Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Top Army officers reveal surge in attacks by radicalised Britons
British soldiers are engaged in "a surreal mini civil war" with growing numbers of home-grown jihadists who have travelled to Afghanistan to support the Taliban, senior Army officers have told The Independent.
Interceptions of Taliban communications have shown that British jihadists – some "speaking with West Midlands accents" – are active in Helmand and other parts of southern Afghanistan, according to briefing papers prepared by an official security agency.
The document states that the numbers of young British Muslims, "seemingly committed jihadists", travelling abroad to commit extremist violence has been rising, with Pakistan and Somalia the most frequent destinations.
MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training. The main concern until now has been about the parts some of them had played in terrorist plots in the UK. Now there are signs that they are mounting missions against British and Western targets abroad. "We are now involved in a kind of surreal mini-British civil war a few thousand miles away," said one Army officer.
Somalia is also becoming a destination for British Muslims of Somali extraction who have started fighting alongside al-Qa'ida-backed Islamist forces. A 21-year-old Briton of Somali extraction, who had been brought up in Ealing, west London, recently blew himself up in the town of Baidoa, killing 20 people. The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has raised the worrying issue of British citizens being indoctrinated in Somalia, and Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA, warned that the conflict in the Horn of Africa had "catalysed" expatriate Somalis in the West.
But it is in Afghanistan that British forces are now directly facing fellow Britons on the other side. RAF Nimrod aircraft flying over Afghanistan at up to 40,000ft have been picking up Taliban electronic "chatter" in which voices can be heard in West Midlands and Yorkshire accents. Worryingly for the military, this has increased in the past few months, with communications picked up by both ground and air surveillance, showing the presence of more British voices in the Taliban front line.
The men involved are said to try to hide their British connections but sometimes "fall back" into speaking English. One senior military source said: "We have been hearing a lot more Punjabi, Urdu and Kashmiri Urdu rather than just Pashtu, so there appears to be more men from other parts of Pakistan fighting with the Taliban than just the Pashtuns who have tribal allegiances with the Afghan Pashtuns. It is this second group, the Urdu, Punjabi speakers etc, who fall back into English in, for example, Brummie accents. You get the impression that they have been told not to talk in English but sometimes simply can't help it."
Some of the British Muslims had originally trained in Pakistan to commit attacks in Kashmir. But security sources say the rising threat of Indian retribution, especially after the Mumbai attacks, had led to the Pakistani government curbing the activities of the Kashmiri separatist groups, so the fighters are being switched to Afghanistan. The numbers involved in Afghanistan, the intelligence document shows, are relatively few, dozens rather than hundreds, but the pattern of involvement is described as a cause for concern.
Last week, during a visit to Helmand, the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, was shown Taliban explosive devices containing British-made electronic components. An explosives officer said the devices had either been sent from Britain, or brought over to the country. They ranged from remote-control units used to fly model airplanes to advanced components which could detonates bombs at a range of more than a mile.
Evidence of British Muslims fighting inside Afghanistan and training in insurgent camps in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas has been provided to the UK authorities by the Americans. The US has significantly stepped up its surveillance inside Pakistan as part of a more aggressive policy including cross-border raids by unmanned Predator aircraft.
The Americans are said to have raised the issue of the Pakistan connection, complaining that the UK is not doing enough to curb radical Muslims. The US pointed out that this threatens their own security because UK passport holders can get into the US under the visa waiver programme. The Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, the chairman of the Commons' sub-committee on anti-terrorism, which has been examining the activities of British Muslim extremists, said: "We know the problem we have with UK-based jihadists. We also know that a number of them have been arrested trying to leave the country. With the UK intelligence services at full stretch, it is not surprising some of these jihadists had ended up in Afghanistan."
Brigadier Ed Butler, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said British Muslims were fighting his forces. "There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar," he said. "There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK. This is something the military understands but the British public does not."
Robert Emerson, a security analyst who has worked in South Asia, said: "There is ample evidence that British Muslims had trained in camps in Pakistan. What is emerging now is a picture of them being more active in Afghanistan, either providing support and logistics or in active service. The numbers are not particularly large, but it is worrying."
Jonathan Evans, of MI5, said the number of extremists wanting to travel to Iraq had "tailed off significantly" as Britain begins the drawdown of its troops in the country. But there was "traffic" into Pakistan and Afghanistan. "What happens in Afghanistan is extremely important because what happens there has a direct impact on domestic security in the UK," he said. "Pre-2001, they were able to establish terrorist facilities and to draw hardened extremists and vulnerable recruits to indoctrinate and teach techniques. If the Taliban is able to establish control over significant areas, there is a real danger that such facilities will be re-established."
Last week, as Barack Obama ordered 17,000 extra US troops into Afghanistan, a confidential Nato report revealed that more than 30 per cent of the population believed the government of President Hamid Karzai had lost control of the areas in which they live and much of that has slipped back into Taliban control.
The independent
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Strategies for Engaging Political Islam
A Middle East, U.S. and EU 'Trialogue'
While much attention has been paid to whether Islamists are becoming more moderate, or whether they are committed to democracy, far less effort has been devoted to developing a practical strategy for engaging Islamists. There are many obstacles to such engagement, including Westerners' disagreements with Islamists' political agendas, authoritarian regimes' tactics to exclude Islamists from the political process, and Islamists' suspicion of American and European motives. As a result, American and European government efforts to start a dialogue with Islamists in the Middle East are often divergent, uncoordinated and incompatible, where such efforts exist at all. Engagement is important, however, because Islamists are a major political force in most Middle Eastern countries - a force about which U.S. and European policymakers are generally unfamiliar. How do Middle Easterners believe that the U.S. and the EU can play a positive role in dealing with Islamists? Where do Americans and Europeans see shared opportunities to engage Islamists, and what types of programs can take advantage of these opportunities? How would engagement affect Islamists' attitudes towards the U.S. and Europe, and towards political reform in the region?
Please join us for a panel discussion with:
Ruheil GharaibehDeputy Secretary General, Islamic Action Front, JordanShadi HamidDirector of Research, The Project on Middle East DemocracyZoé NautréVisiting Fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Berlin Mona YacoubianSpecial Adviser, Muslim World Initiative, Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, United States Institute of PeaceModerated by Nathan Brown, Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies, George Washington University
Thursday, February 26, 200912:00 - 2:00 pmThe Henry L. Stimson Center1111 19th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036Twelfth FloorLunch will be served.
