20 Years of Research Reveals: Jerusalem Belongs to Jews, Arutz-7, Hillel Fendel
Shas Party: When Jerusalem Talks Start, We Quit, Arutz-7, Hillel Fendel
This is war, Israpundit, Ted Belman
Hamas Takes Over Egyptian Sea Port, The Bulletin, David Bedein
Israel says it wants to stop supplying electricity and water to Gaza, Jihad Watch,
Palestinian Authority demonization of USA continues, Palestinian Media Watch, Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Barak: Iran has a clandestine uranium enrichment program, The Jerusalem Post, Jpost.com Staff
Russia Completes Nuclear-Fuel Delivery to Iran, The Media Line,
=====
Gunmen kidnapped a burqa-clad American aid worker and her driver while they were traveling through southern Afghanistan early Saturday, a provincial governor said.
The two were stopped by gunmen outside the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, said Gov. Asadullah Khalid. He blamed the kidnappings on the 'enemy of Islam and the enemy of Afghanistan.'
====
A powerful bomb targeting a security convoy killed at least 10 people and wounded many more in a Christian area of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, on Friday, local television reported.
An army official put the death toll at three and told AFP that Captain Wissam Eid, a member of the Internal Security Forces, was one of the dead.
Flames engulfed cars, trapping several people as firefighters battled to extinguish the fires and security forces cordoned off the area.
====
A series of explosions thundered in the Iraqi capital Saturday morning, police said, including one from a mortar round that hit the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. One of the explosions was a roadside bomb that targeted a U.S. patrol in eastern Baghdad.
A police officer said the blast site was sealed by American forces and there was no immediate way to detail damage or casualties. There was no immediate report of the incident from the U.S. military.
Another police officer confirmed a mortar round hit the heavily protected Green Zone. The Americans did not report damage or casualties from that incident either. Both officers spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release the information.
On Friday, shaken by two days of deadly bombings in Mosul, the government said it would dispatch several thousand more security forces to that city in a 'decisive' bid to drive al-Qaida in Iraq from its last major stronghold.
====
U.S. officials monitoring terrorist web sites have discovered a call for using forest fires as weapons against 'crusader' nations, in what may explain some recent wildfires in places like southern California and Greece.
A terrorist website was discovered recently that carried a posting that called for 'Forest Jihad.' The posting was listed on the Internet on Nov. 26 and reported in U.S. intelligence channels last week.
The statement, in Arabic, said that 'summer has begun so do not forget the Forest Jihad.'
The writer called on all Muslims in the United States, Europe, Russia and Australia to 'start forest fires.'
The posting quoted imprisoned Al Qaida terrorist Abu Musab Al-Suri, as saying 'Jihad is an art just like poetry, music, and the fine arts. There are people that draw and there are others that are jihadists. They both act upon inspiration.'
Al-Suri is a senior Al Qaida leader captured in Pakistan in 2005 who is believed to be in U.S. custody.
====
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, in an interview published Saturday, that Iran is 'quite advanced' in its work on atomic weapons and may already be fashioning a nuclear warhead.
'We suspect they are probably already working on warheads for ground-to-ground missiles,' Barak said in an interview with The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine.
He also suggested that Iranians 'probably ... have another clandestine enrichment operation beyond the one in Natanz.'
The remarks were in stark contrast the conclusion of a US National Intelligence Estimate released late last year that said Tehran had abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons as far back as 2003.
Barak sharply disagreed with this assessment.
====
In America it seems that from the information that has been released from intelligence services and local police, the Latin street gang MS13 have been working with Al Qaeda to smuggle arms, international terrorists and even nuclear weapons into the American homeland.
For Islam's General's it is a very logical step to try and open up connections with MS13, if they have not already got the connections due to the gang having well trodden smuggling routes straight into the U.S homeland already in place.
MS13 have exploded over the past ten years or so upon American culture, they have spread throughout America and have now become the biggest street gang throughout the U.S. That is no small feat to have achieved and leaves a very deadly vicious criminal network throughout the whole of the U.S from East to West coast.
A criminal street gang anywhere in the world makes its money through all types of criminal enterprises with street drugs like Heroin being the most lucrative of them all. It is this type of commodity that helps finance growth within a criminal organisation due to the vast wealth that is earned through the drugs trade and the distribution networks you need to have in place over a large area.
The bigger the area you control then the more money you make, America being so large and with the likes of the Italian mafia no longer involved in this type of trade it makes Heroin an ideal fuel in which to finance the growth of what is now Americas largest and most feared street gang.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
WHAT DOES ANNIHILATION OF ISRAEL SUPPOSED TO MEAN?
Alexander Maistrovoy
amaist@lycos.com
A couple of weeks before the opening of the conference in Annapolis Saib Arikat, Head of Negotiations with Israel categorically rejected the opportunity of recognizing Israel, as the Jewish state. In other words, the body politic which PA is considered to be, negotiating for peace with its neighboring state, Israel, …denies the very existence of this state. Is it surrealism and absurdity? Undoubtedly. However, this is an integral part of the Middle Eastern reality. And in this context the statement of Arikat (the representative of "pragmatic" and “moderated" Palestinians) is not accidental at all.
From the very beginning of Oslo Palestinians did not camouflage their intention not to recognize Israel. I emphasize: they did not camouflage it. Yaser Arafat publicly declared: "Palestinians will return to all the houses which they have lost during the War for Independence - in Acre, Jaffa, Haifa, etc". He compared Oslo agreement to the peace treaty between Prophet Mohammed and the Koreish tribe. As you know, it was annulled by the Prophet at the moment of loosing its value.
Shimon Peres has called the acceptance of the amendment to the Charter PLO in 2002 (about recognition of the Jewish state) "one of the most significant events in the history of Israel". (The Charter had contained the item on "destruction of the Zionist state"). It was yet another illusion harbored by Peres, and Israel as a whole. "The Palestinian national Charter has not changed!” one of leaders of FATH Farouk Kaddoumi repeatedly declared. He only repeated the statement that "the moderate Palestinians" had many times said openly. As a matter of fact, the same has been told by Saib Arikat.
"We can temporarily recede or gain a tactical victory. It does not matter. Our eyes are turned to the future, to our strategic purpose, the name of which is Palestine from the river (Jordan) up to the sea (Mediterranean). No matter what we receive now, it will not force us to forget the prime aim" (Feisal Husseini, the former minister of Arafat for Jerusalem Affairs, the participant of peace talks in March, 2001).
