« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
October 31, 2007
UK: Hypocritical Mosque Chairman Slams Report
The report published on Monday 28, October by the Policy Exchange think-tank has been condemned by the chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque. The Policy Exchange sent researchers to almost 100 mosques, and found extremist literature in a quarter of the mosques visited. Much of this material was of Saudi Arabian origin.
The chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque is 84-year old Mohammad Naseem (pictured, left), who claims to be a "moderate". He is a bizarre character, whose hypocrisies I will describe below. In an article from the Birmingham Post, Naseem called the Policy Exchange study "irresponsible".
He said: "A mosque is an open, public place and anyone can distribute literature or leave literature in a mosque. The real question is who is publishing these leaflets? These are people that spread hatred and the people who do publish this literature generally don’t put their name on it. If such literature comes to our notice we will confiscate it and we will report it to the police."
He added: "My presumption is that these leaflets have nothing to do with the mosques - it's irresponsible to suggest that a quarter of mosques are involved with this."
Earlier I wrote of the exposure in the Times and other media of the Deobandi "scholar" Riyadh Ul Haq, who for years had been the imam at the Birmingham Central Mosque while Mohammad Naseem was the chairman. Ul Haq was criticized for his anti-women, anti-Hindu and anti-Jewish views. In one speech he said: "Of the peoples of the Earth, the ones that hate Muslims the most, the ones who are bitterest of their enmity towards Muslims, the most unrelenting, unforgiving, are the Jews and the mushrikin (Hindus), idolaters in all their forms."
Dr Muhammad Naseem may say that he is against extremism, yet he has presided over a mosque that had a Deobandi extremist as its imam, and his mosque website still has material that is anti-Christian, such as the article condemning the "deceptive" ways and dishonest tactics of Christian missionaries.
As I wrote in September:
One of the main problems with Muslim leaders such as those in the Muslim Council of Britain (a body also criticized for support of extremism in the report) is blatant hypocrisy. Dr Naseem is no different.In August 2004, Ul Haq was named in a feud which cost the lives of two people. On July 29, 2004, 35-year old Azmat Yaqub (pictured) was shot dead as he worked out at a gym. A fortnight before he was shot several times at the gymnasium in Sparkhill, Mr Yaqub had become a father. Earlier, on March 17, 2003, Mr Yaqub had been hit by gunshot in his shoulder, a victim of a drive-by shooting. Shaham Ali, companion who had been with him, was shot in the head and died. In the March 2003 killing, six people were arrested, and two were charged with attempted murder. The murder charges were rejected by a court, but the one of the two accused was sentenced to two year's jail. 31-year old Mohammed Sharafit Khan was found guilty of false imprisonment and assault. Two others were found guilty of false imprisonment.
Khan had invited the secretary of Birmingham Central Mosque, Mr Shockat Lal, to his home. There, the victim was kept captive and repeatedly beaten over a period of one and a half hours. The secretary had had an affair with a woman, and she had fallen pregnant. What had incited the anger of young Muslims from the mosque was the fact that the woman was Riyadh ul-Haq's wife. As she was Ul Haq's second wife, the marriage was not legal. Ul Haq had taken offence, and had sacked Shockat Lal. Others who supported the secretary were either expelled from the mosque or ostracized. In March 2003, Ul Haq was arrested from the home of his father, Mohammed Gora Pirbhai, who was an imam at a mosque in Leicester. Ul Haq was questioned about the drive-by murder, but received no charges. The two men who had died were friends of Shockat Lal.
Ul Haq's arguments that women are inferior to men still appear on the website of Birmingham Central Mosque. The Mosque website also has articles extolling the virtues of Deoband and also the extremist missionary group Tablighi Jamaat. The shoebomber Richard Reid, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, and members of the ISI have links with this group. Two of the 7/7 bombers attended a Tablighi Jamaat mosque in Dewsbury. Dr Mohammed Naseem has been the chairman of the mosque for 32 years, and he claims to be a "moderate". Naseem, who was Riyadh Ul Haq's boss for a dozen years, is convinced he is being targeted for MI5 surveillance.
Three weeks after the 7/7 bombings, Naseem tried to claim that the four bombers were innocent, despite DNA evidence. Speaking of 7/7, he called Tony Blair a liar and an unreliable witness. He has publicly questioned the existence of Al Qaeda. Naseem runs the Islamic Party of Britain and has said that homosexuals should be executed. Naseem is a major funder to the "Respect" party, whose only MP is George Galloway. After the atrocities of 9/11, Naseem had said that "we are not convinced that those people who perpetrated these actions were actually Muslims."
Advocacy of violence against homosexuals was one of the criticisms of the literature found by the Policy Exchange group. Surely Dr Muhammad Naseem, a man who believes that homosexuals should be executed, is in no position to complain about a report exposing extremist literature, when he himself supports such an extremist course of action?
After his rash remarks in 2005 about Yasin Hassan Omar (who was this year convicted of attempting to commit a suicide attack in London on July 21, 2005), there were calls for him to resign. On the Birmingham Central Mosque, letters in support of the hypocritical chairman were published. It appears that this tactic has worked, as he is still the chairman of the mosque. Shortly after his statements about Yasin Hassan Omar and the 7/7 bombers, Naseem said on BBC Radio: "I don't think al-Qaeda exists because we Muslims all over the world have not known this organization. The only information about this organisation is coming from the CIA. Now, the CIA is not known for telling the truth."
When he made this statement, Naseem was already supporting George Galloway and his Respect Party. Galloway is virulently anti-American, and Naseem's paranoia about the CIA is a theme he would return to later.
Dr Muhammad Naseem has previously claimed that he is being monitored by Britain's security agencies - possibly MI6. He said in November 2005: "My anxiety comes from my suspicion that the secret services in this country may be beginning to act independently of the political establishment. The CIA has apparently acted independently of the US Government and it worries me that MI5 and MI6 may be taking steps which are not discussed in or approved by Parliament."
In fact, the only claim that Naseem can make that he is a genuine "moderate" is that he kicked out Hizb ut-Tahrir from the Birmingham Central Mosque and appealed for calm after the 2005 Birmingham riots.
Naseem is certainly no help in any of the security agencies' attempts to deal with extremism and terrorism. On January 30, 2007, police anti-terrorism officers arrested Muslims in Birmingham. These individuals were suspected of plotting to kidnap a Muslim member of the armed services to torture and kill for a video presentation - Al-Qaeda style - on the internet.
Instead of supporting the police action, Naseem was nothing other than obstructive. He claimed the arrests were examples of persecution of Muslims, and compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to Jews under Hitler's Germany. He said: "This is a persecuting course of action that the Government has taken. They have invented this perception of a threat. To justify that, they have to maintain incidents to prove something is going on. There is dismay and people feel they are being persecuted unjustly. There is no reason for that. If there is a reason, the process should be open and for everybody to see what is happening."
He also claimed that Britain was becoming a "police state". Does Birmingham really need such a hypocritical and paranoid individual as head of its largest mosque?
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 12:23 AM | Comments (0)
October 30, 2007
UK: Mosques Still Provide Saudi Hate Texts
A report was published yesterday by the Policy Exchange think-tank. This report is entitled "The Hijacking Of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK", and is 202 pages long. It is authored by Denis MacEoin from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and shows the results of an examination made by four groups of Muslim moderates who over a one-year period (2006 to 2007) visited various mosques in British regions - London, Birmingham, North-West England, Yorkshire, Edinburgh and southern England. Almost 100 sites were visited.
80 books and pamphlets were collected by researchers, with 38 in English, 36 in Arabic and 6 in Urdu. Five of these have been encountered by Scotland Yard's investigations into terrorism. The analysis of the findings shows that many texts advocate Muslims keeping themselves separate from non-Muslims, and some advocate violence and hate. The report suggests on Page 7 that: "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should also be pressed to give full disclosure as to the extent and character of the support which it provides to a range of and Islamic institutions in the United Kingdom. The British Government must demand a far greater level of transparency from Saudi charitable institutions operating in this country - and these should be monitored, regulated and held to public account on a regular basis. Finally, the public must be told whether Islamic preachers and teachers in the United Kingdom are granted diplomatic status, as in the US - and if so, how many of them enjoy this."
Additionally, the report states: "The Government and other authority figures - including politicians, members of the Royal Family and those in positions of influence more generally - need to set a higher standard for their public partners and stakeholder organisations. They must insist that those Islamic partners and stakeholders remove such extremist literature from their midst, even when they did not publish or distribute it themselves. The authorities should also urge that umbrella bodies must not tolerate such materials appearing in locations associated with affiliated bodies. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers should reassess their willingness to embrace bodies such as the Muslim Safety Forum - the self-designated 'advisory body... on issues concerning British Muslims' - when some of their affiliate organisations have not cleansed their premises of the literature featured here. The terms of engagement with these bodies need now to be re-examined - and a proper audit conducted as to what is to be gained and lost by such engagement."
"The Government and other authorities should reassess whether it is right to place even a measure of responsibility for the future direction of policy towards Britain's Muslim communities in the hands of groups such as the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] and the Islamic Foundation in Markfield, which are implicated in this report. For instance, there needs to be reconsideration of whether the Islamic Foundation is an appropriate organisation to develop 'leadership' among Muslim communities, or whether other,more suitable partners for Government exist. Establishing a body as a governmental 'partner' confers respectability and legitimacy. Greater 'due diligence' must be observed with respect to those who are to be seen as 'representatives' of British Muslims - and engagement should be undertaken with those who encourage an authentically moderate form of Islam."
The report's findings are discussed in various news outlets - the Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Independent the Guardian and the Sun.
The literature in some cases advocates hatred against Christians, Jews, women, and homosexuals, and argues for armed jihad against infidels. Books such as the anti-Semitic forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (created in Russia at the end of the 19th century) were found by the Policy Exchange researchers.
Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, claimed: "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques. I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregationhave found their way into the UK's mosques."
On Monday, the foundation of a new watchdog body was announced, called the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board which aims to eradicate extremism by establishing "core values". The communities secretary in the government, Hazel Blears, welcomed the introduction of this body. However, do not expect much from an endorsement by Hazel Blears. In 2005, shortly after the 7/7 bombings, she engaged in a fact-finding mission, which saw her visiting eight Muslim communities around the country. Her naive and ignorant attitudes were exposed when she said after her mission that: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love."