Please RSVP by email to RSVP@pomed.org
While much attention has been paid to whether Islamists are becoming more moderate, or whether they are committed to democracy, far less effort has been devoted to developing a practical strategy for engaging Islamists. There are many obstacles to such engagement, including Westerners' disagreements with Islamists' political agendas, authoritarian regimes' tactics to exclude Islamists from the political process, and Islamists' suspicion of American and European motives. As a result, American and European government efforts to start a dialogue with Islamists in the Middle East are often divergent, uncoordinated and incompatible, where such efforts exist at all. Engagement is important, however, because Islamists are a major political force in most Middle Eastern countries - a force about which U.S. and European policymakers are generally unfamiliar. How do Middle Easterners believe that the U.S. and the EU can play a positive role in dealing with Islamists? Where do Americans and Europeans see shared opportunities to engage Islamists, and what types of programs can take advantage of these opportunities? How would engagement affect Islamists' attitudes towards the U.S. and Europe, and towards political reform in the region?
Please join us for a panel discussion with:
Ruheil GharaibehDeputy Secretary General, Islamic Action Front, JordanShadi HamidDirector of Research, The Project on Middle East DemocracyZoé NautréVisiting Fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Berlin Mona YacoubianSpecial Adviser, Muslim World Initiative, Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, United States Institute of PeaceModerated by Nathan Brown, Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies, George Washington University
Thursday, February 26, 200912:00 - 2:00 pmThe Henry L. Stimson Center1111 19th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036Twelfth FloorLunch will be served.
Please RSVP by email to RSVP@pomed.org
Wrong Fatwa By Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi it should be corrected
A prominent Muslim scholar in Saudi Arabia has warned that those using alcohol-based biofuels in their cars could be committing a sin.
The warning was issued by Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi, a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, an institute that studies Islamic jurisprudence for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an international group with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. According to the Al Arabiya News Channel, an international news outlet based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Mr. Najim directed his warning to Saudi youths studying abroad.
Al Arabiya notes that Najimi stressed that this warning was not an official fatwa, or religious edict, just his personal opinion. Najimi added that the issue “needs to be studied by the relevant religious bodies.”
Ethanol, a common type of biofuel, is made of the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages, and its production is similar to that of hard liquor. Plant matter is fermented using yeast, and the result is distilled to increase the concentration of alcohol.
Fuels with high concentrations of ethanol – the most common being E85, a gasoline blend with 85 percent ethanol – can be used in flex-fuel vehicles, which make up more than seven million of the roughly 250 million passenger cars and trucks on America’s roads. Most gasoline sold in the United States contains about 10 percent ethanol. The fuel is more common in many Latin American countries, particularly Brazil.
In addition to beverages and biofuels, ethanol is a widely used in industry for its properties as a solvent and an antiseptic. It’s a common component of perfumes and paints. The chemical is also necessary in the production of vinegar – one of the Prophet Muhammad’s favorite seasonings.
The Koran prohibits consumption of alcohol in three separate verses that were written over a period of several years. The first mention occurs in 4:43, in which Muslims are told that they must not pray while intoxicated. A verse written later – 2:219 – says that in wine and gambling “is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” Finally, in 5:90-91, intoxicants and gambling are called “an abomination” and “Satan’s handiwork”:
Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?
This admonition is waived in the hereafter, apparently: Many passages in the Islamic holy book describe heaven as having rivers of wine.
Ironically, it was Muslim chemists who introduced distillation to the West. The process of distilling pure ethanol from wine was perfected by 8th- and 9th-century Persian chemists, who used it to create perfumes and eyeliner. Their writings were translated by European scholars in the 12th century, and the process was used to make potable spirits. The word “alcohol” is itself of Arabic origin.
The warning was issued by Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi, a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, an institute that studies Islamic jurisprudence for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an international group with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. According to the Al Arabiya News Channel, an international news outlet based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Mr. Najim directed his warning to Saudi youths studying abroad.
Al Arabiya notes that Najimi stressed that this warning was not an official fatwa, or religious edict, just his personal opinion. Najimi added that the issue “needs to be studied by the relevant religious bodies.”
Ethanol, a common type of biofuel, is made of the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages, and its production is similar to that of hard liquor. Plant matter is fermented using yeast, and the result is distilled to increase the concentration of alcohol.
Fuels with high concentrations of ethanol – the most common being E85, a gasoline blend with 85 percent ethanol – can be used in flex-fuel vehicles, which make up more than seven million of the roughly 250 million passenger cars and trucks on America’s roads. Most gasoline sold in the United States contains about 10 percent ethanol. The fuel is more common in many Latin American countries, particularly Brazil.
In addition to beverages and biofuels, ethanol is a widely used in industry for its properties as a solvent and an antiseptic. It’s a common component of perfumes and paints. The chemical is also necessary in the production of vinegar – one of the Prophet Muhammad’s favorite seasonings.
The Koran prohibits consumption of alcohol in three separate verses that were written over a period of several years. The first mention occurs in 4:43, in which Muslims are told that they must not pray while intoxicated. A verse written later – 2:219 – says that in wine and gambling “is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” Finally, in 5:90-91, intoxicants and gambling are called “an abomination” and “Satan’s handiwork”:
Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?
This admonition is waived in the hereafter, apparently: Many passages in the Islamic holy book describe heaven as having rivers of wine.
Ironically, it was Muslim chemists who introduced distillation to the West. The process of distilling pure ethanol from wine was perfected by 8th- and 9th-century Persian chemists, who used it to create perfumes and eyeliner. Their writings were translated by European scholars in the 12th century, and the process was used to make potable spirits. The word “alcohol” is itself of Arabic origin.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
An invitation to the truth By Harun Yahya
DDEEVVOOUUTT CHRIIISTIIIANS SHOULD POSE THESSE
With a recent statement announcing the entire world that it has a moderate outlook on
Darwin’s evolution theory, Vatican claimed that the faith of creation in Christianity and
biological evolution are complementary. With this statement indicating the Pope’s point
of view on Darwin, Vatican, the symbol of Christianity, has undertaken the patronage of
an surprising, and even disturbing explanation.
