Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The real hate-mongers

.
Red Squirrel writes:

Allah IS Shaitan and the Paradise that Jihadists crave is Sheol

I knew it! Shaitan is Evil and Paradise is Sheol ( well that's one way of putting it)

This ----is not a personal attack on Muslims. I have met some very nice people in my time who just happened to be Muslims, which I am sure we all have. This is a philosophical viewpoint, and it is my opinion and it belongs to me, an opinion which I am fully entitled to hold, express, and disseminate; it's my right as an independent, thinking, freedom loving and individual Human being.

The Far Left: The real hate-mongers

They hate me, so they call me a 'hater', they are control freaks so they call me a 'fascist,' I identify most strongly with my own cultural heritage, so they call me a 'Nazi'. I believe that people in general prefer to live among their own homogenous racial and cultural groupings, so they call me a 'racist' ( a highly ambiguous term anyway)

They do this to anyone who gets . . . Read on

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Understanding Afghanistan and the Taliban

Pakistan, the ISI, and the Taliban

[First published at Islamic Danger to Bharat (India) on Saturday, April 11, 2009]

"Why the Pakistan intelligence agency's close ties with the Taliban should not be condemned"
--Robert D. Kaplan

from Wider still yet wider
at Pajamas Media
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/11/wider-still-yet-wider/#more-3237
April 11th, 2009 4:13 pm

Richard Fernandez writes:

Robert Kaplan describes the logic for negotiating with the Taliban in order to “make progress and find an exit strategy” in Afghanistan. But halfway through the article the reader will come to the realization that Kaplan isn’t talking about the War in Afghanistan at all, but about something much larger: Pakistan, India, Pashtunistan, the Great Game. The discussion is about the Taliban only in the sense that when you talk about a dog, it necessarily includes the tail. Kaplan places the origins of the Taliban in Islamabad — and the region.

Remember, it wasn’t radicals burrowed deep within the ISI who made the decision to help bring the Taliban to power in the mid-1990s: it was the democratically elected government of the western-educated Benazir Bhutto who did that, on the theory that the Taliban would help bring stability to Afghanistan. This history indicates the degree to which talking to the Taliban has broad support within the Pakistani political establishment.

[quoting excerpts from the Robert D. Kaplan article at The Atlantic]

The Pakistani military and political establishment both view Afghanistan through the lens of their conflict with India. When they look to the west they envision an “Islamistan” of Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries with which to face off against Hindu-dominated India to Pakistan’s east. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, with his pro-western and pro-Indian tendencies, gets in the way of this Pakistani vision. But even if Pakistan were to come to terms with Karzai, it would still need to have lines of contact with all Afghan groups, including the Taliban….

. . . Sugata Bose, a history professor at Harvard, in 2003 described the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier area as “historically no frontier at all,” but the very “heart” of an “Indo-Persian and Indo-Islamic economic, cultural, and political domain that had straddled Afghanistan and Punjab for two millennia.” The fact, which we all keep repeating, that there is no solution for Afghanistan without a solution for Pakistan, is itself an indication of the extent to which both countries are joined. This makes it even more crucial for the ISI to maintain contacts and highly developed networks with all principle Afghani political and guerrilla groups.

[end quote from The Atlantic]

[quoting again Richard Fernandez at Pajamas Media]

You can see where this is going. The idea is to resolve The War in Afghanistan in the framework of some grander regional bargain which will ’suck the life’ out of radical groups like al-Qaeda.

Where have we seen this before? Veterans of the Bush Administration, who were reviled for accepting the doctrine that terrorism was largely state-supported or state-enabled, may now be watching a revival of their doctrine under a new brand name: shut down the state support for terror with diplomacy and voila! once you mop up the puddle it won’t come back. Except this time, the job is going to be accomplished not by a demonstration of military action, but a still undetermined combination of demonstrations of resolve and diplomacy. But since the Bush doctrine was never wholly reliant on arms and never completely without diplomacy, what this probably means is that the Obama administration simply means to alter the proportions between these two ingredients. They are going to get their chance to try out the new approach. How they will fare only the future will show.

