Pakistan today finds itself at the crossroads

Add to Google Buzz

The dream lives on

Mohammad Jamil:

Today is, indeed, the day to rejoice as Pakistan Resolution was passed on 23rd March 1940, which was implemented on 14th August 1947. But it is also the day for introspection, self-accountability and evaluation as to how far we have been able to live up to the ideals set by the founding fathers. Quaid-e-Azam had envisaged a free, progressive, humane, and modern Pakistan, ruled by just laws, where everybody irrespective of religion, colour, creed or cast would be equal before law. Unfortunately, efforts were made to distort his speeches even when he was alive, and vested interest had tried to remove his 11th August 1947 speech before the Constituent Assembly from the record with a view to keep the nation in the dark, as it was the first official version of the Quaid.

In Pakistan, different schools of thought interpret Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches to serve their ends, but Quaid-i-Azam had envisioned Pakistan to be a modern progressive state, rooted in the eternal values of Islam, and at the same time responsive to the imperatives of constant change. President Pervez Musharraf, with the concept of enlightened moderation and by persuading the assemblies to pass laws for the empowerment of women and bringing the minorities into mainstream is emulating the Quaid, which his distracters do not like. In his Presidential address at the All India Muslim League session at Delhi on 24th April 1943 he outlined his vision about Pakistan: “I have visited villages; there are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? If that is the idea of Pakistan I would not have it”.

In the same speech he said: “A lot of mischief is being created. Is it going to be Islamic Government? The constitution and the government will be what the people will decide”. By going through the full text of speeches of the Quaid delivered on 24th April 1943 and 11th August 1947, one could find the guidelines and the parameters within which constitution of Pakistan was to be framed by the representatives of the people. The Quaid while giving reference of Islam and the Holy Book had wished to convey that he stood for an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality, social justice and categorically stated: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state”. Those religious parties that had opposed Pakistan wanted to implement their version of Islam which was at variance with the great majority of the Muslims.

Pakistan has all the ingredients to make it a modern progressive state. But where did we go wrong? Unfortunately, Pakistan lost its Quaid and other founding fathers too soon, and conglomerate of privileged few, feudals, bureaucracy and new-rich industrial robber barons devoid of political acumen and vision took over the state. The only redeeming feature is that Pakistan is now an atomic power, and its people and armed forces have the ability and guts to meet any challenge posed by internal and external enemies of Pakistan, and have the capability and the will to defend the integrity of Pakistan. But the problem is that many an element is out to create confusion. Though Pakistan has completed 63 years of its existence, we still are obliged to listen to the debate as to the purpose for which it was created.

In fact, the issue was debated for decades during the struggle for independence, and founding fathers were absolutely clear in their minds about the objectives for attaining an independent state for Muslims of the sub-continent. Quaid-i-Azam was a democrat, and he did not even think of imposing his will on people. When asked about the type of constitution Pakistan would have, he replied that the people’s representative would frame the constitution on the basis of guiding principles of Islam. Unfortunately, leaders of the religious parties that had opposed Pakistan were now exploiting masses in the name of religion, and insisted that everybody should accept their interpretation of Islam. In the words of President General Pervez Musharraf, the minority has taken the majority as hostage.

On 14th August 1947, we got rid of the colonialism but became fell a prey to neo-colonialism due to flawed policies of the various governments in the past, and had to depend on the West for our development and defence. The dependency syndrome was evident after 11th September 2001 events when Pakistan was coerced into altering its foreign policy. The internecine conflicts amongst political parties and lust of power of the politicians had resulted in three martial laws in 1958, 1968 and 1977, and another military dispensation in 1999. Unfortunately, the people were not treated any better during the tenures of democratic governments, and it was because of their conflicts that army had moved in. The reason being, degeneration had crept in every stratum of society, but the redeeming feature is that people of Pakistan have not lost hope; their spirit is alive and kicking, and their dream lives on. The question arises as to what should be done to rid the society of inertia and corruption? Can Plato’s managerial meritocracy help? It may hold good in services but political exigencies demand far greater than what is provided in that discipline. Leading the people in their pursuit of political freedom, self-governance, economic independence, evolution of a vibrant society and progress in the fields of science and art requires different category of leaders. Pakistan needs a type of leader that first believes in certain principles; he practices what he believes; he upholds those principles and is accepted as an exemplar for others. Such leadership reaches the hearts of the people and brings about psychological changes in their outlook towards life. It inspires them to unite with a view to transforming the society and changing the system for their social, material and spiritual well-being.