In the face of these explanations that can never be reconciled with faith in Allah (God)
and Christianity, it needs to be brought to light whether these extremely disturbing
statements belong to Vatican or not. For this reason, DEVOUT CHRISTIANS SHOULD
POSE THESE QUESTIONS TO THE POPE:
1. The entire world of Christianity and Islam await the descend of Prophet Jesus
(pbuh). When Prophet Jesus (pbuh) comes, will you be able to look into his eyes and say,
“You have come into being by evolution”?
2. Allah took Prophet Jesus (pbuh) into His sight. How will you explain his second
coming to Earth by evolution?
3. According to your faith, did Gabriel [Jibril (pbuh)], Michael [Mikhail (pbuh)] and
all the other angels stated in the New Testament and all the other holy books come into
being by evolution?
4. Did the jinn stated in the Bible and the Qur’an come into being again by way of
evolution?
5. Did satan come also into being by evolution?
6. Did Prophet Moses’ (pbuh) staff, which immediately turned into an alive snake that
had the ability to reproduce, come into being by way of evolution?
7. Did the bird Prophet Jesus (pbuh) make out of mud and made it alive by blowing
on it come into being by evolution? (The Qur'an 3:49)
Devout Christians and press should pose all these questions to the Pope. Only the
answers to these questions will have a validity for sincere people of faith. The press
should accept the answers of these questions as the Vatican’s statement, and not the
statements given on Vatican’s behalf. Consequently, without waiting for the answers of
these questions, people should not give credit to the statements that appear in some press
organs as the Pope’s statements about evolution.
However, if these statements claimed to be made by Vatican were actually true, then the
following conclusion emerges: freemasonry and atheist zionists make pressure on
Papacy. If such a pressure by masons and atheist zionists were true, and the Pope were
hindered from advocating the facts, then the situation is extremely serious. This simply
means that the Darwinist dictatorship has no limits. It is also concluded that Vatican is
made an instrument in this filthy plot and simply prevented from advocating and honestly
telling the facts.
Yet it is an established fact that despite Darwinist dictatorship’s filthy plots, people all
over the world have realized that evolution is a fraud. They have learned that the number
of fossils unearthed so far has exceeded 100 MILLION and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF
THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM. They have seen with proof that all of these are
perfectly created living beings having perfect attributes, and even some of them represent
LIVING FOSSILS dating millions of years. People have examined these proofs
themselves. They have clearly seen that the prophecy Darwin made 150 years ago have
come to be true. 150 years ago Darwin made the following prophecy in his book, The
Origin of Species:
... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do
we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in
confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not
find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.[i]
In this statement Darwin confesses that transitional forms do not exist and that his theory
would collapse in case they can not be uncovered. At present, in the 21st century, 100
MILLION FOSSILS HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF
THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Almost all the earth have been dug up. Yet if it
were possible and 100 MILLION MORE FOSSILS WERE UNEARTHED, AGAIN
NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL WOULD BE FOUND. That is because THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION is a fraud, it is the BIGGEST MASS HOAX OF HISTORY that has
influenced the entire world for 150 years.
People already know that THERE EXISTS NOTHING CALLED TRANSITIONAL
FOSSIL, that PROTEINS COULD NOT HAVE COME INTO BEING BY CHANCE,
that ALL THE SKULLS that Darwinists try to show as evidence for the imaginary
evolution of human beings ARE FAKE. People also know that Darwinists make forgery,
that THEY PRODUCE FAKE FOSSILS, and do not currently take offence at displaying
them in museums. People already know that what is put forward as transitional forms are
only speculations made on extinct species. For this reason, people do not give credit to
lies of evolution. That Vatican accepts the theory of evolution and churches organize
conferences about evolution will not change this fact. Today in Turkey the ratio of people
believing in evolution is 5 percent, while in the United States it is 21 percent[ii], and in
England, Darwin’s mainland, it is only 25 percent[iii]. While this ratio increasingly
decreases, people witness the demolition and disappearance of the theory of evolution,
draw closer to faith and turn to All-Mighty Allah, the Creator of everything from nothing.
The plots of masons and atheist zionists have definetly turned against themselves.
Angels in the Bible:
Daniel 8: 16 -17 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man
the meaning of the vision."
As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate...
Daniel 9:21 While I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision,
came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.
Luke 1:19 The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have
been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.
Luke 1:26-27 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in
Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
The virgin's name was Mary.
Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the
body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him...
Jinn in the Bible:
Deutoronomy, 32:17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had
never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
Psalm 16:37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons;
Matthew 9:32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could
not talk was brought to Jesus.
Matthew 9:33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke.
The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out
demons."
Luke 11:15 But some of them said, "By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving
out demons."
Luke 11:19 Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive
them out? So then, they will be your judges.
Luke 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has
come to you.
Luke 9
Luke 9:1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority
to drive out all demons and to cure diseases.
Luke 8:31 And they (demons) begged him [Jesus] repeatedly not to order them to go into
the Abyss.
Matthew 17:18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed
from that moment.
Satan in the Bible:
1. Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of
Israel.
Job 2:7 So satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful
sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.
Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, satan! For it is written: “Worship the
Lord your God, and serve him only.”
Mark 3:26 And if satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has
come.
Mark 1:13 And he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by satan. He was with the
wild animals, and angels attended him.
Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat.
Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush satan under your feet. The grace of our
Jesus be with you.
2 Corinthians 2:11 In order that satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his
schemes.
1 Timothy 5:15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow satan.
[i] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
[ii] http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=30275
[iii] Guardian, 2 February 2009, Riazat But, "Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin's
theory of evolution"
Harun Yahya
With a recent statement announcing the entire world that it has a moderate outlook on
Darwin’s evolution theory, Vatican claimed that the faith of creation in Christianity and
biological evolution are complementary. With this statement indicating the Pope’s point
of view on Darwin, Vatican, the symbol of Christianity, has undertaken the patronage of
an surprising, and even disturbing explanation.