In January, 2002, immediately after Peres's enthusiastic declaration, the director of the Department on the international parliamentary issues in PA National Council Zuhair Sanduka declared that the amendment to the Charter... was never and nowhere published. "There were publications about the decision to make this amendment. But there are no texts or paragraphs which should replace the existing ones or to change them”, he said.
There are a lot of similar declarations. They are made, we’d like to emphasize, by "pragmatists" with whom Israel has been negotiating for peace.
"It’s no use arguing about the percent of the ground that should be given to Palestinians if we don’t try to understand their driving motives first”, Asher Eder says in his interview. He is a historian from Jerusalem, who has been studying religious and historical aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict for many years. “The problem is not in Palestinians, the problem is in the specific approach of the Arab world to the conflict.
Till now Israel has not understood the main thing: the Arabian policy concerning "Zionist formation" is nothing but their sacred war, jihad. We are not talking separate appeals in separate countries of the Arab world. We are talking total jihad, the ultimate goal of which is the destruction of Israel. All means suit the purpose".
“This strategy”, Eder continues, "has no relation either to internal political struggle of the Arab world, or to the antagonism of the so-called "secular" and religious fractions. Moreover, the directive on total jihad against Israel was generated during the ruling of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Naser who was known as a secular governor of the socialist sense. He, in particular, after the defeat in the Six-Day War called a conference of Arabian religious leaders where the concept of the anti-Israeli jihad was formulated. And since that moment Arabs have consistently and purposefully been realizing it", Eder expands his idea.
Is it possible to get out of this situation? Eder considers it is. However, it is a long and difficult way, and there are no easy solutions in it. "True peace can be reached by way of understanding the sacred texts of Islam. Islam is the soul of the Arabic society. Muslims do not separate religion from policy, outlooks, or daily life. Israel in the eyes of Arabs will be a "damned state" until the Muslim clergy bless it, authorize its right to exist. In fact peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Koran. It recognizes the teachings of the Jewish Prophets and peculiarity of Israel. But Islam teaching is distorted be fanatics and until Muslim clergy conceal truth about Muslim prophecies regarding Jews, any political negotiations will make no sense", Eder exp! lains.
Meanwhile, during the wartime, all means are good. He quotes Arabic spiritual leaders. Grand Kadi of Jordan, Sheikh Abdullah Goshah has in his time defined the strategy of Muslims concerning Israel in the following words: “The Muslims are also free to break their covenant with the enemies if they are uneasy lest the enemy should betray them… Telling lies in war is permitted so as to comfort the Muslims when they are in need of it as in the time of fighting. Arrogance is disliked except in case of war”.
Syria’s Mufti Muhammad Azah Darwaza declaims: “The Quranic sentence is applied to make peace with an enemy who has his own country and state, but the Jews in Palestine are our enemies who have made their aggression upon counter the Arab Muslims”.
Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheich Hassan Khaled: “Particular this battle is not a mere combat between parties, but it is a battle between two religions”.
Such approach has only become stronger in our days.
The similar opinion I have heard from known Rabbi Menachem Froman from the settlement Tkoa. For many years Froman has been trying to establish a dialogue between the Arabic leaders and Israel. Rabbi Froman is convinced: the Israeli politicians, analysts, experts have not made the slightest effort to understand and study Islam. All their intensions are concentrated on the searching of superficial, political decisions. Moving religious motives were denied, as something irrational and consequently not essential. But actually, the religious factor is dominating for each Arab, and it is not very important, to which party or movement he belongs.
"Do you remember the slogan of the Left: "It is necessary to make peace with moderate, secular, progressive Palestinian leaders until extremists have not strengthened their influence there"? Do you remember?! Arafat in their eyes was a moderate, secular, progressive Palestinian leader of the kind. What nonsense! In the first place, Arafat was the Muslim, and a deeply religious one. I met him many times, went to him to Mukata. Once he told to me with pride: "For me to be a Muslim is more important, than to be a Palestinian, above all I‘m a Muslim!"
Rabbi Froman believes: peace with Arabs could be only achieved on religious basis. But nobody tries to do it, substituting a real dialogue by illusions and lies. The consequences of it can be fatal to Israel.
And at last, let’s give the floor to a representative of Arabs themselves. In virtual interview on the Internet the Arabic scientist and publicist from Kuwait D-r Sami Alrabaa, living in Germany, has answered my questions:
- What is the real cause for the Palestinian terror against Israel: occupation of territories or refuse to accept Israel? If Israel agrees to leave these territories, will Arabs (and Palestinians) really (not formally) accept it?
- To be honest, even if Israel evacuates all occupied territories, as it did in Gaza, the Palestinians, in particular Hamas and the other radical organizations will not stop their terror. As far as Arabs are concerned, I can tell form experience backed with empirical research, the majority of Arabs want peace with Israel. But they are intimidated by radical Islamists. Arab regimes, almost all of them, including Egypt and Jordan, do not want to have peace with Israel. These regimes have been trading with the “Palestinian Issues” for decades now. The “issue” is a pretext to distract from real issues like democracy, human rights, and less corruption.
- How do you estimate the Saudi initiative?
- Saudi Arabia uses two different languages, one for radical Muslims, for the Wahhabis and one for the West. It tells the Wahhabis, never, we can never have peace with the Jews, the Prophet had none. Hence the Saudi regime would have “peace” with its followers as the “Custodian of the two holy mosques”. To polish its fanatic and despotic image in the West and America, the Saudis have come up with a peace initiative. From historical record, the Saudis would ally with the devil if that guarantees their survivals.
…So what peace are we talking about? The “peace” between Prophet Mohammed and the Koreish tribe? The one which has ended with the total slaughter of the tribe.
...When Hitler declared, that he wished to annihilate Jews and grasp the world, smart intellectuals and politicians-pragmatists inquired in bewilderment: "What does he mean by this?” Indeed, what did he mean by that?
amaist@lycos.com
A couple of weeks before the opening of the conference in Annapolis Saib Arikat, Head of Negotiations with Israel categorically rejected the opportunity of recognizing Israel, as the Jewish state. In other words, the body politic which PA is considered to be, negotiating for peace with its neighboring state, Israel, …denies the very existence of this state. Is it surrealism and absurdity? Undoubtedly. However, this is an integral part of the Middle Eastern reality. And in this context the statement of Arikat (the representative of "pragmatic" and “moderated" Palestinians) is not accidental at all.
