#1
I think the guy wanted to negotiate peace and the Taliban gave him up to get rid of him. I also doubt this was some great turning point for the Paks. They are full of crap and they are not on our side...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/17/2010 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The coming few weeks could be interesting though 49 Pan.. Will get to see which side is buttered and which is not
Posted by: Oscar ||
02/17/2010 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One thing we can be certain of, he won't be seen at the GITMO registration desk anytime soon.
#4
If I was him , I suspect he may wish he was at Gitmo , that is , if the Paks are half serious and not just playing by numbers (ho-ho)
Posted by: Oscar ||
02/17/2010 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Or his ISI contact could have told him the Americans are getting on our back bad. We need to bring you in for a couple of weeks of taqiyya after which you can escape and go back on payroll.
"...Pakistan has removed a key Taliban commander, enhanced cooperation with the United States and ensured a place for itself when parties explore a negotiated end to the Afghan war...Pakistan wanted to be included in any attempts to mediate with the Taliban. Even before the arrest of the Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a senior Pakistani intelligence official expressed irritation that Pakistan had been excluded from what he described as American and Afghan approaches to the Taliban. "
the implication of this and other parts of the article, is that the ISI knew he was in town and knew where he was and decided to grab him as a bargaining chip.
Posted by: lord garth ||
02/17/2010 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
When the words "Obama" & "think tank" appear in a news story, it leads one to think of a septic tank, holding the smelliest sewage ever to come from the Whitehouse.
#4
Can't be. Oblahblah and Biden were just on the telly saying that 2 million jobs were saved, and that there was very little waste in the spending of the Porkulus.
#5
When I woke up this morning, the local news station was touting a report on whether the stimulus bill actually provided any jobs. When Channel 5 no longer believes...
#10
IIRC FOX NEWS AM > 43? US STATES REPORT JOB LOSSES + DECLINE IN STATE REVENUES; + 49? REPORT SERIOUS BUDGET DEFICITS???
* WAFF > [Massive = Crushing]US DEBT WILL GROW EVEN WITH RECOVERY.
* CHINESE MIL FORUM > DER SPEIGEL > CHINA HAS A PLAN, AMERICA DOESN'T | DAYS OF CHEAP MONEY ARE OVER FOR USA | DROWNING IN DEBT: WHAT THE NATION'S BUDGET WOES MEAN FOR YOU?
ARTICS > US DEBT = US DEBT-TO-GDP RATIO comprised over 1/2 of 2009 GDP. Is anticipated to grow over 200% of curr GDP by Year 2038.
It's bad enough that John Brennan, President Obama's national security deputy, thinks Gitmo jihadi recidivism is "not that bad." But in his talk last week with Islamic law students at New York University, Brennan made even more reckless comments about our counterterrorism programs while pandering to one of the worst Muslim grievance-mongers and sharia peddlers in America.
During the question-and-answer session, Brennan welcomed a question from Omar Shahin. He identified himself as the head of the "North American Imams Federation." What he didn't mention was his role as the chief ringleader of the infamous flying imams. You remember them: They were the six Muslim clerics whose suspicious behavior provocatively shouting "Allahu Akbar!" before boarding the plane, fanning out in the cabin before take-off, refusing to sit in their assigned seats, requesting seat-belt extenders, which they placed on the floor led to their removal by a U.S. Airways crew in 2006.
In coordination with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Shahin and his radical delegation attempted to shake down the airline with a discrimination lawsuit and bully the citizen "John Does" who flagged the imams' security-undermining behavior. CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Hooper blasted "anti-Muslim hysteria" by those who saw something and said something about the imams' in-flight shenanigans. Shahin ranted in a teleconference strategy session in 2007 that, indeed, he and his cohorts were spoiling for the incident and planning to engineer "many, many cases" to sabotage airline security efforts.
As head of the Islamic Center of Tucson in Arizona (home to past jihadi dry-run plotters), Shahin preached that his followers must put Islamic sharia law above Western laws. He told the Arizona Republic that he doubted Muslims were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concluding: "All of these, they make it up." Brennan didn't appear to know who Shahin was. Somebody around him should have briefed him. Shahin's involvement in Hamas-linked charities and radical Wahhabi "youth groups" has earned the Jordanian-born naturalized citizen increased FBI scrutiny over the years.