Blears' ignorance appears in some cases to be reflected in the Policy Exchange report. Some of the literature found in mosques, which advocates violence against apostates, is part of the standard literature of Islam. For example, at the East London Mosque and the London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre there was discovered literature which said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." As I wrote in September, the Hadiths of Bukhari (810 to 870 AD), which are widely regarded as "sahih" (authentic) claim in three examples that Mohammed advocated murder of apostates: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".
This is the problem when trying to highlight extremist literature in Islamic outlets - much of it is entirely Islamic, and in accordance with Hadiths and texts in the Koran. Islam has never been, as Hazel Blears naively maintained "about peace and love". Peace is for those who submit to either entreaties to convert or submit to the sword, and love is for Allah and other Muslims alone. Non-Muslims can only live peaceably among Muslims in a traditional Muslim society if they pay a tax (Jizya). Those outside of the cult of Islam should be targeted to become Muslim, but they are not to be "loved" in their unbelieving state.
Hatred of Jews is part and parcel of Islam. In the Koran, some Jews are said to have been turned into apes and pigs. The Hadiths state that the last hour will come only when Muslims rise up and fight, or exterminate - the Jews. Bukhari stated: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' " Muslim has similar Hadiths: "Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him."
Therefore, it is understandable (though by no means justifiable) that in the Saudi-funded King Fahd Academy in west London, literature for its 750 students contained the following: "You will not find any confusion in which the Jews did not play a role. Their attempt at trying to immerse nations in vice and the spread of fornication. The Jews controlled this kind of trade and promoted it."
This Saudi establishment has already become notorious for its texts advocating hatred of Jews. In July 2006, it was highlighted for having material such as "It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour (of judgment)". Students aged five to sixteen were given a test: "Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ----- is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters -----." The academy contained literature calling Christians "swine" and calling Jews "apes" and "pigs".
In February this year, a sacked teacher from the King Fahd Academy after 19 years of service maintained that such books were retained in the school, even though the Saudi education minister promised in 2005 that such literature would be removed. He said that books told children that Jews were "repugnant" and that Christianity and Judaism were "worthless". He also claimed that children at King Fahd academy idolized Osama bin Laden and had said that they wanted "to kill Americans".
It appears from the Policy Exchange report that despite being censured in the media, no action has been taken by the King Fahd Academy to remove such propaganda, and it continues to be used to brainwash the minds of young children.
At the Al-Muntada Al-Islami Trust in west London literature was found with the words: "Jihad against a tyrant, oppressors, people of bid'ah [Muslim innovators], or wrongdoers. This type of jihad is best done through force if possible."
At the East London Mosque and the London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre in Regent's Park was found the following: "Those who call for birth control or contraception are a group whose aim by this call is to plot against the Muslims in general, and against the Arab Muslim community in particular, so that they are able to colonise the lands and their people."
The chairman of the East London Mosque is Muhammad Abdul Bari, the current secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). This Bangladeshi-born individual had invited Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais (Sudeis, pictured), imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, to the inauguration of the East London Mosque in June 2004.
Sudais has said: "Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race 'whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...' These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption." In another sermon, Sudais has called Jews "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs." Abdul Bari was questioned about why he had invited Sudais to his mosque, but denied that the imam was anti-Semitic.
Naturally, the Muslim Council of Britain has criticized the Policy Exchange report. Inayat Bunglawala, who has previously called Osama bin Laden a "scholar" and a "freedom fighter" and praised terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman as "courageous", said of the report: "Bookshops sell a variety of publications and we live in an open, democratic society where it is not illegal to sell books which contain anti-Western views."
The anti-Semitic former secretary general of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie (who also praised bin Laden as a "freedom fighter" and attended a memorial service for the founder of terror group Hamas) said: "The majority of Muslims will totally dismiss this because it is written by the Policy Exchange, who have an agenda to denigrate the mainstream of Islam in this country. If there is any material which falls foul of the law, then the law should take its course. We cannot accept messages of hate - there is zero tolerance on that. But it is irresponsible to target religious texts and take them out of context. These texts can be found not just in mosques but in ordinary bookshops - the report overlooks that." It should be remembered that Sacranie criticised the UK government in 1996, when it refused a visa for Osama bin Laden to visit the UK.
The memorial for Sheikh Yassin, founder of Hamas, was held in the Regents Park Mosque, which was founded with money from the Saudi government. Dr Yunes Teinaz of this mosque said: "Any book or literature like this found in the mosque will reflect the views of the author and not at all the view of the mosque." He said that the bookshop at the mosque was run by a franchise. If the bookshop is situated on mosque grounds, then it IS the responsibility of the mosque to act against such material.
The publication of this report comes as Saudi King Abdullah is beginning an official visit to Britain. The report states that "Most of the extremist literature is published and distributed by agencies linked to the Saudi Arabian government." It also claims that "Some of the most high-profile and prestigious mosques in Britain are among the worst offenders; in many of them, it is openly available." And the document is critical of Muhammad Abdul Bari's position as head of the MCB and chairman of the East London Mosque. Policy Exchange states: "Separatist literature is distributed at the East London Mosque - which is closely associated with the Muslim Council of Britain (which purports to be the main body representing British Muslims)."
Nothing revealed in this report has come as a great surprise to Western Resistance. We have been documenting the hypocrisy of the MCB and its luminaries, and the bigoted attitudes expressed by Saudi Wahhabists , since we started in August 2005. In June 2005 Iqbal Sacranie was knighted by Tony Blair, and at that time the MCB had a position of influence with the government. The group still claims to represent most Muslims and maintains that it is "moderate".
If it does represent most Muslims then I am reminded of the words of the late Oriana Fallaci, when discussing the difference between moderate and extreme Islam: "There is only one Islam."
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 9:23 AM | Comments (2)
October 29, 2007
UK: Did Saudis Warn Of 7/7 Islamist Terror Attacks?
Currently, news sources are buzzing with stories of the arrival of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to Britain. David Miliband - Britain's Foreign Secretary, had cancelled his planned meeting with his Saudi counterpart Saud al-Faisal, news which is said to have "marred" the visit. Apparently Miliband was said to have recently been in America, witnessing the birth of Jacob, his second and newly-adopted son. Miliband is said to be taking time off to spend with his wife Louise and the new addition to their family.
Saud al-Faisal apparently withdrew an invitation to meet Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister, Kim Howells, as Howells was considered to be too junior for the Saudi's status. Howells is not a good judge of Islamist intent - when the Waziristan Accord of September 5, 2006 offered a truce between Pakistan's Taliban and the government, Howells had praised the event and dared to suggest it could become a model for Afghanistan. Within days of the accord being signed, and money given to the Pakistan Taliban, targeted killing began in the region of North-West Frontier Province. The accord was widely regarded as assisting the Taliban to gain more of a stranglehold on this region of Pakistan where Taliban and Al Qaeda have bases.
Despite the Saudi foreign minister not wishing to meet Howells, the Foreign and Commonwealth Minister nonetheless made a speech before the visit. He praised Britsh and Saudi links, and made no mention of the human rights abuses, lack of religious freedom or the denial of women their right to vote or drive. He said that despite shared differences, Britain and Saudi Arabia should unite around their "shared values". This exercise in Orwellian Newspeak did not state what these shared values are. From my position, a democracy has nothing in common with a barbaric autocracy which promotes 7th century values, and publicly beheads criminals and heretics.
Howells claimed that the UK and Saudi Arabia respected each other's religious and political traditions. This is a patent lie. I know of no-one in Britain (apart from radical Islamists and self-hating leftists) who respects Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow Bibles to be brought into the country, or who respects its policies of jailing Christian workers who engage in Christian acts of worship. Such actions show how little Saudi Arabia has respect for any religious traditions other than its own primitive and archaic interpretations of Islam.
Western Resistance is not an organ of mainstream media - the story of protests against the visit by the so-called "liberalizing" despot will be carried elsewhere. But what is important to us is the claim made by the Saudi king upon his arrival that his country's intelligence service warned Britain in advance of the London bombings of 7/7 (July 7, 2005, in which 52 innocent people died). As reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, Reuters, CNN and Voice of America, the Saudi king has claimed that "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy."
Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) had found in 2006 that there was "no evidence" that Saudis had passed on this information. MI5 on April 30, 2007 published on its website the statement: "No prior warning of the attacks was received from any source. The Saudis provided information about possible planning for an attack in the UK which was materially different from the attacks that took place in London on 7 July."
So what was said by the Saudis? The information about a possible advance warning about the possibility of a terrorist attack came from an article in the Observer newspaper on Sunday, August 7, 2005, in a report by Martin Bright, Antony Barnett and Mohammed Alkhereiji.
Appearing to contradict the statement by MI5, Saudi intelligence were investigating whether calls had been made to Mohammed Sidique Khan, the leader of the four man cell which carried out the 7/7 attacks.
The Saudi intelligence findings had shown that Kareem al-Majati, a senior Al Qaeda leader in Saudi Arabia, had made mobile phone calls to Britain earlier in 2005. Majati was then believed to have masterminded the suicide attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, on May 16, 2003, in which 12 bombers and 32 civilians died. Majati was killed in a shootout in Saudi Arabia in April 2005.
Majati's recorded phone conversations had mentioned an upcoming terror attack in Britain. Additionally, his lieutenant Younes al-Hayar (killed in a shoot-out on July 3, 2005) had also been traced making mobile phone calls to Britain.
A Saudi security official said: "It was clear to us that there was a terror group planning an attack in the UK. We passed all this information on to both MI5 and MI6 at the time. We are now investigating whether these calls were directly to the London bombers. It is our conclusion that either these were linked or that a completely different terror network is still at large in Britain."
If MI5 are to be believed, the phone calls related to a different cell and a different plot. Why, then, did King Abdullah suggest that if his country's intelligence had been followed and not "ignored" that the 7/7 attacks could have been averted? It seems unlikely that he was poorly-briefed prior to such a high-level investigation, but it is not improbable.
