Jump to content
Islamic Forum


IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gnuneo

  1. George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace Ewen MacAskill The Guardian, Friday 7 October 2005 George Bush believes he is on a mission from God, according to the politician Nabil Shaath. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month. Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America. Soon after, the israeli daily newspaper Haaretz carried a Palestinian transcript of the meeting, containing a version of Mr Bush's remarks. But the Palestinian delegation was reluctant publicly to acknowledge its authenticity. The BBC persuaded Mr Shaath to go on the record for the first time for a three-part series on israeli-Palestinian diplomacy: Elusive Peace, which begins on Monday. Religion also surfaced as an issue when Mr Bush and Tony Blair were reported to have prayed together in 2002 at his ranch at Crawford, Texas - the summit at which the invasion of Iraq was agreed in principle. Mr Blair has consistently refused to admit or deny the claim. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, who was also part of the delegation at Sharm el-Sheikh, told the BBC programme that Mr Bush had said: "I have a moral and religious obligation. I must get you a Palestinian state. And I will." Mr Shaath's comments came as Mr Bush delivered a speech yesterday aimed at bolstering US support for the Iraq war. He revealed that the US and its partners had disrupted at least 10 serious al-Qaida plots since September 11, including three planned attacks in the US. "Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded - but the enemy is still capable of global operations," he said. He added that Islamic radicals had used a series of excuses to justify their attacks, from conflict with the israelis to the Crusades 1,000 years ago. "We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," he said. He conceded that al-Qaida, led in Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and other insurgents had gained ground in Iraq but the US would not leave until security had been established. "Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and Bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?" Mr Bush asked. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
  2. Why Did America Invade Iraq?

    ""We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," he said." surely he was talking about PNAC and neo-conservatism here? what do people think?
  3. The Syrian Uprising

    the Kurds are also fighting ISIS, and have stories of persecution when their villages and towns have bee occupied.
  4. Al-Qaida's Treatment Of Captured Christian Nuns Syria

    Al Qa'ida was created by America. It is true - it is most unlike those trained by America NOT to abuse nuns. "...Although terribly frightened, Jean carried on her work. “Things are so much worse, it’s unbelievable,” she wrote to a friend in May 1980, “People are being killed daily. We just found out that three people from our area had been taken, tortured, and hacked to death.” Not too long after that, two of her best friends were murdered immediately after walking Jean home. She thought about leaving El Salvador. “I almost could,” she wrote, “except for the children, the poor, bruised victims of this insanity. Who would care for them? Whose heart could be so staunch as to favor the reasonable thing in a sea of their tears and loneliness? Not mine, dear friend, not mine.” On the evening of December 2, 1980 Jean and Dorothy drove to Comalapa International Airport to pick up Maura and Ita, who were arriving from Nicaragua. On the way home the women were stopped by the National Guard, kidnapped at gunpoint, raped and executed. Their bodies were left to rot on the side of the road. The Salvadoran regime claimed that the women had been the victims of a robbery. This was a very convenient lie for the incoming Reagan administration, which was obligated to prove to Congress that El Salvador was making progress on human rights as a condition for continued U.S. aid. Reagan was unburdened by any of the human rights concerns that his predecessor Jimmy Carter claimed to care so much about, and the new president turned a blind eye to the most horrendous abuses as he ramped up military and economic aid to El Salvador. Secretary of State Alexander Haig even had the audacity to go before Congress and declare that the four American churchwomen may have been responsible for their own deaths. Your tax dollars at work. (photo: Susan Meisalas) There is now absolutely no doubt as to who is responsible for this barbaric crime. There are, of course, the four National Guardsmen who abducted, raped and murdered the women. Then there’s Major Lizandro Zepeda Velasco, who planned the operation. There’s Luis Antonio Colindres Aleman, who gave the actual order to the kill the four women, and his boss, General Oscar Edgardo Casanova Vejar, commander of the guard unit at the airport that carried out the attack. Colonel Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova knew all about the churchwomen killings and participated in the ensuing cover-up. General Jose Guillermo Garcia failed to investigate the barbaric murders. All five of these men were proud graduates of the United States Army School of the Americas, then located in Panama (it has since been relocated to Ft. Benning, Georgia). They’d been trained in kidnapping, torture and assassination by the best and brightest minds of U.S. military and intelligence planning. Shockingly, Vides Casanova and Garcia would later be rewarded with U.S. residency. Robert White, U.S. ambassador to El Salvador when the four churchwomen were murdered, knew right away who was responsible. “I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. government did not know there was legitimate reason to believe that Casanova and Vides Casanova and Garcia were all guilty of either ordering or covering up the killing,” he said. “That they have been let off not only with their reputations intact, but with the right of residence in the United States, does not serve the ends of justice,” he added. Top Carter officials knew that American-trained Salvadoran officers were responsible for the rape and murder of the four American churchwomen. That’s when President Carter finally cut off military assistance to El Salvador. But within weeks he resumed aid to the country’s murderous regime after the guerrillas launched a major nationwide offensive. So much for human rights. Bloody Reagan Once Reagan took over, the aid really started flowing. The only problem was that the president was required by law to certify that El Salvador was making progress on human rights. Without the certification, Congress couldn’t authorize aid. Reagan knew the full extent of the Salvadoran regime’s brutality, but the new president was hell-bent on crushing the popular uprising in impoverished El Salvador that he felt was threatening U.S. commercial and strategic control over the region. And so it was that the Reagan folks tried to blame the four slain churchwomen for their own deaths. Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Alexander M. Haig, Reagan’s Secretary of State, shamefully attempted to sully the reputations of the four martyrs while the Reagan administration made little effort to see justice served. Ambassador White sent a secret cable to Secretary Haig expressing his dismay. “It is amazing to me that the [state] Department can state publicly that the investigation of the nuns’ deaths is proceeding satisfactorily,” he wrote, “This is not backed up by any reporting from this embassy. I reiterate for the record that in my judgment there is no sign of any sincere attempt to locate and punish those responsible for this atrocity.” Said Congressman Robert G. Torricelli (D-NJ): “It is now clear that while the Reagan administration was certifying human rights progress in El Salvador, they knew the terrible truth that the Salvadoran military was engaged in a widespread campaign of terror and torture.” “The Salvadoran military knew that we knew, and they knew when we covered up the truth, it was a clear signal that, at a minimum, we tolerated this,” lamented Ambassador White. The United States would continue to fully support the brutal Salvadoran government and arm, fund and train its death squads at the School of the Americas throughout the 1980s. A year after the four churchwomen were slain, the most horrific massacre in the Western Hemisphere occurred at El Mozote, where a thousand innocent children, almost all women, children and the elderly, were slaughtered by an army unit trained by the United States and staffed full of officers who graduated from the School of the Americas." http://morallowground.com/2010/12/02/on-this-day-1980-american-nuns-kidnapped-raped-murdered-by-american-trained-salvadoran-death-squad/ i'm glad these nuns were released by their captors. Perhaps this is why the US is still talking aboout "arming and training the rebels". The rebels are simply not bloodthirtsy enough yet?
  5. 911 Another Point Of View

    Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority. Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.” In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote: “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.” But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. PressTV - New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
  6. 2. Open Letter To Israel.

    The first article was written before September and offered to the NewStatesman to publish, but they declined. The second is a response to the events in recent days in Eretz israel. Both were obviously written some time ago. I offer them here for comment. the plight of israel. that israel is in plight is hardly in question, facing enemies all around, and a very questionable alliance with the global superpower. for the first time since the Diaspora, the Jewish peoples are again centred in very few geographical locations, New York and israel. This was the logic of Zionism, that the Jews would return to the land of israel, ending the geographic spread of the Diaspora that ensured that a madman like Adolf Hitler backed by industrialists (or the apparatus of a modern totalitarian State, or indeed, both) could not annhilate all of Judaism. israel is surrounded by local enemies, the enmity for the treatment of Palestinians and utter disregard for international law and treaties such as the Geneva Accords and UN resolutions is deep and profound, moreso perhaps with the people than the rulers, yet being something israel could end easily, apart from a few extremists on both sides. this is the plight of israel, its people told they are at the constant defence against unending Muslim hatred, that the growing anger and revulsion at israeli atrocities across Muslim lands (and after the recent Lebanese war also across Europe) is mere anti-Semitism, not that the two are related, that the rising tide of anger against israel is *because* of israel's acts since its creation (most people accept the reality of israel's existence, and until the 'war on terror' riled them up again, so did most of Islamic opinion, public as well as official), and that in fact even though it would be entirely in israel's best interests, peace with israel's neighbours has not been high priority in israeli leaders minds. Indeed, has never figured in Zionist thinking at all, entirely to the loss of the State of israel. imagine if you will a past where at the inception of the Kibbutz system, the local peasant farmers on the land the Jews purchased were allowed to stay as equal partners, taught in the Kibbutz school system, basically be allowed to become Kibbutzniks as well. A past where there was no Victorian belief in the superiority of races embedded also in Marxist teachings, where their semitic cousins would have been happy and proud to identify with their new friends and teachers, and israel would immediately have expanded to include all of what is now Palestininian lands. This would have been the right way for israel to come back, with gifts of knowledge, becoming a regional centre for learning, science, modernity (post), with the wealth of Palestine/israel growing across both communities, the eastern diaspora Jews becoming secure with the increasing trade and common projects with israel, and Jewish people would have been secure across the whole world. instead, we got the Holocaust, and a devastated European Jewry, transplanted into a rural, medieval setting, racial policies ensuring a massive backlash, and a setting for one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century. well, no use crying over spilt milk, water under the bridge etc etc. It is however worth pointing out that the Holocaust was not caused by Islam or Muslims, it was entirely Europeans and Americans that organised, planned and carried it out, this seems to be forgotten sometimes, especially recently. what matters is though, is it possible to get back to that point? Because not only would that have been the best start, it is the only way israel can survive. so what is the plight of israel? It is that its leaders are bankrupt of how to achieve peace, that they know the price for peace is for israel to pull *legally* back to the UN green line, the internationally defined political zone, negotiate openly for the settlement blocs, and if it has any kind of common sense at all, it will pump $Bns into the Palestinian economy to create cooperatives etc, not only to generate jobs within Palestine, but to raise the living standards of Palestinians immediately - its also the right thing to do. It could even be called reparations, to get the maximum PR value from it, and demonstrate israel's new direction to the region's currently incensed Muslims. Unfortunately, they don't know how to sell this idea, as they've been BSing israelis for so long that the israelis themselves can't believe peace will be this easy. the alternative is to go on along with America's mad dream, being a lonely outpost with a 1st world equipped and trained army and airforce, fully dependant upon the essential oil flow by America's aid, an America becoming increasingly under the control of a group that believes israel has to be destroyed by nuclear fire for them to achieve 'rapture'. Not very secure allies, one might think. If one was sane. So surrounded by the growingly real possibility (especially if there is an attack on Iran) of facing a massed democratic movement across Islam utterly focused upon the destruction of israel, and the complete dependence upon said nutters in the white house, you would really think the Knesset would be working towards a formula for a good peace with its neighbours, especially its closest, the Palestinians. and if there is no party to represent this view, and some MPs think there should be, perhaps they can form a new party? This IS a threat to israel's existence, once again israel both true and nation are in dire danger, and it is not from the commonly supposed one. perhaps it is time for some men to grow up and remember their responsibilities. --------------------------------- This second letter is in response to the current attack on the residents of the Gaza Ghetto. israel, wake up. You cannot survive without peace with Islam. Islam as a stable unit will survive much longer than the fly-by-night American Empire. What you are doing to the Palestinians is abhorrent to all moral people, and can only lead, in the mid to long-term, complete destruction. It is entirely unsustainable. It has turned Global Popular opinion against you, and your continued actions will accelerate that trend. As well as make all of your neighbours - some with far vaster resources - your blood enemies. now think about *when* you are doing this. Historically speaking, you are sheltering under the wing of the current Superpower, and your relative 'power' militarily speaking has come from the Superpowers support. Imagine an israel without the long decades of multi-$bn in aid from the US, along with tactical support as can be seen from the military-shortages relief seen in the recent invasion of their neighbour Lebanon. a very different nation it would be, probably still there, definitely with better relations with its neighbours, even possibly a one-State, where, with the access to israeli higher learning for the Palestinians as equals, balancing out the opening of Muslim markets through Palestinian Diaspora contacts, as well as the necessary investment into Palestinian cooperatives (similar to the kibbutz movement), there would have rapidly developed a technological, philosophical, wealthy, powerful, stable and peaceful regional superpower - based not upon ailing Superpower handouts, but its own human resources. but back to history, what happens when the little nations that bullied their resource-wise stronger nations during comparitive strength (due to stronger nations backing them), suddenly have that support taken away? wake up call no. 2 - what is happening to the US right now? An Empire fields a military comparative to its strength - it certainly has to have a good tax-base to afford it! If simple common morality doesn't move you, if the plight of the **PEOPLE** in Gaza gives you no compulsion to action, then think on this: very soon israel and israelI PEOPLE might be in the exact same situation as the Gazans are now. Whether you think it will or can happen is irrelevant for now - just imagine it. Those are israeli Citizens being massacred from the air, those are israeli Citizens that the enemy commander says their lives are worthless, that there can be no peace with them that is just. I want you to imagine the feeling of horror and helplessness you would feel watching from outside, not able to do anything to stop it. How would you want the World to act? Shalom, israel - PLEASE stop this insanity. Turn back to the path of righteousness and sharing. You and the Palestinians have so much you could share together. Every day you continue this atrocity, every man, woman and child you murder, every square metre of land you steal, every injustice you perpetrate, every blood-soaked lie you say to the world, is another nail hammered into the coffin that is now israel's future. I do not believe the israeli People wish to commit suicide, which is where their leaders are aiming.