From the very beginning of Oslo Palestinians did not camouflage their intention not to recognize Israel. I emphasize: they did not camouflage it. Yaser Arafat publicly declared: "Palestinians will return to all the houses which they have lost during the War for Independence - in Acre, Jaffa, Haifa, etc". He compared Oslo agreement to the peace treaty between Prophet Mohammed and the Koreish tribe. As you know, it was annulled by the Prophet at the moment of loosing its value.
Shimon Peres has called the acceptance of the amendment to the Charter PLO in 2002 (about recognition of the Jewish state) "one of the most significant events in the history of Israel". (The Charter had contained the item on "destruction of the Zionist state"). It was yet another illusion harbored by Peres, and Israel as a whole. "The Palestinian national Charter has not changed!” one of leaders of FATH Farouk Kaddoumi repeatedly declared. He only repeated the statement that "the moderate Palestinians" had many times said openly. As a matter of fact, the same has been told by Saib Arikat.
"We can temporarily recede or gain a tactical victory. It does not matter. Our eyes are turned to the future, to our strategic purpose, the name of which is Palestine from the river (Jordan) up to the sea (Mediterranean). No matter what we receive now, it will not force us to forget the prime aim" (Feisal Husseini, the former minister of Arafat for Jerusalem Affairs, the participant of peace talks in March, 2001).
In January, 2002, immediately after Peres's enthusiastic declaration, the director of the Department on the international parliamentary issues in PA National Council Zuhair Sanduka declared that the amendment to the Charter... was never and nowhere published. "There were publications about the decision to make this amendment. But there are no texts or paragraphs which should replace the existing ones or to change them”, he said.
There are a lot of similar declarations. They are made, we’d like to emphasize, by "pragmatists" with whom Israel has been negotiating for peace.
"It’s no use arguing about the percent of the ground that should be given to Palestinians if we don’t try to understand their driving motives first”, Asher Eder says in his interview. He is a historian from Jerusalem, who has been studying religious and historical aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict for many years. “The problem is not in Palestinians, the problem is in the specific approach of the Arab world to the conflict.
Till now Israel has not understood the main thing: the Arabian policy concerning "Zionist formation" is nothing but their sacred war, jihad. We are not talking separate appeals in separate countries of the Arab world. We are talking total jihad, the ultimate goal of which is the destruction of Israel. All means suit the purpose".
“This strategy”, Eder continues, "has no relation either to internal political struggle of the Arab world, or to the antagonism of the so-called "secular" and religious fractions. Moreover, the directive on total jihad against Israel was generated during the ruling of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Naser who was known as a secular governor of the socialist sense. He, in particular, after the defeat in the Six-Day War called a conference of Arabian religious leaders where the concept of the anti-Israeli jihad was formulated. And since that moment Arabs have consistently and purposefully been realizing it", Eder expands his idea.
Is it possible to get out of this situation? Eder considers it is. However, it is a long and difficult way, and there are no easy solutions in it. "True peace can be reached by way of understanding the sacred texts of Islam. Islam is the soul of the Arabic society. Muslims do not separate religion from policy, outlooks, or daily life. Israel in the eyes of Arabs will be a "damned state" until the Muslim clergy bless it, authorize its right to exist. In fact peace is possible between Ishmael and Israel according to Koran. It recognizes the teachings of the Jewish Prophets and peculiarity of Israel. But Islam teaching is distorted be fanatics and until Muslim clergy conceal truth about Muslim prophecies regarding Jews, any political negotiations will make no sense", Eder exp! lains.
Meanwhile, during the wartime, all means are good. He quotes Arabic spiritual leaders. Grand Kadi of Jordan, Sheikh Abdullah Goshah has in his time defined the strategy of Muslims concerning Israel in the following words: “The Muslims are also free to break their covenant with the enemies if they are uneasy lest the enemy should betray them… Telling lies in war is permitted so as to comfort the Muslims when they are in need of it as in the time of fighting. Arrogance is disliked except in case of war”.
Syria’s Mufti Muhammad Azah Darwaza declaims: “The Quranic sentence is applied to make peace with an enemy who has his own country and state, but the Jews in Palestine are our enemies who have made their aggression upon counter the Arab Muslims”.
Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheich Hassan Khaled: “Particular this battle is not a mere combat between parties, but it is a battle between two religions”.
Such approach has only become stronger in our days.
The similar opinion I have heard from known Rabbi Menachem Froman from the settlement Tkoa. For many years Froman has been trying to establish a dialogue between the Arabic leaders and Israel. Rabbi Froman is convinced: the Israeli politicians, analysts, experts have not made the slightest effort to understand and study Islam. All their intensions are concentrated on the searching of superficial, political decisions. Moving religious motives were denied, as something irrational and consequently not essential. But actually, the religious factor is dominating for each Arab, and it is not very important, to which party or movement he belongs.
"Do you remember the slogan of the Left: "It is necessary to make peace with moderate, secular, progressive Palestinian leaders until extremists have not strengthened their influence there"? Do you remember?! Arafat in their eyes was a moderate, secular, progressive Palestinian leader of the kind. What nonsense! In the first place, Arafat was the Muslim, and a deeply religious one. I met him many times, went to him to Mukata. Once he told to me with pride: "For me to be a Muslim is more important, than to be a Palestinian, above all I‘m a Muslim!"
Rabbi Froman believes: peace with Arabs could be only achieved on religious basis. But nobody tries to do it, substituting a real dialogue by illusions and lies. The consequences of it can be fatal to Israel.
And at last, let’s give the floor to a representative of Arabs themselves. In virtual interview on the Internet the Arabic scientist and publicist from Kuwait D-r Sami Alrabaa, living in Germany, has answered my questions:
- What is the real cause for the Palestinian terror against Israel: occupation of territories or refuse to accept Israel? If Israel agrees to leave these territories, will Arabs (and Palestinians) really (not formally) accept it?