Instead, Brennan treated him as just another innocent Muslim with "reasonable" concerns about the government.
"We came to this country to enjoy freedom," Shahin began with faux, flag-waving emotion. "We feel that since September 11, we aren't enjoying these values anymore. Also, we feel that there's a big lack of trust between Muslims' community and our government. My question: Is there anything being done by our government to rebuild this trust?"
Instead of countering the narrative, exposing Shahin's true intentions and vigorously defending America's homeland security apparatus, Brennan dutifully genuflected to the gods of political correctness. Obama, he told the militant 9/11 inside-job theorist and jihad white-washer, is "determined to put America on a strong course."
No, not a "strong course" that includes national security profiling of Islamic radicals pretending they care about our country's best interests. By "strong course," Brennan assured Shahin, he meant a course toward assuaging the civil rights groups who have objected to every security program at airports, borders, train stations and visa offices for the past nine years.
Brennan told Shahin that the post-9/11 response of the Bush administration was a "reaction some people might say was over the top in some areas" (insert indignant grievance-monger nodding and mmm-hmming here), and that "in an overabundance of caution, (we) implemented a number of security measures and activities that upon reflection now we look back, after the heat of the battle has died down a bit, we say they were excessive, OK."
It gets worse: Brennan then went on to decry the "ignorant feelings" of Americans outraged at the jihadi attacks on American soil. And then he told Shahin and the audience of Muslim students that he "was very concerned after the attack in Fort Hood as well as the December 25 attack that all of sudden there were people who went back into this fearful position that lashed out not thinking through what was reasonable and appropriate."
The Fort Hood jihadist slaughtered 14 innocent soldiers and an unborn baby after an Army career of openly threatening the lives of our soldiers, and Brennan is wringing his hands about the rest of us "lashing out" over government incompetence. He believes our true sin is not in the systemic underreacting by the military, homeland security, intel and White House officials in charge, but in the "overreacting" of the American public.
With clueless capitulationists like Brennan in charge of our safety, who needs enemies?
#1
"My question: Is there anything being done by our government to rebuild this trust?"
What have you done to establish trust with the American people? Nothing? Well, trust is a two way street. America is not always to everyone's liking. Perhaps you might be happier elsewhere. May I buy you a ticket?
Today the militant white separatist movement faces leadership and organizational challenges: after the deaths and arrests of significant movement leaders over the past decade, it is fractured and appears poorly led. Further, the movement's recruitment and training capabilities appear relatively crude, and it lacks a unified ideological outlook. However, it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the American white separatist movement will remain incapable of orchestrating violence on a large scale.
A confluence of factors producing discontent with the status quo are likely to bolster the movement, including the present economic crisis, the migration of jobs overseas, and the fears and concerns produced by demographic trends that suggest whites will become a minority in the United States by 2050.[2]
Indeed, most observers believe there has been an increase in support for the white separatist movement in recent years. This article assesses the current state of the movement by evaluating its operating environment, the competing strategies of top-down leadership and leaderless resistance, circulation of the movement's core doctrine, training and access to weapons, and tactical and strategic successes.
Much, much more at the link, but don't stop reading when you arrive at: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) contends that "thousands of neo-Nazis and other white supremacists" are currently serving in the armed forces.
#1
Keep a watch on these groups. As things get more desperate for the ignorant and poor, these groups could swell in ranks. It was one thing I had thought was well monitered and under control but seeing as everything is like wack-a-mole these days, I suspect they will be popping up somewhere soon.
H/T Instapundit
It's easy to figure out why President Obama has little use for Israel and England. Israel is the bete noir of most contemporary left-liberals and England was the colonial overlord of Kenya.
But what has Obama got against India? I'll speculate about this question in a moment, but first let's look at the relationship itself.
#1
Obama sees himself a charismatic visionary who is above traditional balance of power politics, that "relic of the past." Stated differently, Obama has shown little stomach for alliances that might vex our adversaries and potential adversaries.
TRANSLATION:
From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
#2
Obumble will piss away our relationshup wiht the largest democracy in the world, and one that is at the moment VERY friendly to us.
Bush cultivated the relationship and its opne we should grow.
Obumble is a friggen moron, and the arabist kiss-asses at state will continue to screw India over in favor of Pakistan as a favor for their Saudi masters. And the moron Obama will just follow along mindlessly.
