Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Religious divide drives bikie war
By Dylan Welch
AN ANCIENT religious enmity is at the centre of a new conflict in the Sydney bikie scene, with a new gang comprised mainly of Sunni Muslims warring with a group of bikies with a Shiite Muslim background.
While detectives continue to investigate the February 4 bombing of a Hells Angels clubhouse in Crystal Street, Petersham, police and other sources are indicating that the city chapter of the Comanchero is involved in an escalating feud with a new club, Notorious.
The president of Notorious is a Lebanese-Australian with a long-standing association with a bikie from a colourful Sydney Sunni Lebanese family. The two are among Sydney's original "Nike" bikies - sporting white sneakers, fashionable T-shirts and clean-shaven instead of the traditional boots, dirty vests and bushy beards - and both are from Sunni families from Sydney's west.
Notorious is considered by gang squad detectives to be the prime suspect in the Crystal Street bombing. One of its mottos is "Only the dead see the end of war" and its "colours", or coat of arms, is a turbaned skeleton holding twin pistols with "Original Gangster" beneath it. Today is the first time the club's colours have been revealed publicly.
On the other side of the conflict is the president of the Comanchero City Crew, a Beirut-born Shiite who grew up in the St George area. Comanchero has been one of the motorcycle gangs that have embraced the new breed of "Nike" bikie, and have been recruiting from the Lebanese and Islander communities for several years.
Traditionally, Lebanese Muslim migrants to Sydney have been geographically and religiously divided. The Sunni majority live in Sydney's west and south-west, mainly around Auburn and Bankstown, while the Shiite minority live in the St George area. "The two groups have no love lost between them," a senior police said.
They have been fighting since the Sunni bikie, one of Sydney's most well-known gangsters, became president of the Nomads Parramatta chapter in the late 1990s.
In 2006, he was jailed over a Newcastle shooting. The following year, the Parramatta chapter's Granville headquarters was bombed, allegedly by the Comanchero, and the chapter subsequently disbanded.
A few of its members formed Notorious, probably at the request of the Sunni bikie.
"[The Sunni bikie] left the Nomads while he was on remand," said an investigator who has watched the two groups for years. "He was telling people he was planning to start up his own club. Around about the same time, Notorious appeared."
Unlike the Sunni bikie and the Notorious president, the Comanchero City Crew president was born in Beirut and grew up in Sydney's southern suburbs. He appeared on television in 2005 following the Cronulla riot and Maroubra reprisal violence, when he met members of the Bra Boys to calm tensions.
When Fairfax Media asked the president of the Hells Angels city chapter about the bombing, he was succinct: "I've got nothing to say, thank you."
But bikie sources said the Angels believe Notorious may be responsible for the attack, which closed down Crystal Street for a day and damaged seven neighbouring businesses.
Neither police nor the Hells Angels have established why Notorious may have attacked the club, though the senior police source offered a simple answer: "They're just bloody crazy."
In the latest violence, a Comanchero member was shot in the leg when he was confronted by five Hells Angels at a park in Silverwater on February 7.
Muslim Brotherhood Movement growing in Sydney
Les Kennedy
March 29, 2009
THEY call themselves MBM - the Muslim Brotherhood Movement - a gang of 600 men who boast they are the toughest and best young street fighters of Middle Eastern descent in Sydney.
MBM claims to be the biggest of four new gangs to emerge on Sydney streets in the past year. Its numbers rival those of the state's largest bikie gang, the Rebels.
The sudden appearance of MBM, with its growing membership recruited predominantly from the city's south-western suburbs, has alarmed senior police already battling to combat open warfare among outlaw motorbike gangs.
Even hardened private security guards have expressed concern to police about the indiscriminate "punch and run" tactics of MBM members who, in the past two weeks, have arrived in large numbers at city nightclub venues and who walk the streets in intimidating mobs. But the objectives of MBM - its emblem features two crossed pistols and a hand grenade - and its leadership remain unclear to officers of both the Organised Crime and Gang Squad and Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad.
Police say that a fortnight ago MBM members embarked upon a campaign of random assaults on men who crossed the path of a mob of about 100 toughs stalking Darlinghurst and Kings Cross during the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
A week ago about 30 MBM members intimidated private security guards at government car auctions at Smithfield.
The emergence of MBM also coincides with the rise of two other urban Sydney gangs - the Parra Boyz or Asesinoz MC and Brothers For Life or BFL.
Police say BFL - with a logo featuring crossed machine-guns - is not dissimilar to MBM in its extremist views, but membership numbers are unknown. Police describe Asesinoz, comprising teenagers of Middle Eastern decent, as "tough kids" who use the video-sharing website YouTube to promote Islamic extremism and anti-Australian actions such as flag burning.