- To be honest, even if Israel evacuates all occupied territories, as it did in Gaza, the Palestinians, in particular Hamas and the other radical organizations will not stop their terror. As far as Arabs are concerned, I can tell form experience backed with empirical research, the majority of Arabs want peace with Israel. But they are intimidated by radical Islamists. Arab regimes, almost all of them, including Egypt and Jordan, do not want to have peace with Israel. These regimes have been trading with the “Palestinian Issues” for decades now. The “issue” is a pretext to distract from real issues like democracy, human rights, and less corruption.
- How do you estimate the Saudi initiative?
- Saudi Arabia uses two different languages, one for radical Muslims, for the Wahhabis and one for the West. It tells the Wahhabis, never, we can never have peace with the Jews, the Prophet had none. Hence the Saudi regime would have “peace” with its followers as the “Custodian of the two holy mosques”. To polish its fanatic and despotic image in the West and America, the Saudis have come up with a peace initiative. From historical record, the Saudis would ally with the devil if that guarantees their survivals.
…So what peace are we talking about? The “peace” between Prophet Mohammed and the Koreish tribe? The one which has ended with the total slaughter of the tribe.
...When Hitler declared, that he wished to annihilate Jews and grasp the world, smart intellectuals and politicians-pragmatists inquired in bewilderment: "What does he mean by this?” Indeed, what did he mean by that?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE AS THE USA???
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. WINSTON CHURCHILL
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.' (Alan Note: Almost certainly an Islamic sharia law dictatorship like in Iran).
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency; (appeasing our Jihadist enemy to avoid confronting them)
6. From complacency to apathy; (When we discover they have no intention of listening to us and we can do NOTHING about it)
7. From apathy to dependence; (and obedience to Islamic sharia laws of dress, behavior and servitude to Allah, even if only feigned as a majority of the population in Islamic Iran)
8. From dependence back into bondage' (Of our own doing and stupidity)
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: (which should point out the accuracy of the above analysis)
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' (and the key voters for the Democrats this time around too)
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA (as we now know it) in fewer than five years.
There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. WINSTON CHURCHILL
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.' (Alan Note: Almost certainly an Islamic sharia law dictatorship like in Iran).
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency; (appeasing our Jihadist enemy to avoid confronting them)
6. From complacency to apathy; (When we discover they have no intention of listening to us and we can do NOTHING about it)
7. From apathy to dependence; (and obedience to Islamic sharia laws of dress, behavior and servitude to Allah, even if only feigned as a majority of the population in Islamic Iran)
8. From dependence back into bondage' (Of our own doing and stupidity)
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: (which should point out the accuracy of the above analysis)
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' (and the key voters for the Democrats this time around too)
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA (as we now know it) in fewer than five years.
THIN END OF THE ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW WEDGE
By Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones
19/01/2008
Islamic courts meet every week in the UK to rule on divorces and financial disputes. Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones report on demands by senior Muslims that sharia be given legal authority
Amnah is a modern British Muslim. She is dressed in a denim skirt and her head is covered in a hijab. Poised and self-assured, she has come to meet Dr Suhaib Hasan, a silver-bearded sheikh who sits behind his desk, surrounded by religious books.
· The origins and obligations of sharia law
"But why would I have to observe the waiting period?" she asks him. "What are the reasons?" There is an urgency to her questions.
Dr Suhaib Hasan is pushing for personal sharia law to be integrated into the British legal system.
"These reasons don't apply to me, that's what I'm very confused about. If you could give me the reasons why I have to wait three months, then I'll understand."
Amnah is going through a divorce and is baffled at being told that she must wait for three months to remarry, considering that she hasn't seen her estranged husband for two years.
Alan Note: the waiting period is to ensure that the divorced wife (which is how the sharia refers to her) is not pregnant from the former husband when she remarries.
She twists her sock-clad toes into the carpet, grasping one hand with the other in her lap, and fixes Dr Hasan with an intense look. He meets this with a simple reply: "These rulings are all in the Koran. The rulings are made for all."
Amnah has little choice but to comply: Dr Hasan is a judge, and this is a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain. The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
To many in the West, talk of sharia law conjures up images of the floggings, stonings, amputations and beheadings carried out in hardline Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
However, the form practised in Britain is more mundane, focusing mainly on marriage, divorce and financial disputes.
The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.
For British Muslims who are keen to follow Islam, this poses a dilemma. An Islamic marriage is not recognised by British law, and therefore many couples will have two ceremonies - civil for the state, and Islamic for their faith.
If they wish to divorce, they must then seek both a civil and an Islamic divorce.
Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system, so that divorces could be rubber-stamped in the same way, for example, that Jewish couples who go to the Beth Din court have their divorce recognised in secular courts.
He points out that the Islamic Sharia Council, of which he is the general secretary, is flooded with work. It hears about 50 divorce cases every month, and responds to as many as 10 requests every day by email and phone for a fatwa - a religious verdict on a religious matter.
Alan Note: some such "requests" in other countries pose questions such as "is a young girl's urine clean or unclean"? A cleric replied to this that a boy's urine is considered clean in Islamic sharia law but a young girl's is dirty. Go figure.
Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.
"Whenever people associate the word 'sharia' with Muslims, they think it is flogging and stoning to death and cutting off the hand," he says with a smile.
He makes the distinction between the aspects of law that sharia covers: worship, penal law, and personal law. Muslim leaders in Britain are interested only in integrating personal law, he says.
Next page
19/01/2008
Islamic courts meet every week in the UK to rule on divorces and financial disputes. Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones report on demands by senior Muslims that sharia be given legal authority
Amnah is a modern British Muslim. She is dressed in a denim skirt and her head is covered in a hijab. Poised and self-assured, she has come to meet Dr Suhaib Hasan, a silver-bearded sheikh who sits behind his desk, surrounded by religious books.
· The origins and obligations of sharia law
"But why would I have to observe the waiting period?" she asks him. "What are the reasons?" There is an urgency to her questions.
Dr Suhaib Hasan is pushing for personal sharia law to be integrated into the British legal system.
"These reasons don't apply to me, that's what I'm very confused about. If you could give me the reasons why I have to wait three months, then I'll understand."
Amnah is going through a divorce and is baffled at being told that she must wait for three months to remarry, considering that she hasn't seen her estranged husband for two years.
Alan Note: the waiting period is to ensure that the divorced wife (which is how the sharia refers to her) is not pregnant from the former husband when she remarries.
She twists her sock-clad toes into the carpet, grasping one hand with the other in her lap, and fixes Dr Hasan with an intense look. He meets this with a simple reply: "These rulings are all in the Koran. The rulings are made for all."