The man is the biggest dupe we've had in office since Jimmy Carter.
#5
Could someone please explain why this absurd little man is viewed as highly intelligent?
Lex, I've been asking that question for 2 years and have never gotten an answer. Occasionally someone will venture a guess as to why someone else thinks so, but never has anyone stepped up and said "He's smart because........."
The closest anyone ever came was pointing to how "he" ran his campaign. To me, the man is an evil, charismatic, moron.
#6
uh, you guys the rest of the world still LOVES OBumble. big time!! Sarcasticozy of the tribe of Frogs doesnt like anyone who isnt white as as frenchman but other that that he is still getting the benefit of the doubt from all corners.
#7
O was a little boy abandoned by his mother & father & raised by communist grandparents. He is the President of a people he dislikes & does not understand. He is not smarter than your most irritating co-worker & cannot convince Americans he created jobs - more Americans believe Elvis is alive than O created jobs.
#8
It's really very simple. India invited ex-president G.W. Bush before they invited Obama.
Obama threw a hissy fit and cancelled a prearranged visit to India in response. He also made sure he visited Pakistan before he visited India.
WH staffers leaked a statement to WaPo that they felt George Bush deserved to be tried for war crimes rather than invited to a state dinner.
Bottom line: Obama is acting like a 12 year old, except his antics have worldwide consequences.
/apologies to any 12 year olds
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/17/2010 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Perhaps if Obama was raised Hindu, had Indian college roommates, if New Delhi paid for his Harvard education and raised a statue in his honor. So many opportunities wasted.
Posted by: ed ||
02/17/2010 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No rush. Clean up in bin #6.
(I always stop reading or listening when I hear the phrase... "youz guys")
Asia forms the crossroads of success or failure for Barack Obama's grandest foreign policy designs. This impression has crystallized over a year in which the president has shown himself indifferent to Europe, sentimental and somewhat conflicted about Africa, perplexed by the Middle East and largely oblivious to Latin America.
Obama's choices about China, India, Japan and Pakistan loom at least as large as the urgent challenges of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The president has outlined the need for the United States to shed burdens abroad to help repair the badly damaged American economy. That means that Obama must settle discarded U.S. burdens -- and power -- across a range of international organizations in which Asian nations are becoming increasingly influential.
The president consigned the Group of Eight industrial countries to leadership oblivion in his recent State of the Union message, omitting any mention of it while singling out the G-20 forum of developed and developing nations. This was no oversight: His administration hopes to shift climate change negotiations out of the unmanageable U.N. format that doomed the Copenhagen summit in December and place these talks in the G-20 process, according to U.S. officials.
Asia's giants, India and China, present differing and opposed models of international cooperation. A G-20 world needs at its center a dynamic U.S.-Indian relationship to help bridge that organization's divides between haves and have-nots and their different political systems. But here in New Delhi, Indian officials increasingly fear that the Obama team does not see it that way.
Indians are flattered that the only state dinner Obama hosted last year was given for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose remarkable intelligence and gracious manner would make him a welcome guest anywhere. But they also detect an air of ambivalence blowing their way from Washington -- and are reacting by hedging against a quick U.S. pullout from Afghanistan that would bring greater U.S. reliance on China and Pakistan, at India's expense.
Romanced by the Bush administration to balance China's inexorable rise in military and economic power, India finds itself out of sync with the Obama administration on some key issues. There is no open conflict. But neither is there the air of excitement and innovation about the U.S. relationship that I found on my last trip here 18 months ago.
Since then, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has explicitly rejected balance-of-power politics as a relic of the past. Yet India, Japan and other Asian states fear that without a supportive U.S. hand on the scales, they will be swamped by China's growing military capabilities and its increasingly aggressive, and effective, diplomacy.
The somewhat fanciful notion of a G-2 directorate in which the United States and China collude to determine global economic and political direction is increasingly colliding with reality. Tensions over Taiwan, trade and Tibet make the G-2 unworkable, as recent events have again shown. But the specter lingers for Asians as well as Europeans that Obama will be tempted to try -- even though a failed G-2 would be the worst possible outcome for everyone.
"The G-2 carries the implication that the United States would leave Asia to China to run," says B.J. Panda, a rising young political star here. Adds another Indian strategist: "We have to balance the Chinese, irrespective of what the U.S. and others do."