  7. this was a message to richard dawkins on the NewStatesman website, in reply to an article he had written, but was censored by the web-site for reasons unknown. (unlike IF, they do not feel they have to give reasons for such acts, so much for western values of 'free speech' ...huh?). I am posting it here instead. I hope it does not give much offense. the original article responded to is here: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religion/2009/04/tony-blair-faith-children"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religion/2009/...-faith-children[/url] ------------------------------------- there is little quite as phlegm inspiring as to hear one True Believer mocking all the other True Believers who happen to have True Belief in something slightly different. and it is SOO easy to mock tony b'liar - heck, it is far harder to find something good about the bloke to say, but to hear this from the fanatic Dawkins - who quite clearly is so intolerant of other viewpoints, as 100% convinced of the Rightness of his doctrines that he could match most Jesuit Inquisitors with his zeal and zest in his single-mindedness (or should that be simple-mindedness?) - somehow makes it stick in the throat. how many wars have been started by people for truly religious reasons, and how many because those 'in the know' wanted to grab lands, wealth and power? I think most are intelligent enough to guess the true answer to that. but of course, Dawkins (hauling along a baggage of truly awesome ignorance, that even many teenagers would be embarrassed about), like every religious fanatic in history, does not question his own prejudices, and instead merely throws it all upon a Shadow... but being such a monumentally ignorant materialist, as he is, he has not even the limited grasp of psychology to understand what that refers to. many people are bigoted - that doesn't require religion. many people are greedy - that doesn't require religion. many people are amoral - that doesn't require religion. many people are seduced by power - that doesn't require religion. many people are utterly convinced that their smallest opinions are correct - that doesn't require religion. (Dawkins however is no proof of that - his religion is the Christian Athiest Cult, although he appears to match in the other prerequisite...) many people are willing to kill others - that doesn't require religion. ...so why is Dawkins so fixated upon 'religion'? well, that is presumably between his shrink and himself, but one thing is clear to me - i have met fanatics in virtually all religions (except Taoism) yet of them all, it is only the soulless, materialist atheists who i would be hesitant to invite to my wedding. the Muslims would be upset at the drinking and dancing, the Buddhists at the open licentiousness, the Christians at the open mocking of their own faith, and neo-Paganism is such a broad umbrella there is *always* something that would annoy some of them, AmerIndians at the techno-worship, Asatru & Rasta upset at the lack of racism - Hades, the list goes on and on. (even Thelemites would find something to complain about... perhaps a lack of human excrement in the hallway? LMAO :sl:) yet all of them would have something in common - they would find meaning in our actions, even if they accept that the meaning found came from within themselves. But those who clad themselves within the grey, soulless, colourless, supposedly 'value-free' (pause for a belly-laugh) materialistic, 'objectivist', pseudo-scientific Atheism, what Joy could they bring? What Life can such fanatical believers bring? What could they add to a wedding, compared to what they would take away? Dawkins is little more than the 'Office Bore', the high-IQ-yet-no-personality who grabs innocents and holds them in a corner until they are rescued by more compassionate souls, brow-beating his own small-minded, narrow-focussed beliefs upon any who have not the heart to tell him to go f*ck himself, which is, in intellectual essence, exactly what he does anyway. and so here he manages to attack both B'liar, and the catholic pope - well gee whizzy, pretty much every acne-spotted angst-ridden teenager could have done that, and probably better too. Is Dawkins now so addled that he can only attack those who are so clearly already down and out? How pathetic. perhaps he should get back to the proper application of Science, and remember a true Scientist is willing to Question *Everything* - including their own beliefs. Too hard 4 u, Dicky? -------------------------- peace and love :sl:
  8. Subject: Wednesday 13 July 2011 Posting: 3rd time lucky? #11 part 1, suitably edited to avoid legal action: Subject: Wednesday 13 July 2011 Posting: notes from monday to come, but from tues night: it has become obvious that cameron and milliband are fully supporting News Corp, Murdoch's vehicle. Here's a 'mental exercise' - imagine that they ARE supporting murdoch, they not only wish to bid to go through successfully, they also intend to sell off the BBC as well. Just as a mental exercise. now, look at events again. First, murdoch puts a bid in, the Condemn(ed) put Jeremy Hunt in charge, WHO IT COULD NOT BE CLEARER was ordered to put this through, but look as though he was reluctant about it. The scandal hits again - (you remember, the one where the Prime Minister knowingly employs a senior Murdochrat associated with **blackmail potential** phone-hacking.) - and the Govt is FORCED by Public pressure to re-examine the case. Cable has referred the matter for 'monopoly considerations', and Murdoch laughably offers to take his grubby paws off Sky News - for 5/6 years. Because in 5/6 years we the Public will have all forgotten this, and News KKKorporation can continue its plan of total control of UK media. This is an organisation that for years has bribed police and officials, has used (as is now being reported) blackmail, has turned the UK press into a syphilis infected swamp, been a central plank in "the war on Islam", and corrupted UK political life almost from top to bottom. Certainly the *top*, anyway. so what is happening now? Murdoch's puppets, cameron and milliband (who you might remember were quite willing to attack rebekah, but **NOT** a Murdoch directly), are STILL HOPING MURDOCH WILL REMAIN IN BSKYB, which is why they are advising News Corp to drop the current bid. Because it is becoming clear, even to brain-dead murdoch readers, that THIS IS NOT A FIT AND PROPER ORGANISATION TO RUN ***ANY*** OF THE UK'S MEDIA!!!!!! what should be happening, in any sane democracy, would be Offcom deciding News-KKKorp should sell its current holdings of BSkyB. instead, 'they' are hoping that two things will have happened, by the time this Inquiry ends (or even begins): 1. I'm/angered celebs/cross politicians are no longer around. 2. the Public have forgotten. a very interesting part of all this for observers, is watching how the KKKorporates control emotional energy through the media. The 'sacrifice' of the NotW, the intended 'sacrifice' of rebekah, and the proposed 'sacrifice' of the other 3 papers are all to give the impression to the Public that "something has been done, now go back to sleep". News KKKorporation owns and controls FauxNews, and this is a prime example of the quality of its message - imagine ANY NN presenter behaving like this? This is the future of reporting our kids will grow up in if News KKKorp continues to hold the shares in BSkyB: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=2IwIRNM5noY[/url] oh, one other point to make on this: that News KKKorp executive claiming "murdoch is gone" - very simple, if he is still in his job next week, AND murdoch is still there as well, then his whole presentation was a kkkorporate snow-job, intended to, once again, "shut the Public up". these people are vile, and they do NOT deserve to control, or own, ANY of the UKs media. It is utterly disgraceful our 'political leaders' are attempting to help this company, and to ignore Public opinion. But then, that goes with just about everything they do. Worth remembering that, when they preach platitudes on TV. ps, annoying as it may be for readers to have these posts scattered around, its even more annoying having to try to edit them to get them published - often takes longer than the writing itself. comments #11, #13, #15: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/07/wednesday_13_july_2011.html#comments"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...1.html#comments[/url]
  9. Murdoch And The Bskyb Shenanigans