The group, which recently changed its name from the Parra Boyz, has more than 40 members, some of whom are known to police for committing acts of violence and vandalism.
Its creation follows that of the Notorious bikie gang, comprising members of Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander extraction, more than a year ago after a split in the membership of the Nomads motorcycle club.
Notorious members, who police allege are engaged in a series of tit-for-tat drive-by shootings on members of rival club the Bandidos in western Sydney, declared they will not be stood over by other gangs.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Muslim unemployment higher and may rise
From: http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=561835
Muslim people already suffer twice the unemployment rate of other workers
in Queensland and the global economic crisis is likely to make matters worse,
research shows.
A study undertaken by Queensland University of Technology
researcher Dr Hossein Adibi found there was a huge gap between the level of
unemployment in the general population and Muslims, something that was likely to
worsen in the declining economic climate.
"It is obvious that the current
recession will have an enormous impact on the employment status of Muslims in
Queensland, and the unemployment rate of Muslims will rise significantly," Dr
Adibi said.
The unemployment rates for some segments of the Muslim
population, including women and young Muslims, may exceed 20 per cent, he said.
The jobless rate in Queensland for February was 4.5 per cent.
Dr Adibi
found that Muslims were disadvantaged due to four main factors: racism,
discrimination, media bias and the lack of Muslim representation in
decision-making bodies.
Unemployment among Muslim women and young people was
even worse than for men, he said.
Youth unemployment among Muslims
contributed to a feeling that their aspirations for mainstream acceptance were
being "thwarted", Dr Adibi said.
Yeah thwarted, thwarted by their own stupidity and acceptance of an ignorant ideology.
A Blacklist for Websites Backfires in Australia
By Belinda Luscombe Friday, Mar. 27, 2009
It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. If you want to reduce citizens' exposure to dangerous and illegal activities online, why not gather up all the URLs for sites that promote such acts — child pornography, extreme violence, weapon-making and so on — and have Internet Service Providers (ISPs) simply block them? Wouldn't that make the internet safer for families and children?
Actually no, as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is finding out the hard way. The ACMA, Canberra's equivalent of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, put together such a list and sent it to more than a dozen companies. It was part of a trial program to develop software that would allow Australian ISPs to block the sites. But to ACMA's evident surprise, at least one person who received the list handed it over to Wikileaks, an online clearinghouse for anonymous submissions of sensitive material. The ACMA "blacklist", as it became known, was promptly posted online, becoming a handy compendium of internet depravity in one convenient package — courtesy of the Australian government. After it was posted, a surge in traffic caused Wikileaks to crash temporarily. (See the 10 most interesting finds on Google Earth.)
"It's the most ill-conceived pile of stupidity by the biggest bunch of cretins that I've ever seen in my life, " says Ross Wheeler, CEO of Albury.net.au, a regional ISP, referring to the web-filtering plan. "Every ISP that I know of has either publicly or privately said it's technically and practically impossible." The leak was further black icing on the cake. Among its more than 1,000 entries were URLs for child porn, rape and bestiality sites as well as online gambling (some forms of which are illegal in Australia) and gay and straight pornography. But many sites appeared to have been blacklisted almost at random....article here
The Political Left is now Right and the Right is now Left!
The bizarre flip occurring now in politics is discussed; for example the left turning their backs on the causes they are supposed to care about ...
Christopher Hitchens, off with the fairies?
I am normally a great fan of Chritopher Hitchens, and I find his approach and style to be very pleasing, but unfortunately on this occasion we have failed to see eye to eye.
Recent reports of atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers in the course of the intervention in Gaza have described the incitement of conscripts and reservists by military rabbis who characterized the battle as a holy war for the expulsion of non-Jews from Jewish land. The secular Israeli academic Dany Zamir, who first brought the testimony of shocked Israeli soldiers to light, has been quoted as if the influence of such extremist clerical teachings was something new. This is not the case.
It makes me wonder if Christopher even realises that the land, which he describes as 'another people's', belonged to the people of Israel long before it was inhabited by desert wandering Arabs. Christopher also fails to realise that Israel is surrounded by Jew hating Islamic fanaticals, who's admitted intention, and expressed purpose, is the utter destruction of Israel and all Israelites. If the religious leaders of the Israelites see it upon themselves as mobilising and encouraging an equally fanatical resistance and mustering a motivation to defend Israel from a hostile force, a force which centres itself in a backward ideology of hatred and oppression, an ideology which openly despises such ethically moral virtues as liberty, freedom, democracy, sexual equality, and pretty much everything a modern western democracy stands for, then, so be it.