It is possible that the phone calls could have involved associates of Salaheddine Benyaich alias Abou Mouhgen who was arrested in 2003 in Morocco, who is also considered to be the ringleader of the Casablanca attacks. This individual is now serving an 18 year jail term in Morocco for his part in the bombings.
Long before these attacks took place, Benyaich had used the stolen identity of a Brighton man to gain a UK passport. The individual whose identity was stolen was a 32-year old electrician named David Charles Burgess. The British government had issued the Moroccan terrorist with TWO passports. Benyaich had used these to travel around Europe. Even though he was in jail when the phone calls were made, it appears that local Islamists with connections to the local Al Quds mosque may have helped Benyaich to obtain the "identity" of the Brighton electrician. Were these associates the individuals who had been contacted by Kareem al-Majati and Younes al-Hayar in 2005?
What is certain is that King Abdullah's claim has already drawn media attention, and threatens to overshadow other aspects of his visit. Abdullah's official visit begins tomorrow.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 9:04 PM | Comments (1)
US: Muslim Murderer's Case In Supreme Court
News from Fox News and Asociated Press reports that today, the case of Muslim convicted murderer Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali was taken up the US Supreme Court (case Ali vs Federal Bureau of Prison, 06-9130).
Ali has been sentenced to a 20-year jail term for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia. He states that when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to Big Sandy penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky in 2003, two copies of the Koran and his prayer rug went missing, and have not been returned to him. Additionally stamps and other items worth $177 did not get returned to him. He maintains that he handed the items to prison officers, expecting them to be delivered to Inez.
He has already taken his case to two federal courts, who have turned down his claims. The issue at stake here is whether or not federal prison officers are "law enforcement officers" which would make them exempt from claims against them. This exemption was ruled in the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946.
Permission for Ali to take his case to the Supreme Court was given on May 29 this year. The following is found on the Supreme Court website:
06-9130 ALI V. FED. BUREAU OF PRISONSAli claims that because of the 9/11 events, Muslim prisoners have endured "very hard times and bad treatment". He has written that "the many prison employees think that they can hurt you best taking your personally owned property". He writes that he has been harassed "year after year" on account of his faith, which he "practiced... to the fullest"
DECISION BELOW:204 Fed. Appx. 778
CERT. GRANTED 5/29/2007
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Under 28 U.S.C. 2680(c), the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to "[a]ny claim arising in respect of * * * the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer." The question presented, over which ten circuits are divided six-to-four is:
Whether the term "other law enforcement officer" is limited to officers acting in a tax, excise, or customs capacity.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 7:07 PM | Comments (0)
UK: Muslim Clothing Blamed For 56 Cases Of Rickets
News from the Blackburn Citizen reports that 56 cases of rickets have been discovered in Blackburn and Darwen, Lancashire, a region with a high Muslim population.
The cases were found after a study was made by East Lancashire Primary Care Trust, and almost all involved people from the "South Asian community" (i.e. Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh). The cases happened between 2003 and 2005. From the article:
Experts said vitamin D, which is unique in being produced primarily by exposure to sunlight, was a relatively common deficiency among Asian immigrants, because of their darker skin, and Islam's requirements for clothing to cover limbs.Dr Ellis Friedman, director of public health for East Lancashire PCT, said: "It is caused by a combination of skin colouration, diet and dress, not poverty. We don't, for example, find rickets in deprived white communities."Until about 10 years ago, Government policy required that all health authorities gave out vitamin supplements to people from the Indian subcontinent, but then it was decided that it was no longer necessary.
Vitamin D supplements are being introduced to the Blackburn and Darwen areas, where most cases have taken place. In adjacent Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, where Vitamin D supplements had continued after the UK government abandoned giving Vitamin D to south Asians 10 years ago, cases of rickets were a quarter of those found in Blackburn and Darwen.
Councillor Roy Davies, chairman of Blackburn with Darwen Council's health scrutiny committee said that south Asian women should think about covering up, especially during pregnancy.
Below is a report I wrote in 2006, when cases of rickets were being found in Birmingham, almost certainly caused by women covering themselves up and depriving their unborn children of Vitamin D.
__________________________
Rickets, Vitamin D and Sunlight
Britain, despite recent heatwaves, is not traditionally regarded as a sunny country. But it still has enough UVB radiation to provide the necessary vitamin D to keep the body healthy. As a result, most children and ambulatory adults get enough sunlight to create Vitamin D. During the Industrial Revolution, a disease became common, though its causes were then unknown. Many children were sent to work in factories, and hardly ever saw natural sunlight, and their diet rarely gave them enough vitamin D. Even when the children were allowed out, the high presence of smog reduced the amount of UVB light available.
As a result they later began to show typical signs of the condition commonly called rickets - bowed legs, caused by tiny "greenstick" fractures in the bone. This condition is caused by softening of the bone, a condition called osteomalacia. Once the child became an adult, the deformities and short stature were visibly apparent. But along the way, other side-effects could occur, such as seizures. These seizures (hypocalcemic seizures, brought on by an increase of parathyroid hormonal byproducts in the body) are common ways of detecting rickets in very young children, under nine months. They are less common in older children.
In severe cases, the distortions on bone in the pelvis caused women to be unable to deliver children, usually with fatal results.
Vitamin D is formed in the human body by the UVB sunlight reacting with 7-dehydrocholesterol, creating previtaminD3 . The body's normal temperature then causes this to form vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol, a steroid agent). Dietary intake of oily fish, eggs and butter produces less of the body's vitamin D than sunlight. Vitamin D formed in the skin or absorbed by the intestine is of itself inert, and needs to be further processed in the liver (making 25-hydroxyvitamin D3) and then again hydroxylated in the kidney to create 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 or calcitrol.
Calcitrol helps calcium and phosphorus to be absorbed from the intestine, helps the kidneys to reabsorb phosphate, and in bone, helps it to release calcium and phosphate, and to stay strong and healthy. In growing children, the osteoid, or bone material fails to calcify properly in the absence of calcitrol.
Rickets as a condition has been described since the mid 1600s, but only in the 1920s was it discovered that a lack of sunlight was the cause of most cases of rickets. For people with dark skin pigmentation, up to six times more sunlight exposure is needed to produce the necessary calcitrol in the body.
Rickets And The Veil
In 1931, Dagmar Curjel Wilson conducted a survey among several thousands of school age children in what was then northern India. He concluded that the causes of rickets were predominantly social, such as purdah, (wearing of the the veil and burka, and seclusion for females), as well as poor housing design preventing access to sunlight, and an inadequate diet.
Since then, evidence of burkas causing a chemical deficiency of vitamin D has come to light from various sources. A 2001 study by Sonia R Grover and Ruth Morley was carried out among pregnant women at an antenatal clinic in the Royal Women's Hospital, a teaching hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. The study concerned 94 women who were veiled or of dark skin. 82 of these agreed to be screened, and 66 women (80%) were found to be having low levels of Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3.
Another study from Australia published in the same year, carried out by Josephine M. Nozza and Christine P. Rodda discovered that of 55 children who were found to have osteomalacia, 54 of these were from mothers who had the ethnocultural factors (wearing veils/burkas and/or dark skin) expected. When 31 of the 55 mothers were tested (81%), 25 of these (81%) were found to have low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, consistent with osteomalacia. The evidence had been gathered in two clinical admisitrative regions in Melbourne Victoria between June 1994 and February 1999.
More reports on Australia and Vitamin D deficiency among "multiethnic" Australians can be found here and in another report concerning Sydney. The latter report found that an increasing number of cases of children with rickets was being discovered in Sydney. 126 cases were diagnosed between 1993 and 2003. Almost exclusively, the incidence of childhood rickets came either from Africa (33%), the Indian subcontinent (37%) and the Middle East (11%). 79% of the cases were children born in Australia. A third of the cases presented initially with the hypocalcaemic seizures, and 22% already had bowed legs.
A study of Arab women in Denmark (Calcif Tissue Int 2000; 66: 419-424) by researchers Glerup, Mikkelsen, Poulsen and others found that a group of Arab women suffering from muscle pain and weakness were suffering from a deficiency of vitamin D, which improved after three months of vitamin D therapy.
Another Australian study reported in the Proceedings of the 9th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society, Cairns, June 1999, found that Muslim women were 2.5 times more likely to be suffering from bone pains and osteoporosis than women of European descent.
So what is happening, it appears, is that traditional methods of covering up women in burkas depletes the available vitamin D in the body, leading to symptoms related to or directly causing rickets. But additionally, it also appears that these women then give birth to children who also have a lack of the necessary vitamin D byproducts to prevent rickets, unless these children are exposed while very young to sunlight, the source of most of the body's natural vitamin D.
In women who only breast fed their infants from the affected groups in the Australian studies, there appeared to be a higher incidence of children who had rickets and its related symptoms. Milk formulas and most cows' milk in the West has additional vitamin D added. But normal breast milk contains only minimal amounts of vitamin D, probably due to our evolutionary origins in tropical and sunny climes.
But newborns are affected with low levels of Vitamin D if their mothers are deficient in the vitamin. A 2005 study in northern India found that there was a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women and their newborns. The study also looked at blood from the umbilical cord, and here found low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D corresponding with the levels in their mothers who had low amounts. The researchers noted that "on the basis of what is known in the literature, we can conclude that a large proportion of our newborns have 25(OH)D concentrations that will predispose them to neonatal hypocalcemia and infantile rickets and to the attendant morbidity."
In Afghanistan under the Taliban, combinations of poor diet and forcing women to be secluded at home, only to be allowed out wearing burkas, led to a resurgence of osteomalacia, according to Dr Sima Samar. She said at her clinic in Kabul in 2001: "Almost every woman I see has osteomalacia. Their bones are softening due to a lack of Vitamin D. They survive on a diet of tea and naan because they can't afford eggs and milk and, to complicate matters, their burqas and veils deprive them of sunshine."
In the Middle East, where many women wear veils and burkas, it is perhaps fortunate that young girls are not expected to start to cover themselves up in such attire until they are aged nine or older.
In Saudi Arabia in 2002, a study carried out between 1994 to December 1999 found that though less common than in countries like India, osteolamalacia was found in forty-two children and adolescents (25 females and 17 males). It was evident that lack of direct exposure to sunlight and poor calcium intake was responsible. Eight of the children had multiple stress fractures.