In the face of these explanations that can never be reconciled with faith in Allah (God)
and Christianity, it needs to be brought to light whether these extremely disturbing
statements belong to Vatican or not. For this reason, DEVOUT CHRISTIANS SHOULD
POSE THESE QUESTIONS TO THE POPE:
1. The entire world of Christianity and Islam await the descend of Prophet Jesus
(pbuh). When Prophet Jesus (pbuh) comes, will you be able to look into his eyes and say,
“You have come into being by evolution”?
2. Allah took Prophet Jesus (pbuh) into His sight. How will you explain his second
coming to Earth by evolution?
3. According to your faith, did Gabriel [Jibril (pbuh)], Michael [Mikhail (pbuh)] and
all the other angels stated in the New Testament and all the other holy books come into
being by evolution?
4. Did the jinn stated in the Bible and the Qur’an come into being again by way of
evolution?
5. Did satan come also into being by evolution?
6. Did Prophet Moses’ (pbuh) staff, which immediately turned into an alive snake that
had the ability to reproduce, come into being by way of evolution?
7. Did the bird Prophet Jesus (pbuh) make out of mud and made it alive by blowing
on it come into being by evolution? (The Qur'an 3:49)
Devout Christians and press should pose all these questions to the Pope. Only the
answers to these questions will have a validity for sincere people of faith. The press
should accept the answers of these questions as the Vatican’s statement, and not the
statements given on Vatican’s behalf. Consequently, without waiting for the answers of
these questions, people should not give credit to the statements that appear in some press
organs as the Pope’s statements about evolution.
However, if these statements claimed to be made by Vatican were actually true, then the
following conclusion emerges: freemasonry and atheist zionists make pressure on
Papacy. If such a pressure by masons and atheist zionists were true, and the Pope were
hindered from advocating the facts, then the situation is extremely serious. This simply
means that the Darwinist dictatorship has no limits. It is also concluded that Vatican is
made an instrument in this filthy plot and simply prevented from advocating and honestly
telling the facts.
Yet it is an established fact that despite Darwinist dictatorship’s filthy plots, people all
over the world have realized that evolution is a fraud. They have learned that the number
of fossils unearthed so far has exceeded 100 MILLION and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF
THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM. They have seen with proof that all of these are
perfectly created living beings having perfect attributes, and even some of them represent
LIVING FOSSILS dating millions of years. People have examined these proofs
themselves. They have clearly seen that the prophecy Darwin made 150 years ago have
come to be true. 150 years ago Darwin made the following prophecy in his book, The
Origin of Species:
... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do
we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in
confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not
find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.[i]
In this statement Darwin confesses that transitional forms do not exist and that his theory
would collapse in case they can not be uncovered. At present, in the 21st century, 100
MILLION FOSSILS HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF
THEM IS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL. Almost all the earth have been dug up. Yet if it
were possible and 100 MILLION MORE FOSSILS WERE UNEARTHED, AGAIN
NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL WOULD BE FOUND. That is because THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION is a fraud, it is the BIGGEST MASS HOAX OF HISTORY that has
influenced the entire world for 150 years.
People already know that THERE EXISTS NOTHING CALLED TRANSITIONAL
FOSSIL, that PROTEINS COULD NOT HAVE COME INTO BEING BY CHANCE,
that ALL THE SKULLS that Darwinists try to show as evidence for the imaginary
evolution of human beings ARE FAKE. People also know that Darwinists make forgery,
that THEY PRODUCE FAKE FOSSILS, and do not currently take offence at displaying
them in museums. People already know that what is put forward as transitional forms are
only speculations made on extinct species. For this reason, people do not give credit to
lies of evolution. That Vatican accepts the theory of evolution and churches organize
conferences about evolution will not change this fact. Today in Turkey the ratio of people
believing in evolution is 5 percent, while in the United States it is 21 percent[ii], and in
England, Darwin’s mainland, it is only 25 percent[iii]. While this ratio increasingly
decreases, people witness the demolition and disappearance of the theory of evolution,
draw closer to faith and turn to All-Mighty Allah, the Creator of everything from nothing.
The plots of masons and atheist zionists have definetly turned against themselves.
Angels in the Bible:
Daniel 8: 16 -17 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man
the meaning of the vision."
As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate...
Daniel 9:21 While I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision,
came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.
Luke 1:19 The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have
been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.
Luke 1:26-27 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in
Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
The virgin's name was Mary.
Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the
body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him...
Jinn in the Bible:
Deutoronomy, 32:17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had
never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
Psalm 16:37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons;
Matthew 9:32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could
not talk was brought to Jesus.
Matthew 9:33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke.
The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out
demons."
Luke 11:15 But some of them said, "By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving
out demons."
Luke 11:19 Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive
them out? So then, they will be your judges.
Luke 11:20 But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has
come to you.
Luke 9
Luke 9:1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority
to drive out all demons and to cure diseases.
Luke 8:31 And they (demons) begged him [Jesus] repeatedly not to order them to go into
the Abyss.
Matthew 17:18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed
from that moment.
Satan in the Bible:
1. Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of
Israel.
Job 2:7 So satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful
sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.
Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, satan! For it is written: “Worship the
Lord your God, and serve him only.”
Mark 3:26 And if satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has
come.
Mark 1:13 And he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by satan. He was with the
wild animals, and angels attended him.
Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat.
Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush satan under your feet. The grace of our
Jesus be with you.
2 Corinthians 2:11 In order that satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his
schemes.
1 Timothy 5:15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow satan.
[i] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280
[ii] http://wwrn.org/article.php?idd=30275
[iii] Guardian, 2 February 2009, Riazat But, "Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin's
theory of evolution"
Harun Yahya
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Keep Smiling
•·.·´¯`·.·Keep Smiling•·.·´¯`·.·•
nothing remains forever as in life cant remain forever.... it leads todeath.... got it ?/? sure love can live forever....a flower will bloom then it will also die...but fragrance remains.
nothing remains forever as in life cant remain forever.... it leads todeath.... got it ?/? sure love can live forever....a flower will bloom then it will also die...but fragrance remains.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Arab would say the Camel won't look at its crooked neck
Israel does not look at its human rights record yet starting to attack others. On the other hand Saudi was defending Israel agaist Hamas rockets and now Israel criticising Saudi Arabia on human rights issues.
