.jpg)
A short time ago I wrote a brief defence of the IDF after Israeli soldiers were accused of what amounts to cold-blooded murder, shooting civilians out of hand without reason or cause.
Those appalling allegations have since been proved to be false, as I knew they would be. Certain sections of the mainstream media still have a problem with this; the investigations weren't carried out independently, etc etc etc.
Well, over at the excellent Scandinavian blog Tundra Tabloids, KGS has stumbled across a piece in the Jerusalem Post by Major Danny Zamir, the man with whom many of the rumours were said to originate. Even he believes the Left-wing media got it wrong:
Att. Danny Zamir (Major, IDF reserves) wrote an op-ed in yesterday's J'lem Post describing the events that took place, how the media got it all wrong, and how the IDF conducts itself according its doctrine of military conduct and the guiding principle of "Purity of Arms", in other words preventing harm to those not involved in the conflict.
Personal code of IDF soldier: 'May our camp be pure'
A number of articles published recently in The New York Times quoted or were based on words spoken by myself and by graduates of the pre-army leadership development program which I head (the "Rabin Mechina") - graduates who participated as combat soldiers in Operation Cast Lead and who met recently to process personal experiences from the battlefield.
Both explicitly and by insinuation, the articles claim a decline in the IDF's commitment to its moral code of conduct in combat, and moreover, that this decline stems from a specific increase in the prominence of religious soldiers and commanders in the IDF in general, and from the strengthening of the position of IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronsky in particular.
It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met after returning from the battlefield to share their experiences and subjective feelings with each other, using that one episode to draw conclusions that felt more like an indictment. Dogma replaced balance and led to a dangerous misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of Israeli reality. The individual accounts were never intended to serve as a basis for broad generalizations and summary conclusions by the media; they were published internally, intended for program graduates and their parents as a tool to be used in the process of educating and guiding the next generation.I chose as well to submit the soldiers' accounts to the highest levels of the IDF, directly to the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, out of my deep faith in the solid moral foundations of IDF policy and in complete confidence that the accounts would receive serious and thorough attention, including both investigation and corrective measures, if and when necessary. This faith was and is based on my personal experience of more than two decades - as a combat solider, a major in the IDF and as mentor for hundreds of the Rabin Mechina's graduates who are soldiers serving in combat units (active and reserve).
There are, to be sure, important political differences between myself as a social-democratic Zionist and Zionists of other political opinions. But there exists among us a very broad consensus regarding the moral character of combat - a moral character to which the IDF is committed and educates its soldiers, a character positively influenced by religious mechinot and by the special personal qualities of my colleague Rabbi Ronsky.
THE GUIDING principle that directs IDF combat soldiers, both in their planning and conduct in combat, encompasses a balance between two needs: to defend soldiers' lives and to minimize harm to the civilians behind whom terrorists try to hide. This is expressed in the tension between the necessity of opening fire when the soldiers' security and battle conditions require, even when there's a danger to civilians (providing advance warning to the extent possible), and the absolute obligation to hold fire and to act with due compassion toward civilians when it appears that they have no evil intent. In addition, basic respect toward civilians' belongings and their religious and spiritual property is part of this moral code.
These guidelines and the obligation to uphold them are an inseparable part of the Jewish-Zionist world of IDF soldiers, and deeply anchored in generations of Jewish heritage, particularly in the doctrine of military conduct renewed by the early socialist-Zionists a century ago. They called this principle by a name that's unlikely to have been given by any other nationalist movement fighting for its independence: "Purity of Arms" - that is, preventing harm to those not involved in or supporting the combat.
This moral commandment remains a central motto of the IDF; it is the complete opposite of the code of conduct of Islamist terror organizations such as Hamas, whose judgment on every Israeli and Jew is death. "Purity of arms" is not part of their world, not even in theory.The outsider may not understand this, but we - the Jews of the State of Israel - live this every day, every hour. More here.
I am still waiting for an apology from those who wished to hound Israeli soldiers with these unfounded allegations, and I realise I shall probably wait in vain.
However, the IDF deserve an apology from their accusers - it is only morally right. People have attempted to besmirch the reputation of a fundamentally honourable organisation which must function under difficult circumstances even in 'peace'; they have done this whilst hiding under the cloak of concern for 'human rights'.
If they are serious about their cause, they should issue an apology - not only to do their part in taking an undeserved stain off of the IDF's reputation, but lest they never be taken seriously again.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Geert Wilders in Beverly Hills, California
Here is Geert Wilders speaking in Beverly Hills on Saturday night:
An excellent speech, one of his best yet. Here is the Q&A session afterwards:
If elections were held now, Geert Wilders' PVV would get 32 seats in the Dutch parliament and he would become Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
However, please don't forget that he still faces prosecution in the Netherlands, simply for saying what his voters think and defending freedom of speech.
You can sign the petition against this move here, or donate to his fighting fund here.
Hat tip: Jihad Watch.
An excellent speech, one of his best yet. Here is the Q&A session afterwards:
If elections were held now, Geert Wilders' PVV would get 32 seats in the Dutch parliament and he would become Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
However, please don't forget that he still faces prosecution in the Netherlands, simply for saying what his voters think and defending freedom of speech.
You can sign the petition against this move here, or donate to his fighting fund here.
Hat tip: Jihad Watch.
Tamil Tigers Supporters March on Parliament
There's nothing quite like a crisis in some distant, far-flung corner of the Third World to highlight just how lax and poorly managed Britain's immigration and settlement policies are.
Like moths to a flame, protesters are drawn to the British capital from their 'communities' all over the country, and we can all see quite clearly just how bad things are.
Well, as the Sri Lankan army closes in on the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers தமிழீழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள், one of the most violent terrorist groups the world has ever known, we can quite clearly see just what kind of people our government gives 'refuge' to.
Here's just a taste of what kind of group they're marching in support of:
The LTTE invented the suicide belt and is widely known for suicide bombing as a tactic. They also pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks.[3][4][5] The LTTE has carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.[2] The LTTE is the only rebel organization known to have possessed aircraft.[6]
Well, rightly or wrongly the Sri Lankan military are closing in on the last strip of territory held by the Tigers, and their dream of an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka and the 26 year long civil war which has killed more than 80,000 people could soon be over.
It seems a lot of Tamils residing in Britain feel there should now be a 'ceasefire', however. By ceasefire I assume they mean that the Tamil Tigers should be understood and dealt with rather than annihilated, despite their own love of death and destruction.
I understand that many are concerned for the civilians trapped in the Tigers' stronghold, but then the onus is on the defeated Tigers to surrender, is it not?
It seems that over 5,000 Tamils have converged on the British Parliament, demanding to meet Gordon Brown. They have threatened to jump off Westminster Bridge en masse if this demand is not met - and it seems many have even brought their children.
900 blocked off the bridge last night, and one man has already jumped and been rescued.
Apparently 4 arrests have been made so far - here are some pictures of what is currently going on.
Like moths to a flame, protesters are drawn to the British capital from their 'communities' all over the country, and we can all see quite clearly just how bad things are.
Well, as the Sri Lankan army closes in on the last stronghold of the Tamil Tigers தமிழீழவிடுதலைப்புலிகள், one of the most violent terrorist groups the world has ever known, we can quite clearly see just what kind of people our government gives 'refuge' to.
Here's just a taste of what kind of group they're marching in support of:
The LTTE invented the suicide belt and is widely known for suicide bombing as a tactic. They also pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks.[3][4][5] The LTTE has carried out more suicide bombings than Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda combined.[2] The LTTE is the only rebel organization known to have possessed aircraft.[6]
Well, rightly or wrongly the Sri Lankan military are closing in on the last strip of territory held by the Tigers, and their dream of an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka and the 26 year long civil war which has killed more than 80,000 people could soon be over.
It seems a lot of Tamils residing in Britain feel there should now be a 'ceasefire', however. By ceasefire I assume they mean that the Tamil Tigers should be understood and dealt with rather than annihilated, despite their own love of death and destruction.
I understand that many are concerned for the civilians trapped in the Tigers' stronghold, but then the onus is on the defeated Tigers to surrender, is it not?
It seems that over 5,000 Tamils have converged on the British Parliament, demanding to meet Gordon Brown. They have threatened to jump off Westminster Bridge en masse if this demand is not met - and it seems many have even brought their children.
900 blocked off the bridge last night, and one man has already jumped and been rescued.
Apparently 4 arrests have been made so far - here are some pictures of what is currently going on.
Algerian Thief Who Was Deported Twice Caught in London
More immigration idiocy which shows up just how insecure Britain's borders are. This one truly beggars belief.
An Algerian thief who has been deported from Britain twice before has been caught on CC:TV in London.
Described as a 'one man crime wave', Hakim Benmakhlouf preys on rich tourists, snatching bags outside 5-star hotels. He is also a former rent-boy and cocaine addict.
In July 2007, the government released him early from a prison sentence and gave him £3,000 to fly back to Algeria.
He returned just 24 hours later.
He was again arrested after turning back to crime and released after serving just one third of a three year sentence handed down in April last year. He was then flown to Algeria accompanied by an immigration officer at the expense of British taxpayers - and now, just days later, he's back in London.
Here's the full story:
A prolific bag snatcher twice deported from Britain has made a mockery of lax border controls for the second time in two years.
Hakim Benmakhlouf, 27, who has a string of convictions for stealing from rich tourists at five-star hotels and airports, has returned to London only days after being kicked out.
He was first thrown out in July 2007 when, while serving a three-and-a-half year prison sentence for theft, he was given £3,000 by the Government to be released early and fly home to his native Algeria.
But 24 hours later, he returned to London to continue his one-man crime wave.
He was re-arrested in April last year and jailed for three years the following month after admitting two thefts and asking for five similar offences to be taken into consideration.
But, incredibly, he was released from prison last month after serving just a third of his sentence and deported to his homeland.
Escorted by at least one immigration officer, he was flown back to Algeria at taxpayers' expense - only to return to London a few days later.
Police had no idea he had been freed until he was spotted in central London by two officers two weeks ago.
Immigration officers were alerted that he had slipped into the country again and an inquiry has begun.
Police warned that the father-of-two is almost certainly up to his old tricks again.
A furious Home Office source said: 'This is a major, major embarrassment. This man has made a mockery of our border controls and the criminal justice system.'
Efforts to trace Benmakhlouf were last night focusing on the St John's Wood area of North-West London, where the conman - who is rarely seen in anything but designer clothes - has previously rented luxury flats.
It was there, while drinking coffee at a restaurant near his home, that he was arrested on April 9 last year.