Incidence of rickets in young children is not only present in the Middle East, but it too appears to be increasing. The World Health Organisation reported on June 28 this year that in the Gaza Strip, a recent study had found that more than 4 per cent of children aged between 6 and 36 months were suffering from clinical rickets.
Britain
In Britain's usually grey climate, there was an outbreak of rickets in the 1970s. The condition was particularly affecting people who had arrived from the Indian subcontinent. One study from 1979 concluded that the outbreak was perhaps caused by a particular cereal eaten in the Indian subcontinent which was said to affect the body's absorption of vitamin D, but this is now not regarded as a significant factor in the pattern of causality.
In response to the increased incidence of rickets from the 1970s to the early 1980s, public health practitioners responded to the situation by giving mothers and their children vitamin D supplements and by the mid 1980s, the incidence of rickets seemed to drop.
However, in 2002 a high incidence of rickets was reported in the West Midlands in Britain, once again raising the fears that a new outbreak was happening again. From May 2000 to May 2001, researchers at Birmingham Children's Hospital (BCH) found 24 victims under the age of five. That amounted to 8.9 cases per 100,000 children.
Dr Nick Shaw, a consultant endocrinologist said: "That's high, in that it's a condition that was thought to have virtually disappeared. We are recommending a national survey. It is not just a problem in the West Midlands."
The 24 cases were successfully given Vitamin D supplements. Shaw's study results were sent to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
But the problem has not gone away, and as mentioned above, dietary vitamin D is usually only responsible for some of the necessary calcitrol in the body. The majority of the body's vitamin D comes from sunlight. It appears that in areas such as Britain and also the Gaza Strip the higher incidence of small children developing rickets is because since the late 1990s there has been a resurgence of women being culturally pressured to wear the burka and the hijab, and to stay more at home.
Today, a report in IC Birmingham, originally from the Sunday Mercury shows that the increase in childhood incidence of rickets is still continuing in the West Midlands. And it the burka, rather than diet, which is now being blamed for the resurgence of rickets cases.
The burka was not worn much by Muslim women in Britain, apart from a few examples of ultra-orthodox women. But since the late 1990s and the rise of the hijab, the all-enveloping burka has become more prevalent in Britain's urban Muslim communities. Since 9/11 and particularly so after 7/7, more young Muslim women are apparently proud to cover themselves from head to toe, as a political display of their "Muslim piety". And as a result, their children are paying the price for their mothers' religious vanity.
Since the 2002 study, which caused alarm bells to ring, the number of rickets incidents has increased. Between 2003 and now, there have been 65 cases of children with rickets in Birmingham alone.
In typically PC fashion, a spokesman from the Primary Care Trust of the "Heart of Birmingham" catchment area said: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that mothers and babies from some minority ethnic communities may be more affected. This is because women traditionally do not expose their skin to sunlight."
"However, Vitamin D deficiency can also be due to confinement in the home for medical or other reasons, diet, mal-absorption syndromes and liver or kidney disease."
£150,000 ($280,086) is being spent on a campaign to target the prevalence of rickets in infants, which is being focused on Sparkhill, Handsworth, Winson Green, Sparkbrook and Ladywood in the city of Birmingham. These areas have a high incidence of Muslims.
Dr Jacky Chambers is the director of public health at the Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust. She says: "Women who cover up for cultural reasons may be at higher risk of Vitamin D deficiency. In addition to taking Vitamin D supplements, we are urging mothers to help themselves to get some sunlight. They should make sure they are exposed to the sun, without burning, for a short time each day."
Various measures are suggested for women who cover up to get some sun, such as going to the shops more, or sitting on a balcony or in a garden to get sunlight.
A far better way would be to encourage these brood mares for Allah to stop making such crass statements about how pious they are, wrap a hijab (headscarf) around their heads if really necessary, but to attempt in all other ways to dress and act as normal members of a Western society. Allow an arm or an ankle to be shown.
Such political expressions of one's faith, as well as increasing the segregation between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, is not good for innocent children. There is no religious need.
And though the spokesperson for the Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust states "Deficiency is easily counteracted with Vitamin D supplements," this is not strictly true. By the time a child has developed hypocalcemic seizures (usually the first noticeable symptom), it will have suffered an overbalance of its parathyroid actions, and the kidneys will have lost some of their ability to produce phosphate. In consequence, this will have affected the normal development of bone. The child will also have undergone pain from the seizures.
And all this is so unnecessary. Why should taxpayers' money be spent on giving dietary supplements and information leaflets to selfish women who would rather parade their piety in a political statement, rather than care about their own (and their children's) physical health and well-being? And after all, sunlight is free.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 6:30 PM | Comments (0)
October 28, 2007
US: Is The Poll On Foreign Policy Attitudes All It's Cracked up To Be?
High Anxiety?
The latest edition of the "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index" poll has just been published. This is the fifth of a series of polls produced every six months by Public Agenda, covering "over 25 different issues in more than 110 different survey questions".
The first such study was carried out in June 2005, and if news reports are to be believed, then American public confidence in its government's foreign policy is declining fast. At first reading, the actual document does suggest a drop in "approval" for policies being carried out abroad, and overall cynicism about whether anything positive can be achieved in certain areas. Compared to the first report from 2005, the public appears to becoming less supportive of foreign policies.
The news reports (at least 60 so far) seem gloomy, but one should remember that most of these are all copies of one article at press release.
The press release talks of the "Petraeus effect". On September 11, General David Petraeus, the senior US military commander in Iraq, gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He had spoken then of the troop "surge" having effect in countering the insurgency and creating more stability. The polling for the "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index" was carried out between September 17 and September 27.
According to Daniel Yankelovich, chairman of Public Agenda, "The Petraeus report may have slowed the get-out-of-Iraq momentum but overall confidence in our foreign policy is eroding across a wide spectrum of issues. The administration and Congress seem isolated from the public."
The fifth report was authored by Jared Bosk and Amber Ott, and was compiled in conjunction with Foreign Affairs, with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
The press release quotes Gideon Rose, Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, who states: "The public sees no silver bullets for current problems, and they are correct. But whether that is cause for despair, of course, depends on just how desperate one thinks those problems actually are."
Before I delve into the meat and bones of the report, one thing strikes me in particular. I live in Britain, where we have an estimated population of 60,776,240 people (give or take the odd 500,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants). As of July 2007, the United States has an estimated population of 301,139,947. Roughly, the U.S. has 4.95 times the numbers of citizens than the United Kingdom.
In Britain, the "safe" number for poll samples - i.e. the number of respondents questioned who are believed to provide a reliable reflection of prevalent public attitudes - is at least 1,000. Usually, polls which are taken seriously in Britain have between 1,000 and 1,400 respondents. I have yet to see a single recently-published "public attitudes" survey in Britain which involves less than 1,000 respondents.
The "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index" uses a representative sample of only 1,011 adults 18 years and older. If this figure was translated onto the British demographic and statistical expectations, it would be the equivalent of polling only 200 people and would not be considered as having great statistical merit.
The poll includes a "Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator" - a scale in which public anxiety is presented in a graphical form. On Page 2, the authors state: "Our Anxiety Indicator stands at 136, down one point from six months ago and still uncomfortably close to the 150 mark we would consider a collapse of confidence in the government's foreign policy". Yikes...
This gimmicky graphic reminds me of the "Doomsday" clock presented during the Cold War, which was always stuck at five minutes to midnight and mysteriously disappeared after Perestroika. The Anxiety Indicator is absent from the first report of June 2005. It was also absent from the second report, which was compiled between January 10 and January 22, 2006. The Anxiety Indicator initially appeared in third report of September 2006 (page 4), when it stood at 130. The Anxiety Indicator stood at 137 in March 2007 (page 6). Just like the Doomsday Clock, the Anxiety Indicator seems to be perennially wedged in a position "uncomfortably close" to midnight.
Trends and Figures
Despite my reservations about the size of the report's data set and caution about the reliability of the "Anxiety Index", the survey's findings should still be examined. The people sampled in the survey are described on page 37 as 48% male and 52% female, with 27% being Republican, 32% Democrat, 27% Independent and 10% "something else". 81% were Christian, with 1% Jewish, 1% Muslim, 0% Buddhist, 1% Atheist, 3% Agnostic, 3% "something else". 10% described themselves as having "no religion". The sample was 68% White, 11% Black/Afro-Caribbean, 13% Hispanic, 2% Asian and 5% "something else". Most of the respondents (36%) came from the south.
As described in the "Summary of Findings" (pages 4 to 5) the respondents have since June 2005 developed less confidence in the ability of some policies to enhance U.S. security by a "great deal". Supporting women's rights in Muslim countries to enhance national security has dropped by 14%, while showing more respect for other countries' viewpoints has also declined by 9% and tighter controls on immigration are now seen by 6% less people as likely to improve U.S. security than in 2005.
The report states that "confidence in many strategies is failing, and public approval in almost every policy area has declined". But is this solely a fault of U.S. foreign policy or a pragmatic reflection of a world - particularly in the Middle East and the Muslim world - that has become generally more intransigent and less amenable to U.S. or Western democratic policies?
In the June 2005 report, (page 17) people were asked: "What do you think is the most important problem facing the United States in its dealings with the rest of the world?" 17% answered "the Iraq war" and 11% said "terrorism/security". 9% answered "negative image in the view of foreign nations." The question at that time was open-ended. Since publication of the second report (January 2006) the respondents had to conform to "multiple-choice" answers. When the same question was asked in September 2007 (page 20 of the current document), 39% answered "Middle East", 17% said "Administration/politics", 16% answered "Domestic problems," and 11% answered "Foreign policies".
Looking at previous answers, the Middle East was regarded in September last year by 42% of people to have been the major problem (when people were questioned immediately after the Israel/Lebanon conflict), and 40% this spring. Year on year there has been a progressive rise in people citing domestic problems as the major U.S. problem, from 10% in January 2006 to 16% now. Foreign policies have been seen as the major problem by 11% of the current sample, compared to 8% six months ago, 7% in September 2006 and 8% in January 2006. Despite this, the public perception of "administration/politics" as being "the most important problem" have hardly changed. The figure was 16% in January 2006 and September 2006, and 17% in March 2007 and September 2007.