    from the same blog page, there is more here than just BSkyB: 12. At 16:29 13th Jul 2011, You wrote: these are notes from monday night's Newsnight,, much has become obvious since. (just 2 days!!!! :sl: ) ---------- OFFCOM!!!! ***NOT**** "monopolies commission". *That* is why they have pulled the offer to "hands-off Sky News"!! offcom to check the "fit and proper" ownership of the current BSkyB shares. It is disgraceful the Govt could allow this deal to hang around, - unless they WANT him to own the rest of the company, the most important media platform in the UK? (they do, it became clear last night) the police are worried about the use of blackmail by murdoch's empire. there are many movies where the mafia threaten witnesses. Makes you think, doesn't it? southern cross: the Govt should blanket-renegotiate the contract with the SC/landowners, it is unconscionable that this Govt can STILL be moving ahead with "bringing private providers in social services", when it is becoming abundantly clear that even many CURRENT privatised services are been run corruptly, for the benefit of share-holders and not the Public they are meant to serve. Now it is possible the tax-payer will have to pick up the multi-£m tab for these care-homes, eventually, but it goes without saying the incredible profits will remain with those who stole them. tunisia: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_transitionculture(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/shop/the-transition-handbook/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_transitionculture(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/shop/the-transition-handbook/[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdesertec(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdesertec(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url] Norway, they need investment, to create jobs. You have an investment fund that needs a new direction (what with the shares/financial system going 'pop'), could there be a match-up? Form locally-owned cooperative structures, and transfer as much tech as needed? Such an investment would completely complement Norway's own Geo-Thermal sustainable energy production, as well. Plus the long-distance transmission lines will also benefit Norway itself in the long-run. world cup: that interviewed Qatari [bleep] knows full well that they intend to use the image of drunk rowdy Westerners, to shock their people at 'our' behaviour. This was a catastrophic decision, fed by overt corruption. The amusing thing is how it is all unravelling, it will be even more amusing if it rebounds on the Quatari elite, and the event becomes the rallying cry for freedom amongst the Qatari public. Even though they WILL find Western Football Fan behaviour incomprehensible. funny watching a clever liar from another country when you can see through it isn't it?? :sl: It'll get even more amusing when he has to start defending the clear incompatibility of the forces he is trying to bring together - for his own ends. if it DOES kick off (pun wasn't intended) in Qatar, i fully expect to see a repeat of Saddam's Tariq Aziz/Assad's "assurances" all events in Syria are caused by "foreign instigators"/camoron blaming student/union activism rather than the Qatari elite's own failed policies. BSkyB again: coulson's employe, cameron, has possibly help murdoch kick the bid into the log grass! (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgetsmileyface(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/new/angry/9.gif"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgetsmileyface(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/new/angry/9.gif[/url] unfortunately for Murdoch, the ability for pubs to watch streaming football from the Net (judges found that legal, recently), instead of paying from Sky, will cause the share-price to do something as well. It is somewhat clear that NewsCorp is NOT a "fit and proper" broadcaster", and it cannot be overstated how much better the behaviour of the BBC. The shares in Sky owned by NewsCorp should be removed by Ofcom (BECAUSE murdoch might very well remain in his post after all, or his son), by the regulator, and then the Govt should step in and purchase the shares when it is low, and give them to the BBC. the BBC would benefit greatly from having an ISP platform, and could even start to reduce its need upon the Licence-fee. A far better purchase by the UK Govt than the Bank-Shares Bail-Out. News-Int is part of fox - the right-wing media group that runs Fauxnews, the pro-war "news" service. Still a group you want running the UKs strategic inofrmation highway? Btw, every email you sent via Sky broadband is potentially being tapped and read. Or do you think News-KKKorp and Murdoch care about your rights to privacy? Its time and past to get rid of them entirely. Shame we have News-KKKorp employees working in Downing St, and no, i'm not talking about Coulson. excellent report by Peston! Again!! ;-D (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7sPUpKGI1Z4"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=7sPUpKGI1Z4[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY[/url] Ai Weiwei: China, if you imprison those who criticise you, you will end up creating the very revolution you fear. And "counter-revolutionary" simply doesn't wash anymore, stop behaving like an infant. Start treating your People as the adults you want them to be. Free, Liberated, Questioning, Self-Motivated. It is not questioning and critical citizens you should be careful of, it is those driven by money who strip and exploit the rights of others, and ultimately corrupt a society from within. Whilst there are now many such in the ranks of the CCP, hopefully you are not *entirely* corrupted. let your artists go, in every way you only harm yourselves by imprisoning them. And that will eventually harm China itself. ------------------------------ And: the highly recommended Transition Town Handbook, mentioned above, for those not blessed with pockets of Western money: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmastt(contact admin if its a beneficial link).uk/node/457"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetmastt(contact admin if its a beneficial link).uk/node/457[/url] peace.
  10. Murdoch And The Bskyb Shenanigans