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - Western countries called on Saudi Arabia on Friday to halt floggings and amputations, allow religious freedom and abolish a system of male guardianship sharply limiting women's rights.
Britain, Canada, Switzerland and Israel challenged Riyadh on issues including its high number of executions. Saudi Arabia executes murderers, rapists and drug traffickers, usually by public beheading, and judges sometimes give the death sentence to armed robbers and those convicted of "sorcery" or desecrating the Koran.
A Saudi delegation defended its record at the United Nations Human Rights Council, saying the country was cracking down on domestic violence by men who abused their roles as guardians and beat their wives and children.
Zaid Al-Hussein, vice president of the state-affiliated Saudi Human Rights Commission, told the forum much remained to be done to ensure that individual followers of Islam uphold human rights standards, as required by sharia law.
"Consequently, we do not claim to be perfect, nor do we reject criticism, which is welcome provided it is objective and intended to preserve human rights and dignity," he said.
The 47 member-state Council began regular reviews of all U.N. members last June in a bid to avoid charges of selectivity.
Hussein said non-Muslims could follow their faiths in private in the kingdom, but it would be difficult to allow non-Muslim houses of worship as "Islam is the final religion".
The oil-exporting Gulf country, a major U.S. ally, has paid $100 million compensation to people detained in terrorist cases who were later found to be innocent, he said.
FLOGGING AND EYE-GOUGING
Israel accused Saudi Arabia of "severe discrimination against women and minorities, corporal punishment, torture, forced labour, and the sexual exploitation of children".
It should "abolish corporal punishment, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in general, and public floggings, eye-gouging, flogging of schoolchildren, and amputation of limbs in particular," Israeli ambassador Aharon Leshno Yaar said.
British envoy Peter Gooderham urged the kingdom to "abolish the guardianship system which severely limits the rights of women to act as autonomous and equal members of Saudi society".
A U.N. women's rights watchdog said last year the system severely limited freedoms guaranteed by international law. It restricts women's rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, property ownership and decision-making in the family, and choice of residency, education and jobs.
Canada recommended that Saudi Arabia "cease application of torture" and other cruel treatment.
The United States did not take the floor in the three-hour debate. The Obama administration is reviewing its policy towards the Council, which the Bush administration had essentially boycotted since last June citing its "rather pathetic record".
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - Western countries called on Saudi Arabia on Friday to halt floggings and amputations, allow religious freedom and abolish a system of male guardianship sharply limiting women's rights.
Britain, Canada, Switzerland and Israel challenged Riyadh on issues including its high number of executions. Saudi Arabia executes murderers, rapists and drug traffickers, usually by public beheading, and judges sometimes give the death sentence to armed robbers and those convicted of "sorcery" or desecrating the Koran.
A Saudi delegation defended its record at the United Nations Human Rights Council, saying the country was cracking down on domestic violence by men who abused their roles as guardians and beat their wives and children.
Zaid Al-Hussein, vice president of the state-affiliated Saudi Human Rights Commission, told the forum much remained to be done to ensure that individual followers of Islam uphold human rights standards, as required by sharia law.
"Consequently, we do not claim to be perfect, nor do we reject criticism, which is welcome provided it is objective and intended to preserve human rights and dignity," he said.
The 47 member-state Council began regular reviews of all U.N. members last June in a bid to avoid charges of selectivity.
Hussein said non-Muslims could follow their faiths in private in the kingdom, but it would be difficult to allow non-Muslim houses of worship as "Islam is the final religion".
The oil-exporting Gulf country, a major U.S. ally, has paid $100 million compensation to people detained in terrorist cases who were later found to be innocent, he said.
FLOGGING AND EYE-GOUGING
Israel accused Saudi Arabia of "severe discrimination against women and minorities, corporal punishment, torture, forced labour, and the sexual exploitation of children".
It should "abolish corporal punishment, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in general, and public floggings, eye-gouging, flogging of schoolchildren, and amputation of limbs in particular," Israeli ambassador Aharon Leshno Yaar said.
British envoy Peter Gooderham urged the kingdom to "abolish the guardianship system which severely limits the rights of women to act as autonomous and equal members of Saudi society".
A U.N. women's rights watchdog said last year the system severely limited freedoms guaranteed by international law. It restricts women's rights in marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, property ownership and decision-making in the family, and choice of residency, education and jobs.
Canada recommended that Saudi Arabia "cease application of torture" and other cruel treatment.
The United States did not take the floor in the three-hour debate. The Obama administration is reviewing its policy towards the Council, which the Bush administration had essentially boycotted since last June citing its "rather pathetic record".