Question 9 (page 22 of the current report) asked: "How good a job is the U.S. doing these days as a leader in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world?" There were no comparisons from June 2005 and January 2006. Currently, only 5% think the U.S. does an "excellent job", compared to 10% in September 2006. The answer "a good job" came from 20% in this report, compared to 20% six months ago and 21% in September 2006 - so little change there. Now, 32% answered that the U.S. does a "poor job", a drop of 2% from March this year, and a gain of 2% from September 2006. But more people this time around thought the U.S. is doing a "fair job", at 42% of respondents. Six months and a year ago the figure was 39%.
Question 11 (page 25) asked about how much people worried about a range of issues. On the issue of the Iraq war causing too many casualties, 60% of people said they "worried a lot", a drop of 4% from six months ago. In June 2005 and January 2006, that figure was 56%, and in September 2006 it stood at 55%.
The fear that terrorist groups "may use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to attack the United States" was higher than it had been, with 49% claiming now to "worry a lot", an increase of 4% in the last six months. In June 2005 the figure was 48%, so fears of such terrorism appear to strongly concern almost half of the electorate.
The current report shows that 53% of women worry "a lot" about a WMD terrorist attack, compared to 44% of men, and suggests that women are more fatalistic about the U.S.'s abilities to deal with its problems.
45% of those questioned said in the current report that they worried "a lot" that "it may be too easy for illegal immigrants to come into the country". This figure is the highest it has been since June 2005, when 42% of people felt this way.
41% of people now said they worried "a lot" that "there may be growing hatred of the United States in Muslim countries", a drop by 1% from six months and a year ago, but an increase of 1% from June 2005.
40% of people now said they worried "a lot" that "there may be another major terrorist attack against the United States in the near future", a drop of 2% from six months ago and an increase of 3% since June 2005. The point where most people felt this way (45%) was in September 2006, after the Lebanon/Israel conflict. However, 46% of people say now that they "worry somewhat" about a major terrorist attack, a dramatic increase from 37% six months and a year ago.
40% of people are now worried "a lot" about the "rise of Islamic extremism around the world", the same as six months ago and a dramatic increase of 11% from the 31% who worried "a lot" about this in June 2005.
When the current data was gathered, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, had just visited the United States. 42% of people "worried a lot" about the "possibility of unfriendly nations becoming nuclear powers", an increase of 1% from six months ago and far higher than in June 2005, when only 31% of people were worrying a lot about the issue.
Question 12 asked if people thought that "improved communication and dialogue with the Muslim world will reduce hatred of the United States." Now, as they did six months and a year ago, 53% of people said "yes". This is less than in January 2006 (56%) and less still than in June 2005 (59%). It appears that cynicism about how much improved dialogue can create positive change is increasing. This year and six months ago, 43% of people answered "No". A year ago, 41% said "No" and in January 2006, 37% of people said "No." In June 2005, the figure was 38%.
Interpreting The Data
I do not think the survey involves enough people to cause government policy makers to make any radical rethinking of specific plans. On issues like Iraq, the situation is as it is - the troop surge and a commitment to imposing law and order has been comparatively successful, but any hasty withdrawal in the immediate future will only cause the earlier insurgent-driven chaos to return.
Despite my reservations, there does seem to be coherence among the respondents' answers, with definite trends being manifest over time. I was particularly struck by the way that respondents to the survey seemed to understand foreign policy problems in a realistic and down to earth manner. It could be argued that their approach to these issues seems to be one of almost fatalistic resignation. I would hope that in the next report, the sample base could be increased, to give the findings more political relevance.
The report's summary states (page 5) that "Democrats and Republicans continue to differ greatly on issues of foreign policy - nearly half of Republicans (49%) say U.S. foreign policy is heading in the right direction, compared with only 14 percent of Democrats. Also, 45 percent of Republicans give A or B grades for meeting our objectives in Iraq, compared with only 15 percent of Democrats."
With an election coming up, it would be interesting to see how issues of confidence in foreign policy will be translated into votes, if at all. In the first report from 2005, respondents answered (page 23) very specific questions about how they voted in the last election, questions which were subsequently dropped, or omitted from later publications.
83% of respondents in the 2005 questionnaire had voted in the previous election. More people (32%) thought of themselves as Democrat rather than Republican (27%) or "independent" (31%). When asked how they "leaned", 23% said they leaned to the Republican Party, and 23% said they leaned to the Democratic Party. 53% claimed not to lean either way. Of the 789 individuals who had voted, 50% of respondents had chosen George W. Bush, and 44% had voted for John Kerry.
The authors of the current report acknowledge the American public's pessimism about Iraq, stating that there has been "hardly any change for our other Iraq indicators, with roughly two thirds favoring at least a gradual withdrawal and roughly half saying there's not much the United States can do to create a democratic Iraq or to control the violence there."
Question 14 asked if there were issues that "our government can do a lot about, something about or not much about?" On controlling the violence in Iraq, only 15% said that the U.S. could do "a lot", while 34% said "something" and 49% said "not much".
On preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 27% answered that there was "a lot" that the United States could do, compared to 35% in January last year. 42% said "something", compared to 44% in early 2006. 30% of people answered "not much", compared to 19% in January 2006.
There was also increased cynicism about America's abilities to help other nations to become democracies. Only 22% thought that this was possible, compared to 38% in June 2005. In the current survey, 73% thought that democracy is "something that countries only come to on their own" compared to 54% in June 2005.
Despite this, there was still some hope for the U.S.'s abilities to establish good relations with moderate Muslims. In this report, 30% thought that "a lot" could be done, compared to 35% in January 2006. 45% this time thought that "something" could be done to this end, while in January 2006, 41% believed this. 23% of people said there was "not much" that the government could do to make good relations with moderate Muslims, compared with 20% who believed this in January last year.
When the next U.S. elections come on November 4, 2008, George W. Bush will not be able to stand as a candidate. The decision to enter Iraq was primarily his personal responsibility. The Democrats have so far offered to the American public no realistic strategy for dealing with the consequences of that decision. Democratic candidates have played on the nation's "war fatigue" in their electoral campaigning to date, but they have offered no practical solutions to the situation in Iraq that radically diverge from those already being pursued by the military.
In the current "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index", 75% of people questioned stated that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is "very important". On Page 21, people were asked if they thought "the world is becoming safer or more dangerous for the United States and the American people". 45% thought the situation was "much more dangerous" and 34% thought the situation was "somewhat more dangerous".
There will be only one more "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index" report before the 2008 election. By that time, both main parties will already have their candidates in the field, pressing the flesh and persuading the public of their worth. The public's concerns which seem to be expressed in the current report should be recognized, but issues of tough policy against America's foes should not be traded for capitulation in the war against terrorism.
Perhaps more importantly, on page 7 of the Index report some questions which had "graded" answers were displayed as graphs. In parts of Question 10 (page 22) respondents were asked to grade the United States’ performance in achieving certain goals. On the question of whether the U.S. was achieving the goal of "a strong, well-supplied military", 27% gave an "A" grade and 31% gave a "B" grade. The figure giving an "A" was lower than in previous reports. When A and B grades were combined in the graph on page 7, a clear pattern emerged. Every six months the respondents had decreasingly felt that the U.S. was achieving this goal.
Similarly, when asked to grade the nation’s performance in its goal of "hunting down anti-American terrorists", the current report had showed 12% giving an "A" grade, a decrease from previous reports. 29% had given a "B" grade, an increase on all previous reports apart from June 2005 when 35% had given a "B" grade. When A and B grades were combined, again a gradual decrease was shown in approval of performance.
On the question of the nation’s performance in achieving the goal of "giving the war on terror all the attention it deserves", 22% gave "A" grades (a decrease on previous figures) and 26% gave "B" grades, again a decrease from previous Index reports.
Britain was George W. Bush's staunchest ally when Iraq was invaded on March 19, 2003. Since that time, Tony Blair has been replaced by Gordon Brown who has ordered his ministers not to even mention the "war on terror", in case it upsets Muslim voters. The U.S. public - if this report is to be believed - is still genuinely concerned about terrorism. There are elements in the U.S. establishment who would believe, like Britain, that making moves to pander to the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood will be politically beneficial.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have defied government advice back in April and posed in a Damascus market wearing a Muslim headscarf. Steny Hoyer may have met with the parliamentary leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Nixon Center may have suggested engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood. Such tactics may not cut much ice with the voting public. The successive "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index" reports have shown that the U.S. public is increasingly losing faith in the notion that improving communications with the Muslim world will make America more liked. Islamists, who oppose even moderate Muslims, will not be changing their policies in a hurry.
However America and its allies may deal with the process of disengagement from Iraq, the threat of international terrorism, coming from key points in the Muslim world, will remain. The American voting public are not fools to be easily emotionally manipulated with promises that a quick departure from Iraq will suddenly make the future rosy. Islamists are set against the core values of America - democracy, personal liberty and the equal rights of women. Their hatred and ultimate strategy of confrontation will not go away merely because a "sympathetic" figure may be elected as President. No-one should forget that it was during a Democratic presidency that Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, or that the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed on August 7, 1998.
The events of 9/11 were a natural progression of Islamism's existing war against the West, and in particular against America. For Islamic terrorists, whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the Oval Office is an irrelevance. The president will still be an American. Candidates from both parties should never drop their guard in the war against terror, nor pretend that terrorism will go away if they adopt policies of appeasement to Islamism. This is a war that is not an "invention" of George W. Bush - it is only the latest stage of a battle that has been waged against the West for years. For any potential candidate to ignore this is to invite more atrocities against the American people.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 2:48 PM | Comments (0)
October 27, 2007
UK: Muslim Prisoners May Sue Over Ramadan Ham Sandwich Menu
Once upon a time, prison in Britain was regarded as a punishment where certain rights, such as the right to freedom, were curtailed. Nowadays - prisoners have learned that they can sue the Prison Service and win. Take the case of a prisoner at Northallerton Young Offenders' Institute in North Yorkshire who tried to kill himself. Prison officers revived him, but he went on to sue the Prison Service, gaining $1.15 million in an out of court settlement in January this year.
