group holds London conference. 'Why is Palestine still occupied?' asks speaker Yaakov Lappin Published: 08.05.07, 16:26 / Israel News
The British branch of a world-wide radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, held a conference London on Saturday, in which speakers called for the overthrow of Muslim governments and their replacement with a single Islamic state, known as the caliphate. According to Hizb ut-Tahrir's website, "thousands" of people attended the conference.
Hizb ut-Tahrir - the Liberation Party in English - is active in dozens of countries, but has been banned in several Arab states, as well as European countries such as Germany and Russia. It is also illegal in China. In Britain, the organization is still legal, despite instances of the group's members and websites being found to promote anti-Semitic incitement to violence and calls for suicide bombings. In Australia, the organization is facing the prospect of a ban.
The Plan-it is playing out as predicted
Note:First published over a year ago, it is time to remind everyone what the West is facing-today!
The Muslim Brotherhood "Project"
By Patrick PooleFrontPageMagazine.com 5/11/2006
One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.
If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.
In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
To read more: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={67736123-6864-4205-B51E-BCBDEF45FCDE}
The Muslim Brotherhood "Project"
By Patrick PooleFrontPageMagazine.com 5/11/2006
One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.
If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.
In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
To read more: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={67736123-6864-4205-B51E-BCBDEF45FCDE}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)