In Pakistan, barring a few honourable exceptions, most of the leaders lacked political acumen, leadership qualities and sense of direction that brought the country to the present pass. Pakistan today finds itself at the crossroads. To meet the internal and external challenges to its security, it is imperative that the nation is united. All and sundry should work to convert moribund society plagued by corruption, immorality, inertia, factionalism into a progressive, vibrant and dynamic organism brimming with vitality and creativity.

Allama Iqbal had given the clue as to how to go about it, and underscored the need to reinterpret Islamic thought and assimilate its eternal principles to overcome centuries-old stagnation with a view to launching the nation on the path to revival and build a future worthy of its glorious past. He had dreamt of Pakistan, and his dream became a reality when the nation found a leader like Quaid-i-Azam.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

After Russia, NATO Surrounds China, India: Iran

The West’s ultimate goal is not Iran, but India and China, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Irinn.

He named the wish to undermine China’s and India’s rapidly growing economies as the causes of the West’s interest.

He named the recent concentration of NATO forces around India and unrests in Pakistan as an argument.

Presently, the West experiences a rapid downturn in the economy and the leaders of the Western countries have decided to conceal reality from their peoples, he said at today’s news conference.

Ahmadinejad said that NATO almost completely surrounded Russia and once Russia will understand this.

“Russia should respond to the deployment of NATO forces along its borders,” he said. Trend

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Report: Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) is failing

Rehmat’s World

The Tel Aviv-based security and socioeconomic think tank Reut Institute’s report Eroding Israel\’s Legitimacy in the International Arena, submitted to the Zionist government on Thursday, has warned that Israel is “facing a draumatic assault on the very legitimacy of its existence as a Jewish and democratic state (another Zionist myth). The groups promoting this delegitimacy aim to isolate Israel and ultimately turn it into a pariah state.

The report cites the increasing anti-Israel demonstrations on campuses, protests when Israeli atheletes compete abroad, moves in Europe to boycott of Israeli products and threats of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders visiting London (UK).

The report has highlighted the major hubs independent bloggers in London (UK), Toronto (Canada), Brussels, Madrid (Spain), San Francisco (US) and Univesity of California (US) – using internet to challenge Israeli point of views and project the Zionist entity as worse than the Nazi regime. The report also admit that the anti-Israel groups and individuals with the exception of a small minority – are not Muslims or Arabs or Palestinians but mostly liberal Christians and Jews. The later believe that the actions of Israel in occupied Palestine and Lebanon are fuelling anti-Semitism in the West.

According to the report these “delegitimizers” co-operate with organizations engaging in legitimate criticism of Israel’s policy in the occupied territories such as, Amnesty International and Human Right Watch, “blurring the line between legitimate censure and delegitimization. They also promote pro-Palestinian activities in Europe as ‘trendy’.”

Israel’s ambassador in London (UK), Ron Prosor, adds his ‘Islamophobe sause” into Hasbara curry by saying: “The combination of a large Muslim community, a radical left, influential English-language media and an international university center makes London fertile ground for Israel’s delegitimization”. In simple language, the con-man wants the world to believe that BBC, the Bank of England, Oxford and the British government – are all owned by Muslims and not by the Jews or the pro-Israel Zionists. On would wonder, why France which has Europe’s largest Muslim population (between 6-8 million), has a former Mossad agent, Sarkozy, as country’s President while both its foreign minister and defense ministers are Zionist Jews? Read more of this post

Support to Palestinian statehood reaffirmed

Al-Quds to be capital ; Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories emphasised


Tanvir Siddiqi/ Sharafat Kazmi

Islamabad—Visiting Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas had meetings with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani here Friday.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan will continue to steadfastly support the total withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab territories.

Speaking dinner hosted in honour of Palestinian President Mehmood Abbas by him, he appreciated the Palestinians who have been subjected to decades of occupation and the worst of atrocities but have fought on.

He said seldom have a people kept the spirit of freedom alive and the flame of hope burning in the face of such great adversity.

The Palestinian struggle for statehood and for the right to self determination finds resonance in Pakistan, he added.

He said that our brothers in Kashmir face a similar occupation and are also struggling to realize their right to self-determination. Read more of this post

Turkey’s affiliations are swinging from West to East.

Turkey’s affiliations under the leadership of the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan — a devout Muslim — are swinging from West to East. This is good news for the Arab world as Ankara is a major political and military player on the international stage with substantial clout. In recent times, Turkey has thawed the freeze with Syria by signing a slew of economic, cultural, social and strategic cooperation agreements and is mulling over lifting visa restrictions for Syrian and Lebanese nationals.