In November last year, 197 prisoners who had been drug addicts when jailed sued the Prison Service in the High Court. Their claim? They complained that they were forced to stop taking drugs in jail. These prisoners were awarded payments totaling $1.5 million.
With these precedents already made, it is little wonder that a group of Muslim prisoners are now threatening to sue the Prison Service because they were offered a choice of ham sandwiches during Ramadan.
The news is carried by yesterday's Bradford Telegraph & Argus, the Daily Mail and today's Daily Telegraph.
The 200 Muslim prisoners were at Her Majesty's Prison Leeds, which has a total population of 1,200 criminals. HMP Leeds is a category B prison. The problem involved a menu (pictured) which was issued during the month of Ramadan which gave them the choice of a ham sandwich as part of their evening meal.
A spokesman at the Prison Service said: "An inappropriate menu card was printed during this Ramadan (September 13 to October 12). This mistake was rectified immediately. Appropriate menu options for the Iftaar evening meal were available throughout Ramadan. Prison Service guidelines state that prisoners must have a diet which meets the requirements of their religion."
The Daily Mail states that some prisoners who had chosen cheese sandwiches found they contained ham, though this is denied by the prison.
The prisoners are now taking legal action, claiming that their "human rights" were abused.
In a separate case involving "human rights" 16 Muslim criminals from HMP Leeds are currently waging a lawsuit which maintains that Muslims were offered food that was said to be halal, but was not (i.e. it had not come from an animal whose throat was cut and had bled to death). The men are claiming "mistreatment".
Kate Maynard, from law firm Hickman and Rose Solicitors said of the "halal" case: "One of the issues they are worried about is that they were being told food was halal when it wasn't. They are taking this to court to try to change conditions in the prison and make conditions better."
In March 2006 we reported that at Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst near Redditch, which houses 1,070 criminals, ham was deliberately put into Muslim prisoner's "halal" dinners. This action happened when a prisoner who was employed in the prison was found putting tinned ham into curries being prepared for Muslim prisoners.
In regards to that incident, no-one sued. A Prison Service statement said: "All of the prisoners who ate any of the food were sent a letter of apology and imams were on hand to deal with any other issues."
Prisons should be places of punishment. The mere fact that prisoners receive "menu cards" to choose what they eat indicates the way that they are being treated as "consumers" rather than criminals.
In HMP Brixton in south London in April 2006 it was revealed that two new toilet blocks were being constructed. Following pressure from Muslim leaders, the toilets were designed so that no prisoner - Muslim or otherwise - would be evacuating his bowels with his bottom aligned to Mecca.
Britain's prisons now house more than 4,500 Muslims. On November 29 last year, the UK prison population topped 80,000 - with 79,908 in jails and 152 held in police stations. As a result of Britain's massive prison overcrowding, maximum sentences for crimes are now only being handed dow by judges in 1 in 40 cases.
With prisoners now suing the Prison Service to establish their religious habits as "human rights" issues, it appears that Muslim prisoners are now being treated as "special cases". This is wrong - all prisoners should be treated equally. Additionally - the cost of keeping people in prison is already a burden on the tax-payer. Financial settlements will only add to the tax-payers' burden. If these individuals were paragons of religious "virtue" they would not be in prison. Would they?
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 2:44 PM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2007
UK: London Protest Against Islamist Intolerance Tomorrow
The group Stop Islamisation of Europe - SIOE will be holding a demonstration tomorrow in London. The Assembly Point will be at Whitehall Place at 12.00 with the procession beginning at 1pm, going along Northumberland Avenue, Victoria Embankment, under Waterloo Bridge with final destination being Temple Place, where there will be speeches before dispersal.
The full press release can be found here.
The demonstration is being mounted to coincide with the current "Islamofascism Awareness Week in the United States.
The protest is being called "STOP KUFFARPHOBIA AND KALIFASCISM!". From the press release:
An event organised by "Stop Islamisation Of Europe" (SIOE)To coincide with Islamo-fascism Awareness week in which events are being held across the USA highlighting the bullying by Islamists against non-Muslims throughout the world
To protest against Kuffarphobia - the irrational fear and loathing of non-Muslims by Islamists.
To protest against the persecution of non-Muslims via Sharia law in Islamic countries.
To protest against the under-reporting or even total lack of reporting about such persecution in Western media.
To protest against the Islamisation of Europe by the changing of existing Western laws and practices to suit Islamic practices, in the name of "multicultural diversity".
To protest against the entry of Turkey into the European Union especially now it has elected an openly Islamist Prime Minister and government who wish to replace secularism with Sharia law.
To protest against the second-class status of women in Islamic countries, particularly regarding sexuality, jurisprudence and education.
Millions of non-Muslims are systematically being persecuted because they live under Sharia law in Islamic countries.
In Egypt people are being imprisoned for leaving Islam, an offence under Sharia law, indeed this is a capital offence in many Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia.
In Malaysia Islamic apostates are unable to have "Islam" removed from their official documents because it is now against Malaysia's laws to leave Islam. This denies a person's fundamental rights even to the funeral of their choice.
In Indonesia Christians and other non-Muslims are persecuted to such an extent that tens of thousands have been displaced. Enforced emplantation of Muslims in Indonesian New Guinea is underway which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing.
Similar ethno-religious cleansing is taking place in Kosovo where Christian Serbs are being ousted from that part of Serbia, seemingly aided and abetted by the United Nations and NATO.
In the Middle East Copts and Assyrians are being persecuted by Islamists with the apparent approval of governments in that region.
Armenians were systematically eliminated, simply for being non-Muslims, by one of the grossest acts of genocide. Although perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire this act of mass murder is denied by the Turkish authorities. Turkey wishes to join the European Union even though denial of genocide is illegal in several EU countries, notably Belgium.
In Thailand and the Philippines terrorist murders are enacted on a daily basis by Islamists seeking to set up Islamic states.
Elsewhere Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Buddhists are oppressed and subjugated by Islamic authorities. The list seems endless.
Disgracefully, most of this Islamic persecution is never reported in the Western Media.
Rules for the demonstration
Political parties are banned, but members of any political party may attend the demonstration as individuals provided they adhere to the rules of the demonstration.
Permitted flags, banners, placards and regalia
SIOE placards are permitted
National flags and recognised regional flags are permitted.
Flags identifying persecuted minorities in Islamic countries are permitted, subject to the approval of the Chief Steward.
Banners and placards highlighting persecution of minority groups in Islamic countries are permitted, subject to the approval of the Chief Steward.
Flags, banners and placards identifying women's groups are permitted.
SIOE slogans:-
Stop Kuffarphobia
No Sharia Here!
Democracy Not Theocracy!
Enough is Enough!
Banned items
Anything identifying any political party
Nazi, Fascist and Communist (Hammer and Sickle) symbols and logos
Illegal items such as those inciting violence
ASSEMBLY AND PROCESSION
Assembly - Whitehall Place 12.00
Procession 13.00
Route
Northumberland Avenue
Victoria Embankment
Under Waterloo Bridge
Temple PlaceSpeeches to be made in Temple Place before dispersal
Contact details
Stephen Gash
SIOE England
Tel 0044 1228 547317
E-mail sioe.nsh@btinternet.comAnders Gravers (speaks English)
SIOE Denmark
Tel 0045 9677 1784
00456191 6026
E-mail sioe@siad.dkhttp://sioeengland.blogspot.com/
http://sioe.wordpress.com/
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 5:12 PM | Comments (0)
France: Algerian Muslim Terrorist Jailed For Life
Rachid Ramda (pictured) has today been given a life sentence by the Paris Assizes Court. The 38-year old Algerian must serve a minimum of 22 years behind bars, states Reuters. Prosecutor Delphine Dewailly had sought a life sentence with with limited parole. This is the sentence that was imposed today.
The Algerian - a member of the terror group GIA (Armed Islamic Group) - had already been found guilty of involvement in bombing attacks that took place in Paris in 1995. The worst of these was a bomb attack upon a Metro (subway) station in July. His sentence today was for being directly involved in the financing of the bombs in at least one of these attacks. This trial had started on October 1.
At Saint Michel Metro station a blast took place on July 25, 1995. Eight people were killed in the explosion and 119 were injured. The blast had been caused by a gas canister inside a glass container loaded with nails. The victims suffered severe lacerations. Video from the time can be found here.
August 17, 1995 - 17 people were injured after a bomb was placed in a waste bin in the Avenue Friedland in the 8th arrondissement.
September 3, 1995 - Four women were wounded at a street market on boulevard Richard-Lenoir in the 19th arrondissement. The bomb was hidden inside a pressure cooker.
October 6, 1995 - At Maison-Blanche station in the 13th arrondissement, 13 people were seriously injured. The bomb was made from a gas canister, in a container with nails. A contemporary news video can be found here.
October 17, 1995 - A subway train carriage of RER C is ruptured by a bomb explosion between the stations of Musee-d'Orsay and Saint-Michel. Thirty people were injured.
There were two bomb attacks outside of Paris. On September 7, a booby trapped car blew up in front of a Jewish school in Villeurbanne in Rhone, wounding 14 people. On August 26, an explosive device was discovered on the TGV rail line between Paris and Lyon. On September 4, 1995, another device was found near a market in the 15th arrondissement of Paris.
The fingerprints of a suspect, Khaled Kelkal, were found on the TGV bomb. A manhunt went into operation. On September 29 near Lyon in the south of France, Kelkal engaged in a shootout with police, and was shot dead. On November 1 and 2, in an operation mounted in Paris, Lyon and Lille, two other bomb suspects, Boualem Bensaid and Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, members of the Algerian terror group GIA, were arrested. These two individuals are now serving life sentences for their part in the attack.
Rachid Ramda had fled the country, and was arrested in Britain on November 4, 1995. He was then widely suspected to have been the financier of three of the bomb attacks.
In 1993 Ramda had already been found guilty in absentia and sentenced to death for a terror attack which happened in his native Algeria, at Algiers airport. 9 people had died and 123 had been injured. Ramda was allowed to walk free in France, even though his guilt as a terrorist murderer appeared certain.