    the later post, same BBC blog, after the program Newsnight to which it refers. There might be much of note later in it to readers across the world: Wednesday 13 July 2011 00:10am on 14 Jul 2011 harriet harmen was correct: people have lost faith with big institutions. Here's a terrible thought: perhaps that was what was intended by some of those who thought up the original policies!! the solution is a clean-up, it might have pained you at the time, but it is because MPs went through already that people even trust them slightly on the Press and Police. I'm more referring to backbenchers, normal MPs, rather than the ministerial rank, and of both main parties. I think people generally trusted the Lib-Dems more on these matters anyway, disregarding recent leaders. simon hughes: now(!) we hear about the nobbling against those who wanted an Inquiry in 2003!! Neither labour nor tories put the Judicial inquiry in place when they have been in power, it is only now the Public are partly in power that they have been forced to do so. But the Public could only put on the pressure when they knew about what was happening! THIS is the tremendous power of the Press, right there! In liberal theory, it is the communication to the Public what is happening, so they can make informed decisions come Polling time. When that information is deliberately distorted, it prevents this flow of accurate information. Even worse, when there is a threat to blackmail individual policy-makers due to information gathered secretly, or illegally by the press, policies can be changed or made without even the vaguest knowledge of the Public, in favour of those *or their desired policies) who own the media platforms! The Press, and free-flow of information, are ***VITAL*** in a Democracy. If the Press are owned by a few "media-barons", then information is easily buried or even distorted, just as if it was the State owning all the Press. a thought: if we'd had a decent Press, then the Internet would not have taken off as a source of information. It was the KKKorporate blockage (just as if it was State monopoly) *ITSELF* causing evolution/honest reporting to flow around them. Nature/God/GAIA is like that, ...smart huh? ;D so, the press: it will be vastly harder to prevent/discuss the "cuts" program if the press can use potentially illegally-gained blackmail, - and how can there possibly be a quality debate when the press and news are being deliberately used to undermine honest, decent discussion about the issues? Remember how the "AV" Campaign was fought, the dirty tricks? This is how, with the collusion of certain elements of the Press, issues the Public deserve a good discussion on are turned into slig-fodder by members of the Tabloid Elite. lovely tory woman, again agreed with her on a lot (*will* remember her name sometime! :sl: ) but she forgets that it is extremely difficult to have a good debate about cuts, Europe and the economy, and have the tabloids/Press joining in in an adult manner. So yes, those issues are important, but the platform upon which those discussions are held is also important. So this issue of phone-hacking, potential blackmail and Press-pressure, and even the Police involvement at the highest levels, are all ALSO important to the Public. i think People are realising that accurate information about the World and what is actually happening, is very important. I don't think the People will have forgotten this next week, because every ##, histrionic scare-story to take their minds off what *is* important will remind them of it. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/07/wednesday_13_july_2011.html?postid=109675081#comment_109675081"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...mment_109675081[/url] ------------------ for global readers, in many parts of the World, remember that the UK is supposed to have a "free press", largely because it is owned by private corporations, instead of the State/Church. this is a false idea, a Free Press is more like the forums upon the Internet, without central/corporate control. this is why the Arab Spring gained shape - the communication between equals, who had a stake in being honest. The same is true of what is happening in Europe, even if it seems more economic to most non-westerners. Information is spreading, becoming more equal, and it is liberating, slowly, individuals and groups across the entire World. and about time, too. best of luck, all my friends, the struggle goes on. peace and love, N. xxx
  11. Murdoch And The Bskyb Shenanigans

    i couldn't even post a link to this blog entry!!
  12. disabled0335: i quite agree. its amusing how these "Professors" of subjects feel quite free to mouth off and insult everyone who looks at the world differently, off their own speciality interests, but they take incredible umbrage if someone does it to their own fields. and then they wonder why "religionists" feel such worry about secularism. its sad, and harms their own influence tremendously. peace and love. :sl:
  13. 2. Open Letter To Israel.