At the same time, Turkey is reaching out to Armenia by setting up a commission to study the World War I conflict that robbed the lives of over a million Ottoman-Armenians. Last October, Ankara and Yerevan signed protocols designed to establish ties that would result in the reopening of their border but the main sticking point is Armenia’s insistence that Turkey and the international community officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey has always resisted that damning label and always insisted that those who died were casualties of conflict.

Simultaneously, the Erdogan government is cementing relations with Russia with trade and energy agreements; Russia currently supplies around 65 percent of Turkey’s natural gas requirements and may assist Turkey with the construction of a nuclear energy plant. This new closeness has resulted in plans to extend cooperation to the South Caucasus — traditionally within Russia’s sphere of influence — as well as visa-free travel for the citizens of both nations.

Likewise, Ankara currently enjoys good relations with Tehran. Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held talks in Ankara with Prime Minister Erdogan involving the transportation of Iranian natural gas to Europe via Turkey, establishing a joint refinery, jointly constructing industrial centers and increasing bilateral trade from $10 billion annually to $30 billion. The Turkish minister of state said Turkey is keen to begin a “golden age” in Turkish-Iranian ties. While Turkey is against nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it backs Iran’s right to nuclear energy and does not support anti-Iranian sanctions.

But there the love fest ends. Ankara’s relations with some of its traditional allies are strained to say the least.

Its important strategic alliance with Washington, which culminated in America’s Incirlik Air base was shaken when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Turkey was against the Iraq war from the get-go and blames it for strengthening Kurdish secessionist ambitions. And when, in 2007, the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution in favor of Armenia’s stance on the alleged “genocide,” Turkey temporarily withdrew its ambassador from Washington.

However, for its part, the US government tends to tread softly with Turkey in light of its NATO role as a strong eastern bulwark and its hosting of Incirlik which was a crucial asset during the Cold War and the 1991 Gulf War. Turkey’s importance to Washington was reflected by President Barack Obama’s official visit, last April — criticized within some US circles as blessing a country embarked on establishing a powerful Islamic bloc contrary to American interests. The US has also fervently backed Turkey’s efforts to join the EU, which has been somewhat of an annoyance to European countries that are vehemently opposed. Linda Heard
—AN

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

When the Guns Fizzed and the Gizmos Fizzled

All the “Daisy Cutters”, Nuclear tipped bombs, and the finest drones on the planet could not stand up to the raw grit of those that opposed occupation. All the kings horses and the all the kings men could not put humpty back together or subdue the fierce fighters of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are clear signs of operationalization of the peace plan in Kabul. The surge was imply to assuage the hawks in the Republican Party–the real Afghan reassessment was to get American boys out of the treacherous Hindu Kush. Defeat is a clichéd word–there are no winners in war. Victory is exaggerated concept. Absolute defeats have never been able to quell the resistance. Absolute victories have always lead to future wars–be it Sparta, Versailles or Kabul.

As Shakespeare would say “when the hurly burly’s done, and the battle is lost and won“–there is time to make a fresh start.

When a country is not able to impose its will and might–it is some sort of defeat. The Americans today need a face saving exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Taliban, Pakistan and all other countries of the world should assist the US in a phased, expeditious and honorable withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Over the past several years, we have predicted that the US will exit Afghanistan in 2011 right before the US elections. The tell tale signs of the operationalization of this policy is writ in large all over the billboards called newspapers.

There are numerous indications confirming our well calculated predictions: the polite decline to Delhi on their exuberance to begin training the Afghan forces; the offering of Shadow drones to Pakistan; the peace talks with the Afghan Taliban; the mood and the statements of the big boys in preperation of the Afghan Conference on January 28th, 2010; the acceptance of the Pakistani point of view on halting further operations in FATA; the usage of Pakistani mediators in back channel diplomacy to include the Taliban in the current Kabul government; and the offer of further US military and financial aid to Pakistan. The carrots offered to Pakistan are not for free–Milton Friedman was right “that ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. Pakistan is being offered new toys and more Dollars for her assistance in helping the American extricate themselves out of the Afghan quagmire.

America had a decision to make. Stick with General McChrystal’s policy of more soldiers, more mercenaries and more war–supplemented with more drone bombing and more targeted murders (drones and otherwise). More war has always created more enemies. This has never been more true than in Afghanistan and Pakistan today.

Washington’s other choice was less war, less soldiers and less enemies. President Obama hedged his bets with the first option, and then is pursuing the 2nd option aggressively.