Prosecutor Helen Thomas told Southwark Crown Court in London last May that Benmakhlouf was a 'prolific thief'.
'The defendant targets high class hotels or airports,' she added. 'He targets tourists who are likely to have large amounts of currency and other valuables.'
The former rent boy, who uses 12 aliases, apparently began stealing from his clients to fuel a cocaine habit.
In December 1998, he was sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution.
He received 15 months in March 1999, a year's probation in December 2000, 21 months in February 2001, 30 months in June 2003, 12 months in August 2003, 18 months in October 2004 and 42 months in December 2005.
Miss Thomas said it was during this sentence that he was handed £3,000 to accept voluntary deportation - only to return.
In October 2007, he was caught on CCTV stealing from guests at the Churchill Intercontinental Hotel in Portman Square, central London.
Benmakhlouf's other audacious thefts included a bag snatch at Madame Tussauds wax museum, where he sprayed his victim with tomato sauce to cause confusion.
Detective Sergeant Andy Swindells, who dealt with Benmakhlouf's case last May, refused to comment on his return to Britain
The UK Border Agency said: 'As soon as we receive intelligence of a foreign lawbreaker in the UK from the police, we will investigate as a matter of urgency.
'We have teams of officers working with police forces up and down the country to track down those with no right to be in Britain.'
I want to know what he was doing here in the first place. A prolific criminal, he could have been absolutely anyone - even in the GIA.
It makes one wonder just how many more people like him are walking around undetected, and just how many slip in every day.
I would like to point out to the UK Border Agency and the justice system that they make a mockery of themselves, however - there is no excuse for this level of incompetence, and a chancer like him can't be fully blamed for doing what comes naturally - it is their job to stop people like him coming.
Of course he will take advantage of such a lax system - it's what he does. The fact he was given £3,000 of taxpayers' money to leave the first time is appalling, and this matter should be investigated.
Giving individuals like this lots of money on top of the proceeds of their crimes is simply insanity.
An Algerian thief who has been deported from Britain twice before has been caught on CC:TV in London.
Described as a 'one man crime wave', Hakim Benmakhlouf preys on rich tourists, snatching bags outside 5-star hotels. He is also a former rent-boy and cocaine addict.
In July 2007, the government released him early from a prison sentence and gave him £3,000 to fly back to Algeria.
He returned just 24 hours later.
He was again arrested after turning back to crime and released after serving just one third of a three year sentence handed down in April last year. He was then flown to Algeria accompanied by an immigration officer at the expense of British taxpayers - and now, just days later, he's back in London.
Here's the full story:
A prolific bag snatcher twice deported from Britain has made a mockery of lax border controls for the second time in two years.
Hakim Benmakhlouf, 27, who has a string of convictions for stealing from rich tourists at five-star hotels and airports, has returned to London only days after being kicked out.
He was first thrown out in July 2007 when, while serving a three-and-a-half year prison sentence for theft, he was given £3,000 by the Government to be released early and fly home to his native Algeria.
But 24 hours later, he returned to London to continue his one-man crime wave.
He was re-arrested in April last year and jailed for three years the following month after admitting two thefts and asking for five similar offences to be taken into consideration.
But, incredibly, he was released from prison last month after serving just a third of his sentence and deported to his homeland.
Escorted by at least one immigration officer, he was flown back to Algeria at taxpayers' expense - only to return to London a few days later.
Police had no idea he had been freed until he was spotted in central London by two officers two weeks ago.
Immigration officers were alerted that he had slipped into the country again and an inquiry has begun.
Police warned that the father-of-two is almost certainly up to his old tricks again.
A furious Home Office source said: 'This is a major, major embarrassment. This man has made a mockery of our border controls and the criminal justice system.'
Efforts to trace Benmakhlouf were last night focusing on the St John's Wood area of North-West London, where the conman - who is rarely seen in anything but designer clothes - has previously rented luxury flats.
It was there, while drinking coffee at a restaurant near his home, that he was arrested on April 9 last year.
Prosecutor Helen Thomas told Southwark Crown Court in London last May that Benmakhlouf was a 'prolific thief'.
'The defendant targets high class hotels or airports,' she added. 'He targets tourists who are likely to have large amounts of currency and other valuables.'
The former rent boy, who uses 12 aliases, apparently began stealing from his clients to fuel a cocaine habit.
In December 1998, he was sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution.
He received 15 months in March 1999, a year's probation in December 2000, 21 months in February 2001, 30 months in June 2003, 12 months in August 2003, 18 months in October 2004 and 42 months in December 2005.
Miss Thomas said it was during this sentence that he was handed £3,000 to accept voluntary deportation - only to return.
In October 2007, he was caught on CCTV stealing from guests at the Churchill Intercontinental Hotel in Portman Square, central London.
Benmakhlouf's other audacious thefts included a bag snatch at Madame Tussauds wax museum, where he sprayed his victim with tomato sauce to cause confusion.
Detective Sergeant Andy Swindells, who dealt with Benmakhlouf's case last May, refused to comment on his return to Britain
The UK Border Agency said: 'As soon as we receive intelligence of a foreign lawbreaker in the UK from the police, we will investigate as a matter of urgency.
'We have teams of officers working with police forces up and down the country to track down those with no right to be in Britain.'
I want to know what he was doing here in the first place. A prolific criminal, he could have been absolutely anyone - even in the GIA.
It makes one wonder just how many more people like him are walking around undetected, and just how many slip in every day.
I would like to point out to the UK Border Agency and the justice system that they make a mockery of themselves, however - there is no excuse for this level of incompetence, and a chancer like him can't be fully blamed for doing what comes naturally - it is their job to stop people like him coming.
Of course he will take advantage of such a lax system - it's what he does. The fact he was given £3,000 of taxpayers' money to leave the first time is appalling, and this matter should be investigated.
Giving individuals like this lots of money on top of the proceeds of their crimes is simply insanity.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen - Statesman or Sellout?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark and current NATO Secretary General, is a controversial figure to some.
He was the leader of Denmark during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. From his Wikipedia entry:
A major period of conflict in Rasmussen's political career concerned a set of cartoons printed in Jyllands-Posten, a major Danish newspaper. In September 2005 the newspaper printed a full page with 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, including one in which Muhammad appeared with a bomb in his turban. Some of the schools of the Islamic religion do not allow depiction of the figure of Mohammed. Many Muslims found the cartoons offensive. Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.
Well, some say that Wikipedia editors are the masters of understatement. This crisis became the flagship of the West's debate about freedom of speech, legitimate criticism of religion and the limits of self-censorship in the name of respect and tolerance.
However, Muslims insisted the depictions were offensive, and a orgy of violence ensued around the Muslim and Western worlds. At least three Danish embassies and one Norwegian embassy were burned, 139 people (mainly Muslim protesters) died and over 800 were injured.
As a response to the violence, many groups in the West began a 'support Denmark' campaign, trying to reverse the effects of the boycott of Danish products and generally show respect for their stand.
At the centre of all this stood Rasmussen - whatever happened, he insisted that he could not apologise on behalf of a newspaper which was free to publish what it wished; he saw that free speech is sacred to us.
Now, all that seems to have changed. Rasmussen wants to play the European statesman as NATO Secretary General - but, as always, there is a price.
The Turkish government insisted that they would only back him for the role if he apologised for his handling of the crisis; it seemed certain that he was going to grovel to Islamic values in order to climb the greasy pole of European politics, betraying all free people and those who wish to be free in the process, not to mention his own birthright.
Here is his speech (thanks to Vlad Tepes):
No one can quite decide if he apologised or not. He issued a very, very carefully worded statement that seemed to say 'I'm sorry if you were offended' rather than 'I'm sorry this occurred'.
However, he is in effect still grovelling to the Muslim world in order to get a job. Baron Bodissey has a list of how the speech was covered in various newspapers here.
It seems the Danish newspapers sought to put a brave face on his backing down from what has become one of the enduring images of their nation:
The Copenhagen Post had a somewhat different take on these events, and was at pains to point out that the former prime minister most definitely did not apologize:
Anders Fogh Rasmussen sought to smooth Muslim reservations during first international appearance after being nominated to become Nato’s next leader. Former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated today that he condemns the demonising of cultural groups, but did not fulfil expectations that he might issue an apology for the 2005 publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
And Politiken was even more vehement:
“Listen. In Denmark we do not apologise for having freedom of speech,” Fogh Rasmussen is quoted by Ritzau as saying.“You all know that a Danish Prime Minister cannot apologise on behalf of a newspaper,” he continues.
However, he came far too close to out and out grovelling for my liking.
According to Reuters:
“I was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by many Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark and insult or behave disrespectfully toward Islam or the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing could be further from my mind,” he said.
“I respect Islam as one of the world’s major religions as well as its religious symbols,” he said during a panel discussion at the conference aimed at building bridges between the Muslim world and the West.
Turkey was definitely applying the pressure, as was the rest of the Muslim world. Here's a report from the official Jordanian news service:
NATO leaders’ appointment of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO’s new secretary-general Saturday would spark more hostility against Islam and Muslims, members of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us” campaign said.
“It is a provocative step and reveals the western leaders’ insistence to reward those who instigate and nurture clash of civilization and religious feuds,” said a statement by campaigners on Sunday.With the coming of the US democrats to power, world nations particularly the Arab and Muslim world have anticipated drastic changes in the western politics that could reflect positively on peoples’ lives across the world, said the statement.It was just the opposite. The appointment of the extremist and racist Danish Prime Minister as NATO Secretary General came in defiance and provocation of feeling of millions of Muslims at the people and formal level.
So, if Rasmussen gives in to such forces, is his new job really worth having?
A better question might be is NATO actually fit for purpose if it spends most of its time sucking up to the world's leading illiberal, unenlightened forces rather than fighting them?
It seems we really are a long way from the Cold War - because now the goal is to appease and accommodate evil and ignorance, not resist it and fight it at all costs. In fact, those forces may have already won if a man has to show he's an acceptable face to Islam in order to lead NATO.
Nothing symbolises that more than the engineered grovelling of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, formerly one of the leading lights of the West's desire to preserve its ancient values, liberties and freedoms.
He was the leader of Denmark during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. From his Wikipedia entry:
A major period of conflict in Rasmussen's political career concerned a set of cartoons printed in Jyllands-Posten, a major Danish newspaper. In September 2005 the newspaper printed a full page with 12 cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, including one in which Muhammad appeared with a bomb in his turban. Some of the schools of the Islamic religion do not allow depiction of the figure of Mohammed. Many Muslims found the cartoons offensive. Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.