The original The Atlantic article "Talking to the Taliban" can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

[This concludes the reprinted post Pakistan, the ISI, and the Taliban from Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)]

Here's More from "Talking to the Taliban" by Robert D. Kaplan

[excerpt]

Of course, we can and should demand that Pakistan cease helping the Taliban to plan and carry out operations. But cutting links to the Taliban altogether is something the Pakistanis simply cannot do, and trying to insist upon it only worsens tensions between our two countries.

So what do we do? There are those who say we should abandon the Afghanistan enterprise altogether, with the exception of direct strikes against al-Qaeda. But President Barack Obama has already decided against that, and is adding both troops and civilian experts to the campaign, which amounts to Afghan nation-building in all but name. The hope is that by turning the tide of the war in our favor, the Pakistanis will, for the sake of their own self-interest, cut a better deal with the pro-western Karzai, even as they continue to maintain less-harmful, low-level links with the Taliban. That is the best we can expect.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

Related references:
Trouble in Afghanistan! Who's Winning?

The Situation in Afghanistan
and
Fighting Wars to Lose . . .
or "Why Since World War II, the U.S. has lost every war it ever was drawn into."
http://inslamic-danger-redux.blogspot.com/2009/06/fighting-wars-to-lose.html
also--from before the injection of U.S. Marines into Afghanistan:
The "War in Afghanistan"--Is This How It Looks For Us Also?
excerpt from A British View of this War:

Also, check out these linked references:

British leader defends Afghan mission

Understanding Afghanistan
Atlantic articles from the 1950s and the 1980s offer background and perspective on a nation in conflict.

All Counterinsurgency Is Local
By Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason
Prosecuting the war in Afghanistan from provincial capitals has been disastrous; we need to turn our military strategy inside out.

More at right sidebar of http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Culture of Hate: A Racism which Denies the History and Sufferings of its Victims

from north-of-africa.com

Culture of Hate: A Racism which Denies the History and Sufferings of its Victims
Bat Yeor
[posted on] 26 June 2009

At the dawn of the new millennium, the world is being confronted with an absolute culture of hate, characterized by paroxysms of international terrorism against civilians, and religious intolerance. This culture of hate has multiple heads from Algeria to Afghanistan, to Indonesia, via Gaza and the West Bank, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum, Teheran, and Karachi. It scatters the seeds of terrorism from one end of the earth to the other.

This hate, which suppresses freedom of thought, and condemns difference, calls itself "Islamic jihad." It draws on religious texts whose interpretation other Muslims dispute. Moreover, because these moderate Muslims challenge this interpretation of jihad, wishing to live in peace with the non-Muslim peoples and nations of the world, their lives are threatened. There is constant bloodshed in Algeria. Jihad is disseminating death and terror in Israel. In Southern Sudan, jihad has caused the death of some two million people, generated an even larger number of refugees, lead to the enslavement of tens of thousands, and produced deadly famines.

In Indonesia, some 200,000 deaths resulted from jihad violence in East Timor. Christians have been pursued, and massacred, and their churches burned down by jihadists in the Moluccas and other Indonesian islands. The death toll in these violent attacks is over 10,000, while an additional 8,000 Christians have been forcibly converted to Islam, including many who were circumcised. Atrocities are also being committed by jihadists in both the Philippines, and some northern Nigerian states. Hundreds of innocent people died when jihad struck at the Jewish Community Center of Buenos Aires in Argentina, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In Egypt, jihadists have massacred Copts in their churches and villages, and murdered European tourists. Christians in Pakistan and in Iran live in terror of accusations of blasphemy, which, if "proven," can yield a death sentence. And a cataclysmic act of jihad terror resulted in the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians of multiple faiths and nationalities in New York, on September 11, 2001. None of these victims were guilty of any crime. They were murdered and mutilated out of hate.

It is this hate that Israel is fighting. The Durban World Conference Against Racism-where the culture of hate was rehabilitated, not condemned-ended only three days before the jihad terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When proposals were made condemning Zionism, this conference was encouraging jihad, the culture of the war against infidels, while ignoring the principles of freedom and human rights. This was negationist racism. The word "Zion," which designates the land of Israel and its capital Jerusalem, exists in texts dating back almost three millennia. It was the Emperor Hadrian who first called the country Palestine in 135. In this Palestine, Arabic was not the common language, the Bible and not the Koran was taught, and the population was mainly Jewish. Palestine was colonized five centuries later by the Arab armies of the Islamic jihad. Many Jews were massacred at that time, others deported to Arabia as slaves, the whole population expropriated and reduced to the condition of dhimmis, as were all indigenous Jews and Christians in the south Mediterranean countries conquered by jihad, including those in many European countries.