Obama's emphasis on setting an initial date for withdrawal from Afghanistan in his Dec. 1 policy speech, even as he sent additional U.S. troops, stirred doubt here about U.S. strategic patience. So have the frequent U.S. military visits to and overblown praise for Pakistan's army leadership, despite credible evidence of high-level Pakistani involvement in cross-border terrorism directed at India.
The dominant impression from three days of informal conversations organized here by the Aspen Strategy Group with Indian officials and analysts is that Pakistan has become a second-tier problem for India, even as it increasingly preoccupies Washington. What one Indian analyst described as "Obama's nuclear alarmism" also gives Pakistan increased leverage over Washington.
India has recently moved troops away from the Pakistan frontier while increasing deployments into border areas that China is claiming in pugnacious and offensive rhetoric. In a break with its past opposition to foreign bases in the region, India has secured military transit and stationing rights at an airbase in Tajikistan. And Singh's government lavishly welcomed Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, on a recent three-day visit that included publicity about plans for joint military maneuvers in the Indian Ocean.
These are clear signs of Indian hedging: seeking allies for worst-case scenarios while accommodating China on economic matters. The Obama administration's failure to reaffirm clearly that India's rise is in U.S. strategic interests has contributed to this hedging. That is a mistake the president should quickly correct, in the interests of his own vision of a new world order centered on the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
'See what a scourge is laid upon your hate'
William Shakespeare -- Romeo and Juliet
Some might suggest that this may not be the most appropriate way to describe the tragedy that is being enacted in Pakistan today. Years ago many lamented that places like Jhang, in southern Punjab, the home of Heer Ranjha had become the home of sectarian hatred where Shias were described as kafirs. Sadly this is the story of today's Pakistan.
Pakistan's development into a highly Islamised society today can be divided into five periods. From the time of independence till 1971when it was period of search for a non-India identity and a desire to be India's equal and if not that then to reduce India to its own size. The Seventies were a period of reflection and recuperation and marked by the brutal repression of the Baloch and the arrival of Zia. The Eighties were the heady days of the Afghan jihad where Afghanistan helped acquiring skills and the Indian Punjab theatre was for testing the enemy. The jihad had reaffirmed the power of the faith. The Nineties, having acquired nuclear technology under the benign neglect of its western allies and having tested the bomb kind courtesy the Chinese in Lop Nor in 1990 and confident it could now cut India asunder, Pakistan launched its Kashmir jihad. Not satisfied with this, it also felt strong enough to open a second jihadi front by mentoring the Taliban. It was this arrogance that led to the Kargil misadventure in 1999. We are today witnessing the fifth period of Pakistan's Islamisation in the post September 2001 where the Pakistani establishment is having to battle its own surrogates. Jihad had become a foreign policy instrument, a force equaliser with India, a means to seek strategic depth in Afghanistan and today it is also a means to acquire financial and military assistance from an anxious West.
There are many in Pakistan who shudder at the thought of what their country has become and the direction in which it is heading but their voice is weak and drowned by the coarseness of the opposition which is armed and dangerous that is willing to kill other Muslims in the name of Islam. They are worried that the rise of religious intolerance is a threat to their fundamental rights and liberties and what is more worrying, they are frightened that if they assert this too strongly they will be declared apostates.
Posted by: john frum ||
02/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
a verbose thumb sucker but he does make the point that the danger in Pakland is that the population is gradually being Talibanized.
Posted by: lord garth ||
02/17/2010 5:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps the Talibanization of the lower classes helps explain the influx of hordes of educated Pakistanis into Northern Virgina, people seeking to escape. That and the fact that companies here can hire them cheap.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates predicted during his visit to India that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT, would launch an attack on India to trigger an Indo-Pakistan conflict. While commending Indias restraint following the 26/11 Mumbai attack, he wondered whether Indias patience would endure in that case. The Pune attack signals that this testing moment has arrived for India. It is time for the Indian government, strategic community, media (especially the electronic media) and civil society to carefully assess Indias national interest -- because, in all probability, the Pune terrorist attack is likely to be just the first; others, perhaps even more devastating, are likely to follow. Let us for the moment forget the partisan political rhetoric on the foreign secretaries talks and concentrate on threats to India and how to tackle them.