Well, some say that Wikipedia editors are the masters of understatement. This crisis became the flagship of the West's debate about freedom of speech, legitimate criticism of religion and the limits of self-censorship in the name of respect and tolerance.
However, Muslims insisted the depictions were offensive, and a orgy of violence ensued around the Muslim and Western worlds. At least three Danish embassies and one Norwegian embassy were burned, 139 people (mainly Muslim protesters) died and over 800 were injured.
As a response to the violence, many groups in the West began a 'support Denmark' campaign, trying to reverse the effects of the boycott of Danish products and generally show respect for their stand.
At the centre of all this stood Rasmussen - whatever happened, he insisted that he could not apologise on behalf of a newspaper which was free to publish what it wished; he saw that free speech is sacred to us.
Now, all that seems to have changed. Rasmussen wants to play the European statesman as NATO Secretary General - but, as always, there is a price.
The Turkish government insisted that they would only back him for the role if he apologised for his handling of the crisis; it seemed certain that he was going to grovel to Islamic values in order to climb the greasy pole of European politics, betraying all free people and those who wish to be free in the process, not to mention his own birthright.
Here is his speech (thanks to Vlad Tepes):
No one can quite decide if he apologised or not. He issued a very, very carefully worded statement that seemed to say 'I'm sorry if you were offended' rather than 'I'm sorry this occurred'.
However, he is in effect still grovelling to the Muslim world in order to get a job. Baron Bodissey has a list of how the speech was covered in various newspapers here.
It seems the Danish newspapers sought to put a brave face on his backing down from what has become one of the enduring images of their nation:
The Copenhagen Post had a somewhat different take on these events, and was at pains to point out that the former prime minister most definitely did not apologize:
Anders Fogh Rasmussen sought to smooth Muslim reservations during first international appearance after being nominated to become Nato’s next leader. Former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated today that he condemns the demonising of cultural groups, but did not fulfil expectations that he might issue an apology for the 2005 publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
And Politiken was even more vehement:
“Listen. In Denmark we do not apologise for having freedom of speech,” Fogh Rasmussen is quoted by Ritzau as saying.“You all know that a Danish Prime Minister cannot apologise on behalf of a newspaper,” he continues.
However, he came far too close to out and out grovelling for my liking.
According to Reuters:
“I was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by many Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark and insult or behave disrespectfully toward Islam or the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing could be further from my mind,” he said.
“I respect Islam as one of the world’s major religions as well as its religious symbols,” he said during a panel discussion at the conference aimed at building bridges between the Muslim world and the West.
Turkey was definitely applying the pressure, as was the rest of the Muslim world. Here's a report from the official Jordanian news service:
NATO leaders’ appointment of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO’s new secretary-general Saturday would spark more hostility against Islam and Muslims, members of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us” campaign said.
“It is a provocative step and reveals the western leaders’ insistence to reward those who instigate and nurture clash of civilization and religious feuds,” said a statement by campaigners on Sunday.With the coming of the US democrats to power, world nations particularly the Arab and Muslim world have anticipated drastic changes in the western politics that could reflect positively on peoples’ lives across the world, said the statement.It was just the opposite. The appointment of the extremist and racist Danish Prime Minister as NATO Secretary General came in defiance and provocation of feeling of millions of Muslims at the people and formal level.
So, if Rasmussen gives in to such forces, is his new job really worth having?
A better question might be is NATO actually fit for purpose if it spends most of its time sucking up to the world's leading illiberal, unenlightened forces rather than fighting them?
It seems we really are a long way from the Cold War - because now the goal is to appease and accommodate evil and ignorance, not resist it and fight it at all costs. In fact, those forces may have already won if a man has to show he's an acceptable face to Islam in order to lead NATO.
Nothing symbolises that more than the engineered grovelling of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, formerly one of the leading lights of the West's desire to preserve its ancient values, liberties and freedoms.
The Weird World of Modern Britain
The following story from the Daily Mirror made me smile. But there is a serious side - some of these contractor courses provided to the JobCentre cost up to £1,000 per person per week.
Do rest assured that you have not wandered into the Twilight Zone unexpectedly - this is an actual news story:
Jobcentre bosses have been accused of insulting the unemployed by inviting them to an Easter egg hunt - to win work application forms.
More than 150 jobless people will be asked to search for 35 chocolate eggs hidden around an office.
The eggs contain prizes such as an application form to become a security guard, a licence to work on building sites and vouchers to buy interview clothes.
But many of those invited are furious. Graham Barnes, 31, said: "Most people are desperate to find work and are grateful for any help.
"But asking us to take part in an Easter egg hunt is humiliating. Some of us are not proud of signing on and this just rubs our faces in it." Reg O'Donoghue said: "Unemployment is neither a game nor much fun.
"It's hard to imagine an unemployed person, weighed down with responsibilities and with a family to feed, arriving home full of the joys and clutching an Easter egg." The hunt has been organised by Jobcentre Plus contractor Skills Training Centre UK. It will be held on Wednesday at its offices in Southwark, South London.
Manager Catrina Lynch, who has organised the event, said: "It is not meant in a demeaning way. It's going to be fun. My idea has always been to show people that there are jobs out there."
Yes. Another quite good way to show that might be to actually, um, do what you're paid for and help people find work without patronising them and wasting a lot of time and money.
That would be quite a lot to ask though, wouldn't it, in New Britain?
Best to just have a few meetings, come up with something a child of five would have dismissed out of hand, then pretend you've done a good job.
No wonder this country is in the state it's in when the Government defers (allegedly) vital functions to organisations like this.
Do rest assured that you have not wandered into the Twilight Zone unexpectedly - this is an actual news story:
Jobcentre bosses have been accused of insulting the unemployed by inviting them to an Easter egg hunt - to win work application forms.
More than 150 jobless people will be asked to search for 35 chocolate eggs hidden around an office.
The eggs contain prizes such as an application form to become a security guard, a licence to work on building sites and vouchers to buy interview clothes.
But many of those invited are furious. Graham Barnes, 31, said: "Most people are desperate to find work and are grateful for any help.
"But asking us to take part in an Easter egg hunt is humiliating. Some of us are not proud of signing on and this just rubs our faces in it." Reg O'Donoghue said: "Unemployment is neither a game nor much fun.
"It's hard to imagine an unemployed person, weighed down with responsibilities and with a family to feed, arriving home full of the joys and clutching an Easter egg." The hunt has been organised by Jobcentre Plus contractor Skills Training Centre UK. It will be held on Wednesday at its offices in Southwark, South London.
Manager Catrina Lynch, who has organised the event, said: "It is not meant in a demeaning way. It's going to be fun. My idea has always been to show people that there are jobs out there."
Yes. Another quite good way to show that might be to actually, um, do what you're paid for and help people find work without patronising them and wasting a lot of time and money.
That would be quite a lot to ask though, wouldn't it, in New Britain?
Best to just have a few meetings, come up with something a child of five would have dismissed out of hand, then pretend you've done a good job.
No wonder this country is in the state it's in when the Government defers (allegedly) vital functions to organisations like this.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Barack Obama & Islam
I've watched the following video, of Barack Obama bowing to the Saudi King, a few times now, and it still makes me nauseous. More than that, it makes me wonder - what is it with this man? What is his agenda?
US Presidents don't bow to royalty - the King is a fellow Head of State (as is our Queen, whom he did not bow to), therefore his equal. Besides, only a monarch's own subjects are generally obliged by protocol to bow or curtsy.
Before Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, there was much speculation about his background.
Many of his opponents were particularly concerned about his religious faith, and there were a lot of accusations floating around that he was a 'secret' Muslim.
His campaign responded:
Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.
As you can see from the link, anyone who brought this up was dismissed as spreading 'vile' slurs (not sure King Abdullah would be too impressed with such usage) against the great man, an evil, Right-wing wingnut to be ignored.
Now, for the record, I don't believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, and I don't believe that he is a secret Muslim either. You can't blame people for being curious, though - he plays on his own background and origins pretty much every time he opens his mouth, and so do many of his supporters.
I do know, however, that his campaign lied about him ever having been a Muslim. At the very least, there is a very good case for claiming he spent a fair portion of his childhood as at least a nominal Muslim:
1. Obama’s father was a Muslim polygamist.
2. Obama’s step-father was a Muslim.
3. In Indonesia he was registered in school as a Muslim.
4. Occasionally he went to the Mosque for prayers
5. He took religious classes and studied the Koran in Arabic.
These are all facts. The Obama campaign tried to pretend that his natural father was an atheist, but he was buried as a Muslim.
Check the link for more details, but here is a brief quote about Obama's time in Indonesia:
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama’s teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency.“I remembered that he had studied “mengaji” (recitation of the Quran)” Tine said.
Our guy in Jakarta writes: “The actual usage of the word ‘mengaji’ in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. “Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, ‘mengaji classes’ are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to.
Interesting. But why, apart from the fact that the Obama campaign tried to smear anyone who raised these issues, is this relevant?
It's relevant in my opinion because Obama definitely seems to have something of an agenda when it comes to Islam. Take the following story from 'The Frozen North':
The Obama administration apparently want to hire more Muslims, so they’ve drawn up a list of likely candidates. All this was done “under the radar” because Obama didn’t want people to realise how closely he really wanted to work with practitioners of Islam. This was reported in the Denver Post, and picked up by Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.
The usual suspects are calling it 'peace' and 'reconciliation'. Of course, it's simply all about diversity and vibrancy and inclusivity, etc etc etc.
Is it? Well, you read the following incidents, all of which have happened since Obama's inauguration on 20th January 2009, and you decide.
“The person who made me proudest of all,” Obama wrote, “was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol.”
On February 27th, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”
From Canada Free Press via Vlad Tepes:
Although Obama played the Christian card while campaigning, he is playing the Muslim card now in such a blatant fashion that even I am astounded.
Here is his record to date after inauguration,
Obama’s first call was to Mahmoud Abbas who is not even a head of state. Obama was delivering a message to Israel and the world.
Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Networks In it her stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. not your enemy”
“And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,”
On February 10th, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
In February, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
On March 19th Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year but sold them out by referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.
Obama is reaching out to the Taliban to cut a deal.
Obama is looking to hire a select group of Muslims for the White House.
Obama has been reaching out to Syria for some time now but in the last two months he has matched words with deeds. He has lifted sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with Assad hereby bringing him in from the cold. He wants to see if Syria is serious about peace, which means breaking from Iran, in which case he will force Israel to give up the Golan.