Sri Lanka's civil war
Dear friends,
250,000 desperate civilians are caught in the crossfire of Sri Lanka's civil war. U.S. Secretary of State Clinton will be briefed on the number of messages sent by Avaaz members urging protection for civilians -- click below to easily send one now:
Take Action NowIn Sri Lanka, Asia's longest-running and often forgotten civil war is coming to a bloody climax, with 250,000 desperate civilians trapped in the crossfire. The US government, Sri Lanka's biggest trade partner and one of its biggest development and military aid donors, has the most influence. The US has called for safe zones to protect civilians, but needs to use real diplomatic pressure to persuade both sides to agree to this, making clear that aid and trade deals as well as international legal consequences could be at stake. Senior US diplomats have agreed to brief Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the number of messages sent by Avaaz members over the next few days -- and to respond to our messages in writing. This is a real chance to persuade the Obama team to play a constructive role in this serious crisis. Click here to easily send a pre-written or personalized message now: http://www.avaaz.org/en/sri_lanka_civilians There have been atrocities and tragedies on both sides of Sri Lanka's long war -- most of them unrecorded and hidden from the world, due to the government's brutal campaign against independent journalism. The end of the fighting won't, by itself, resolve the injustices that ultimately caused it; after the guns are silenced, the legitimate concerns of the Tamil and other minority groups must be addressed throughout the political dialogue and reconstruction that will follow. But right now, in these final weeks or days of fighting, the quarter-million trapped Tamil civilians must not become the war's final casualties. Let's add our voices to those activists and human rights advocates who throughout the years have fought against the marginalisation of minority groups and the deterioration of basic rights across Sri Lanka. Click here to urge U.S. Secretary of State Clinton -- Obama's top diplomat -- to support the threatened civilians in Sri Lanka: http://www.avaaz.org/en/sri_lanka_civilians With hope, Luis, Ben, Graziela, Ricken, Paula, Alice, Iain, Pascal, Paul, Milena, and the rest of the Avaaz team SOURCES: Press Release by Human Rights Watch on appalling situation of civilians in Sri Lanka http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/03/sri-lanka-disregard-civilian-safety-appalling United States and United Kingdom Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in Sri Lanka, 3 February 2009http://srilanka.usembassy.gov/sdpr-3feb09.html"Sri Lanka Rebuffs Pleas for Truce, Says Rebellion Near End" - New York Times, 5 February 2009http://www.avaaz.org/sri2bJoint Statement by the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs (Norway, Japan, US and EU) expressing great concern about the plight of Sri Lankan civilianshttp://www.avaaz.org/sri1 News release by the International Committee of the Red Cross on repeated shelling and evacuation of hospital in the conflict zonehttp://www.avaaz.org/sri2 Q&A: Sri Lanka crisis, by BBC Newshttp://www.avaaz.org/sri3 Global media rights groups condemn "culture of impunity and indifference" in Sri Lankahttp://www.avaaz.org/sri4
250,000 desperate civilians are caught in the crossfire of Sri Lanka's civil war. U.S. Secretary of State Clinton will be briefed on the number of messages sent by Avaaz members urging protection for civilians -- click below to easily send one now:
Take Action NowIn Sri Lanka, Asia's longest-running and often forgotten civil war is coming to a bloody climax, with 250,000 desperate civilians trapped in the crossfire. The US government, Sri Lanka's biggest trade partner and one of its biggest development and military aid donors, has the most influence. The US has called for safe zones to protect civilians, but needs to use real diplomatic pressure to persuade both sides to agree to this, making clear that aid and trade deals as well as international legal consequences could be at stake. Senior US diplomats have agreed to brief Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the number of messages sent by Avaaz members over the next few days -- and to respond to our messages in writing. This is a real chance to persuade the Obama team to play a constructive role in this serious crisis. Click here to easily send a pre-written or personalized message now: http://www.avaaz.org/en/sri_lanka_civilians There have been atrocities and tragedies on both sides of Sri Lanka's long war -- most of them unrecorded and hidden from the world, due to the government's brutal campaign against independent journalism. The end of the fighting won't, by itself, resolve the injustices that ultimately caused it; after the guns are silenced, the legitimate concerns of the Tamil and other minority groups must be addressed throughout the political dialogue and reconstruction that will follow. But right now, in these final weeks or days of fighting, the quarter-million trapped Tamil civilians must not become the war's final casualties. Let's add our voices to those activists and human rights advocates who throughout the years have fought against the marginalisation of minority groups and the deterioration of basic rights across Sri Lanka. Click here to urge U.S. Secretary of State Clinton -- Obama's top diplomat -- to support the threatened civilians in Sri Lanka: http://www.avaaz.org/en/sri_lanka_civilians With hope, Luis, Ben, Graziela, Ricken, Paula, Alice, Iain, Pascal, Paul, Milena, and the rest of the Avaaz team SOURCES: Press Release by Human Rights Watch on appalling situation of civilians in Sri Lanka http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/03/sri-lanka-disregard-civilian-safety-appalling United States and United Kingdom Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in Sri Lanka, 3 February 2009http://srilanka.usembassy.gov/sdpr-3feb09.html"Sri Lanka Rebuffs Pleas for Truce, Says Rebellion Near End" - New York Times, 5 February 2009http://www.avaaz.org/sri2bJoint Statement by the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs (Norway, Japan, US and EU) expressing great concern about the plight of Sri Lankan civilianshttp://www.avaaz.org/sri1 News release by the International Committee of the Red Cross on repeated shelling and evacuation of hospital in the conflict zonehttp://www.avaaz.org/sri2 Q&A: Sri Lanka crisis, by BBC Newshttp://www.avaaz.org/sri3 Global media rights groups condemn "culture of impunity and indifference" in Sri Lankahttp://www.avaaz.org/sri4
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama Shifts US Rhetoric Toward Muslims
From: WireTap
Watching former president George W. Bush speak was, for many, an almost painful experience. The halting language, awkward pauses, strange half-smiles, and eerily off-key delivery proved embarrassing for those who desired an eloquent voice to represent the nation at the highest level.
For Muslims, however, Bush’s speeches and statements were particularly problematic and, at times, chilling. Hearing him speak, I never got the sense that he harbored a hidden hatred or festering contempt of Arabs or Muslims—rather, it seemed as though the thought of entertaining our concerns or grievances simply never entered his head.
Bush’s rhetoric was not only divisive and Manichean, it was also detached from the reality on the ground. In his world, Muslims fell into two categories: evil terrorists bent on destroying freedom, and toadying quislings who had a strange habit of mistaking laser-guided missiles for liberation. The nuanced reality of conflicting and overlapping emotions and perspectives was not one that could be processed or pondered by The Decider.
President Obama is of a decidedly different mentality. His interview with the Arabic-language news channel Al-Arabiya revealed a man who well understands the power of language. Obama signaled a willingness to engage the Muslim world in a sincere way. Language is a tool of communication, and it is no accident that those who have a keen understanding of language are genuinely interested in communicating and sharing ideas.
Obama said he is ready to “to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,” and also used the word “respect” later on, saying, “the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect.”
In a departure from his behavior on the campaign trail, when Obama seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from Muslim audience members or groups, he plainly noted, “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”
He also correctly pointed out that al-Qaeda seemed “nervous” about his election, as it can no longer rely on Bush’s rhetoric to fuel its own propaganda. Its ideas are “bankrupt” because the organization has no positive vision of development or progress for Muslims, offering only a path of “more death and destruction.”
And while terrorists will be hunted down, Obama noted, that will not become an excuse to terrorize others who disagree with America for a variety of reasons: “[Y]ou will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda—that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it – and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.”