    tom, the PLO under Arafat became corrupt, and Abbas was chosen (due to incredible pressure by israel and the US) to continue such corruption, and de-legitimise the Palestinian cause. This is another reason why Hamas came under such extreme attack (if you consider labelling them Terrorist, putting sanctions on Gaza, and ultimately invading (slaughtering over a thousand inhabitants of the Gaza-Ghetto) "extreme" - i do). But that is NOT THE ISSUE - the issue is the safety and survival of the Palestinian people, and if having Abbas in that peace process helps, then so be it. Perspective, peeps, Perspective!
  14. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/uk-politics/2011/06/long-term-government-democracy#"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/uk-politics/20...ment-democracy#[/url] -------------- i note virtually all the 'opposition' to rowan's comments focussed upon any 'right' for him to express an opinion. Presumably therefore, they disagreed with the article, believing there was sufficient Public preview and discussion, and that these Fx. NHS reforms were detailed in the elections, or even mentioned in the farcical, stage-managed "Leaders Debates". the stream of comments after an article like this is often revealing, goes through phases in discussion, and nearly always stimulates thought from some posts. I'm sure this is part of what Doctor Rowan hoped to achieve, for such discussions can unlock ideas, and ultimately start to build the dynamism for guided change, in a direction at least most of us can grasp, and agree with. here is an irony: we are faced with a range of crisis, but our Govt is deliberately creating unnecessary others. The obvious solution is to demand business at least pay the amount of tax they should, they are after all profiting from working in this country, and should pay part of the costs of health, education, infrastructure, defence etc - just as people living here do. we need jobs, and we need the State to invest to create new locally owned companies, to employ people, to train people, and to pay taxes. And to make up the inevitable shortfall in imports coming our way. a few facts: Public Service bodies often are vastly more efficient with resources than Corporate. Equivalent care to the NHS from privately-owned for-profit medical companies would cost FAR more. The BBC far outperforms Fox/News International in creativity, quality and productivity, on a comparatively shoe-string budget. When schools are run for-profit, they either charge more, or give lower quality. When prisons are private, they have every incentive to make inmates into re-offenders. When Libraries are closed, and police-stations, and firemen fired, and it is suggested libraries can open in McDonalds, and the police in Tescos, it is very clear i think to everyone that something is going wrong. And that something "going wrong" is an ideology that blindly has faith in profit/money as the only motivator for humanity, - for privatisation, and for corporate statism run by Bankers and their Corporate keiretsu, an ideology that has claimed to improve living conditions for the majority, but in fact only benefits those aware that it is nothing but a scam, and use deregulation to make a private fortune. another fact: considering the minimm wage is FAR below the level of the Living Wage, itself not exactly bankers bonus level, then the Tory plan to stamp on the rates of benefits, to "make working pay", can only, and must even be intended to, INCREASE the amount of poverty and suffering in the UK. and again, this is simply never reported as such by the highly-paid commentators and editorials in the "free press" - completely owned-and-controlled by the Corporates, naturally. it is hardly curious the extremely wealthy use their power and influence to make the tax-burden fall on poorer, weaker people, it is sad however when this is taken to such extremes, even to the point of deliberatly inciting racial hatred to detract attention from the Wealth Gap. and it is much to be lauded that the Archbishop risked so much institutional, political and even social criticism to make these actually quite simple, obvious and essential points. it is a shame that the Govt "attacked" back, instead of listening to these mild criticisms that reflect so many millions of normal people's worries. it is heart-warming, even i am sure for ardent Old Lefties, to know the Heart is still in the CoE, and other UK Christian organisations, that they do still carry the true message of their founder. i think the Archbishop has done more in one week to reduce the decay of decades for the Church, even whilst that was absolutely not his intention. ---- sorry for the mess in the NS, they have a strange blogdog i couldn't get past. Rowan, you have done your Christian duty, thank you. I hope the Govt listens!!
  15. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hs8zp"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hs8zp[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145431/Now-farm-help-teach-world-live-oil-says-woman-banished-plastic-bags-town.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...-bags-town.html[/url] current torrent: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_isohunt(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/torrents/?ihq=a+farm+for+the+future"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_isohunt(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/torrents/?ihq=a+farm+for+the+future[/url] ----------------- (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pavanvan.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/03/06/iceland-does-the-right-thing-refuses-to-pay-absurd-debt/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_pavanvan.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/03/06/i...ay-absurd-debt/[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsocialistworld(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/doc/4160"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsocialistworld(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/doc/4160[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsodahead(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/united-states/setting-an-example-iceland-refuses-to-pay/blog-134728/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsodahead(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/united-states/sett...ay/blog-134728/[/url] ---------------------------- (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/06/monday_6_june_2011.html?postid=109283492#comment_109283492"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...mment_109283492[/url] no further comment to add for now, m'lud. [edited to add torrent link]
  16. Radical Islam: ministers get the message Martin Bright Published 09 April 2007 Martin Bright on how we are slowly discovering the way to engage with Muslim groups plus Ruth Kelly on a British version of Islam Attitudes about how to deal with radical Islam are now shifting so quickly within Whitehall that it is hard to keep up. The detailed announcement from Ruth Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, on how she will spend £5m on grass-roots hearts and minds projects is a genuine break with the recent past, when ministers preferred to fund self-appointed national representatives of Islam such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) rather than those working on the ground with young people. A new focus on schools, local civic leadership and the establishment of "forums on extremism" in areas of tension such as Preston in the north, Dudley in the Midlands and Redbridge in east London shows that Kelly's department is grappling with a different approach. The shift has been deemed necessary because the old approach patently failed. If the events of 7 July 2005 were not enough to persuade the British public of the real threat of home-grown Islamic radicalism, subsequent trials have dem onstrated that we are no longer dealing with an imported phenomenon. The conviction of Dhiren Barot, a British Hindu convert to Islam, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder last November, marked a new high-water mark for the authorities in terms of terrorist convictions. Barot, also known as Abu Musa al-Hindi and Issa al-Britani, was named as a key al-Qaeda operative by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities. Barot admitted to having planned attacks on the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank and the IMF from Britain, where he grew up after moving here as a child from Kenya. Recent research which revealed that young Muslims are more likely than their parents to show support for sharia law has fuelled concern about the growing attraction of radical Islam among young British Muslims. I was recently invited to address an international conference in Berlin on Islam and integration, and I began my presentation by saying that British government thinking had changed so much in the past six months that my paper had to be considered as a work in progress. The title of my session at the conference was "Framing Values: government engagement with Muslim communities". It sounded like the title of a dull PhD, but actually provides the basis of a crucial analysis of the British government's approach. For too long, the government has addressed the second half of the proposition (engagement) without taking account of the first (a set of common values which all parties bring to the table). The conference, organised by the US Migration Policy Institute, the German Bertelsmann Foundation and the British-based Club of Three, part of the Weidenfeld Institute for Strategic Dialogue, was dominated by discussions about what might constitute these common and potentially conflicting values. (Should they be blanket values such as tolerance, respect, security and freedom, or something more specific such as tolerance of difference, respect for the rule of law, security from extremist violence, freedom from arbitrary arrest?) Delegates, who included representatives from several European governments, the US state department and the grand mufti of Bosnia-Hercegovina, agreed that the west was still finding it difficult to define its values, let alone assert them in the face of the growing attraction of radicalisation. In July of last year, I wrote a controversial pamphlet published by the think-tank Policy Exchange in which I exposed the extent to which the British government and the Foreign Office in particular had made a compact with radical Islam. In the Middle East, this constituted a dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, which works towards an Islamic state through the democratic process; at home this was largely expressed by the Labour government's long-standing relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain. Leaked Foreign Office documents showed that officials and ministers had adopted a policy of what one diplomat described as "engagement for its own sake" with ostensibly mod erate Islamist groups in an attempt to counter the influence of more extreme organisations. This policy had also been allowed to seep into domestic policy, over which the Foreign Office had, until recently, an extraordinary degree of influence. Using a series of articles in this magazine and a documentary on Channel 4, I argued for a change in policy to broaden the scope of the dialogue. The influence of Ruth Kelly has been hugely significant in this respect. I was initially sceptical that her new department would have the clout to take over responsibility for community cohesion and integration or that she would have the political will to take on the established Muslim organisations. But, from the outset, she made it plain that it was important to frame a set of values before embarking on the process of engagement. She refused to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain, for example, while its leaders continued to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day. She has since said that no organisation will rec eive money from her department until they make explicit their opposition to extremism. Engagement is now contingent on signing up to a shared set of British values. So far so good, but the problem is that such values are as yet ill- defined. Gordon Brown has attempted to promote the rediscovery of Britishness as part of his guiding philosophy. But even that is barely sketched out and seems, at present, to consist of a deep respect for the liberal economic model that is yoked to a belief in the old-fashioned (and somewhat imperialistic) notion of the British gentleman. One possible course is outlined in research commissioned by the government's Preventing Extremism Unit from Tufyal Choudhury at Durham University, who was also present at the Berlin conference. Choudhury argues that many young Muslims are suffering an identity crisis which leaves them vulnerable to radical Islam. They feel alienated from British institutions and blocked in terms of social mobility. The most vulnerable are those exploring their own religion for the first time. Choudhury argues that a European or British version of Islam could be developed as a response to extremism. Unfortunately, the Labour Party has been having some difficulty with its own shared values in recent years and may have shed too many of its old left-liberal attitudes to allow for genuine assertion of its core beliefs. Traditionally, Britain has always been tolerant of foreign ideologies in its midst, as political exiles from Voltaire to Marx discovered. It has been criticised by many in Europe for sheltering Islamists from the Middle East, and in particular Algeria, since the early 1990s. But it is not contradictory to say that it is possible to oppose the totalitarianism of the Islamic extreme right, while refusing to shed the civil liberties that give representatives of the same ideology protection from arbitrary arrest. Only by robustly upholding the human rights of every individual will we be able credibly to oppose those who would present the seductive totalitarian alternative of a collective set of values based on a literalist interpretation of Islam. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/200704090012"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/200704090012[/url] ----------------------------------- so as this is an Islamic forum, i feel there should be some opinions upon how britain can 'engage' its muslim minority population in the political sphere? BTW, this is what i wrote as reply to the article, and comments upon this would also be appreciated:
  17. How To 'engage' British Muslims?