While some may claim that the Great Game is over–and Pakistan won. However, this is not the time for crowing from the rooftops. This is the time to let loose the doves from the allow them to to fly into the sun. There are many steps between the lips and cup. There are many impediments to peace in the Panshir and tranquility in Waziristan. We believe that the right steps are being taken.

A show of strength followed up with massive financial aid and assistance will yield the right results. Once the troops begin leaving, the civilian surge, accompanied with suitcases full of Dollars will persuade the warlords to switch sides (just like the Northern Alliance switched sides in 2001).

There are huge dangers to he peace deal. Bharat (aka India) keenly aware of its sagging influence in Central Asia (specially after the ignominious eviction from Tajikistan) may play the chagrined loser, and stage another Mumbai type of false flag, and try to wage war on Pakistan. This would derail the peace plan. Some of Bharati surrogates in Balochistan and the TTP may be allowed to torpedo peace in the Khyber Pass by assassinating another Pakistani leader, in trying to create ethnic strife in Pakistan. Other international powers may have vested interests in ensuring that the Taliban do not come into power or even share the government in Kabul. Both Israel and Iran are scared of The Talibs.

If President Obama is able to pull this off–it will be a miracle. He has to keep the Indians at bay by selling them toys (double advantage, dollars and Peace); he has to appease the Pakistanis so that they continue their assistance in achieving peace; he has to browbeat Iranian resistance through sanctions and threats; he has to assuage the Chinese that Afghan venture is over with no threat to Beijing; and he has to keep the Russians cool so that they do not think that Central Asia has been taken from them. If he can do this tap dance, the US corporations can make huge profits.

Delhi needs Viagra to prove its manhood. The US can offer the blue pills in many forms–obsolete nuclear plants declared unsafe for America, stripped down F-16s (with lots of spare parts and services), and tons of below quality equipment that the Indians would love to plunk down hard cash for. After all the business of America is doing business. If the US can figure out how to sell billions of Dollars of machines (which will rust in a few years) to Delhi that would be a great achievement. If the US can make a profit out of the Afghan war to recuperate some of its losses, it will be a happy camper. Read more of this post

NATO-Israel cooperation, will the Arabs react?

If Israel succeeds in joining NATO, its regional belligerency would be backed by the collective strength of the entire alliance. Before that happens, will the Arabs react?

Israel wants to be a member of NATO. It no longer looks down its nose at military alliances. It no longer wants to stay away from Western military arrangements. It wants in.

A majority of Israelis believe NATO membership would boost Israel’s security as well as NATO’s strategic power. Interestingly enough, there has been no Arab reaction to Israel’s desire to join NATO, no Arab attempt to block the move, and no preparations to deal with its consequences.

Israel and NATO have grown closer over the past decade or so. In 2000, NATO expanded its Mediterranean Dialogue through talks with seven countries from the Middle East and North Africa; namely, Egypt, Israel, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania. In 2004, NATO- Mediterranean talks were held under the name “Partnership for Peace”. Six new countries were included in the new dialogue: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel, in particular, was eager to use every opportunity the Partnership for Peace had to offer.

On 24 February 2005, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer became NATO’s first secretary-general to visit Israel. In the following month, NATO and Israel held their first joint military drills in the Red Sea. Within weeks, a flotilla of six NATO ships called on the Israeli port of Eilat. Israel (and Jordan) also took part for the first time in joint military drills held within the Partnership for Peace programme in Macedonia in the former Yugoslavia in February 2005.

According to the UK-based Jane’s military magazine, Israel’s “geopolitical position” provided NATO with a foreign base to defend the West, while NATO’s military and economic might enhanced the security and economic potential of the “host country”. Read more of this post

Islam-phobia in Europe

This may not be thinking of the entire West but it is worth knowing what a section of the society thinks about Muslims and Islam.

Please take the time to read and understand what is written here.

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Netherlands Party for Freedom in New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots(Infidels) and announcing the “Facing Jihad Conference” in Jerusalem.

Speech by a Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.

I come to America with a mission.  All is not well in the old world..  There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic.  We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe.  This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.  The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe .  Then, I will say a few things about Islam.  To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem .

The Europe you know is changing.