All things considered, Obama turned in an excellent performance. But the question for many Muslims remains: is it just a performance? As the president himself conceded during the interview, “[P]eople are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions.”
The president is, of course, constrained in part by sundry vested interests and ugly realities handed to him by his predecessors.
Obama’s silence over Israel’s slaughter of 1,300 people in Gaza, where Israel used Palestinian civilians as human shields when it wasn’t killing them outright, was severely disappointing. And his unwillingness to drop the needless “all options on the table” bluff with Iran speaks to the undue influence that hawkish centrist Democrats hold in the upper echelons of his administration.
For Obama to truly change America’s relationship with a quarter of humanity will require not only sincere language, but sincere action as well.
—M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
Watching former president George W. Bush speak was, for many, an almost painful experience. The halting language, awkward pauses, strange half-smiles, and eerily off-key delivery proved embarrassing for those who desired an eloquent voice to represent the nation at the highest level.
For Muslims, however, Bush’s speeches and statements were particularly problematic and, at times, chilling. Hearing him speak, I never got the sense that he harbored a hidden hatred or festering contempt of Arabs or Muslims—rather, it seemed as though the thought of entertaining our concerns or grievances simply never entered his head.
Bush’s rhetoric was not only divisive and Manichean, it was also detached from the reality on the ground. In his world, Muslims fell into two categories: evil terrorists bent on destroying freedom, and toadying quislings who had a strange habit of mistaking laser-guided missiles for liberation. The nuanced reality of conflicting and overlapping emotions and perspectives was not one that could be processed or pondered by The Decider.
President Obama is of a decidedly different mentality. His interview with the Arabic-language news channel Al-Arabiya revealed a man who well understands the power of language. Obama signaled a willingness to engage the Muslim world in a sincere way. Language is a tool of communication, and it is no accident that those who have a keen understanding of language are genuinely interested in communicating and sharing ideas.
Obama said he is ready to “to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,” and also used the word “respect” later on, saying, “the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect.”
In a departure from his behavior on the campaign trail, when Obama seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from Muslim audience members or groups, he plainly noted, “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”
He also correctly pointed out that al-Qaeda seemed “nervous” about his election, as it can no longer rely on Bush’s rhetoric to fuel its own propaganda. Its ideas are “bankrupt” because the organization has no positive vision of development or progress for Muslims, offering only a path of “more death and destruction.”
And while terrorists will be hunted down, Obama noted, that will not become an excuse to terrorize others who disagree with America for a variety of reasons: “[Y]ou will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda—that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it – and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.”
All things considered, Obama turned in an excellent performance. But the question for many Muslims remains: is it just a performance? As the president himself conceded during the interview, “[P]eople are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions.”
The president is, of course, constrained in part by sundry vested interests and ugly realities handed to him by his predecessors.
Obama’s silence over Israel’s slaughter of 1,300 people in Gaza, where Israel used Palestinian civilians as human shields when it wasn’t killing them outright, was severely disappointing. And his unwillingness to drop the needless “all options on the table” bluff with Iran speaks to the undue influence that hawkish centrist Democrats hold in the upper echelons of his administration.
For Obama to truly change America’s relationship with a quarter of humanity will require not only sincere language, but sincere action as well.
—M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
ONLY SOLUTION TO PALESTINE PROBLEM - BY HARUN YAHYA
THIS TURKISH-ISLAMIC UNION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACES OR NATIONS. THE REASON TURKEY IS MENTIONED AS THE PIONEER OF THE ISLAMIC UNION IS THAT, SHE IS IN THE POSITION OF ASSUMING THE ROLE OF CONCILIATION AMONG THE COUNTRIES AND HAS HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE REGION WHICH IS INHERITED FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. THE ISLAMIC WORLD NEEDS THAT UNION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE CHILDREN DYING IN PALESTINE NEED US TO UNITE. ALLAH ORDERS MUSLIMS TO UNITE AND ACT TOGETHER. IF WE DO NOT FOLLOW ALLAH’S ORDERS, WE CANNOT BE SAVED FROM TROUBLES AND PAINS. PLEASE READ AND DISTRIBUTE THE ATTACHED ANNOUNCEMENT AND STEP UP THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ISLAMIC UNION.
Monday, February 2, 2009
watch the amazing miracles of Islam
Assalam-o-alaikum, Please watch the amazing miracles of Islam: www.geocities.com/islamimiracles3 (The Miracles of Allah Almighty, Miracles of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), Miracles of the Holy Quran, The Miracle of AL-ISRA and AL-MIRAJ, Miracles in Zam Zam Water, Allah's Fury And Punishments, Details about Jinns and Angels, Yajooj Majooj & Evil Dajjal, First Four Caliphs (R.A) of Islam, The Footprint of Prophet Adam (A.S) in Sri Lanka, Tomb of Mother Eve (A.S) in Jeddah, Imam Mehdi (Sunni & Shia Documentations), Scientists on the Holy Quran). Hope you will like this website. From,
Maria Shaban
Maria Shaban
Noam Chomsky on Obama & Israel-Palestine
Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.
Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.
On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.
Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."
Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.
The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.
The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians - an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).
Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."
Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.
Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed - a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border - Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.
Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.
Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.
Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time - and in the mainstream, the only time.
It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.
It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.
Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.
Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."
There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.
Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.
The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.
A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.
The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world - including the Arab states and Hamas - in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.
In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit - though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.
The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.
Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" - which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.
Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime..." He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.
Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); ‘Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.
Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.
Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan... the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).
Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.
Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.
On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.
Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."
Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.
The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.
The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians - an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).
Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."
Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.
Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed - a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border - Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.
Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.
Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.
Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time - and in the mainstream, the only time.
It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.
It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.
Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.
Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."
There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.
Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.
The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.
A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.
The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world - including the Arab states and Hamas - in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.
In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit - though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.
The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.
Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" - which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.
Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime..." He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.
Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); ‘Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.
Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.
Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan... the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).
Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.