Amnah has little choice but to comply: Dr Hasan is a judge, and this is a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain. The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
To many in the West, talk of sharia law conjures up images of the floggings, stonings, amputations and beheadings carried out in hardline Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
However, the form practised in Britain is more mundane, focusing mainly on marriage, divorce and financial disputes.
The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.
For British Muslims who are keen to follow Islam, this poses a dilemma. An Islamic marriage is not recognised by British law, and therefore many couples will have two ceremonies - civil for the state, and Islamic for their faith.
If they wish to divorce, they must then seek both a civil and an Islamic divorce.
Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system, so that divorces could be rubber-stamped in the same way, for example, that Jewish couples who go to the Beth Din court have their divorce recognised in secular courts.
He points out that the Islamic Sharia Council, of which he is the general secretary, is flooded with work. It hears about 50 divorce cases every month, and responds to as many as 10 requests every day by email and phone for a fatwa - a religious verdict on a religious matter.
Alan Note: some such "requests" in other countries pose questions such as "is a young girl's urine clean or unclean"? A cleric replied to this that a boy's urine is considered clean in Islamic sharia law but a young girl's is dirty. Go figure.
Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.
"Whenever people associate the word 'sharia' with Muslims, they think it is flogging and stoning to death and cutting off the hand," he says with a smile.
He makes the distinction between the aspects of law that sharia covers: worship, penal law, and personal law. Muslim leaders in Britain are interested only in integrating personal law, he says.
Next page
Thursday, January 17, 2008
FIRST LADY OR MUCK-MOUTH??
CLICK ON TITLE TO GO TO PAGE WITH HILLARY'S CONFIRMED SAYINGS (AND EPITHETS
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
LAW TO PROTECT NEW YORK AUTHORS
FRESH MEADOWS, NY (January 14, 2008) – Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) introduced the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" ( S.6687/A.9652) on the front steps of The New York Public Library yesterday (the entire press conference is viewable here: (Part 1 and Part 2 ).
The legislation will protect American authors and journalists from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.
Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Lancman were joined by Senator Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York author who was sued for libel in Britain by a Saudi businessman whom she identified in her book "Funding Evil – How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.
In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held last month that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.
Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the U.S. First Amendment rights.
"When American journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened and our war effort is weakened," said Lancman.
"This legislation will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," said Lancman. "The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror," said Senator Skelos.
"These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom," said Senator Skelos.
"Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution.
In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court," said Senator Golden.
The legislation will protect American authors and journalists from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.
Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Lancman were joined by Senator Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, Daniel Kornstein, Dr. Ehrenfeld's attorney, and Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York author who was sued for libel in Britain by a Saudi businessman whom she identified in her book "Funding Evil – How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.
In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held last month that it would not protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, as well as apologize and destroy existing copies of her books.
Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her constitutional rights, but in a ruling with national First Amendment implications sending legal shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from foreign defamation judgments, which contradict the U.S. First Amendment rights.
"When American journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened and our war effort is weakened," said Lancman.
"This legislation will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," said Lancman. "The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror," said Senator Skelos.
"These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom," said Senator Skelos.
"Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution.
In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court," said Senator Golden.
Monday, January 14, 2008
EXTREMIST JIHAD
Stephen Collins Coughlin
Major, Military Intelligence, USAR
NDIC Class 2007
Unclassified thesis submitted to the faculty of the
National Defense Intelligence College in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Master of Science of Strategic Intelligence
July 2007
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
Sunday, January 13, 2008
MUSLIM BRITAIN BECOMING "NO-GO" AS IN FRANCE & OTHER PARTS OF EUROPE
Muslim Britain is becoming one big no-go area
A bishop caused uproar last week by exposing ghettos of Islamist extremism. But Muslims everywhere are cutting themselves off from society in other, equally dangerous ways
Shiraz Maher
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece
Perhaps it had to be someone like Michael Nazir-Ali, the first Asian bishop in the Church of England, who would break with convention and finally point out the elephant in the room.
His comments last week about the growing stranglehold of Muslim extremists in some communities revived debate about the future of multiculturalism and provoked a flurry of condemnation. Members of all three political parties immediately clamoured to dismiss him. “I don’t recognise the description that he’s talked about – no-go areas and people feeling intimidated,” said Hazel Blears, the communities secretary.
A quick call to her Labour colleague John Reid, the former home secretary, would almost certainly have helped her to identify at least one of those places. Just over a year ago Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen in Leytonstone, east London, during a speech on extremism, appropriately. “How dare you come to a Muslim area,” Izzadeen screamed.
That picture is mirrored outside London. One of our country’s biggest and most deprived Muslim areas is Small Heath, in Birmingham, where Dr Tahir Abbas, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Culture, was raised. With a dominant Asian monoculture, low social achievement and high unemployment, Small Heath is precisely the kind of insular and disengaged urban ghetto Nazir-Ali was talking about.
Reflecting on his experiences there, Abbas is critical of his peers who don’t stray beyond their area. “They haven’t seen rural Devon, a stately home or Windsor Castle,” he says. That refusal to engage with anything beyond the community is suffocating young Muslims by divorcing them almost entirely from Britain’s cultural heritage and mainstream life.
And their feelings of separation have been further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (of which I was once a senior member) have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them.
In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.
Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says.
The point was underscored last summer when Kafeel Ahmed, whom I once knew, was arrested after a Jeep laden with explosives crashed into Glasgow airport. I think Ahmed was first radicalised in Cambridge, where I saw his views become increasingly intolerant, even though the city has a negligible Muslim population. After being exposed to the Islamist culture of separation and confrontation there, he didn’t need to be living in an actual ghetto.
He was already sectioning himself off, by giving up his non-Muslim friends and eventually socialising only with those who shared his world-view.
It raises a compelling point that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have largely tried to ignore: while the moral ambiguity of multiculturalism means Britain no longer knows what it stands for, our enemies are not just growing ever surer of themselves but are also winning the debate.
For almost three decades now, the witless promotion of cultural relativ-ism under successive governments means that our national identity can simply be reduced to the theme of a courtroom sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – anything goes. Measuring the extent to which this ambiguity has affected perceptions within Britain’s already insular Muslim communities, Abbas told me he surveyed schoolchildren in Small Heath by asking them how many Muslims they thought lived in Britain.