Should these countries conquered by Islam - Portugal, Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, and the southern regions of France and Italy, for example - still be considered Arab Muslim lands? Turkish jihad conquests imposed the sharia as far north as Hungary and southern Poland, and, on all of central Europe within the Ottoman Empire, including regions of Greece, former Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria, until the end of the 19th century. Are those countries also to be identified as Muslim lands, in which non-Muslim inhabitants must return to the condition of dhimmis, whose testimony concerning Muslims is rejected by Islamic courts? Will they again be required to don discriminatory garments such as the Taliban demanded of the Hindus, or be subject to the continuing prohibition on building and renovating their churches, like the Copts in Egypt?

If the liberation movement of the Jews in their ancestral homeland is interpreted as racism, then all the movements of liberation from expropriation and servitude imposed by jihad are racist. Such a stance reinstates the imperialism of the Islamic jihad, which has claimed millions of victims over three continents during more than a millennium, deported an incalculable number of slaves, and annihilated entire peoples, destroying their history, their monuments, and their culture. Have the Copts of Egypt a right to their history and their language? Do the Kabili of North Africa have a right to theirs? We must acknowledge all the victims of the racism that jihad creates, a racism which denies the history, sufferings, and memories of those conquered.

Arab racism consists of calling the Land of Israel, Arab land, whereas no Palestinian province, village, or town, including Jerusalem is mentioned either in the Koran or in any Arabic text before the end of the ninth century. On the contrary, these locations are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, which represents the religious and historical heritage of the Jewish people. The Bible, which tells the history of this country, tells it in Hebrew, the language of the country, and not in Arabic. Palestinian racism consists of asserting that the whole history of Israel, biblical history, is Arab, Islamic, and Palestinian history. The kings and prophets of Israel were Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim kings and prophets, as were Jesus, his family, and the apostles. This Arabization and Islamization of the Bible thus robs not only the Jews but also the whole of Christianity of their history. New theologies of substitution are developed, transferring Israel’s heritage to Arab and Muslim Palestine.

The imperialism of jihad consists of appropriating the whole history and identity of the peoples who were conquered and thrown into the nonexistence of dhimmitude. This is a total negation of the other, a refusal to acknowledge him as an equal. Israel’s battle is not a battle of colonists, as some European political circles like to claim, because Europe itself had a colonial history on all continents, which it projects on to Israel. Similarly, Europe projects its own history of Nazism on to the Israelis, thereby revenging itself on the revelations of historians. Israel’s battle is not a battle against the Muslim world, it is a battle against the unbridled hate of jihad. Israelis are struggling to maintain their liberation from the yoke of dhimmitude, which was imposed in order to eradicate the Jews in their indigenous homeland. That is why Christians who reject the new theologies of substitution are joining Israel in its fight, as are Muslims who refuse to allow the values of Islam to be perverted by the ideology of jihad. It is through this common effort that reconciliation between peoples can be achieved, replacing the culture of hate with a culture of friendship.

By Bat Yeor

August 2, 2002

Bat Yeor is the author of three books on jihad and dhimmitude, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (1985), The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude(1996), and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002). Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School contributed to this essay.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=595

KABYLIA INFO FORUM ARCHIV ADMIN CONTACT
News
Art & Culture
Society
History & Civilisation
Useful Links

http://www.afrique-du-nord.com/:
Wafa Sultan contre Barack Obama- Qui devons-nous croire ?Qui devons-nous croire ? par Wafa Sultan
Après le discours du Président Obama au Caire, beaucoup de mes lecteurs arabes du Moyen-Orient ont réagi avec stupeur. L’un d’entre eux a déclaré, “Qui devons-nous croire, vous ou Obama ?” - En particulier quand Obama a dit que “l’Amérique et l’Islam se chevauchent et partagent des principes communs de justice, de progrès de tolérance et dignité pour tous les êtres humains.”. Certes, à la lecture (...) suite

Barak-Hussein Obama : « j’ai foiré » ou « j’ai merdé »