You have probably seen the landmarks.  But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world.  It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen.  And if they are, they might regret it.  This goes for the police as well.  It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children.  Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead.  With mosques on many street corners.  The shops have signs you and I cannot read.  You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity.  These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics.  These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe .  These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe .  With larger congregations than there are in churches.  And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region.  Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden .  In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim.  Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods.  Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils.  In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims.  Non-Muslim women routinely hear ‘whore, whore’.  Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin .  The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.  Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.  French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel .  I could go on forever with stories like this.  Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe .  San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.  Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers.  And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate.  But there are few signs of that.  The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France .  One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks.  The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate.  Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’.  And this is how we give them respect.  We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.  We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey .

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots.  Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus.  I call the perpetrators ‘settlers’.  Because that is what they are.  They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.  Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.  Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet.  His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.  Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.  But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time.  Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed.  Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.  If it is good for Islam, it is good.  If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins.  But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.  It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person.  Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life.  Islam means ‘submission’.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.  The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor.  I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times.  I support Israel .  First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance.  Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia .  Israel is simply in the way.  The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel .  It is a war against the West.  It is jihad.  Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us.  If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.  Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities.  But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values.  On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam.  They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed…  The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning.  It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination.  If they can get Israel , they can get everything.  So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’.  In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II.  And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.  Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.  The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine.  An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs.  With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem .

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts.  My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.  All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.  My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians.  We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe ‘s children in the same state in which it was offered to us.  We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams.  Future generations would never forgive us.  We cannot squander our liberties.  We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.


Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

British Iraq Inquiry: An ‘old fashioned anti-Semitism’

Protesters outside the inquiry dressed (left to right) as Tony Blair, George W. Bush and Gordon Brown. AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis

“Criticism of Israel is old fashioned anti-Semitism,” Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada.

“A greater transparency about involving legal advice would have prevented the issue being left entirely to the Attorney General,” ,” – Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the only top British civil official who resigned in protest to London’s support for Dubya Bush’s war on Iraq in 2003.

What is wrong with Brits these days, eh! Though their elites played a major role (Balfour Declaration) in getting rid of millions of Jews from the West to a far-away Muslim Arab land in the Middle East – now some of them in the legal business are hunting for the mass-murderers, but ‘respectable” Israeli politicians and military leaders for being involved in the genocide of Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese.

A ’secret’ Iraq Inquiry on the role of Tony Blair’s government in Washington’s attack on Iraq based on Mossad/CIA fasle evidence of Iraqi WMDs – was announced by the British pro-Israel prime minister Gordon Brown on June 15, 2009. Later, however, under criticism by parliamentarians , the British government agreed to make the inquiry public. Gordon Brown himself chose a panel of five to conduct the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot. Therefore, the inquiry is sometimes called “Chilcot Inquiry”. The other four members are; Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Prashar. Both Lawrence Freedman and Martin Gilbert are welknown pro-Israel Zionist Jews. In raelity, like Barack Obama administeration, Gordon Brown’ government is also dominated by members of Friends of Israel, a British Zionist lobby group – which hold major power in both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

In his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, former British prime minister showed no remorse for collaborating with Bush which resulted in the murder of over million of Iraqi Muslims and Christians civilians for the security of Israel. Now the same Israeli poodle says that Islamic Iran is a bigger threat than (Iraq) in 2003. Contrary to Tony Blair’s hatred towards the Muslims, the former British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, exposed Tony Blair’s lies in front of the inquiry on January 21, 2010 by saying: “I would not have written cosy letters to the US President promising that Britain would be there when America went to war (against Saddam Hussein).” Jack Straw is also against military action against Islamic Iran on Iraq-WMD style Israeli Hasbara evidence.

Oliver Miles, former Ambassador to Libya, writing in the Independent on November 22, 2009 – raised the doubts that the presence of two pro-Israeli members on the 5-member Iraq Inquiry would most probably hide the pro-Israel Jewish Lobby’s role in Britain’s joining the invasion of Iraq. The Jewish-owned TIME magazine called Oliver Miles’ comment as “disgraceful”. On January 28, 2010 – BBC was quoted Martin Gilbert, whom it described as a “proud practicing Jew and Zionist” saying he feels “deep unease” at Oliver Miles comments.

Professor William A. Cook (University of La Verne, southern California) in his book Zionist control of Britain\’s government: 1940-2009 traces the history of how Britain became a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). Reviewing the book Gilad Atzmon (Israel-born UK Jewish citizen)made the comment: “After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they (Zionists) are used to being untouchable”.

It’s obvious that Iraq Inquiry would be as much of an official cover-up of Israeli involvement as was the case in the US’s 9-11 Commission. Both involved Zionist Jews as members. For example, 9-11 Commission member, Philip Zelikow, who told an audience at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002:

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.” ~ Rehmat’s World

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

%d bloggers like this: