Name: Kashmiri Nomad From: India About me: Born in Kashmir, raised and educated in Western Europe.
I presently live somewhere west of the Bosphorus and east of the Rocky Mountains.
Have you ever heard the fact that there are no Christian churches in Arabia? If you answered yes you might just be wrong. The Arab emirate of Qatar home to Al-Jazeera television has begun work on building a purpose built Roman Catholic Church:
"Work has begun on the construction of Qatar's first purpose-built church in the desert outside Doha, the country's capital.
Roman Catholics from all over the Arabian Peninsula - many of them migrant workers - are helping to pay for the $15m building, which is scheduled to open at the end of the year.
Overseeing the church is Paul Hinder, the Catholic Church's Bishop of Arabia. A Christian in the heart of the Muslim world, his diocese is the entire Arabian peninsular, encompassing six countries.
Hinder told Al Jazeera that often people are more active Christians during their one or two years labouring in the Arabian peninsular than they are when they are back home.
Certainly, turn-out at church services all over the Arabian peninsular is significant. Numbers in the congregations regularly beat those in congregations in Europe and even in the United States.
The majority of the two million expatriate Christians who attend these services are Filipinos, Lebanese and Indians who have come to the Gulf for work." (Source: Al-Jazeera)
Electioneering is rife in the American Presidential race even though the ballot is not until 2008. Names such as Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and John Edwards have all be mentioned so far in the race for the leadership of the free world.
At this point I would like to add my two penneth to the discussion. As fine and outstanding human beings and politicians as the celebrities named above are I do not think they have what it takes to lead the free world at this most dangerous time when western civilization is crumbling to extinction in the face of barbarian satanic Islamofascist / Islamonazi forces from the east. In all reality these politicians are men and women of no substance when it comes to the fight to the death that the west is involved in at this moment. Keeping this mind I believe that there is only one man who has a moustache and attitude that can save western civilization and the free world from the enemy that is Islam and that man I can proudly announce is John Bolton.
Many may think Mr. John Bolton is strange choice for this the most important job however I do not think this is so. John Bolton has on numerous occasions in his political and diplomatic life shown he has the right attitude and balls to put his personal interests and the strategic interests of the free world over and above any other consideration. I think it pertinent that we have a look at a concise history of John Bolton to prove as to why he is the right man to lead the free world.
20th November 1948 born to working class parents in Baltimore and raised a Lutheran
Wins scholarship to attend McDonogh School in Maryland and graduates in 1966.
1970 earns B.A with highest honors from Yale University.
1974 earns Doctorate of Law from Yale University.
1974 to 1981 is an associate of the legal firm Covington & Burling.
1981 to 1982 is General Counsel, USAID
1982 to 1983 is Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, USAID
1983 to 1985 returns to work for Covington & Burling.
1985 to 1989 is Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.
1989 to 1993 is Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State.
1993 to 1999 is a partner in law firm Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus.
1997 to 2000 works pro bono in the office of James Baker.
2001 Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
As can be seen from the record John Bolton is not only an intelligent individual but he also has a fine and long record of public service to the peoples of the free world.
At this point I wish to have a look at some of John Bolton quotes to further my case for his presidential candidacy.
Although a supporter of the Vietnam war he declined to enter combat duty and instead enrolled in the National Guard. As a result John Bolton at no time saw active military action in Vietnam. His opinions about the war are now famously recorded in his 25th reunion book from Yale University in which he states:
"I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy," (Source: Yale Daily News)
John Bolton's straight talking style has won him many detractors but I believe this quality is essential for a man who deals in diplomacy and geo-politics. He is quoted as giving the following definition of diplomacy:
"Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests. " (Source: Brainy Quote)
John Bolton is also quoted as making scathing remarks about the Bill Clinton's relationship with the United Nations:
"He did not see or understand that the UN was only an instrument of American policy, not the policy itself…He forgot that the UN was an instrument to be used to advance America's foreign policy interests, not to engage in international social work".
Perhaps John Bolton's views on war and preventative diplomacy are the greatest of his contributions to the free world:
"War is often an entirely rational calculation, and preventive diplomacy can no more stop it than it can reverse the power of gravity." (Source: The Washington Note)
I believe that John Bolton is the right man for the job of ruler of the free world whether in 2008 or 2012 or 2016. No other can bring to this great office qualities such as John Bolton and no other than him can protect western civilization from the blood thirsty hordes of satanic Islamofascist / Islamonazi invaders. Therefore I politely request that you all place this image on your websites to show support for John Bolton.
Have you ever considered the question what type of Muslim should be allowed to immigrate to the west ? Many people believe that all Muslim migration to the west should be stopped citing the fact that the very foundations of western civilization are at risk by the invading Muslim barbarian savages. I personally agree that Muslim migration to western countries should be stopped but not for the reason already mentioned. For more on this topic see my post entitled "Why Muslim Migration To The West Must Stop"
The question of Muslim migration to the west has not only been troubling me but it also appears that Australian politician Pauline Hanson has been giving the matter a considerable amount of her intellectual attention.
Pauline Hanson believes that "Christian-Muslims" are the only type of Muslim that should be allowed to settle in Australia. I am sure by now your wondering what on earth is a "Christian-Muslim", well according to Pauline Hanson it is a Muslim who worships with Christians and disbelieves in the Qur'an:
"PAULINE Hanson has invented a new religion where Muslims and Christians can pray together.
The former One Nation leader, who is having another tilt at politics, said she was wary of allowing Muslims to settle in Australia.
But she would welcome some Muslims, she said.
"There are Christian Muslims - there is no problems about that," she told ABC radio yesterday.
"But if people believe in the way of life under the Koran, that concerns me greatly."
The comment - an apparent reference to Arab Christians" (Source:News.com.au)
After voicing her concerns about Muslim migration to Australia Pauline Hanson then goes on to show how well versed she is in her command of history and strategic geo-politics. Hoping to rebuff any claims that she does not have a clue about the world Pauline Hanson states that Malaysia is being "overtaken" by Muslims:
"Ms Hanson said Malaysia had been "taken over by Muslims, despite a long history of Islam in that country". (Source: News.au.com)
According to the Malaysian population and housing census of 2000 around 60% of Malays are Muslims:
"Islam was the most widely professed religion in Malaysia; its proportion increasing from 58.6% in 1991 to 60.4% in 2000. Malaysia, being a multi-religious nation, also had a fair share of those embracing other religions such as Buddhism (19.2%), Christianity (9.1%), Hinduism (6.3%) and Confucianism/Taoism/other traditional Chinese religion (2.6%) as revealed in Census 2000." (Source: Malaysia Statistics Agency)
Should there be any surprise that Muslims are "taking over Malaysia" in the words of Pauline Hanson ?
If the likes of Pauline Hanson can make it to places of power and influence around the globe are we really surprised why the world is in such a mess ?
With what I am sure will be seen as a slap in the face of American Christian anti-Islam bigots U.S. President George W. Bush in this video interview confirms that in his opinion Islam is a way to eternal salvation in heaven:
Its an oft used mantra of western politicians that freedom and democracy loving nations will never ever negotiate or even talk to terrorists. This at least is the public facade however at closer inspection does their rhetoric hold true ?
From the Iran-Contra affair to support of right-wing death squads in Central America to support of military juntas in South America freedom loving governments have behind the backs of their populaces been up to all sorts of nasty business.
Now comes news of the latest installment in this saga. It seems that the highest representative of the American government in Iraq has held talks with Iraqi terrorists:
"The outgoing US ambassador to Baghdad admitted yesterday that America had talked to Sunni insurgent groups
Zalmay Khalilzad said: "We have talked to groups who resisted the democratic change. It is our goal to reconcile and make them embrace the new Iraq."
He is the first US official to admit holding such talks, which appeared to put him at odds with many in the Bush administration who maintained that there should be no contact with insurgents.
According to American officials quoted by the New York Times, Mr Khalilzad flew to Jordan for some meetings in early 2006 with representatives of the Islamic Army of Iraq and the 1920 Revolution Brigades, both nationalist factions." (Source: Daily Telegraph)
I am sure you all remember the Lancet/John Hopkins study that concluded that over 600,000 people had been killed in Iraq since the American liberation in March 2003.
At the time of its release and subsequently the study was rubbished by both the American and British governments as a wild over exaggeration. Documents have now been released in the United Kingdom that paint a slightly different impression:
"British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.
The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.
The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.
The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones". (Source: The Independent)
I agree with the sentiment with that it is better to be safe than sorry. So you can understand why I think that the Muslim who is at the centre of this post is being a little too sensitive. Unfortunately this is the way of the world in these times but does he have a point?
"A MUSLIM man has demanded an apology from a bank after he was told his account was frozen because his name is Mohammed.
Nasir Tahir, of Munden View, Watford, had his account frozen and investigated after he paid in a cheque from his ex-employers.
The 27-year-old received a payment of £7,361 from the employment agency he had worked for as a branch leader for two years.....
.....Nasir phoned Abbey and was told his account had been blocked since the day after he paid in the cheque.
Nasir said: "They said they needed to get some clarifications on my account and told me it was because of the cheque I had paid in.
"If I had walked into a bank with a bag full of cash I could understand, but every month for the past two years they could see I was paid by this company, so I said what is the problem here?
"And at that point the operator said 'With a name like Mohammed are you really surprised?'"
All official correspondence includes his full name - Mohammed Nasir Tahir. He believes he is being victimised because of his name and his beliefs.
He said: "It just really, really annoyed me. At first I just had to end the call because I was so angry.
"I am a Muslim and I am a law abiding citizen.
"Some people say that no matter how long you live in this country you will always be seen as different and it rings true." (Source: This is Hertfordshire)
When one considers the question in the title of this post one may come up with an array of reasons as to why America is doomed to failure in its attempts at re-moulding the Middle East. Depending upon ones particular political leanings the answer to that question varies greatly.
Many liberal Americans view the situation in the current Middle East as the making of an idealistic and criminal Bush regime which is doomed to failure for those very reasons.
While on the right wing of American politics one encounters the notion that the only thing holding America back from victory in the Middle East are the liberal "enemies" at home. Added to this situation is the general skepticism that most in the Muslim world hold to any type of western intervention in the region. The Middle East has seen imperial conquest, independence and now globalization in its rather bloody history and all supposedly for the betterment of the peoples of the region.
Enter Japan's Foreign Minister who is reported to have another reason as to why America is doomed in its efforts throughout the region and one that may surprise many.
Taro Aso believes that the problem with the American presence in the Middle East is of a racial nature:
"Taro Aso, Japan's foreign minister, risked upsetting his country's strongest ally by suggesting US diplomats in the Middle East would never solve the region's problems because they have "blue eyes and blond hair".
Mr Aso, a straight-talking nationalist, said the Japanese, on the other hand, were trusted because they had "yellow faces" and had "never been involved in exploitation there, or been involved in fights or fired machine guns".
Japan has healthy relations with Arab countries and Iran and imports much of its oil from the Middle East. It is a big contributor of aid to the Palestinian Authority, but also has friendly ties with Israel.
"Japan is doing what Americans can't do," local media quoted Mr Aso as saying in a speech about Japan-sponsored investment in the Middle East. "Japanese are trusted. It would probably be no good to have blue eyes and blond hair. Luckily, we Japanese have yellow faces."
Mr Aso, seen by some as a possible successor to the prime minister, Shinzo Abe.... " (Source: The Guardian)
Danielle Jones is English and up and till very recently a Catholic. After the death of close relative Danielle exchanged her min-skirt for a face veil and now wants to be called Safiyah.
The British newspaper The Sun carried her story but what I found really interesting about the piece was the reaction of some of the readers to the news about Danielle's conversion. Not for them are kind words regarding freedom of religion and supporting the rights of this individual to worship God as she likes rather the tone of the contributors is one of condescending ridicule:
"Catholic Danielle Jones — now Safiyah — ditched her mini-skirts and crop tops and now wears the full face niqab of Muslim women.
The 19-year-old made her shock decision after her step-dad died of a brain tumour. She said it was her Muslim pals and their faith who helped cope with the loss.
And she revealed the decision to convert made her feel "a million times" stronger.
Safiyah, of Bolton, Lancs, said: "I couldn't stand the way men stared as I walked down the street. Now I feel a million times more empowered wearing my full-face niqab. Nobody is judging me on how my body looks."
Safiyah, who hopes to act as a mediator between the Muslim and British communities, added: "I don't miss drinking. I'm happy."
Now for the comments of the readers:
"JUST A FAD. SHE COULD HAVE SPOKEN TO A PRIEST OR SOMEONE IN HER CHURCH TO ELIEVIATE HER GRIEF, RATHER THAN TURN 180 DEGREES. ITS THE NEWNESS. SHE COULD HAVE DRESSED MODESTLY - MANY DO, ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BECOME A MUSLIM TO DO SO. MAYBE BE MEN LOOKED AT HER AS SHE WAS DRESSED IMPROPERLY. THESE ARE PEOPLE WITH WEAK MINDS LIKE WHO JOIN CULTS TO FIND LATER ON THAT THEY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. IT THE NEW NESS AND THE ATTENTION SHE IS GETTING NOW TAHT SHE SEEMS TO ENJOY"
"THIS PERSON SHOULD FIRST GO TO SAUDI ARABIA OR PAKISTAN AND LIVE IN ONE OF THE MUSLIM MASJORITY COUNTRIES FIRST, BEFORE PLUNGING IN HEAD FIST INTO THE UNKNOWN." (Faqi 22)
" The effects of extreme grief such as the loss of a loved one can lead to the search for comfort in the oddest of ways. Bet its not what her father would have wanted." (Paul_the_Beat-All)
"She comes across as a silly very weak minded individual if you ask me" (Defiant) (Source: The Sun)
Hmmmmm not very supportive is it, I wonder why ?
Image courtesy of Indigo Goat(The use of this image does not in any way suggest the copyright holder endorses the content of this weblog)
The following video is a news report from the BBC. It centres around the allegation that a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked and beaten in the United Kingdom for the criminal offence of being Muslim:
Since its Revolution in the 1700's the French state has adopted a rather "militant" form of secularism known by the French term Laïcité.
Laïcité has commonly been translated into English as meaning secularism however this translation does not do the term full justice:
"In French, some other Romance Languages, and Turkish, laïcité (pronounced /la'isite/), Turkish: laiklik or laisizm, Italian: laicità or laicismo, is a prevailing conception of a secular state, that is, of the absence of religious interference in government affairs, and vice-versa. While it is thought that there is no English word that captures the exact meaning of "laïcité", which comes from the Greek λαϊκός (which means "layman"), it is related to the English word "laity" or "laymen", and "laicity" is the natural English spelling or rendering of the French term. Laicite is a main component of both liberalism and republican traditions.
There is a difference between laicity, a political theory aimed at separating politics and religion with the goal of promoting religious freedom, and secularism in the sense of the declining importance of faith in individuals' daily lives (although the terms "secularism" and "secularity" are sometimes used in the sense described here).
The conception of laicite is based on the respect of freedom of thought and of freedom of religion. Thus, the absence of a state religion and the subsequent separation of the state and of the Church is believed to be a prerequisite of such freedom of thought. Laicite is thus distinct from anti-clericalism, which actively opposes the influence of religion and of the clergy. Laicite relies on the division between private life, to which religion belongs according to it, and the public sphere, in which each individual should appear devoid of ethnic, religious or others particularities, and as a simple citizen equal to all others citizens. Thus, laicite is a main component of liberalism and of republicanism. According to this conception, the government must refrains from taking positions on religious doctrine and only considers religious subjects from their practical consequences on the inhabitants' lives." (Source: Wikipedia )
The concept of religious freedom in Roman Catholic France had been around since the 1500's at which time the Vatican allowed Protestants the right to worship however the power of the Roman Catholic clergy was ingrained with the structures of the state. This all came to an end with the French Revolution and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" in 1798. Articles 10 and 11 are said to be the basis of Laïcité. The principles of Laïcité originated in the Declaration of 1798 but it was not until 1905 until they were codified into law. The law enshrined a number of already applied principles and they were these:
"(i) No religion could be supported by the state, either by financial aid or political support.
(ii) Everyone had the right to follow a religion, but no-one had an obligation to do so.
(iii) Religious education at school was strictly forbidden.
(iv)No new religious symbols could be placed in public places, including graveyards." (Source: French Secularism - Laicite)
This now brings me to today's post.
Alain Morvan is a regional educational official in France who has caught the international media light. Morvan has lead a "crusade" to stop the establishment of an Islamic school in the city of Lyon. His good efforts have not only upset some Muslims in the city but has earned him the wrath of the French government which has decided to fire him:
"France fired a top regional education official on Wednesday for vigorously opposing a new Muslim school and publicly complaining about pressure from Paris to stop obstructing its opening.
The Al-Kindi high school, in a suburb of Lyon in eastern France, finally admitted its first 22 pupils on March 5 after an eight-month struggle with school board head Alain Morvan that ended only when Paris intervened to permit it to open.
In rejecting three requests to open the school, Morvan accused its founders of being "fundamentalists" and said he would sign refusals to open it "down to the last drop of ink."
Government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope said Morvan was replaced because "his behaviour was not that of a senior official, whose task is to carry out government policy". (Source: Reuters)
As can be seen from above France has a long history of a particular form of secularism and one that has seen the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools in the past. The problem with this case is not that Mr.Morvan was upholding those principles but rather that he engaged in his own personal crusade against the establishment of the Islamic school. This became so tiresome that even the French government had enough of him and finally gave him the sack.
While recently surfing the blogsphere I came across this post about Muslims on an American weblog.
The author of the site is an American patriot, war veteran and goes by the name of Big Dog. His views about the world are absolutist and non-negotiable. Anyway I am sure you will find his "article" very illuminating :
"It is beyond me how this country tolerates the Islamic killers. They are a culture of killers who want to take over the world and people in this country tolerate them as if they are our friends.......
.....We need to start gunning down all the Muslims suspected of doing the slightest thing wrong over there (in Iraq) so that we can eventually wipe out most of them. They take great pride in what they do to our soldiers and we as Americans are supposed to be upset because of what happened at the Abu Ghraib? Screw those animals. We should be cutting them to pieces until they tell us what we want to know and then we should line them up and shoot them. Any member of Congress who objects should have to ride around Iraq looking for IEDs.
The Muslims are trying to kill us off and to take over our country. They might think this is a peaceful venture until they are in the majority. They might believe they will be able to impose their will. I know a lot of Americans just like me who will not let that happen. If they try that crap it will be “Open Season” on every Muslim here. We will make no distinction, man, woman, or child, they will be targeted. Any member of Congress who is still around and allowing this to happen will be in an awful way. If the Muzzies don’t get them a bunch of pissed off patriots will.
Stamp out Islam now. Get rid of them. What we should be doing is locking them all up like we did the Japanese in WWII. Then we could keep our eyes on the sneaky little slime balls while forcing them to eat pork. We need to dip our bullets in pig grease and drop pig’s blood by the gallons across Iraq. For the worst offenders we can take a pen full of hogs and not feed them for about ten days. Then throw the Muslim bastards in the pen and film the hogs eating them. Let Al Jazeera show that all over the Middle East." (Source: Big Dogs Weblog)
The words in red are mine and written for clarity.
The image above is of dead Muslim Iraqi children allegedly killed during a raid by coalition forces hunting for terrorists. Source: Chris Floyd
Iran and Iraq along with North Korea were labelled by President Bush in his "State of the Union" address to Congress in 2002 as constituting an axis of evil.
Since that time the issue of rogue states acquiring weapons of mass destruction has been used by western governments to justify the invasion of Iraq and diplomatic measures against North Korea. The drum beat of war that started with Iraq has not stopped and there are many both in side and outside governmental circles in the west contemplating taking military action against Iran.
At this point I would like to take a moment so that we can actually define what weapons of mass destruction are. For the layman the term is normally associated with nuclear weapons but in reality it covers a larger range of items. The term W.M.D is used in relation to several types of weapon synthesis. These can be summarized as pertaining to nuclear, biological, chemical and more recently radiological items. Can you guess which nations have the largest stockpiles of these most dangerous of weapons ?
I would now like to have a look which countries posses nuclear weapons and the relative sizes of their arsenals:
While viewing the table above did you consider the following question: when is a weapon of mass destruction not a weapon of mass destruction ?
Have you noticed when nations that the western media and political establishment do not like very much such as Iraq or Iran or North Korea and nuclear weapons are mentioned in the same sentence the term that is always used is "weapons of mass destruction". The implication being that millions of people could be killed by them. While when nations that the western media and political establishment are favourable towards are mentioned in the same breath as nuclear technology the term changes from "weapons of mass destruction" to a "nuclear deterrent. " Why the hypocrisy ? Surely what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I am personally against all nuclear weapons and wish we could get rid of all of them however I doubt that is likely. Until that time is reached W.M.D will be used by all in a race for self preservation or global domination depending on your view point.