    Peace and Love. :sl:
  18. 2. Open Letter To Israel.

    Friday 20 May 2011 Posting: on israel: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/06/wednesday_2_june_2010.html?postId=96799588#comment_96799588"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...omment_96799588[/url] (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/06/wednesday_2_june_2010.html?postId=96799579#comment_96799579"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...omment_96799579[/url] this is not a game! Millions of lives depend upon this. I hope Obama is serious in his message about wanting peace in the region. if it is not possible to achieve a Two-State Solution, then 'Plan B' must necessarily be the occupation by neutral troops (UN) of the entire area, making the majority a World Heritage Site controlled internationally, preventing racial prejudice and equalising rights for ALL groups living there. Surely? The israelis must recognise the equal rights of Palestinians as humans also, there is no other way the Jews can be secure in the Middle East for the long-term. Naturally, the israelis are worried about security, but it should now be obvious that their current policies are largely causing the insecurity. The Jews must find the Humanity that the Nazis never regained. israel, your fears will destroy you. Is it not conceivable to you that it might even be better to leave israel again, even for another two Millennia if necessary, than to turn the whole region, the land of your GOD and ancient, ancient history - into poisoned, tortured and destroyed, barren, radioactive glass?? What hope true-israel to sacrifice itself to occupy this plot of land, what lack of hope in a better future for themselves? 2000 years might seem a long time to humans, but to IT it is a bare blink, and should be to the 'People-with-History' as well. do NOT commit suicide over land. and surely(!) a 'less than this', is to allow the Palestinians/israeli minorities the equal rights and civil status as any Jewish israeli holds as sacred for themselves, - how can possibly the **JEWS** be denying this to others?!? :''''( such a move will be a risk - and now a terrible risk - but surely less terrible than the alternatives?? surely, the whole World is hoping: yes, bargain hard israel, but give ground. Please, we ask you. We beg you. @-> please. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2011/05/friday_20_may_2011.html?postId=108961005#comment_108961005"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromt...mment_108961005[/url]
  19. What Happened To This Forum ?