“We had answers around 30m to 50m,” he says, with more than a hint of despondency in his voice (the true figure is 1.6m).
Moghal blames the mosques for this, saying: “They promote a conscious rejection of western values.” He has a point. In many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard.
Muslim groups have already reacted with predictable intemperance to the bishop’s comments. “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, while Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain said the church should “take serious action”.
Their anger vindicates him entirely and in many respects demonstrates that Nazir-Ali’s observations not only are valid, but don’t go far enough. The Glasgow bombings proved that the kinds of no-go area extremists are creating don’t always have to be physical locations.
Muslim attitudes are now so hyper-sensitive that anyone who dares to criticise Islam or Muslims has to think twice – and then some more – before doing so. Publishing a simple cartoon is enough to provoke a serious diplomatic crisis, the ransacking of embassies, mass global protest and at least several deaths.
But it’s not just nonMuslims for whom extremists reserve their hatred. After I wrote about the way British Islamists celebrated Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last month, a number of threats quickly appeared on the internet. “If I meet him I’m going to paste him in his face,” wrote Abu Junayd from Slough on a chat forum. Another commentator said I should “suffer severe punishments in this life and the hereafter”.
Their attitude springs from the Takfiri mind-set, which, in its most extreme forms, underwrites Al-Qaeda’s philosophy by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Islamism (the extreme, politicised form of Islam) is a legitimate target for attack.
As if to emphasise the point, a statement released on a known Al-Qaeda forum last week specifically called for attacks on moderate Muslims in Britain. Citing the opinions of Muham-mad Ibn Alb al-Wahhab, whose followers are known as Wahhabis, it branded moderates as “aides of the crusaders”.
Seven years after the Cantle report first revealed the extent to which Britain’s different communities are living apart together, it’s still impossible to engage politicians seriously about the future of multiculturalism.
After being heckled by Izzadeen in Leytonstone for “daring” to visit a Muslim area, the home secretary told him: “There is no part of this country that any of us is excluded from.” The knee-jerk reaction to the bishop’s comments suggests we’re still a long way from realising that vision.
A bishop caused uproar last week by exposing ghettos of Islamist extremism. But Muslims everywhere are cutting themselves off from society in other, equally dangerous ways
Shiraz Maher
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece
Perhaps it had to be someone like Michael Nazir-Ali, the first Asian bishop in the Church of England, who would break with convention and finally point out the elephant in the room.
His comments last week about the growing stranglehold of Muslim extremists in some communities revived debate about the future of multiculturalism and provoked a flurry of condemnation. Members of all three political parties immediately clamoured to dismiss him. “I don’t recognise the description that he’s talked about – no-go areas and people feeling intimidated,” said Hazel Blears, the communities secretary.
A quick call to her Labour colleague John Reid, the former home secretary, would almost certainly have helped her to identify at least one of those places. Just over a year ago Reid was heckled by the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen in Leytonstone, east London, during a speech on extremism, appropriately. “How dare you come to a Muslim area,” Izzadeen screamed.
That picture is mirrored outside London. One of our country’s biggest and most deprived Muslim areas is Small Heath, in Birmingham, where Dr Tahir Abbas, director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Culture, was raised. With a dominant Asian monoculture, low social achievement and high unemployment, Small Heath is precisely the kind of insular and disengaged urban ghetto Nazir-Ali was talking about.
Reflecting on his experiences there, Abbas is critical of his peers who don’t stray beyond their area. “They haven’t seen rural Devon, a stately home or Windsor Castle,” he says. That refusal to engage with anything beyond the community is suffocating young Muslims by divorcing them almost entirely from Britain’s cultural heritage and mainstream life.
And their feelings of separation have been further reinforced by the advent of digital broadcasting, which has swelled the number of foreign language television stations in Britain, creating digital ghettos. Islamist movements such as Hizb ut-Tahrir (of which I was once a senior member) have been quick to spot the opportunities this affords them.
In 2004 the group launched a campaign aimed at undermining President Pervez Mush-arraf by broadcasting adverts on Asian satellite channels, calling on the Pakistani community in Britain to “stop Busharraf”.
Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum, is unequivocal about the dangers such Islamification poses. “We have a cultural and social apartheid which fun-damentalists thrive off,” he says.
The point was underscored last summer when Kafeel Ahmed, whom I once knew, was arrested after a Jeep laden with explosives crashed into Glasgow airport. I think Ahmed was first radicalised in Cambridge, where I saw his views become increasingly intolerant, even though the city has a negligible Muslim population. After being exposed to the Islamist culture of separation and confrontation there, he didn’t need to be living in an actual ghetto.
He was already sectioning himself off, by giving up his non-Muslim friends and eventually socialising only with those who shared his world-view.
It raises a compelling point that Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have largely tried to ignore: while the moral ambiguity of multiculturalism means Britain no longer knows what it stands for, our enemies are not just growing ever surer of themselves but are also winning the debate.
For almost three decades now, the witless promotion of cultural relativ-ism under successive governments means that our national identity can simply be reduced to the theme of a courtroom sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – anything goes. Measuring the extent to which this ambiguity has affected perceptions within Britain’s already insular Muslim communities, Abbas told me he surveyed schoolchildren in Small Heath by asking them how many Muslims they thought lived in Britain.
“We had answers around 30m to 50m,” he says, with more than a hint of despondency in his voice (the true figure is 1.6m).
Moghal blames the mosques for this, saying: “They promote a conscious rejection of western values.” He has a point. In many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard.
Muslim groups have already reacted with predictable intemperance to the bishop’s comments. “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign,” said Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, while Ajmal Masroor of the Islamic Society of Britain said the church should “take serious action”.
Their anger vindicates him entirely and in many respects demonstrates that Nazir-Ali’s observations not only are valid, but don’t go far enough. The Glasgow bombings proved that the kinds of no-go area extremists are creating don’t always have to be physical locations.
Muslim attitudes are now so hyper-sensitive that anyone who dares to criticise Islam or Muslims has to think twice – and then some more – before doing so. Publishing a simple cartoon is enough to provoke a serious diplomatic crisis, the ransacking of embassies, mass global protest and at least several deaths.
But it’s not just nonMuslims for whom extremists reserve their hatred. After I wrote about the way British Islamists celebrated Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last month, a number of threats quickly appeared on the internet. “If I meet him I’m going to paste him in his face,” wrote Abu Junayd from Slough on a chat forum. Another commentator said I should “suffer severe punishments in this life and the hereafter”.