The US National Intelligence Advisor, Dennis Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 2 that "Pakistan has not consistently pursued militant actors focused on Afghanistan, although Pakistani operations against TTP and similar groups have sometimes temporarily disrupted Al-Qaeda... Simultaneously, Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces in Afghanistan... It has continued to provide support to its militant proxies... The Al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani militant safe haven in Quetta will continue to enable the Afghan insurgents and Al-Qaeda to plan operations, direct propaganda, recruiting and training activities, and fundraising activities with relative impunity."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
02/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We have some leverage over the Pakistanis and that is all the billions of dollars we send them every year. We don't seem to be using it very well.
#2
Recently there was some speculation here about what the Paks were up to by nailing one of their Pakiban buddies. Considered in the context of this article, it may be they're trying to buy some street cred with the US so State will warn India off....
#4
Subjectively speaking, IMO AFPAK IS SYMBOLIC OF THE LARGER OR GREATER US-VS.-ISLAMISTS BATTLE FOR EURASIA, espec ANTI-RADICALIST/EXTREMIST CONTROL OF ASIA'S NUKES + OTHER ADVANCED WEAPONS [NBC-CBRNE, etc.].
Iff you can't dev your own Nukes, andor the lead time to do so is costs-, time-inhibitive vee other vital priorities or agendums, NEXT BEST THING PRAGMATICALLY FOR THE MILTERRS = TANGOS IS TO FORCIBLY TAKE OVER SOMEONE ELSE'S [Russia-China-Indjuh, etc].
Again, Year 2010-2020/2025 > LT ECON TRUBLED + GEOPOL TRUBLED USA VERSUS NEWLY NUKULAAR RADICAL ISLAM, ETAL. MILTERR GROUPS.
E.g. GUAM-WESTPAC > IOW ECON TRUBLED GEOPOL "DECLINING"? USA VS. "RISING CHINA" VS. RISING NUCLEAR ISLAMISM???
They raise feelings of sadness, as well as ridicule and derision.
I am talking about a number of fatwas and religious opinions and interpretations that are occasionally issued to us from here and there. Those who issue these either voice their [religious] opinions on what is forbidden and acceptable from the pulpit or via their websites, in response to people asking questions about what to eat and wear, how to live, and how to utilize the forms of communication and information in this modern world.
The former head of the Al-Azhar University Fatwa Commission called for the prohibition of the Facebook social networking website, saying that whoever uses this website is committing a sin. Of course al-Azhar quickly distanced itself from this fatwa, saying that since it was issued by the former head of the Fatwa Commission, rather than its current head, it does not represent the official position of Al-Azhar University.
However doesn't the recent state of confusion surrounding this fatwa, resemble the confusion that took place following the issuance of fatwas and religious opinions on similar issues, which resulted in the Sheikhs who issued the original fatwas to quickly retracting them?
Don't the majority of such fatwas merely reflect the personal opinions of the Sheikh who issues them and his limited knowledge with regards to globalization and modern technology, which thereby causes embarrassment to the authority that the sheikh belongs to?
The fatwa prohibiting Facebook takes us back to a long series of confusing fatwas issued on modern means of communications, and particularly the internet, and such fatwas are not usually related to the modern values of our time. Without a doubt, the rate at which knowledge and the methods of communication are advancing is far beyond our understanding, especially as this advancement opens up new and revolutionary horizons to new knowledge and the future; however these horizons also contain within them the seeds of risk and harm. This is something that applies to all modes of living and progress. The internet seems to be a tool for dialogue and sharing knowledge, but it is also [potentially] a tool for exploitation. At this point, we must not forget that the world is still in the initial stages of this [digital] revolution.
The internet has unique features with regards to communication, and it continues to seriously challenge researchers and thinkers, and these same challenges are also being faced by traditional religious institutions.
Social networking sites and blogs have helped to break down barriers and produce innovations, and it has even helped to document the political and social history that is taking place today in a way that has never been done before. Isn't this what happened with regards to the Iranian protestors utilizing the Twitter website, and prior to this the manner in which Egyptian and Iraqi bloggers utilized the internet? This is something that is happening every day with hundreds of bloggers, writing down their thoughts on social networking sites.
This is a fear that causes the traditional social classes to attempt to contain and curb such advances, and most dangerously of all, attempt to repress them.