Obama has also been calling Erdogan and Gul in Turkey looking to improve relations with Turkey. He praised Erdogan for his efforts at peace making between Syria and Israel and wants him to continue. He is looking to Turkey to help with Iran and Afghanistan and to permit US forces to exit Iraq through Turkey.
One more not on the list - on 31st March 2009 the US announced that it would join the UNHRC despite the accusations of anti-Semitism and a unhealthy fixation on Israel, reversing its previous course of action.
It's not a pretty picture, is it? As I write this, Obama is busy 'reaching out to the Muslim world' in Turkey, by insisting that Americans become closer to the Muslim world and Turkey be allowed to join the EU.
This all amounts, as far as I'm concerned to a major re-alignment in American foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Not only that, it is an attempt to re-align the entire Western world so it looks towards appeasing Islam and Muslim demands rather than its own culture, institutions and traditions, all in the name of peace and tolerance.
Even if Obama does not have Muslim sympathies, I think we can safely say where his sympathies do not lie - with us here in the West.
US Presidents don't bow to royalty - the King is a fellow Head of State (as is our Queen, whom he did not bow to), therefore his equal. Besides, only a monarch's own subjects are generally obliged by protocol to bow or curtsy.
Before Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, there was much speculation about his background.
Many of his opponents were particularly concerned about his religious faith, and there were a lot of accusations floating around that he was a 'secret' Muslim.
His campaign responded:
Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.
As you can see from the link, anyone who brought this up was dismissed as spreading 'vile' slurs (not sure King Abdullah would be too impressed with such usage) against the great man, an evil, Right-wing wingnut to be ignored.
Now, for the record, I don't believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, and I don't believe that he is a secret Muslim either. You can't blame people for being curious, though - he plays on his own background and origins pretty much every time he opens his mouth, and so do many of his supporters.
I do know, however, that his campaign lied about him ever having been a Muslim. At the very least, there is a very good case for claiming he spent a fair portion of his childhood as at least a nominal Muslim:
1. Obama’s father was a Muslim polygamist.
2. Obama’s step-father was a Muslim.
3. In Indonesia he was registered in school as a Muslim.
4. Occasionally he went to the Mosque for prayers
5. He took religious classes and studied the Koran in Arabic.
These are all facts. The Obama campaign tried to pretend that his natural father was an atheist, but he was buried as a Muslim.
Check the link for more details, but here is a brief quote about Obama's time in Indonesia:
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama’s teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency.“I remembered that he had studied “mengaji” (recitation of the Quran)” Tine said.
Our guy in Jakarta writes: “The actual usage of the word ‘mengaji’ in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. “Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, ‘mengaji classes’ are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to.
Interesting. But why, apart from the fact that the Obama campaign tried to smear anyone who raised these issues, is this relevant?
It's relevant in my opinion because Obama definitely seems to have something of an agenda when it comes to Islam. Take the following story from 'The Frozen North':
The Obama administration apparently want to hire more Muslims, so they’ve drawn up a list of likely candidates. All this was done “under the radar” because Obama didn’t want people to realise how closely he really wanted to work with practitioners of Islam. This was reported in the Denver Post, and picked up by Pamela at Atlas Shrugs.
The usual suspects are calling it 'peace' and 'reconciliation'. Of course, it's simply all about diversity and vibrancy and inclusivity, etc etc etc.
Is it? Well, you read the following incidents, all of which have happened since Obama's inauguration on 20th January 2009, and you decide.
“The person who made me proudest of all,” Obama wrote, “was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol.”
On February 27th, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”
From Canada Free Press via Vlad Tepes:
Although Obama played the Christian card while campaigning, he is playing the Muslim card now in such a blatant fashion that even I am astounded.
Here is his record to date after inauguration,
Obama’s first call was to Mahmoud Abbas who is not even a head of state. Obama was delivering a message to Israel and the world.
Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Networks In it her stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. not your enemy”
“And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,”
On February 10th, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
In February, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
On March 19th Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year but sold them out by referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.
Obama is reaching out to the Taliban to cut a deal.
Obama is looking to hire a select group of Muslims for the White House.
Obama has been reaching out to Syria for some time now but in the last two months he has matched words with deeds. He has lifted sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with Assad hereby bringing him in from the cold. He wants to see if Syria is serious about peace, which means breaking from Iran, in which case he will force Israel to give up the Golan.
Obama has also been calling Erdogan and Gul in Turkey looking to improve relations with Turkey. He praised Erdogan for his efforts at peace making between Syria and Israel and wants him to continue. He is looking to Turkey to help with Iran and Afghanistan and to permit US forces to exit Iraq through Turkey.
One more not on the list - on 31st March 2009 the US announced that it would join the UNHRC despite the accusations of anti-Semitism and a unhealthy fixation on Israel, reversing its previous course of action.
It's not a pretty picture, is it? As I write this, Obama is busy 'reaching out to the Muslim world' in Turkey, by insisting that Americans become closer to the Muslim world and Turkey be allowed to join the EU.
This all amounts, as far as I'm concerned to a major re-alignment in American foreign policy and diplomatic relations. Not only that, it is an attempt to re-align the entire Western world so it looks towards appeasing Islam and Muslim demands rather than its own culture, institutions and traditions, all in the name of peace and tolerance.
Even if Obama does not have Muslim sympathies, I think we can safely say where his sympathies do not lie - with us here in the West.
The G20 Chaos in London - for Justice, Equality & Palestine?
The second day of G20 protests were not as violent as the first, and the trouble has subsequently fizzled out, but a debate still rages about these protesters - who were they, exactly, and what did they want?
The first school of thought says that these people were 'crusties', 'scum', 'dole-scroungers', 'Lefties' - basically just misfits seizing upon an opportunity to cause trouble and have it noticed on a grand scale. The sort of people who have always dogged G20, G7, G8 and other such summits, and who used to cause quite a bit of trouble on May Day.
The second says that these people are ordinary members of the public infuriated with the way the Government has failed; many would be graduates who can't get jobs, people who have been made redundant, and a plethora of others angry at all the injustice in the world.
I must admit, I'm more inclined to accept a middle ground between the two. It seems that some ordinary people did march for reasons I support and understand - the criminal incompetence of the current Government, the increasing schism between the ordinary people and the elite, as well as the increase in repressive legislation and measures the Government uses to control us.
The vast majority of protesters did seem to have an agenda I fundamentally disagree with, however - trouble, violence, degrading Capitalism, 'world revolution' and giving yet more money to the Third World, all in the name of vague concepts such as 'peace', 'equality' and 'social justice'.
To put this into some context, I will now quote parts of a letter written to 'The London Paper' by 'Kia' Kielty (presumably no relation to the Korean car company), a 23 year old manager from London.
'The G20 demonstration was to protest about lots of things; most of which affect everyone, whether now or in the future, so I was shocked by some of the negative reactions being published.'
Were you? Why? It doesn't matter how wrong you think the Government's bail out of the banks is, is smashing up a bank the public now own in the midst of a £20 million police operation likely to help matters?
Apparently, she was a 'peaceful demonstrator', and we mustn't criticise her because she actually 'did something' - although again, I fail to see how shouting 'our streets' at the police and burning effigies of bankers really helps matters.
She goes on to list her (frighteningly predictable) grievances. Number one?
Palestine: 'I have read a lot on this subject and consider myself well-informed. You just need to see a map of Palestine in 1946, and compare it to what it is now - that sums up what Israel is doing. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other black South Africans who lived under apartheid, have been to Gaza and the West Bank and said it's worse than what they went through. For the record, I'm not [sic] anti-Semite.
Firstly, my burning question is just what does this have to do with the economic crisis or the G20?
But that aside, I'm not sure the sources she has become 'well-informed' from are entirely accurate. Was there any such thing as 'Palestine' in 1946? Not in the sense that we now understand the term, no. The British Mandate of Palestine, a demarcation inherited from the regional government of the Ottoman Empire, consisted of present day Jordan, Israel and the 'Palestinian territories'.
Israel did not even directly control these two territories, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, until after they defeated the Arab belligerents in the Six Day war - that is 21 years after the date she mentions. Why was no concept of an independent 'Palestinian' nationality mentioned when both of these territories were under Muslim Arab control?
Similarly, why did the Muslim Arab countries not simply use their vast space and wealth to resettle these people if they were so concerned about the conditions in which they were living? Why did they instead actually restrict their movement and right to settle in other Arab lands?
Could it be because 'Palestine' is a political and social concept invented when the Arabs realised they could not defeat the Jews in war?
I don't call this cause just, I call it what it is - a large stick with which to repeatedly beat the West. The sad truth is the worse the 'Palestinian's' conditions are, the better it is for the Arab cause, and yet the vast majority of the world have fallen hook, line and sinker. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - and dangerous.
As for Desmond Tutu, who cares about his opinion on this issue? I'd have thought he'd have had far more important things to worry about closer to home - or is he aiming to spread the love, joy and peace enjoyed by post-apartheid South Africa to Israel?
Anyway, 'Kia' goes on with her tedious list - I won't reproduce any more here, suffice to say they're all one-sided nonsense, especially the part where she lists 'money given by America to Israel' - seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for example Egypt receives more financial aid from the US than Israel in order to keep up the 'cold peace' that exists between them and the latter.
Is oiling Egypt's brutally repressive regime not a concern for Kia? She insists that all protesters are 'passionate humanitarians who care about humanity', so surely it should be?
To get an idea of just how passionate and humanitarian many of them were, I leave you with this excellent undercover report from the Daily Mail.
The journalist describes how many of the protesters were hardened thugs who enjoyed the violence, and they'd been looking forward to beating up policemen and smashing up banks for so long many actually shrugged off their injuries to carry on fighting until they were dragged off kicking and screaming.
Read the following excerpt:
Martin revealed with some delight that he is a veteran of the May Day riots that caused mayhem in central London over the past decade. 'I got arrested and did some time for it,' he said. 'This year will be chaotic - it will get messy.'
His aims are simple. Target anyone or any building linked to authority. All are fair game.
The types of anarchist appear to be split into two distinct categories. Some have a genuine - albeit offbeat - desire to challenge the political structure in the UK.
Others are simply drawn by their willingness to use violence. Their priority, they say, is to leave a calling card - a smashed window, an injured police officer.
'If a copper has to die to get our point across then so be it,' an anarchist known as Seth said. 'I'm happy if the filth get sent crashing to the floor and don't get up - then we've had a good day out.'
Quite. I find the seeping of the Palestinian cause into domestic politics increasingly frightening. Not only because if its links to terrorism and radical Islam, but because all ideologies which espouse or excuse violence tend to be profoundly self-righteous, and this cause is more so than most.