How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World
-Challenges and Promises
AheadCSID's 10th Annual ConferenceTuesday, May 5, 2009Washington DCThe election of Barack Obama as America's 44th president has galvanized the entire nation, indeed the entire world. A world full of possibilities appears to have opened up, prompted by President Obama's attitude and policies of inclusiveness and even-handedness. In his inaugural address, the new president remarked memorably, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." All these developments give rise to the following questions - does this deliberate change in the new administration's worldview augur a more hopeful trajectory for US relations with the Muslim world? Dare we imagine just and more equitable approaches - and eventually solutions - to the political and economic problems which beset many Muslim-majority societies? Will there be a concerted effort to revive the peace process in the Middle East? Will the war-torn societies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, for example, have opportunities to heal and become fully self-determining? These and related questions form the backdrop to the tenth annual conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. It is clear at the present time that considerable challenges and promise lie ahead for future relations between the US and the Muslim world. This conference will attempt to identify and assess the nature of some of these challenges and determine if the new administration's proposed policy changes potentially herald a more positive and fruitful relationship. Paper proposals are invited from prospective participants on the following five broad topics. Possible topics are not restricted to the ones that follow but proposals must establish their relevance in general to the issues of improving relations and understanding between the US and the Islamic world:
A. Positively Engaging the Muslim World: Learning from Past MistakesThere has been a considerable erosion in mutual trust and respect between the US and Muslim-majority societies. What specific engagements would contribute to this trust being effectively restored? What role should Muslims in the United States and elsewhere play in this endeavor? What groups or institutions outside the U.S. might contribute productively?
B. The Development of Democracy in the Muslim World - Best PracticesWhere and how have efforts to promote good governance in this region succeeded and failed and what are the reasons for these results? Once again, what have we learned from this mixed record? Can we identify the most promising prospects that should be encouraged? Where do we go from here? What role can the US play in the promotion of democracy and human rights in the region?
C. Looking Ahead - Identifying the Challenges and PromisesUnder this broad rubric, papers may discuss the social, economic, political, intellectual and religious forces that might provide for better governance leading toward peace and prosperity and the policies, institutions and programs that would encourage these developments.
D. Prospects for Peace in the Middle EastWhat can the US do to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Can a two-state solution still be implemented based on the 2002 Arab peace proposal, and the 1967 borders? Should the US engage both Iran and Hamas in a dialogue that would lead to reconciliation, peace with justice, and prosperity for the entire Middle East?
Paper proposals (no more than 400 words) are due by February 20, 2008 and should be
sent to: Prof. Tamara SonnChair, Conference Program CommitteeE-mail: conference2009@islam-democracy.org
Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by March 15, 2008 and final papers must be submitted by April 1, 2008.Selected panelists and speakers must cover their own travel and accommodations to participate in the conference, and pay the conference registration fee ($100) by April 1. CSID will waive the conference registration fees and provide an honorarium of $300 for speakers and panelists coming from overseas to present their papers.
AheadCSID's 10th Annual ConferenceTuesday, May 5, 2009Washington DCThe election of Barack Obama as America's 44th president has galvanized the entire nation, indeed the entire world. A world full of possibilities appears to have opened up, prompted by President Obama's attitude and policies of inclusiveness and even-handedness. In his inaugural address, the new president remarked memorably, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." All these developments give rise to the following questions - does this deliberate change in the new administration's worldview augur a more hopeful trajectory for US relations with the Muslim world? Dare we imagine just and more equitable approaches - and eventually solutions - to the political and economic problems which beset many Muslim-majority societies? Will there be a concerted effort to revive the peace process in the Middle East? Will the war-torn societies of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, for example, have opportunities to heal and become fully self-determining? These and related questions form the backdrop to the tenth annual conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. It is clear at the present time that considerable challenges and promise lie ahead for future relations between the US and the Muslim world. This conference will attempt to identify and assess the nature of some of these challenges and determine if the new administration's proposed policy changes potentially herald a more positive and fruitful relationship. Paper proposals are invited from prospective participants on the following five broad topics. Possible topics are not restricted to the ones that follow but proposals must establish their relevance in general to the issues of improving relations and understanding between the US and the Islamic world:
A. Positively Engaging the Muslim World: Learning from Past MistakesThere has been a considerable erosion in mutual trust and respect between the US and Muslim-majority societies. What specific engagements would contribute to this trust being effectively restored? What role should Muslims in the United States and elsewhere play in this endeavor? What groups or institutions outside the U.S. might contribute productively?
B. The Development of Democracy in the Muslim World - Best PracticesWhere and how have efforts to promote good governance in this region succeeded and failed and what are the reasons for these results? Once again, what have we learned from this mixed record? Can we identify the most promising prospects that should be encouraged? Where do we go from here? What role can the US play in the promotion of democracy and human rights in the region?
C. Looking Ahead - Identifying the Challenges and PromisesUnder this broad rubric, papers may discuss the social, economic, political, intellectual and religious forces that might provide for better governance leading toward peace and prosperity and the policies, institutions and programs that would encourage these developments.
D. Prospects for Peace in the Middle EastWhat can the US do to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Can a two-state solution still be implemented based on the 2002 Arab peace proposal, and the 1967 borders? Should the US engage both Iran and Hamas in a dialogue that would lead to reconciliation, peace with justice, and prosperity for the entire Middle East?
Paper proposals (no more than 400 words) are due by February 20, 2008 and should be
sent to: Prof. Tamara SonnChair, Conference Program CommitteeE-mail: conference2009@islam-democracy.org
Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by March 15, 2008 and final papers must be submitted by April 1, 2008.Selected panelists and speakers must cover their own travel and accommodations to participate in the conference, and pay the conference registration fee ($100) by April 1. CSID will waive the conference registration fees and provide an honorarium of $300 for speakers and panelists coming from overseas to present their papers.
Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins University
This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well.
Please circulate to all you know; Cancer update Johns Hopkins - Cancer News from Johns Hopkins
No plastic containers in micro
No water bottles in freezer.
No plastic wrap in microwave...
A dioxin ! chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer.
Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.
Recently, Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers.. .
This especially applies to foods that contain fat.
He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body... Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heat! ing food... You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons...
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
Please circulate to all you know; Cancer update Johns Hopkins - Cancer News from Johns Hopkins
No plastic containers in micro
No water bottles in freezer.
No plastic wrap in microwave...
A dioxin ! chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer.
Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.
Recently, Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers.. .
This especially applies to foods that contain fat.
He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body... Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heat! ing food... You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons...
Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)