Instead of extraditing Ramda to face justice in France, the British authorities kept him in custody for 10 years before finally bundling him onto a France-bound plane on December 1, 1995. Rachid Ramda was found guilty on other charges related to three of the 1995 bombings on March 29, 2006. He was sentenced to ten years' jail.
In April 2007 it was announced that Ramda would face trial for actual involvement via financing in the St Michel bombing. It seems he was also sent to trial for direct involvement in the Maison-Blanche attack. During the current trial, the main evidence against him was a bank payment slip that bore his fingerprints.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 2:45 PM | Comments (0)
Russia: What is Putin's Plan for Iran?
Here at Western Resistance, we've had had a difficult time understanding Vladimir Putin. With one hand, he pursues war against Muslim rebels, worries about ethnic Russians' low birthrates, restricts constructions of Mosques, etc. With the other hand, he supports Iran's and Syria's nuclear program, supports the regimes diplomatically, much like he supported Saddam Hussein. It is tough to say, but only a conspiracy theory or wanton stupidity born out of overconfidence seem to make sense. I still think stupidity is the answer. Michael Ledeen thinks it is wily strategy: Red Army Dreams
If you were Vladimir Putin, what would you think of Iran? You'd worry a lot about it, that's what. Your own Russia is losing Russians, due to the usual grim demography that characterizes most of Europe. And, like the others, you've got a Muslim problem, with surging birthrates both within Russia and all along its borders, from Chechnya to the 'stans. Lots of those Muslims are under Iranian sway. You know that well, having been trained in, and elevated by, the KGB, which was horrified to see radical mullahs and imams receiving money, Korans, and even weapons from the Islamic Republic. When Osama bin Laden claims that the defeat of the Soviet Empire was an Islamic victory, there's a certain element of truth to his words, and you know that the Iranians want to build on that foundation to extend their power deeper into your domain.[...]
Posted by Ruy Diaz at 1:52 PM | Comments (0)
October 25, 2007
Denmark: Four Protesters Against Islam Beaten With Iron Bars
As I mentioned earlier a campaign has been mounted in Europe called Stop Islamisation of Europe. This group's aim is self-evident - to oppose multicultural policies which have allowed Islamists to wield political influence, and the encroachment of Islam in Europe. They regard this spread of a potentially violent religion/ideology as a threat to the values which built Europe. They are not racist - their slogan is "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense."
On the sixth anniversary of 9/11 this year, members of the group had tried to protest in Brussels. The politically correct mayor, Freddy Thielemans, was opposed to any event which could have inflamed Muslims in his city - a tacit admission that demonstrations of free speech - a basic European right - would be met with violence by the same Muslims he supports. He banned the demonstration. Several people still turned up, hoping to make their protest, but 154 people were arrested.
Now, news comes that an attempt by SIOE to make a demonstration in Denmark was met with extreme violence in which four people, including the leader of the Danish branch of SIOE, were injured.
The incident is reported - with pictures - on SIOE's website. On Sunday, October 21, a demonstration by SIOE had been planned in Copenhagen. Anders Gravers was in one of two cars driving to a cellar before the meeting.
When he stopped the car to get through the security gate, his vehicle was attacked by four men. Two of these smashed the car's side windows with iron bars. One of Anders Gravers' passengers was struck by the bars. The attackers were calling "Get him out! Get him out!" Another person who was in the front of the car between Gravers and the other injured passenger, was also injured. A filled bottle of soda was thrown at her, breaking on the back of her head (above right). The attackers eventually ran off.
Gravers fought back as one of the men tried to lean into the car and unlock the door. It later was found that Gravers' shirt and jacket had holes, corresponding to stab marks. At the time, no-one was aware that the assailants had knives. Anders Gravers had been wearing a protective vest under his shirt. He suffered the least injuries of those attacked, having bruises on his arm and body.
An elderly woman passenger in Anders Gravers' car had managed to escape from the vehicle, but she was hit with iron bars by two of the assailants (above left). Another individual (top photo) was hit in the head at least four times with iron bars as he lay in the road.
The four attackers ran off, and the injured individuals took refuge in the cellar venue they had intended to meet at before the demonstration. Phone reception in the basement was poor, but an individual in the building phoned for police and ambulance services. Gravers went ahead and led the demonstration outside Copenhagen's Institute of Human Rights.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 9:03 PM | Comments (1)
Israel: Wailing Wall Was Mosque, Says Former Muslim Mufti
Western Resistance was created to highlight the encroachments made by Islamists and terrorists against Western nations and societies. Sometimes, in order to explain what is going on, we have had to show how history continues to be distorted by Islamists in order for them to lay claim to territory that was never theirs.
On October 2, in a discussion of Islamic eschatology, I pointed out that historically the Al Aqsa mosque (Dome of the Rock) did NOT exist when Mohammed was alive, so it could not have been the site of his mythical "ascent" to Heaven on the back of a flying quadruped (either a horse or a donkey, which in some accounts had a human face).
Once again, the issue of Jerusalem's history is being deliberately distorted by a political Muslim, to try to justify more demands for appropriations of Jewish territory as "Muslim lands", just as Al Qaeda claim that Spain is a "Muslim land" because parts of it were colonized by Muslims between the 7th century and 1492.
The latest "theory", if you can call it that, comes from the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri. The Jerusalem Post and Earth Times report on his preposterous claims.
He said: "There was never a Jewish temple on Al-Aksa [the mosque compound] and there is no proof that there was ever a temple. Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand."
This line of reasoning is unique in discussing archeological sites, but he continued: "The wall is not part of the Jewish temple. It is just the western wall of the mosque. There is not a single stone with any relation at all to the history of the Hebrews."
He did not approve of Jews even calling the site of the Dome of the Rock (Al-Aqsa) by their name of "The Temple Mount". Sabri said: "It is not the Temple Mount, you must say Al-Aksa. And no Jews have the right to pray at the mosque. It was always only a mosque - all 144 dunams, the entire area. No Jewish prayer. If the Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try to pray on Al-Aksa. Everyone knows that. Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish temple, but they dug there and they found nothing."
The Temple Mount itself is a platform built by Herod the Great which is believed to be on the site where Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac. The Western Wall itself (formerly called the "Wailing Wall") is the western wall of the second temple, which was reconsructed and enlarged by Herod in the early 1st century AD. Archeology is still taking place at the site of the Western Wall and Temple Mount. This week, states the Jerusalem Post, archeologists have reached a level dating back to the time of the first temple.
The first temple is said to have been built by Solomon, and was destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The second temple was created between 538 and 516 BC. The second temple was desecrated by Roman general Pompey (106 - 48 BC). In 66 AD, the Jews mounted a rebellion and consequently Romans officially expelled Jews from Jerusalem. In 68 AD the temple was occupied by the Jewish Zealots. In 70 AD, the temple was destroyed by Romans. Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian, took control over the destruction of the temple.
On Titus' Arch in Rome, a menorah is shown being carried off by Romans (pictured). There is now some controversy if this menorah represented the actual menorah from the temple that Titus ransacked. Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, claimed that the menorah from the temple was displayed in the procession that formed the Roman triumphal march. The disappearance of the menorah was noted in the Talmud, where its reconstruction was said to be forbidden. However, it is now a popular symbol of Judaism and faith.
According to Josephus' >Antiquities (Chapter 11, 1) Herod started reconstruction and enlargement of the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign: "to build of himself the temple of God, (22) and make it larger in compass, and to raise it to a most magnificent altitude, as esteeming it to be the most glorious of all his actions, as it really was, to bring it to perfection; and that this would be sufficient for an everlasting memorial of him."
In section 3 of the chapter, Josephus wrote: "So Herod took away the old foundations, and laid others, and erected the temple upon them, being in length a hundred cubits, and in height twenty additional cubits, which [twenty], upon the sinking of their foundations fell down; and this part it was that we resolved to raise again in the days of Nero. Now the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits, their height was eight, and their breadth about twelve; and the whole structure, as also the structure of the royal cloister, was on each side much lower, but the middle was much higher, till they were visible to those that dwelt in the country for a great many furlongs, but chiefly to such as lived over against them, and those that approached to them. The temple had doors also at the entrance, and lintels over them, of the same height with the temple itself. They were adorned with embroidered veils, with their flowers of purple, and pillars interwoven; and over these, but under the crown-work, was spread out a golden vine, with its branches hanging down from a great height, the largeness and fine workmanship of which was a surprising sight to the spectators, to see what vast materials there were, and with what great skill the workmanship was done."
In his History of the Jews, Book 6, Josephus writes of the fall of the temple to the army of Titus.
The issue of Jerusalem being a "sacred" Muslim place is based on a false premise. As I wrote on October 2:
Jerusalem is said to be a sacred Muslim place because it was from here that Mohammed ascended to Heaven on the back of a burak (a winged horse or donkey). Yet Mohammed never conquered Jerusalem, and had not even set foot in the place.
The tenuous link connecting Mohammed to Jerusalem involves a dream, the "Night Journey" mentioned in Sura 17:1 and 17:60 of the Koran. In this dream he is taken to the "Masjid al-Aqsa" or "the farthest mosque". There was no mosque in Jerusalem during his lifetime, and Egyptian writer Ahmad Muhammad 'Arafa has argued that the "farthest mosque" was a reference to Medina, not Jerusalem. The present Al-Aqsa Mosque (Dome of the Rock) was constructed in 691 AD, 55 years after Muslims conquered Jerusalem, and 59 years after Mohammed died. A Bukhari hadith, written down in the 9th century, states clearly that Jerusalem was where Mohammed made his "Night Journey". Mohammed's kinsmen did not believe his claims, so he again described Jerusalem from a vision which Allah conveniently provided.Despite never physically visiting Jerusalem. Mohammed is said to have ordered that Muslims should pray at Bayt al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem), and if not able to reach there, they should send oil for lamps. The symbolic importance of holding Jerusalem was maintained during the times of the Crusades against Christians who saw Jerusalem as their Holy City.
Islamists' contempt for Israel and Jews touches on issues embedded within Muslim eschatology. Bukhari stated: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' " Muslim has similar Hadiths: "Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him."