With so much emotionally charged rhetoric used to strangle facts and reality, and more and more people believing the whitewashed, 'Robin Hood' version, and anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric increasing on the back of it, I fear this situation can only get worse.
The first school of thought says that these people were 'crusties', 'scum', 'dole-scroungers', 'Lefties' - basically just misfits seizing upon an opportunity to cause trouble and have it noticed on a grand scale. The sort of people who have always dogged G20, G7, G8 and other such summits, and who used to cause quite a bit of trouble on May Day.
The second says that these people are ordinary members of the public infuriated with the way the Government has failed; many would be graduates who can't get jobs, people who have been made redundant, and a plethora of others angry at all the injustice in the world.
I must admit, I'm more inclined to accept a middle ground between the two. It seems that some ordinary people did march for reasons I support and understand - the criminal incompetence of the current Government, the increasing schism between the ordinary people and the elite, as well as the increase in repressive legislation and measures the Government uses to control us.
The vast majority of protesters did seem to have an agenda I fundamentally disagree with, however - trouble, violence, degrading Capitalism, 'world revolution' and giving yet more money to the Third World, all in the name of vague concepts such as 'peace', 'equality' and 'social justice'.
To put this into some context, I will now quote parts of a letter written to 'The London Paper' by 'Kia' Kielty (presumably no relation to the Korean car company), a 23 year old manager from London.
'The G20 demonstration was to protest about lots of things; most of which affect everyone, whether now or in the future, so I was shocked by some of the negative reactions being published.'
Were you? Why? It doesn't matter how wrong you think the Government's bail out of the banks is, is smashing up a bank the public now own in the midst of a £20 million police operation likely to help matters?
Apparently, she was a 'peaceful demonstrator', and we mustn't criticise her because she actually 'did something' - although again, I fail to see how shouting 'our streets' at the police and burning effigies of bankers really helps matters.
She goes on to list her (frighteningly predictable) grievances. Number one?
Palestine: 'I have read a lot on this subject and consider myself well-informed. You just need to see a map of Palestine in 1946, and compare it to what it is now - that sums up what Israel is doing. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other black South Africans who lived under apartheid, have been to Gaza and the West Bank and said it's worse than what they went through. For the record, I'm not [sic] anti-Semite.
Firstly, my burning question is just what does this have to do with the economic crisis or the G20?
But that aside, I'm not sure the sources she has become 'well-informed' from are entirely accurate. Was there any such thing as 'Palestine' in 1946? Not in the sense that we now understand the term, no. The British Mandate of Palestine, a demarcation inherited from the regional government of the Ottoman Empire, consisted of present day Jordan, Israel and the 'Palestinian territories'.
Israel did not even directly control these two territories, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, until after they defeated the Arab belligerents in the Six Day war - that is 21 years after the date she mentions. Why was no concept of an independent 'Palestinian' nationality mentioned when both of these territories were under Muslim Arab control?
Similarly, why did the Muslim Arab countries not simply use their vast space and wealth to resettle these people if they were so concerned about the conditions in which they were living? Why did they instead actually restrict their movement and right to settle in other Arab lands?
Could it be because 'Palestine' is a political and social concept invented when the Arabs realised they could not defeat the Jews in war?
I don't call this cause just, I call it what it is - a large stick with which to repeatedly beat the West. The sad truth is the worse the 'Palestinian's' conditions are, the better it is for the Arab cause, and yet the vast majority of the world have fallen hook, line and sinker. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - and dangerous.
As for Desmond Tutu, who cares about his opinion on this issue? I'd have thought he'd have had far more important things to worry about closer to home - or is he aiming to spread the love, joy and peace enjoyed by post-apartheid South Africa to Israel?
Anyway, 'Kia' goes on with her tedious list - I won't reproduce any more here, suffice to say they're all one-sided nonsense, especially the part where she lists 'money given by America to Israel' - seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for example Egypt receives more financial aid from the US than Israel in order to keep up the 'cold peace' that exists between them and the latter.
Is oiling Egypt's brutally repressive regime not a concern for Kia? She insists that all protesters are 'passionate humanitarians who care about humanity', so surely it should be?
To get an idea of just how passionate and humanitarian many of them were, I leave you with this excellent undercover report from the Daily Mail.
The journalist describes how many of the protesters were hardened thugs who enjoyed the violence, and they'd been looking forward to beating up policemen and smashing up banks for so long many actually shrugged off their injuries to carry on fighting until they were dragged off kicking and screaming.
Read the following excerpt:
Martin revealed with some delight that he is a veteran of the May Day riots that caused mayhem in central London over the past decade. 'I got arrested and did some time for it,' he said. 'This year will be chaotic - it will get messy.'
His aims are simple. Target anyone or any building linked to authority. All are fair game.
The types of anarchist appear to be split into two distinct categories. Some have a genuine - albeit offbeat - desire to challenge the political structure in the UK.
Others are simply drawn by their willingness to use violence. Their priority, they say, is to leave a calling card - a smashed window, an injured police officer.
'If a copper has to die to get our point across then so be it,' an anarchist known as Seth said. 'I'm happy if the filth get sent crashing to the floor and don't get up - then we've had a good day out.'
Quite. I find the seeping of the Palestinian cause into domestic politics increasingly frightening. Not only because if its links to terrorism and radical Islam, but because all ideologies which espouse or excuse violence tend to be profoundly self-righteous, and this cause is more so than most.
With so much emotionally charged rhetoric used to strangle facts and reality, and more and more people believing the whitewashed, 'Robin Hood' version, and anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric increasing on the back of it, I fear this situation can only get worse.
The NATO Summit
As Gordon Brown lauded sending 900 extra British troops to Afghanistan and wrangling almost 4,000 more from other European nations for 'Overseas Contingency Operation' as a 'success', Leftist and Anarchist protesters tore the city of Strasbourg apart.
The security operation apparently cost £100 million, and riots which started on the evening of 3rd April are down to minor clashes and a huge clean-up bill today.
In the violence, a customs house, a pharmacy and a hotel were stormed and burnt to the ground, at least 300 people were arrested and 10 hurt.
Police estimate that up to 10,000 demonstrators joined the melee on Saturday, but protest organisers put the figure closer to 30,000.
There seemed to be a slightly more sinister element among the protesters, however - radical Islamists. Certainly, many engaging in the violence were carrying Palestinian flags or wearing Kaffiyeh over their faces - observe the following video from Saturday:
Right at the very beginning you can see a hooded man carrying the flag of 'Palestine' smashing a shop front.
The security operation apparently cost £100 million, and riots which started on the evening of 3rd April are down to minor clashes and a huge clean-up bill today.
In the violence, a customs house, a pharmacy and a hotel were stormed and burnt to the ground, at least 300 people were arrested and 10 hurt.
Police estimate that up to 10,000 demonstrators joined the melee on Saturday, but protest organisers put the figure closer to 30,000.
There seemed to be a slightly more sinister element among the protesters, however - radical Islamists. Certainly, many engaging in the violence were carrying Palestinian flags or wearing Kaffiyeh over their faces - observe the following video from Saturday:
Right at the very beginning you can see a hooded man carrying the flag of 'Palestine' smashing a shop front.
Cartoon for Children Implies Christians Are Bigots
A cartoon (pictured below) aimed at under-12s was criticised yesterday for the controversial way it chooses to depict victimisation, in particular the dreaded 'Islamophobia'.
Called 'Standing up for what you believe in' and produced by the Who Cares? Trust, it shows a boy wearing a prominent cross around his neck shouting abuse at a girl wearing a hijab, calling it a 'turban', after telling his friend that the smiling girl 'looks like a terrorist'.
She explains 'it's part of my religion... just like that cross you're wearing'. She then goes on to stand up for another boy who is being bullied, her behaviour clearly contrasted with the Christian boy.
The Who Cares? Trust, aimed at helping children in care, received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, headed by Ed Balls, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.
Although the boy's religion is not specifically referred to, many British Christians are upset about the implications of the depiction:
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: ‘What about Christian children in care who received this magazine? How will they feel to see themselves mocked as narrow-minded Islamaphobes?
‘It is a clumsy caricature, symptomatic of a culture which says it is OK to bully Christians in the name of diversity.’
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘I think it is very unfortunate that the lad who is pointing the finger is wearing a cross.
'You can hardly imagine anyone producing a magazine in which the roles were reversed and it was the Muslim girl who was behaving badly.’
I think the last point is very valid. Because as we know, in the name of diversity every bad behaviour which is either committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam must be covered up, excused, or even denied outright.
The Trust is refusing to withdraw the magazine:
But Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson said she had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.
She said the charity had received a complaint but did not agree the cartoon was derogatory towards Christians.
‘I am a Christian myself, so when a woman called us, I went back and looked at the comic strip from her point of view,’ Ms Finlayson said.
‘I am sorry that she is upset but I don’t share her view. When I saw the cartoon, I didn’t think of that character being a Christian because I saw the cross as ‘bling’, as jewellery.
‘To me it is a cartoon about bullying rather than discrimination or religion.’
Oh, it's 'bling'! Well, that makes everything OK then, doesn't it?
Whatever the intention, this cartoon needlessly propagates the myth of Muslim victim hood at the hands of a hostile, poorly defined but very real majority.
It creates the very division it claims to combat, and it should be withdrawn immediately as running contrary to its cause.
It won't be, though - Christians generally don't burn enough flags and embassies when they're offended for their opinion to count much, it seems.
Called 'Standing up for what you believe in' and produced by the Who Cares? Trust, it shows a boy wearing a prominent cross around his neck shouting abuse at a girl wearing a hijab, calling it a 'turban', after telling his friend that the smiling girl 'looks like a terrorist'.
She explains 'it's part of my religion... just like that cross you're wearing'. She then goes on to stand up for another boy who is being bullied, her behaviour clearly contrasted with the Christian boy.
The Who Cares? Trust, aimed at helping children in care, received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, headed by Ed Balls, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.
Although the boy's religion is not specifically referred to, many British Christians are upset about the implications of the depiction:
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: ‘What about Christian children in care who received this magazine? How will they feel to see themselves mocked as narrow-minded Islamaphobes?
‘It is a clumsy caricature, symptomatic of a culture which says it is OK to bully Christians in the name of diversity.’
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘I think it is very unfortunate that the lad who is pointing the finger is wearing a cross.
'You can hardly imagine anyone producing a magazine in which the roles were reversed and it was the Muslim girl who was behaving badly.’