Most of these fatwas and religious advisory opinions represent a defensive reaction from a handful of frightened individuals who are alarmed by what they see as an attack on their legacy. It is hard to reconcile the modern world with fatwas that prohibit Facebook. The job of the preacher has changed, and before issuing any fatwas, he must first make an effort to understand modern technology, and stop dealing with this as if it is a source of great evil.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Most of these fatwas and religious advisory opinions represent a defensive reaction from a handful of frightened individuals who are alarmed by what they see as an attack on their legacy. It is hard to reconcile the modern world with fatwas that prohibit Facebook. The job of the preacher has changed, and before issuing any fatwas, he must first make an effort to understand modern technology, and stop dealing with this as if it is a source of great evil
The west went through a similar leap of reason with our phones. Rotary dial or push button? The debate raged for years.
Many Muslims have an amazing ability of making the world hostile towards them and turning friends into enemies. For example, we find that political discourse in some Arab and Islamic states carries threats and menace toward other states. Yet, these same weak and lamentable Arab and Islamic states are incapable of providing bread and security to their respective peoples and to remedy their illiteracy!
I saw on the Al-Arabiya satellite television channel an Iranian reformist thinker deriding his country's regime and saying: I do not know where the death slogan list is going to take us! In fact, the regime began with the slogan 'Death to America,' and then added 'Death to Israel. Then, it had doubt over Britain and added 'Death to Britain!' And when a French newspaper reported news of demonstrations in Iran, they added 'Death to France!' Similarly, if Russia fails to use its veto to bloc any sanctions decision against Iran then they will add 'Death to Russia!' Perhaps Somalia will be the next to be added to the list, in addition to Burkina Faso and Ghana because of their good relations with the United States! In the end they will chant 'Death to the World!'
Tell me, by God, are people with such minds showing respect to themselves when they uphold the slogan of Islam? Islam urges you to turn an enemy into a friend, not a friend into an enemy. Almighty God said: "Repel [evil] with what is better; then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate." [Koranic verse, Al-Mu'minun, 23:96] God Almighty also said: "It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those who ye (now) hold as enemies." [Partial Koranic verse, Al-Mumtahinah, 60:7]
Moreover, some imams invoke God, saying: O God, destroy the Jews and those who are complaisant to them, the Christians and those who are complaisant to them, the Magi and those who are complaisant to them, the Buddhists and those who are complaisant to them, the Chinese and those who are complaisant to them. Then, their list of the accursed shrinks, and they invoke evil on political opposition parties, on misled groups and sects who brought innovation in Islam! In the end, the only one to be spared is these imams' neighbors. Some imams have gone to the extent of invoking God to damage the economy of the West and to inflict diseases on the westerners. Yet, if this happens to them, it will adversely affect us because our economy is linked to theirs. Any epidemic hitting them is bound to reach us, because we live on the same planet!
Some generalize their invocation of evil on the unbelievers, whether the aggressors or others, yet all those who have made the microphones that are installed in mosques, discovered electricity, prospected for gas, and discovered the telephone, radio, and Internet are unbelievers. Many of them have not fought us because they are busy with their discoveries and inventions. They are always in their workshops, absorbed by their research, while we are preoccupied with folklores dances and popular festivals.
Why are some of us eager to make the world hostile to us, to threaten the world, and to invoke evil and disasters on the planet? What interest is there in warning the distracted, waking up those who are asleep, and clamoring that we are coming and prepared to fight the world? Is this Islam's line? Is this the religion's logic? Is this reason? Or, rather, is it foolishness itself, real stupidity?
We need to reassure the world, increase the number of our friends, and make our opponents neutral, because our message is a universal one. It includes mercy, peace, and security. Almighty God said: "We sent thee not, but as a mercy to all creatures." [Koranic verse, Al-Anbiya, 21:107]
Someone made a speech to hungry, oppressed, and powerless masses. He wore a military uniform even though he had never won a victory. He wore medals on his chest, stars on his shoulders and a crown on his head. In fact, he was the one that had colonized the country and then made inflammatory speeches in which he threatened the superpowers with fire and destruction while his country was going through a crisis of high cost of living and misery. He had never tasted victory. Quite the contrary, he is always defeated, in this life and in the afterlife!
O Muslims, scholars, preachers, politicians, intellectuals, and writers, let your discourse be reasonable, wise, and responsible. Let it carry only compassion, leniency, and mercy toward mankind! Enough defeats, misleading slogans, claims of illusory achievements, and thoughtless ideas that befit only the psychologically disturbed, those with juvenile minds, and those who are spiritually defeated!
Our Shariaa urges us to have ties of piety with non-Muslims if they do not fight us. Almighty God said: "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." [Koranic verse, Al-Mumtahinah, 60:8]
Why should some of us make the peaceful world hostile to us, and threaten the nations of the earth recklessly and foolishly, while they are incapable of living in peace in their own land?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/17/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Something that is getting very little air time is the discreet Islamic Reformation movement, that is trying to rewrite Islam to a benign form.
In all fairness, many forms of Christianity used to be pretty obnoxious before the age of Enlightenment (18th Century), and it took a heck of a lot of theological tap-dancing to turn it into a more peaceful form.
Even today there are still snippets of internecine spats between Christians in Ireland, central and South America.
There are close to a billion Muslims, so it is about the only sane way to get around this problem.
#6
In all fairness, many forms of Christianity used to be pretty obnoxious before the age of Enlightenment (18th Century), and it took a heck of a lot of theological tap-dancing to turn it into a more peaceful form.
Moose, see Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly for a discussion of the politics of the Renaissance popes. The problems that occurred before the "Enlightenment" in the church had to do with politicians co-opting the church. When the church became a property concern at the end of the Dark Ages, the politicians and careerists moved in. The church was the career of choice for second and third sons.
The Enlightenment did not correct these problems; the reforms--both Catholic and Protestant--began with people who saw that the politicians had nearly ruined the church, and tried to restore God's truth, rather than the pronouncements of politicians. Of course, politicians jumped on the bandwagons on both sides, and used religion shamelessly to further their own power.
The Enlightenment was partly an expression of frustration with the venality of church politicians, especially in France. The Enlightenment created problems of its own, and its denial of accountability to God and violent anti-clericalism contributed to the horrors of the Reign of Terror.
(Footnote: If Jean Jacques Rousseau had bothered to raise his own children, instead of dumping them off at the orphanage in the care of Catholic sisters, his views on the virtue of human nature would have been a lot different. If he had to deal with a two year old's temper tantrums and teenagers breaking curfew, his naive idea that "Mankind is basically good" would have gone out the window.)
#7
I saw on the Al-Arabiya satellite television channel an Iranian reformist thinker deriding his country's regime and saying: I do not know where the death slogan list is going to take us! In fact, the regime began with the slogan 'Death to America,' and then added 'Death to Israel. Then, it had doubt over Britain and added 'Death to Britain!' And when a French newspaper reported news of demonstrations in Iran, they added 'Death to France!' Similarly, if Russia fails to use its veto to bloc any sanctions decision against Iran then they will add 'Death to Russia!' Perhaps Somalia will be the next to be added to the list, in addition to Burkina Faso and Ghana because of their good relations with the United States! In the end they will chant 'Death to the World!'
This is what you get when you have a book that doesn't have a plain command to "Love your enemy". Yeah, applying it foolishly tends to hurt oneself unneccessarily, but that results in one learning how to apply it rightly, which is much better than NOT having it and hurting more people. I recommend everything Paul Coughlin writes to help one learn how to apply it correctly.
"Pagan Christianity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna is a well documented examination of how the Christian Church got many of its practices. However, I'd ignore Viola's other books, which tend to be rather fuzzy in what "church" ought to be, in contrast to his rock solid view of what "church" should NOT be.
#8
I'd like to make a nomination for snark of the year:
(Footnote: If Jean Jacques Rousseau had bothered to raise his own children, instead of dumping them off at the orphanage in the care of Catholic sisters, his views on the virtue of human nature would have been a lot different. If he had to deal with a two year old's temper tantrums and teenagers breaking curfew, his naive idea that "Mankind is basically good" would have gone out the window.)
As the Lenten season arrives, the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has provided Catholics, schools and organizations with more tools and resources for its annual Catholic Climate Covenant,' says the newsletter. The Coalition was formed three and a half years ago to help implement the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) 2001 initiative Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good.' Launched last year, the Covenant revolves around the St. Francis Pledge, which correlates five key actions -- pray, learn, assess, act and advocate -- to the issues of the environment and poverty.'