Their attitude springs from the Takfiri mind-set, which, in its most extreme forms, underwrites Al-Qaeda’s philosophy by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Islamism (the extreme, politicised form of Islam) is a legitimate target for attack.
As if to emphasise the point, a statement released on a known Al-Qaeda forum last week specifically called for attacks on moderate Muslims in Britain. Citing the opinions of Muham-mad Ibn Alb al-Wahhab, whose followers are known as Wahhabis, it branded moderates as “aides of the crusaders”.
Seven years after the Cantle report first revealed the extent to which Britain’s different communities are living apart together, it’s still impossible to engage politicians seriously about the future of multiculturalism.
After being heckled by Izzadeen in Leytonstone for “daring” to visit a Muslim area, the home secretary told him: “There is no part of this country that any of us is excluded from.” The knee-jerk reaction to the bishop’s comments suggests we’re still a long way from realising that vision.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
OLDER AND SMARTER
A C-130 was lumbering along when a cocky F-16 flashed by. The jet jockey decided to show off.
The fighter jock told the C-130 pilot, "watch this!" and promptly went into a barrel roll followed by a steep climb. He then finished with a sonic boom as he broke the sound barrier.
The F-16 pilot asked the C-130 pilot what he thought of that?The C-130 pilot said, "That was impressive, but watch this!"
The C-130 droned along for about 5 minutes and then the C-130 pilot came back on and said "What did you think of that?"
Puzzled, the F-16 pilot asked, "What the hell did you do?"
The C-130 pilot chuckled. "I stood up, stretched my legs, walked to the back, went to the bathroom , then got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon bun."
When you are young and foolish - speed and flash may be a good thing !!!
When you get older and smarter - comfort and dull is not such a bad thing!!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
NEW JERSEY BANS INVESTMENT RELATED TO IRAN -- BILINGUAL
در ایالت نیوجرسی، ت�ریم های تازه ای علیه ایران تصویب شد
ايالت نيوجرسی در آمريکا، روز جمعه، چهارم ژانويه، سرمايه گذاری پول صندوق بازنشستگی اين ایالت را در شرکت هايی که با ايران تجارت می کنند، منع کرد.
اغلب شرکت های آمريکايی از داد و ستد با ايران منع شده اند، ولی مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی، با تصویب مصوبه ای اين ايالت را از انجام معامله با ديگر شرکت های بين المللی که با ايران داد و ستد دارند نيز منع کرده است.
مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی به دليل آنچه که «رابطه ايران با تروريسم و جاه طلبی هسته ای» اين کشور می خواند، خواستار افزايش فشار اقتصادی بر ايران شده است.
جان کورزين، فرماندار ایالت نيوجرسی، با امضای این مصوبه، این ایالت را از خريدن سهام شرکت هايی که با ايران تجارت می کنند، منع کرد.
به گزارش آسوشيتدپرس، آقای کورزين در اين مورد گفت: «من از فشار اقتصادی در رابطه با ايران پشتيبانی می کنم تا اين کشور سياست خود را تغيير دهد ولی از �مله نظامی �مایت نمی کنم.»
نيل کوهن از نمايندگان مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی، از �زب دموکرات، از خطر ايران برای موجودیت اسرائيل سخن گفت و افزود: «نيوجرسی پيام روشنی می فرستد که در فعاليت های ايران که می تواند به قتل عامی مانند هولوکاست مبدل شود، شرکت نمی کند.»
ايالت نيوجرسی در دهه ۱۹۸۰ نيز ممنوعيت هايی را برای سرمايه گذاری در آفريقای جنوبی اعمال کرده بود.
صندوق ۸۰ ميليارد دلاری
صندوق بازنشستگی ايالت نيوجرسی ارزشی معادل ۸۰ ميليارد دلار دارد و با وجود اين مشخص نيست چه مقدار از آن در شرکت هايی سرمايه گذاری شده است که با ايران داد و ستد دارند.
مصوبه مجلس ايالت نيوجرسی از مقام های م�لی می خواهد تا با استخدام مؤسسات ت�قيقاتی مستقل، سرمايه گذاران مورد نظر اين طر� را شناسايی کنند.
صندوق بازنشستگی ايالت نيوجرسی نهمين صندوق بزرگ در ايالات مت�ده به شمار می رود و به تازگی از دو ميليارد و ۱۶۰ميليون دلار عايدات از ۱۷ شرکت دارای داد و ستد با سودان چشم پوشی کرد.
نيوجرسی پس از ايالات فلوريدا و کاليفرنيا سومين ايالت آمريکا است که چنين تصميمی می گيرد. ايالت فلوريدا اولين ايالتی بود که در اوايل سال جاری ميلادی چنين مصوبه ای را تصويب کرد.
ايالت فلوريدا، بر اساس همين قانون، سرمايه گذاری در سودان را نيز ممنوع کرده بود. مقام های م�لی اين ايالت اجازه اعطای وجوه بازنشستگی کارمندان را به ۲۱ شرکت که در دو کشور (آمريکا و سودان) فعاليت اقتصادی می کردند ندادند و از عايدی يک ميليارد و ۳۰۰ ميليون دلاری خود صرف نظر کردند.
در ايالت کاليفرنيا نيز فرماندار آرنولد شوارتزنگر در ماه اکتبر مصوبه ای را امضا کرد که بر اساس آن به همکاری با شرکت هايی که با ايران داد و ستد دارند پايان می داد.
آمريکا از ديرباز جمهوری اسلامی ايران را دولت «�امی تروريسم» ناميده است و طی سال های اخير کوشيده است با �مايت از تشديد ت�ريم های ايران مانع دستيابی اين کشور «به سلا� هسته ای» شود.
ايران همواره اين اتهامات را رد کرده و هدف برنامه هسته ای خود را توليد برق دانسته است.
January 5, 2008
For New Jersey Pension Fund, No Iran-Linked Investments
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TRENTON (AP) — New Jersey on Friday became one of the few states to prohibit state pension money from being invested in companies that do business in Iran.
Most American companies are already banned from doing business in the country, but Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, signed a measure restricting the state from buying stock in international companies that do business with Iran.
The move was intended to protest the country’s links to terrorism and its nuclear ambitions.