I think the last point is very valid. Because as we know, in the name of diversity every bad behaviour which is either committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam must be covered up, excused, or even denied outright.
The Trust is refusing to withdraw the magazine:
But Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson said she had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.
She said the charity had received a complaint but did not agree the cartoon was derogatory towards Christians.
‘I am a Christian myself, so when a woman called us, I went back and looked at the comic strip from her point of view,’ Ms Finlayson said.
‘I am sorry that she is upset but I don’t share her view. When I saw the cartoon, I didn’t think of that character being a Christian because I saw the cross as ‘bling’, as jewellery.
‘To me it is a cartoon about bullying rather than discrimination or religion.’
Oh, it's 'bling'! Well, that makes everything OK then, doesn't it?
Whatever the intention, this cartoon needlessly propagates the myth of Muslim victim hood at the hands of a hostile, poorly defined but very real majority.
It creates the very division it claims to combat, and it should be withdrawn immediately as running contrary to its cause.
It won't be, though - Christians generally don't burn enough flags and embassies when they're offended for their opinion to count much, it seems.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Drive to Recruit More Muslims to British Armed Forces
Here's a very interesting and disturbing story which I found via Vlad Tepes:
Guardian Post. U.K.
Defence minister urges more British Muslims to join armed forces:
The defence minister, Bob Ainsworth, has appealed to British Muslims to join the armed forces, saying that it was “vitally important that our army, navy and air force are reflective of the hugely diverse society in which we live”.
In an address last night to the Armed Forces Muslim Conference, Ainsworth said the services were a “fundamental and very positive part of British society, and that they need to be a positive part of Muslim society as well”, the Ministry of Defence said today.
His address follows last month’s Royal Anglian Regiment homecoming in Luton at which a group of Muslims protested, prompting angry scenes involving some of those who had been welcoming the return of the troops.
Ainsworth described the protests as acts of extremism which was the “true enemy of our society”.
The minister said that “there is an enemy within, but it isn’t the Muslim community in this country, it is extremism in any and all of its forms”. He went on to say that “it is people who are not prepared to participate in the conversation, who are not prepared to try to change people’s lives, not prepared to use politics, logic, engagement to discuss the wars, but would rather shout abuse, threaten people and at their extreme kill people”.
Political opinion and respect for service of the state needed to be clearly distinguished in the Muslim community, he said. He did not think there needed to be “conflict between being a British Muslim and a serviceman or woman”.
Ainsworth said that from what he knew of the Muslim community in Coventry North East, his parliamentary constituency, “the values that they hold are exactly the same values espoused in the military; duty, sacrifice, serving other people” adding that “there ought to be easy passage into the armed forces for Muslims”.
Imam Asim Hafiz, the Muslim Chaplain to the armed forces, also spoke at the conference. According to the MoD, he said: “It is great that the work and contribution of Muslim service personnel inside and outside the armed forces is being recognised. It is possible to be a British Muslim and to serve our country in the armed forces, and the people here today are testament to that”.
There are about 390 Muslims serving across the armed forces. The first Muslim Civilian Chaplain to the armed forces was appointed in 2005.
My first reaction is that the purpose of the Army is to protect this country and defend its people and values, not be some bizarre social engineering programme.
However, there are potentially slightly more dangerous consequences to this move - what about infiltration and sabotage?
Taking Muslim recruits on their own individual merits is one thing, but a drive of this nature generally leads to lax standards and letting anyone with the right name through then moving Heaven and earth so they pass the course and the targets are met.
Perhaps this story from merely a month ago puts such a notion into perspective:
BRITISH troops in Afghanistan are being killed by Muslim fanatics from the UK who have joined forces with the Taliban.
The radicals have linked up with insurgents in Helmand where thousands of British troops are fighting on the frontline of the war against terror. Only yesterday it claimed four more soldiers’ lives.
Last week on a visit to Afghanistan, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was shown Taliban bombs containing British-made components. They had either been sent from Britain or brought from the UK by a home-grown recruit.
Taliban fighters with Yorkshire and West Midlands accents have also been heard talking in intercepted communications, according to a security agency briefing. Radicalised young British-born Muslims are known to have been going to Iraq and Afghanistan as “seemingly committed jihadists” to join the insurgencies.
One analyst said British soldiers were effectively in a “surreal civil war” being fought thousands of miles from home.
The evidence for British jihadists in Afghanistan is based on radio eavesdropping by British forces, both by troops on the ground and on RAF Nimrods above the war zone.
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.”
The former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, said: “There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar.
“There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK. This is something the military understands but the British public does not.”
Last night Tory MP and former infantry officer Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons counter terrorism sub committee, said: “I am aware from the troops I have spoken to that there are British-born insurgents working and fighting with the Taliban."
What better way for a Jihadist to make his mark than to join up then plant a bomb on a transport plane, or start shooting in the main camp when everyone is relaxed and off guard?
It simply does not bear thinking about, but it proves one thing; the government cares far more about appearing tolerant and making sure everyone else is than it does the lives of British soldiers.
Guardian Post. U.K.
Defence minister urges more British Muslims to join armed forces:
The defence minister, Bob Ainsworth, has appealed to British Muslims to join the armed forces, saying that it was “vitally important that our army, navy and air force are reflective of the hugely diverse society in which we live”.
In an address last night to the Armed Forces Muslim Conference, Ainsworth said the services were a “fundamental and very positive part of British society, and that they need to be a positive part of Muslim society as well”, the Ministry of Defence said today.
His address follows last month’s Royal Anglian Regiment homecoming in Luton at which a group of Muslims protested, prompting angry scenes involving some of those who had been welcoming the return of the troops.
Ainsworth described the protests as acts of extremism which was the “true enemy of our society”.
The minister said that “there is an enemy within, but it isn’t the Muslim community in this country, it is extremism in any and all of its forms”. He went on to say that “it is people who are not prepared to participate in the conversation, who are not prepared to try to change people’s lives, not prepared to use politics, logic, engagement to discuss the wars, but would rather shout abuse, threaten people and at their extreme kill people”.
Political opinion and respect for service of the state needed to be clearly distinguished in the Muslim community, he said. He did not think there needed to be “conflict between being a British Muslim and a serviceman or woman”.
Ainsworth said that from what he knew of the Muslim community in Coventry North East, his parliamentary constituency, “the values that they hold are exactly the same values espoused in the military; duty, sacrifice, serving other people” adding that “there ought to be easy passage into the armed forces for Muslims”.
Imam Asim Hafiz, the Muslim Chaplain to the armed forces, also spoke at the conference. According to the MoD, he said: “It is great that the work and contribution of Muslim service personnel inside and outside the armed forces is being recognised. It is possible to be a British Muslim and to serve our country in the armed forces, and the people here today are testament to that”.
There are about 390 Muslims serving across the armed forces. The first Muslim Civilian Chaplain to the armed forces was appointed in 2005.
My first reaction is that the purpose of the Army is to protect this country and defend its people and values, not be some bizarre social engineering programme.
However, there are potentially slightly more dangerous consequences to this move - what about infiltration and sabotage?
Taking Muslim recruits on their own individual merits is one thing, but a drive of this nature generally leads to lax standards and letting anyone with the right name through then moving Heaven and earth so they pass the course and the targets are met.
Perhaps this story from merely a month ago puts such a notion into perspective:
BRITISH troops in Afghanistan are being killed by Muslim fanatics from the UK who have joined forces with the Taliban.
The radicals have linked up with insurgents in Helmand where thousands of British troops are fighting on the frontline of the war against terror. Only yesterday it claimed four more soldiers’ lives.
Last week on a visit to Afghanistan, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was shown Taliban bombs containing British-made components. They had either been sent from Britain or brought from the UK by a home-grown recruit.
Taliban fighters with Yorkshire and West Midlands accents have also been heard talking in intercepted communications, according to a security agency briefing. Radicalised young British-born Muslims are known to have been going to Iraq and Afghanistan as “seemingly committed jihadists” to join the insurgencies.
One analyst said British soldiers were effectively in a “surreal civil war” being fought thousands of miles from home.
The evidence for British jihadists in Afghanistan is based on radio eavesdropping by British forces, both by troops on the ground and on RAF Nimrods above the war zone.
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.”
The former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, said: “There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar.
“There is a link between Kandahar and urban conurbations in the UK. This is something the military understands but the British public does not.”
Last night Tory MP and former infantry officer Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons counter terrorism sub committee, said: “I am aware from the troops I have spoken to that there are British-born insurgents working and fighting with the Taliban."
What better way for a Jihadist to make his mark than to join up then plant a bomb on a transport plane, or start shooting in the main camp when everyone is relaxed and off guard?
It simply does not bear thinking about, but it proves one thing; the government cares far more about appearing tolerant and making sure everyone else is than it does the lives of British soldiers.
The War Against Britain's Jews
Anti-Semitism is a growing problem in modern Britain. Figures show that the number of attacks against Jewish individuals and institutions has doubled since 2000.
As Britain gains more and more 'ethnic minorities' and ethnic politics becomes increasingly important (for some, at least), Jews are becoming Britain's 'forgotten minority', particularly as they integrate and move out of their traditional, close-knit communities, which in turn are taken over by other minority groups.
The following documentary, part of Channel 4's 'Dispatches' series, explores these issues in more detail. Anti-Semitism in Britain is not, it seems, just a standard form of racism. It is a unique and complex issue.
Far from being the preserve of the far-Right, it now finds most popularity amongst Muslim youths and even the far-Left.
As the 'Palestinian' cause gains popularity amongst British and Muslim youth, becoming one of the most fashionable Left-wing causes on university campuses and elsewhere, many people are choosing to identify the policies of the Israeli government with Jews, with 'Zionist' or 'Israeli' often used as a code word for 'Jew'.
The police acknowledge there is a growing problem; some Jewish communities in Manchester have had to bomb-proof windows in Jewish schools and synagogues, and some Orthodox Jews who are easily identifiable by their appearance need a police escort to worship safely.
This documentary was made nearly two years ago, but after the 'pro-Gaza' riots of January 2009 I think its message is more relevant than ever.
Those events saw a British diplomat arrested at a rally screaming 'f***ing Jews' and 'I hope the Israeli army is wiped out in Gaza', and Tony Blair's sister-in-law Lauren Booth accused of anti-Semitism after telling a packed demonstration 'Britain should expell all Israelis'.