According to the newsletter, the Archdiocese of Washington's Environmental Outreach Committee has created a particularly useful new tool: a calendar that lists 40 carbon-fasting measures individuals can take to reduce their carbon footprint.' The newsletter provides a link to the full calendar.
The calendar contains suggestion for each of the 40 days of Lent, beginning on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 17, with Remove one light bulb from your home and live without the light for the next 40 days.' Other suggestions include, Turn down your thermostat by at least one degree;' Check windows and doors for a draft ' Making travel plans? Consider getting there without flying;' Check the tire pressure of your car today;' Learn about mountaintop removal mining;' Show reverence for life and for the Earth today by obeying the speed limit '
#2
Reducing carbon combustion will just delay, not eliminate that injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Sequestration of CO2 (separation & injection, etc.) will actually increase the carbon combustion, as it takes energy to separate and inject, which will accelerate the end of the fossil fuel era; whether it will actually reduce the CO2 footprint depends on process efficiencies.
Mostly all any of these actions do is transfer economic activity from more efficient economies to less efficient economies - less net activity per unit carbon burned or CO2 emitted.
#4
I am certainly not a believer in the myth of AGW, but reducing our consumption, of everything, is a good idea. We, as a society, have become consumed with consuming. It's crazy and it feeds into this entitlement mentality that we are cultivating. Makes me want to puke.
#5
Selling the climate change myth is essential if they are to get their green pensions. See the RB 2-15 article "Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet ":
The BBCs Peter Dunscombe, as Chair of the IIGCC, endorses (he may have even written) that in his pension trusts policy statements that:
Without government actions, however, private-sector investment will not reach the scale required to address climate change effectively.
You got that? Climate change has to be addressed effectively, i.e. effective for his pension pot. With a shameful hidden agenda like that its no wonder viewers are abandoning television and coming to the internet for impartial news reporting. This self-serving hypocrite baloney goes further:
.we remain firmly convinced that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities for investment portfolios
Several Catholic Churches are listed in the article as having pension funds at risk.
#6
This is idiocy. Its the old boomer-lefty priests that borught us the pedophile mess and the idiot war protesters as well. They have lost sight of the Goispel and become besotted with enviro-leftism, now that the Church has cracked down on the usual lefty stuff in many areas.
Someone should force this moron bishop to read Pope John Paull II's "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason), then review the whole climate-gate mess and the unraveling of the whole carbon footprint as a scam, and then review the Catholic principle and doctrine of subsidarity.
This moron is so caught up in worldliness he is utterly neglecting the spiritual in his efforts top promote materialist leftist dogma.
It has been said that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops. (meaning the worst of the punishments are for the bishops who lead their flock astray).
#7
I'm doing my part, padres. Weddings, funerals, baptisms. That's it. Been that way for quite awhile. For a lotta reasons, but Kumbaya crap like this is one of them.
But I'll bet it does wonders for my carbon footprint. No need to thank me. See ya when I see ya, father...
#9
I work very had at making sure that my carbon foot print is as large as possible.
Posted by: Kelly ||
02/17/2010 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
AllahHateMe: Consumption, by itself, is not bad. But the impulse to consume responsibly should come from only two directions: greater efficiency and lower cost.
This is a very different philosophy from those who live in a mindset of shortage, deprivation and rationing. Often such people embrace such things because in them they see "perverse equality".
They abhor abundance in anything, because abundance in anything leads to inequality. Whatever is in abundance becomes a de facto currency, and some will have more and others less, based on their choices.
The extreme end of this belief could be seen in old East Germany, where everything was to be kept in a state of shortage and rationed. Even color and music were solely to be used to honor the state, so everything was in shades of black, white and gray, and the predominant sound was noise.
I have lost any faith at all in those who posit shortage of natural things. A key indicator of deceit is when confronted with facts that a shortage does not exist, they say that it is important to continue with that message, anyway, to "raise public awareness".
#11
I'll put away my V8 sports car the minute Hollywood and Washington junk their private jets.
Posted by: ed ||
02/17/2010 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm not religious, and maybe it's just lack of paying attention or a small sample size, but I don't remember preachers being so insane inane when I was growing up.
At least not the supposedly normal ones (Oral Roberts types need not apply).
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/17/2010 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
They've gotten worse. How much? In 1947 10% of all Phi Beta Kappa grads went to seminary. In 1990?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