“I continue to support using economic means, not military means, to bring about policy changes in Iran,” Mr. Corzine said recently.
Florida and California have similar laws.
Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Democrat from Union, a bill sponsor, cited Iranian threats against Israel.
“Divesting our finances from entities associated with Iran will send a clear message in the universal language of money that New Jersey will have no part in Iran’s pursuit of actions that would lead to Holocaust-like genocide and the complete destruction of a sovereign nation,” Mr. Cohen said.
The New Jersey measure resembles a 2005 bill that prohibited investing state pension funds in companies doing business in Sudan to protest what the United States has deemed a genocide there. New Jersey recently divested $2.16 billion from 17 companies doing business in Sudan.
New Jersey also passed a similar law in the 1980s banning investments in South Africa.
The state’s pension fund is worth about $80 billion, though it was unclear how much was invested in companies doing business in Iran. The law requires the state to hire an independent research firm specializing in global securities to identify such investments.
New Jersey’s pension fund is the nation’s ninth largest.
ايالت نيوجرسی در آمريکا، روز جمعه، چهارم ژانويه، سرمايه گذاری پول صندوق بازنشستگی اين ایالت را در شرکت هايی که با ايران تجارت می کنند، منع کرد.
اغلب شرکت های آمريکايی از داد و ستد با ايران منع شده اند، ولی مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی، با تصویب مصوبه ای اين ايالت را از انجام معامله با ديگر شرکت های بين المللی که با ايران داد و ستد دارند نيز منع کرده است.
مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی به دليل آنچه که «رابطه ايران با تروريسم و جاه طلبی هسته ای» اين کشور می خواند، خواستار افزايش فشار اقتصادی بر ايران شده است.
جان کورزين، فرماندار ایالت نيوجرسی، با امضای این مصوبه، این ایالت را از خريدن سهام شرکت هايی که با ايران تجارت می کنند، منع کرد.
به گزارش آسوشيتدپرس، آقای کورزين در اين مورد گفت: «من از فشار اقتصادی در رابطه با ايران پشتيبانی می کنم تا اين کشور سياست خود را تغيير دهد ولی از �مله نظامی �مایت نمی کنم.»
نيل کوهن از نمايندگان مجلس ايالتی نيوجرسی، از �زب دموکرات، از خطر ايران برای موجودیت اسرائيل سخن گفت و افزود: «نيوجرسی پيام روشنی می فرستد که در فعاليت های ايران که می تواند به قتل عامی مانند هولوکاست مبدل شود، شرکت نمی کند.»
ايالت نيوجرسی در دهه ۱۹۸۰ نيز ممنوعيت هايی را برای سرمايه گذاری در آفريقای جنوبی اعمال کرده بود.
صندوق ۸۰ ميليارد دلاری
صندوق بازنشستگی ايالت نيوجرسی ارزشی معادل ۸۰ ميليارد دلار دارد و با وجود اين مشخص نيست چه مقدار از آن در شرکت هايی سرمايه گذاری شده است که با ايران داد و ستد دارند.
مصوبه مجلس ايالت نيوجرسی از مقام های م�لی می خواهد تا با استخدام مؤسسات ت�قيقاتی مستقل، سرمايه گذاران مورد نظر اين طر� را شناسايی کنند.
صندوق بازنشستگی ايالت نيوجرسی نهمين صندوق بزرگ در ايالات مت�ده به شمار می رود و به تازگی از دو ميليارد و ۱۶۰ميليون دلار عايدات از ۱۷ شرکت دارای داد و ستد با سودان چشم پوشی کرد.
نيوجرسی پس از ايالات فلوريدا و کاليفرنيا سومين ايالت آمريکا است که چنين تصميمی می گيرد. ايالت فلوريدا اولين ايالتی بود که در اوايل سال جاری ميلادی چنين مصوبه ای را تصويب کرد.
ايالت فلوريدا، بر اساس همين قانون، سرمايه گذاری در سودان را نيز ممنوع کرده بود. مقام های م�لی اين ايالت اجازه اعطای وجوه بازنشستگی کارمندان را به ۲۱ شرکت که در دو کشور (آمريکا و سودان) فعاليت اقتصادی می کردند ندادند و از عايدی يک ميليارد و ۳۰۰ ميليون دلاری خود صرف نظر کردند.
در ايالت کاليفرنيا نيز فرماندار آرنولد شوارتزنگر در ماه اکتبر مصوبه ای را امضا کرد که بر اساس آن به همکاری با شرکت هايی که با ايران داد و ستد دارند پايان می داد.
آمريکا از ديرباز جمهوری اسلامی ايران را دولت «�امی تروريسم» ناميده است و طی سال های اخير کوشيده است با �مايت از تشديد ت�ريم های ايران مانع دستيابی اين کشور «به سلا� هسته ای» شود.
ايران همواره اين اتهامات را رد کرده و هدف برنامه هسته ای خود را توليد برق دانسته است.
January 5, 2008
For New Jersey Pension Fund, No Iran-Linked Investments
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TRENTON (AP) — New Jersey on Friday became one of the few states to prohibit state pension money from being invested in companies that do business in Iran.
Most American companies are already banned from doing business in the country, but Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, signed a measure restricting the state from buying stock in international companies that do business with Iran.
The move was intended to protest the country’s links to terrorism and its nuclear ambitions.
“I continue to support using economic means, not military means, to bring about policy changes in Iran,” Mr. Corzine said recently.
Florida and California have similar laws.
Assemblyman Neil M. Cohen, a Democrat from Union, a bill sponsor, cited Iranian threats against Israel.
“Divesting our finances from entities associated with Iran will send a clear message in the universal language of money that New Jersey will have no part in Iran’s pursuit of actions that would lead to Holocaust-like genocide and the complete destruction of a sovereign nation,” Mr. Cohen said.
The New Jersey measure resembles a 2005 bill that prohibited investing state pension funds in companies doing business in Sudan to protest what the United States has deemed a genocide there. New Jersey recently divested $2.16 billion from 17 companies doing business in Sudan.
New Jersey also passed a similar law in the 1980s banning investments in South Africa.
The state’s pension fund is worth about $80 billion, though it was unclear how much was invested in companies doing business in Iran. The law requires the state to hire an independent research firm specializing in global securities to identify such investments.
New Jersey’s pension fund is the nation’s ninth largest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