Ideas which were once confined to loopy neo-Nazis are now becoming mainstream - I've had very Left-wing friends tell me to find out the 'truth' about 9/11, how it was a Mossad job and the proof is 'no Jews died'; the belief that Jews control the Government and therefore our foreign policy towards Israel is also rising, along with other shadowy conspiracy theories that many hoped had died with Hitler. As well as this is the frighteningly ingrained belief, explored in the documentary, that if one supports Israel or is against anti-Semitism in an outspoken way one must be Jewish, even 'secretly'.
This is a problem which needs addressing, and fast, but the politicians seem reluctant to address the root cause.
As Britain gains more and more 'ethnic minorities' and ethnic politics becomes increasingly important (for some, at least), Jews are becoming Britain's 'forgotten minority', particularly as they integrate and move out of their traditional, close-knit communities, which in turn are taken over by other minority groups.
The following documentary, part of Channel 4's 'Dispatches' series, explores these issues in more detail. Anti-Semitism in Britain is not, it seems, just a standard form of racism. It is a unique and complex issue.
Far from being the preserve of the far-Right, it now finds most popularity amongst Muslim youths and even the far-Left.
As the 'Palestinian' cause gains popularity amongst British and Muslim youth, becoming one of the most fashionable Left-wing causes on university campuses and elsewhere, many people are choosing to identify the policies of the Israeli government with Jews, with 'Zionist' or 'Israeli' often used as a code word for 'Jew'.
The police acknowledge there is a growing problem; some Jewish communities in Manchester have had to bomb-proof windows in Jewish schools and synagogues, and some Orthodox Jews who are easily identifiable by their appearance need a police escort to worship safely.
This documentary was made nearly two years ago, but after the 'pro-Gaza' riots of January 2009 I think its message is more relevant than ever.
Those events saw a British diplomat arrested at a rally screaming 'f***ing Jews' and 'I hope the Israeli army is wiped out in Gaza', and Tony Blair's sister-in-law Lauren Booth accused of anti-Semitism after telling a packed demonstration 'Britain should expell all Israelis'.
Ideas which were once confined to loopy neo-Nazis are now becoming mainstream - I've had very Left-wing friends tell me to find out the 'truth' about 9/11, how it was a Mossad job and the proof is 'no Jews died'; the belief that Jews control the Government and therefore our foreign policy towards Israel is also rising, along with other shadowy conspiracy theories that many hoped had died with Hitler. As well as this is the frighteningly ingrained belief, explored in the documentary, that if one supports Israel or is against anti-Semitism in an outspoken way one must be Jewish, even 'secretly'.
This is a problem which needs addressing, and fast, but the politicians seem reluctant to address the root cause.
Abu Qatada al-Masri Issuing Edicts from Prison
It has been reported that the British authorities suspect that terrorist leader Abu Qatada al-Masiri may be getting messages to his followers from his high-security jail cell.
Described as 'Osama bin Laden's spiritual leader in Europe', Qatada has been in prison since just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.
He was briefly released after the Human Rights Act scuppered plans to deport him to Jordan, but was re-arrested after breaking his bail conditions. His second appeal was turned down by the Law Lords, and he is now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights to allow him to stay in this country.
Recently, several letters said to be written by him have been published on various extremist websites, in both Arabic and English, despite the fact he is held in isolation in secure Long Lartin Prison.
The anti-terrorism Qulliam Foundation claims the leaks may be occurring either through his visitors or his lawyers, but say the breach of security is serious as he is inciting violence against the British government and authorities:
In the statements, the writer using the name Qatada congratulates al-Qaeda fighters, claims that the British government opposes Islam and says Muslims should never join the police or army in a non-Muslim country.
The most recent posting appeared on a jihadist forum last month and details life inside a British maximum security prison.
There is no direct proof that the statements were issued by Abu Qatada - but Quilliam says evidence links the posts to Islamist associates of Abu Qatada. The content of the messages is also consistent with Abu Qatada's previous statements.
The Quilliam Foundation are now urging an investigation into the leaks. However, the Justice Minister said:
The Justice Minister said the Quilliam Foundation's comments were "very very surprising".
He added: "Their so-called research doesn't actually have any evidence, there's no basis for these comments.
"The fact is this is alarmist, there's no evidence that's been given to us, the research seems pretty lame at best, and I've got to say this is good for the Quilliam Foundation because they're all about publicity, they've generated a lot of that.
"But it is alarmist, it is unhelpful, it is sensationalist."
Who would this Justice Minister be, exactly?
That's right, it's Shahid Malik, the man who a few months ago called for a Muslim dominated Parliament in the UK.
What he doesn't mention of course is that he doesn't care for the Qulliam Foundation, because it's run by Muslims who are against extremism - so I fully understand why he would resent it getting any publicity.
Most of the UK's prominent Muslims, including Malik, Lord Ahmed and Sadiq Khan MP prefer the Muslim Council of Britain, with its shady links and standard interpretation of Islam, and as we know, they don't care much for those who break ranks.
Nothing quite like an agenda, is there?
Described as 'Osama bin Laden's spiritual leader in Europe', Qatada has been in prison since just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005.
He was briefly released after the Human Rights Act scuppered plans to deport him to Jordan, but was re-arrested after breaking his bail conditions. His second appeal was turned down by the Law Lords, and he is now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights to allow him to stay in this country.
Recently, several letters said to be written by him have been published on various extremist websites, in both Arabic and English, despite the fact he is held in isolation in secure Long Lartin Prison.
The anti-terrorism Qulliam Foundation claims the leaks may be occurring either through his visitors or his lawyers, but say the breach of security is serious as he is inciting violence against the British government and authorities:
In the statements, the writer using the name Qatada congratulates al-Qaeda fighters, claims that the British government opposes Islam and says Muslims should never join the police or army in a non-Muslim country.
The most recent posting appeared on a jihadist forum last month and details life inside a British maximum security prison.
There is no direct proof that the statements were issued by Abu Qatada - but Quilliam says evidence links the posts to Islamist associates of Abu Qatada. The content of the messages is also consistent with Abu Qatada's previous statements.
The Quilliam Foundation are now urging an investigation into the leaks. However, the Justice Minister said:
The Justice Minister said the Quilliam Foundation's comments were "very very surprising".
He added: "Their so-called research doesn't actually have any evidence, there's no basis for these comments.
"The fact is this is alarmist, there's no evidence that's been given to us, the research seems pretty lame at best, and I've got to say this is good for the Quilliam Foundation because they're all about publicity, they've generated a lot of that.
"But it is alarmist, it is unhelpful, it is sensationalist."
Who would this Justice Minister be, exactly?
That's right, it's Shahid Malik, the man who a few months ago called for a Muslim dominated Parliament in the UK.
What he doesn't mention of course is that he doesn't care for the Qulliam Foundation, because it's run by Muslims who are against extremism - so I fully understand why he would resent it getting any publicity.
Most of the UK's prominent Muslims, including Malik, Lord Ahmed and Sadiq Khan MP prefer the Muslim Council of Britain, with its shady links and standard interpretation of Islam, and as we know, they don't care much for those who break ranks.
Nothing quite like an agenda, is there?
Saturday, 4 April 2009
Social Problems in Iran
The following documentary is part of the BBC's 'Storyville' series, and I've been meaning to upload it here for some time. At 50 minutes it's quite long, so I've had to break it down to six parts, but it's very interesting and well worth the watch.
'Prostitution Behind the Veil' looks at many of the social problems found in modern Iran, particularly those concerning women and their treatment in the strict Islamic Republic. Many problems and activities which would not be automatically associated with such a country are actually exacerbated by strict Islamic law.
Some of the issues addressed are women forced into prostitution, drug addiction (a huge and growing problem in Iran), and the sale of babies to rich couples by poor women to avoid the wrath of the authorities for 'illicit' sexual activity.
A horrifying and fascinating phenomenon explored by the programme is that of 'Sighe' or Nikāḥ al-Mut‘ah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة marriage for pleasure), whereby Shia Islamic law allows short 'marriages' between men and young girls, some as short as an hour, simply so the men can indulge themselves in a way which is acceptable in Islam.
Many of the women take on a 'Sighe' contract out of convenience, providing sex and getting a man to do things such as odd jobs in return - but some suffer from horrifying abuse at the hands of older men, and there are cases of men who already have a family getting a Sighe wife pregnant and then snatching the child or forcing her to have an illegal abortion.
The programme is narrated in Farsi with English subtitles - but some strong language is included.
'Prostitution Behind the Veil' looks at many of the social problems found in modern Iran, particularly those concerning women and their treatment in the strict Islamic Republic. Many problems and activities which would not be automatically associated with such a country are actually exacerbated by strict Islamic law.
Some of the issues addressed are women forced into prostitution, drug addiction (a huge and growing problem in Iran), and the sale of babies to rich couples by poor women to avoid the wrath of the authorities for 'illicit' sexual activity.
A horrifying and fascinating phenomenon explored by the programme is that of 'Sighe' or Nikāḥ al-Mut‘ah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة marriage for pleasure), whereby Shia Islamic law allows short 'marriages' between men and young girls, some as short as an hour, simply so the men can indulge themselves in a way which is acceptable in Islam.
Many of the women take on a 'Sighe' contract out of convenience, providing sex and getting a man to do things such as odd jobs in return - but some suffer from horrifying abuse at the hands of older men, and there are cases of men who already have a family getting a Sighe wife pregnant and then snatching the child or forcing her to have an illegal abortion.
The programme is narrated in Farsi with English subtitles - but some strong language is included.
The Police Go Even More PC
Police in Scotland have have been sent a 140-page 'Diversity Handbook' at a cost of £4,500.
This book contains useful pieces of information such as 'do not finish off sentences for people with a stutter', 'do not lean on wheelchairs' and 'do not assume that all scantily-clad women are prostitutes'.
The Police Oracle has more:
It tells officers that it would be "inappropriate" to handcuff people who can only communicate through sign language.
And it says they should not "chew gum, eat sweets, shout, turn away or cover their mouths" when communicating with the deaf.
The pocket-sized handbook has been compiled by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and distributed to all Scottish forces at a cost of £4,500.
The ACPOS Diversity Handbook is described as a "quick reference practical guide for staff covering aspects such as age, disability, gender, faith and religion, race and sexual orientation".
Calum Steele, of the Scottish Police Federation, warned: "The guidance is too long and is probably an easy target for the anti- political correctness brigade."
But Ian Latimer, chief executive of Northern Constabulary, insisted: "This is an extremely useful resource for staff. It is important our communities are given the respect and professional service they deserve."
I must ask - if Scotland thinks so little of the men who enforce the law, why are they even given powers of arrest?
Anyone who needs to be told anything written here is already beyond help, I would imagine - if it's not too un-PC to say so.
This book contains useful pieces of information such as 'do not finish off sentences for people with a stutter', 'do not lean on wheelchairs' and 'do not assume that all scantily-clad women are prostitutes'.
The Police Oracle has more:
It tells officers that it would be "inappropriate" to handcuff people who can only communicate through sign language.
And it says they should not "chew gum, eat sweets, shout, turn away or cover their mouths" when communicating with the deaf.
When encountering someone with a disfigured face, officers are simply told: "Do not ask what happened to them."
It adds: "Do not stare, hide any feelings of awkwardness and ignore any curiosities they may have."
The booklet also reminds officers it is legal "to wear clothing and accessories of any gender in public so long as their genitals are covered".The pocket-sized handbook has been compiled by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and distributed to all Scottish forces at a cost of £4,500.
The ACPOS Diversity Handbook is described as a "quick reference practical guide for staff covering aspects such as age, disability, gender, faith and religion, race and sexual orientation".
Calum Steele, of the Scottish Police Federation, warned: "The guidance is too long and is probably an easy target for the anti- political correctness brigade."
But Ian Latimer, chief executive of Northern Constabulary, insisted: "This is an extremely useful resource for staff. It is important our communities are given the respect and professional service they deserve."
I must ask - if Scotland thinks so little of the men who enforce the law, why are they even given powers of arrest?
Anyone who needs to be told anything written here is already beyond help, I would imagine - if it's not too un-PC to say so.
Australian Sheikh Hilaly Bites the Hand That Feeds - Again
I have written here previously about the Egyptian-born cleric Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly, who now whiles away his days by being Australia's most outspoken, controversial, and let's be honest, truthful Muslim leader.
He tends to say what the vast majority of his flock have the sense to only think.
Here he is appearing on Egyptian television on Monday, talking about Australia and the good people who host him and fund his existence:
Yes, that's right - according to the Sheikh, Australians have 'no values', 'no freedom', and have no right to their country - because Muslims were there before Anglo-Saxons, and 'Islam is rooted deep in the Australian soil'.
None of that seems to prevent him enjoying their hospitality, however. Why he is allowed to remain in Australia is the only really puzzling part.
The hosts of Australian TV programme 'The Chaser's War on Everything' have a rather humorous solution, however:
If only, eh?
He tends to say what the vast majority of his flock have the sense to only think.
Here he is appearing on Egyptian television on Monday, talking about Australia and the good people who host him and fund his existence:
Yes, that's right - according to the Sheikh, Australians have 'no values', 'no freedom', and have no right to their country - because Muslims were there before Anglo-Saxons, and 'Islam is rooted deep in the Australian soil'.
None of that seems to prevent him enjoying their hospitality, however. Why he is allowed to remain in Australia is the only really puzzling part.
The hosts of Australian TV programme 'The Chaser's War on Everything' have a rather humorous solution, however:
If only, eh?
Political Correctness Claims David Jason
David Jason is perhaps one of Britain's best loved television actors. Recently, he appeared on Absolute Radio in order to win money for a charity.
When asked to leave a question for the next guest, he quipped: "What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant? Mehatma Coat."
The presenter, Christian O'Connell, sat in stunned silence, as he explained later 'to distance himself from these remarks'.
Apparently, Jason's remark was racist.
The British Muslim lobby were quickly on the scene. Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation (a Muslim youth organisation committed to 'interfaith dialogue' and combatting extremism which seems to spend more time obsessing about the BNP than getting its own house in order) said:
"As a well-loved actor, Jason needs to be careful about what he says. He should have known better."
Jason duly apologised - why, I can't imagine.
It's about time someone stood up in a situation like this and simply said 'it was a harmless remark, no offence was intended, now go away.'
Only that will take the power of people like Shafiq away.
When asked to leave a question for the next guest, he quipped: "What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant? Mehatma Coat."
The presenter, Christian O'Connell, sat in stunned silence, as he explained later 'to distance himself from these remarks'.
Apparently, Jason's remark was racist.
The British Muslim lobby were quickly on the scene. Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation (a Muslim youth organisation committed to 'interfaith dialogue' and combatting extremism which seems to spend more time obsessing about the BNP than getting its own house in order) said:
"As a well-loved actor, Jason needs to be careful about what he says. He should have known better."
Jason duly apologised - why, I can't imagine.
It's about time someone stood up in a situation like this and simply said 'it was a harmless remark, no offence was intended, now go away.'
Only that will take the power of people like Shafiq away.
Friday, 3 April 2009
The Joys of Diversity & Cultural Enrichment (VI)
A look out how failed immigration policies are affecting Britain and Sweden.
1) Britain
It was reported on Wednesday that a Muslim woman living in Britain, Naseebah Bibi, 62, was appearing in court for her treatment of her three daughters-in-law, all illiterate women from rural Pakistan who had been married off to her three sons in the country.
She used the women as slaves and kept them 'like dogs', physically attacking them for the most minor transgressions and keeping them locked in the house whilst living off of their labour.
Here is the full harrowing story:
A mother locked up her three daughters-in-law and treated them as slaves for more than a decade, a court heard yesterday.
Naseebah Bibi, 62, is said to have ruled the women by fear - beating and slapping them if they disobeyed her, threatening to break their legs and denying them food.
Their ordeal only came to light when one wife managed to break free and ran into the street to alert a neighbour.
The court was told that Tazeem Akhtar, Nagina Akhtar and Nisbah Akhtar had arrived in Britain over several years after arranged marriages to Bibi's sons Nahim, Fahim and Nadeem in Pakistan.
Instead of living with their husbands and raising families, the women were put to work by their mother-in-law cooking and cleaning and using an industrial sewing machine.
Bibi, a mother of six, denies three charges of false imprisonment of the three women between 1993 and 2006.
Her son Nadeem, 31, denies falsely imprisoning his wife Nisbah between 2005 and 2007 and one count of actual bodily harm.
Philip Boyd, prosecuting, said: 'Mrs Bibi was clearly exploiting each of these women. They were treated like children, slaves or dogs by a regime of threats of force or actual force.
'These young women had been rejected by their husbands of their arranged marriages, they couldn't speak English, they couldn't go back to Pakistan, they were in limbo and so they were exploited by the defendant for her own purposes.'
Preston Crown Court heard that the first wife was Nagina Akhtar who had married her husband, Fahim in 1993.
The couple had three children, but she spent her days cleaning and making clothing on a sewing machine.
Mr Boyd said: 'As soon as she came to this country, she was ordered by Mrs Bibi to spend the day sewing on an industrial sewing machine.
'She sewed all day, every day. She sewed for money, but she didn't see any of the money.'
When she once left the small terraced house in Blackburn, Bibi warned her: 'How dare you leave the house. If you do it again I will break your legs.'
Mr Boyd told the court that Nagina was forced to live under these conditions for more than 13 years.
Her nightmare ended in October 2006, when her son Umar, three, told nursery staff that he had seen his grandmother beating his mother. Nagina was taken to a refuge by domestic violence workers and her children were taken into care.
The second wife was Tazeem Akhtar, who married Nahim in Pakistan and came to Britain after her visa was processed in 2001.
Mr Boyd said: 'She came expecting to live and have children with her husband, something she had dreamed of for some years. Her dream was doomed.
'She did not know that Nahim already had a partner, a white lady, and had two children. He had effectively no intention of living as her husband. He effectively had his own life and she only discovered that on the first day she arrived.'
She was also put to work by her mother-in-law in a 'gruelling' dawn to midnight routine that left her shattered.
Mr Boyd said: 'She was simply treated like a slave. She would get up 6am and was ordered to do all the house work, to clean the floors and windows and she even had to do the washing in cold water by hand, even though there was an electric washing machine.
'She did try to use the washing once but she was beaten by Mrs Bibi. She would be beaten by being slapped in the face, hit with a slipper on the arms and legs and had her hair pulled.'
She was allowed to eat only when she was given permission.
Her ordeal ended after 18 months in 2003 when Bibi flew her back to Pakistan and abandoned her there. Giving evidence via a videolink in Islamabad, Tazeem said: 'In England my life was not happy. I was very sad. I face a lot of grief and it was very distressing for me.'
Wiping away tears, she said that if she disobeyed Bibi would 'hit her with a brush across the head'.
She said: 'I was frightened and scared. She never let me out. I had to work, work, work.'
The third wife was Nisbah Akhtar - sister of Tazeem - who married Nadeem in Pakistan and arrived in England in December 2005.
'When she arrived she had the expectation of being husband and wife and she would have a rosy future,' said Mr Boyd. 'But on her arrival she was shunned by her husband and the same pattern of abuse began.
The court was told that on October 28, 2007, an argument broke out between Bibi and Nisbah which resulted in Nisbah's husband Nadeem punching her in the face and locking her in a bedroom.
She pretended she needed the toilet and then managed to escape, running out of the front door into the street. A neighbour alerted police, and Bibi and Nadeem were questioned.
2) Sweden
An interesting snippet from Fjordman via Gates of Vienna:
Fjordman just sent us this brief note summarizing an article from Sydsvenskan:
There has been a 70% increase in the number of registered arson attacks against Swedish schools in the space of a decade. In the region of Skåne in southern Sweden (where Malmö is), the increase has been 340%.
Statement by Incoming Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman
Avigdor Liberman made his maiden speech on Wednesday.
He is (unsurprisingly) getting rather a bad press here, but I must confess this is a very good speech, and echoes some of my own views on the 'peace process' and Israel's situation.
Being peaceful and constantly making concessions without any reciprocation, lying down and letting other walk all over you without retaliating are not the same thing. It is about time the world recognises that there can be no peace in Israel until their opponents make peace the goal, rather than a step to achieving other goals.
It must also recognise that both sides have responsibilities as well as rights, and compromise cannot only work one way.
I will analyse some of his statements tomorrow through the prism of British and Western media bias against Israel, but for now, read, digest and enjoy the speech if you haven't already:
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest distain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
He is (unsurprisingly) getting rather a bad press here, but I must confess this is a very good speech, and echoes some of my own views on the 'peace process' and Israel's situation.
Being peaceful and constantly making concessions without any reciprocation, lying down and letting other walk all over you without retaliating are not the same thing. It is about time the world recognises that there can be no peace in Israel until their opponents make peace the goal, rather than a step to achieving other goals.
It must also recognise that both sides have responsibilities as well as rights, and compromise cannot only work one way.
I will analyse some of his statements tomorrow through the prism of British and Western media bias against Israel, but for now, read, digest and enjoy the speech if you haven't already:
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest distain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