The lies being spread by Ikrema Sabri would be laughable, but for the fact that his words will be picked up by others to justify more assaults against Israel and Jewish life, even though everything about the former Mufti's claims is historically and archeologically fraudulent. After all, Muslims rioted and murdered when they never saw the Danish cartoons, and Muslims rioted and murdered when they had never read the Regensburg speech of Pope Benedict XVI. Such is the nature of the Islamic world today - the ignorant and the violent are the ones who wield influence and control the minds of the masses. Facts, history, objectivity, all mean nothing to these populist rabble-rousers.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 8:14 PM | Comments (0)
Belgium: Turks Riot, Kurds Attacked, 100 Arrested
News from the Brussels Journal and AFP via Expatica:
Earlier this year, on Tuesday September 11 dozens of members of SIOE (Stop the islamisation of Europe) and others from the Vlaams Belang party were arrested for staging a 9/11 anniversary protest against the growth of and support of radical Islam throughout Europe. The rally had been declared illegal, although 200 people had turned up on two squares in the EU district of Europe. Police were in force, and Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party were arrested. Brussels' mayor, Freddy Thielemans, had banned the planned rally a month earlier, claiming that an anti-Islamic event could provoke unrest amongst Belgium Muslims.
Thielemans, the politically correct mayor of Brussels caved in to fear of violence from the Muslim community. Now that violence has erupted, but the causes of unrest are political, rather than Islamofascist outrage. Recently Turkey has been threatening to launch attacks against northern Iraq. The reason has been a recent upsurge of violent attacks in the southeast of Turkey made by the Kurdish separatist terror group - the PKK. The terrorists have established bases across the Turkish border, where they are hiding and have been under protection of local Kurds.
Yesterday, Turkey apparently launched air strikes across the border into northern Iraq. The strikes against supposed PKK bases have apparently caused the deaths of dozens. The issue of the PKK terrorists hiding in northern Iraq has threatened the stability of the region. Iraq has made an offer of taking "practical steps and measures... to pacify, isolate and disrupt PKK activities." Syria will mediate between Iraq and Turkey. Last week, Turkey's parliament voted to approve strikes 30 miles into Iraqi territory where the PKK bases are held. The strikes have caused a refugee situation in Iraq.
The violence by the PKK has caused Turks to have intense resentment against the Kurdish group. There were marches in Turkey on Monday October 22 after 12 Turkish soldiers were killed in a PKK attack on Sunday. On Monday, a joint statement was released by U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Britain's foreign and commonwealth affairs secretary David Miliband, condemning Sunday's PKK attack.
Yesterday in Freddy Thielemans pro-Islamist Brussels, violence erupted in the evening, with Turks attacking buses, cars, trains and shops. In a re-run of Ottoman bigotry, on Sunday night in the district of Sint-Joost, a bar owned by Armenian Peter Petrossian was attacked. On Monday, a cafe belonging to an Iraqi Kurd was ransacked by Turkish nationalists. On Wednesday, Turkish youths began to attack Kurdish shops in Brussels. Similar demonstrations by Turks took place in Antwerp.
The rioting on Wednesday caused 10 police officers to be injured. The violence followed a demonstration by 800 people against Kurds which turned violent. Three people in a car attempted to ram a police vehicle, injuring the three occupants, and have been charged with attempted murder. Many of those who attended the earlier demonstration wore masks, and in the unrest police officers were pelted with stones. 100 arrests were made. By late Wednesday night, the violence seemed to have subsided.
David Jansen, Brussels' police chief, said: "There was a lot of rough physical contact, garbage bins were set on fire and cars damaged." Most of the violence happened in Sint-Joost (Saint-Josse) and Schaerbeek districts, which are generally referred to as "Little Turkey".
Mayor of Sint-Joost Mohammed Jabour said that "people are very worried about what is happening (in northern Iraq), but this has nothing to do with the situation here. This is a very serious development for (the immigrants') integration."
Integration? If the individuals who are rioting are Turkish "nationalists", then why are they in Europe?
Maybe this will wake up the politically correct and appeasing mayor of Brussels to the divisions and strife that his policies in support of "multiculturalism" actually promote.
And for those in Europe who wish to see Turkey as another member of the European Union, look forward to more similar scenes in more cities in the future.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 5:46 PM | Comments (0)
Italy: Mosque Arson Attack
A mosque in Abbiategrasso, 12 miles west of Milan, was subjected to a molotov cocktail attack yesterday. The young arsonist was masked, and threw the cocktail from his scooter-type motorcycle in the late afternoon. The fuel-filled bottle landed in the mosque courtyard. The Alif Baa Islamic Center on Via Civellino was not seriously damaged and no-one was hurt. The fire was quickly extinguished.
The mosque had similar incidents earlier this year on July 25 and August 10. The attack was the eighth of its kind in Lombardy region over the past few months.
On August 5, a mosque in the nearby city of Segrate was attacked, and a car belonging to Hamid Zarate, the imam, was destroyed.
Abbiategrasso is the home city of Giancarlo Bossi (pictured), a missionary who was kidnapped in the Philippines on July 10 this year.
He was riding a motorcycle on his way to celebrate Sunday Mass at Payao town in Zamboanga Sibugay province, Mindanao island, when 10 armed men blocked his path. Pope Benedict XVI condemned the priest's abduction. The Catholic priest was abducted days after Filipino president Gloria Arroyo returned from a private audience with the Pope at the Vatican. Bossi had been taken away in a boat. He was freed on Thursday July 19.
Speaking of yesteday's arson incident, Bossi said: "There is a need for dialogue among religions. Whoever committed this act is a fanatic who does not respect a sacred place"
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 4:06 PM | Comments (0)
October 24, 2007
Spain: Six Islamist Recruiters Held
News from Agence France Presse, Deutsche-Presse Agentur and Thomson Finance News:
Today, in the northern province of Burgos, Spanish police arrested six Muslims, part of a cell that is suspected to have used the internet to have recruited jihadists for suicide attacks. Additionally, the group is suspected of gathering money for imprisoned terrorists and spreading Islamist propaganda.
The leader of the group is Algerian, and his deputy is Moroccan. The raids took place on the men's homes, as well as a butchery. Computer materials and documents were seized.
News of the raids was given out by Spain's Interior Ministry, which also claimed the men admitted to following the principles of Salafist Islam. This is an uncompromising ideology which gained popularity in the late 19th century, and believes in the use of armed jihad.
Spanish authorities liaised with their counterparts in Sweden, Denmark and the United States to secure the arrests.
On Tuesday, the National Court stated it would try 22 Islamists said to have links with the Iraq insurgency. The Moroccan leader of this cell is said to have had close links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed in June last year. The group is said to have sent 10 jjihadists to Iraq, including a Moroccan who had been in involved in the train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, which killed 191 people. This group planned bomb attacks in Italy and France. 10 of these suspects were jailed as a "preventative measure".
On October 15, the trial began of a further 30 Islamist suspects accused of plotting bomb attacks.
UPDATE: News from Associated Press states that one of the six people arrested today was a woman. The cell is apparently unrelated to that involving the 22 individuals indicted on Tuesday. The leader of this cell is now named as Abdelkader Ayachine, an Algerian owner of a butcher's shop in Burgos. The fundraising which is alleged by the authoritieis appaarently took place through this shop, and raised money for people jailed in the suicide attacks in Casablanca which killed 45 individuals (including a dozen bombers) on May 16, 2003.
The members of the cell arrested today called themselves "Los Ansar" - a reference to the "Ansar al-Islam" group from Iraq which has connections to Al Qaeda. Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said that the cell was so far the first time a group had relied so heavily upon the internet for its work. Additionally the group disseminated videos praising jihad.
The other suspects are named as Mohamed Mouas, Smaine Kadouci and Yahia Drif, and Moroccans Wissan Lotfi and Fatima Zahrae Raissouni.
UPDATE 2: With thanks to Esther, news from Islam in Europe blog and Agence France Presse via Expatica states that - apparently in connection with the arrests in Spain today - five men were arrested yesterday in France. The arrests took place in southwestern France, of individuals suspected of similarly recruiting jihadists to fight in Iraq.
Three arrests took place in Toulouse, and two happened in Lot in the Midi-Pyrenees region, in an operation conducted by French and Belgian police. The suspects are aged 25 to 45. The eldest is suspected of giving combat training to several jihadists who were arrested in February.
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 9:04 AM | Comments (3)
October 23, 2007
US: Strategy Against Disasters And Muslim Terrorism
This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.
Preparing For Possible Disaster
Last week, the White House published a report entitled "National Strategy for Homeland Security". This updates a strategy published in July, 2002. The report can be found in an html version and a pdf document. Accompanying the publication of the report, President George W. Bush published a letter which also serves as an introduction.
The President writes: "This Strategy also calls on each of you. Every one of us should develop our own personal and family readiness plans to help protect us in the event of a natural or man-made disaster, enabling emergency responders and resources to be focused on those in greatest need. Many of the threats we face - pandemic diseases, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and natural disasters - also demand multinational effort and cooperation. To this end, we have strengthened our homeland security through foreign partnerships, and we are committed to expanding and increasing our layers of defense, which extend well beyond our borders, by seeking further cooperation with our international partners."
The report deals with preparedness for acts of terrorism, natural disasters and catastrophic accidents. President Bush notes in his introduction that lessons have been learned from Hurricane Katrina. When this hit southeast Louisiana and Mississippi on August 29, 2005, and the levees in New Orleans broke, it caused nearly 2,000 deaths and untold damage. There was widespread concern at the lack of an organized plan to deliver integrated services. Initially, there appeared to be official uncertainty as to who had responsibility for rescue services and law and order, for example.
The section on "Catastrophic Natural DIsasters" lists potential natural threats such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and epidemics, but the specific strategies of dealing with such events are only described in general terms in the report. The final section of the report deals with response and recovery in the event of a major terrorist attack or natural catastrophe, but still reads more as a "wish-list" than a practical recipe for response.
The subheadings still suggest that specific strategies need to be worked out: "Clarify how national roles and responsibilities are fulfilled across all levels of government and the private and non-profit sectors, Strengthen doctrine to guide the national response, Develop and apply joint planning and training processes, Conduct advance readiness activities."
This section maintains that "state governments have the primary responsibility for assisting local governments to respond to and recover from disasters a