    i also cut down my posting here because of the restrictions, there seems much that is simply not allowed to be discussed. Yet at the same time i have been attacked here more than most others - indeed, "kitty kat" left some of his doings yet again in my inbox, how sweet of him, and posters such as him are extemely annoying. it is hard to see a balance.
  20. peace redeem, ALL Muslim women?? And di the Prophet (pbuh) require it? Personally, i think it says more about the MEN in the Prophet's(pbuh) day, they they could not control their lusts unless the women were covered up. How utterly weak and pathetic of them, IMHO. Modern day Scandinavian men have far more self-control, and are far more manly for it. peace and love. :sl:
  21. The Flaw With All Religion?

    salaam ranma, all creatures are selfish, it only depends upon how high a level your 'Self' has achieved. Personal, genetic, cultural, intellectual, spiritual... a person whos feeling of Self encompasses ALL life is still being selfish by ensuring they never hurt others, brushing ants from their path etc, it is all just a matter of perspective. depends upon their upbringing. Children grown up in strong 'liberal' homes are less likely to be afraid of 'others' and new experiences, children raised in 'conservative' homes more likely to want drastic 'solutions' against otherness. yet teenagers rebel. i would recommend robert anton wilson's 'Prometheus Rising' for a far deeper grasp of this aspect of human psychology. speak for yourself. yes, alas. peace and love :sl:
  22. Dajjal (Anti-Christ)

    oh my Lord. first of all, WHY would the Destroyer come *before* the Savior? In *every* other occasion, first of all comes the warning... THEN when that is ignored, comes the punishment. What loving parent would punish the child, *before* telling the child what they are doing wrong and letting them change their ways? who would send the Flood, before sending a Noah? priests and their editting pens - gotta love the way they ensure their own continued easy life...
  23. and for some women that can be seen as true - so what? It is their right to so see - as long as they don't enforce it upon others, they are perfectly free to argue what the damn well they please. Equally French ministrs can claim what THEY damn well please about the burqa etc - but they cannot claim that making it illegal is somehow enhancing freedoms. This should be obvious. in some ways it is - and some Moslems would so feel. As a side-line, many UK Muslims were willing to go in front of the TV cameras and state that they wanted Shariah Law as that would have punished 'terrorists' in the UK far harsher than the 'liberal' UK criminal system. They wanted Shariah to prevent domestic terrorism in the UK! Tough shyt, we are Liberal, Secular democracies, that is our legal system, and that is the way we're going to stay. People like me will fight to allow the burkha to remain - but we will also fight to ensure it doesn't become enforced. see above. i *knew* we would agree at some level! :sl: me no understand?? The 'freedom' not to, or to have to, wear certain clothing? Doesn't sound much like freedom to me... there is NO requirement within Islam to wear these forms of clothing, they are cultural interpretations POST Prophet Mohammed, he himself never ordered these restrictions. Similar to wearing the 'cross' in 'Christianity'. yes... as long as it IS obligation, and not just ancient cultural baggae revived by Western attacks upon Islamic culture. indeed. Makes me want to puke. But what can you expect of the french...?? Of course, we English would *never* tell people what they can and can't wear... unless you want to speak in Jack Straw's surgery...!! [need a puking-in-bucket smilie :no: ] enough said already, really. --but to be serious (and she does raise serious concerns that i agree with), why does she not ask WHY this sudden rise in 'radical conservative Islam' has arisen in the UK, WHY does she not see the connection between the growth in anti-Islam hatred post 9/11, and the rise in anti-Islam articles in such hate-sheets as the 'daily mail', and many young Muslim women wanting to 'hide' behind these all-covering clothing? Is there no connection for her? Is it all to be blamed upon Islam, instead of seeing the cultural interplay between nationalist xenophobia in western cultures, and a growth in conservative elements in sub-cultures experiencing enormous and constant mainstream attack? creating new laws and restrictions upon such expressions is hardly likely to improve matters, it will just make them more attractive, and a greater expression of rebellion against the mainstream culture - EXACTLY like previous generations sub-cultural expressions were actually *strengthened* by mainstream rejection and restrictions! Were punks put off by media attacks? Hippies? Or did such attacks actually have the effect of making such expressions of rebellion more attractive? think about it. the best way to cut down on such expression is to shrug and say "yeah, and so what?", but of course, if your *actual* aim is to creae more social and political strife, to create inter-cultural conflict, to be able to institute greater social control as a supposed 'response' to cultural conflicts, then what could be batter than using the law to inflame minority opinion, especially whilst claiming it in the name of 'freedom'? policians are generally scum, but right-wing politicians... they are the ones who beat the 'drum of morality' the most, and as a parallel, they have the *least* morality where it actually counts. peace and love.:sl:
  24. i'm very sorry, but it is not possible to redefine terms like that - especially when it then makes it philosophically meaningless. As i stated quite strongly above, ALL expressions can ultimately tied back to expressions of religion - even the anarchic form and style of Punk have a strong religious element (ie belief system) attached to them - just listen to any 'old punks' discussing 'new punks'. Or 'old Hippies' discussing 'techno-Hippies'. secularism - that has has one of its tenets *blindness* to religion, cannot be then utilised to attack one specific religion. To anyone trained in sociology, or social anthropology, this is blindingly obvious. And by the by, all this will do is make the wearing of such clothing far more desirable - regardez turkey, for example. this is nothing more nor less than an expression of xenophobia, and hiding this fact behind secularism is as disgusting, revolting and frankly dishonest as Bush's claim to be attacking and occupying Iraq to "introduce democracy". all this is doing is bringing both democracy and secularism into grave disrepute. That, even slightly more than the fact of the ban on freedom of expression itself, is what really gets my goat. We all have to live in this world once these ######-hats have done trying to create civil war to cover up their failings in every other area.