I wonder what Christopher would have done at the battle of Rorke's Drift? Immediately withdrawn support on religious grounds, sat down and had a cup of tea with the Zulu warriors?
The fact is, Israel is surrounded by a peoples and states, that actively support and identify with a dangerous ideology who's intent and purpose, is the complete and utter destruction of Israel and the complete expulsion of the Israelites, the rightful owner occupiers of the land of Israel. Further more the same people have as there intention the complete and total domination of the world and the destruction of western thought, culture and way of life.
This makes we wonder, is Christopher Hitchens off with the fairies?An Army of Extremists How some military rabbis are trying to radicalize Israeli soldiers.
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009, at 4:32 PM ETRecent reports of atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers in the course of the intervention in Gaza have described the incitement of conscripts and reservists by military rabbis who characterized the battle as a holy war for the expulsion of non-Jews from Jewish land. The secular Israeli academic Dany Zamir, who first brought the testimony of shocked Israeli soldiers to light, has been quoted as if the influence of such extremist clerical teachings was something new. This is not the case.
I remember being in Israel in 1986 when the chief army "chaplain" in the occupied territories, Rabbi Shmuel Derlich, issued his troops a 1,000-word pastoral letter enjoining them to apply the biblical commandment to exterminate the Amalekites as "the enemies of Israel." Nobody has recently encountered any Amalekites, so the chief educational officer of the Israeli Defense Forces asked Rabbi Derlich whether he would care to define his terms and say whom he meant. Rather evasively—if rather alarmingly—the man of God replied, "Germans." There are no Germans in Judaea and Samaria or, indeed, in the Old Testament, so the rabbi's exhortation to slay all Germans as well as quite probably all Palestinians was referred to the Judge Advocate General's Office. Forty military rabbis publicly came to Derlich's support, and the rather spineless conclusion of the JAG was that he had committed no legal offense but should perhaps refrain in the future from making political statements on the army's behalf.
The problem here is precisely that the rabbi was not making a "political" statement. Rather, he was doing his religious duty in reminding his readers what the Torah actually says. It's not at all uncommon in Israel to read discussions, featuring military rabbis, of quite how to interpret the following holy order from Moses, in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31, Verses 13-18, as quoted from my 1985 translation by the Jewish Publication Society. The Israelites have just done a fairly pitiless job on the Midianites, slaughtering all of the adult males. But, says their stern commander-in-chief, they have still failed him:
Moses, Eleazer the priest, and all the chieftains of the community came out to meet them outside the camp. Moses became angry with the commanders of the army, the officers of thousands and the officers of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign. Moses said to them, "You have spared every female! Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the Lord's community was struck by the plague. Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every young woman who has known a man carnally; but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man."
Moses and Eleazar the priest go on to issue some complex instructions about the ritual cleansings that must be practiced after this exhausting massacre has been completed.
Now, it's common to hear people say, when this infamous passage and others like it come up, that it's not intended to be "taken literally." One also often hears the excuse that some wicked things are done "in the name of" religion, as if the wicked things were somehow the result of a misinterpretation. But the nationalist rabbis who prepare Israeli soldiers for their mission seem to think that this book might be the word of God, in which case the only misinterpretation would be the failure to take it literally. (I hate to break it to you, but the people who think that God's will is revealed in scripture are known as "religious." Those who do not think so must try to find another name for themselves.)
Possibly you remember Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the man who in February 1994 unslung his weapon and killed more than two dozen worshippers at the mosque in Hebron. He had been a physician in the Israeli army and had first attracted attention by saying that he would refuse to treat non-Jews on the Sabbath. Now read Ethan Bronner's report in the March 22 New York Times about the preachments of the Israeli army's latest chief rabbi, a West Bank settler named Avichai Rontzski who also holds the rank of brigadier general. He has "said that the main reason for a Jewish doctor to treat a non-Jew on the Sabbath … is to avoid exposing Diaspora Jews to hatred." Those of us who follow these things recognize that statement as one of the leading indicators of a truly determined racist and fundamentalist. Yet it comes not this time in the garb of a homicidal lone-wolf nut bag but in the full uniform and accoutrement of a general and a high priest: Moses and Eleazar combined. The latest news, according to Bronner, is that the Israeli Defense Ministry has felt compelled to reprimand Rontzski for "a rabbinal edict against showing the enemy mercy" that was distributed in booklet form to men and women in uniform (see Numbers 31:13-18, above).
Peering over the horrible pile of Palestinian civilian casualties that has immediately resulted, it's fairly easy to see where this is going in the medium-to-longer term. The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Multicultural Menace
Copied from: http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/multi-culti-Menace-to-Australia-s-culture.html
Multiculturalists oppose the idea of buttimilation (whereby immigrants would be encouraged to become Australian) as they want immigrants to retain their own cultures and pbutt those cultures onto successive generations. While it is understandable that immigrants would have an attachment to their place of birth and native culture, buttimilation does not demand that immigrants should forget their origins; but asks that they, and their offspring, become part of Australia and adapt to the Australian culture and way of life; rather than give impetus to ghettos and ethnic divisions within the country.
Multiculturalism, however, demands that immigrants remain attached to their place of birth and native culture. In fact, this demand even extends to the offspring of immigrants: people born in Australia, of immigrant parentage, are told not to join "mainstream" Australian culture, but to become multicultural "ethnics".
Multiculturalism is a political policy to actively encourage the strengthening, building, and promotion of separate cultural units within Australia. Multiculturalism is a political device to discourage immigrants, and their offspring, from becoming Australians.
multi culti Menace to Australia's culture 5150ferdie Ferdie, I too used to think like you. I used to say that all immigrants to Australia should forgo from where they came, buttume the wife-beater, thongs and...
The aim of internationalist-thinking liberals, academics, and "lefties" is - in effect - to destroy the Australian national and cultural idenbreasty. This "aim" is not the design of some well-organised conspiracy, but is rather the "logical" outcome of the thought-processes of liberal-internationalists, whose actions will cause such devastation; however, since these "trendies" are, or should be, well aware of the effects their policies will have on our national culture, their actions can only be regarded as deliberate. This intended destruction of the Australian idenbreasty is being carried out by a two pronged attack:
Firstly, the Australian idenbreasty is denied. Many academics, trendies and "lefties" maintain that Australia does not have its own national and cultural idenbreasty. They argue that Australian culture is either "British", or a multicultural mish-mash; they tell us that Australia has no culture of its own.
Ignored are the poets like Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Rex Ingamells, and Mary Gilmore; painters like Arthur Streeton, Frederick McCubbin, Sydney Nolan, and Russell Drysdale; architecture such as the Federation style; music from Waltzing Matilda, to the Seekers, to the Bushwhackers, to Skyhooks; our heroes and injectiones, for instance, Ned Kelly, Nellie Melba, Don Bradman, the ANZACs, and the men of the Kokoda Track; the Australian way of life, including the bush barbeque, Australian Rules Football, and games of Two-Up; Australian icons such as Vegemite, Goanna Oil, Hills Hoists, and Akubra hats; our entertainers and characters like Ginger Meggs, Chips Rafferty, Paul Hogan, Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson; our distinctive language, accent, and colloquialisms; the Australian character, styled as easy-going, fair and democratic, having a healthy disrespect for authority, and with a laconic humour; all shaped and influenced by the distinctive Australian landscape and our unique history.
Terror raids: It's now a question of trustAn interesting article in which Andrew West questions the need for the proposed "draconian" (everyone else's word, not mine, I prefer "over the top and unAustralian") anti-terror legislation...
Secondly, the destruction of our idenbreasty is being carried out by multiculturalism itself. From politicians and academics comes the cry "we are all ethnics", no-one is an actual Australian - everyone is an "ethnic". The origin of your parents or forebears dictates what type of "ethnic" you are: if you have English parents then you're an English "ethnic", if you have Irish parents then you're an Irish "ethnic", German parentage produces a German "ethnic", and so on. If one parent is French, and the other Russian, then it could be buttumed that you have to pick just one ethnicity, or perhaps you could become a multicultural schizophrenic? Australia's culture is being undermined by the effects of the continual push for multiculturalism (especially in our educational insbreastutions); we are now being taught to see ourselves as "ethnics", rather than Australians, and this cannot help but to adversely affect our national cultural output and development.
multi culti Menace to Australia's culture 5148Ferdie - this is crap right from the first sentence. Most multiculturalists do NOT oppose the idea of buttimilation at all. They are happy for that process to go on as...
The aim of this two-pronged attack is simple: no more Australians! Everyone becomes an "ethnic"; and the Australian idenbreasty and culture becomes treated as worthless and second-clbutt, or gets twisted around to take on a multicultural slant. This destructive "aim" is the consequence of the actions of liberalistic internationalists of various shades; and, even if such destruction is not their actual intent, their ideology certainly manifests itself as an buttault on our national well-being.
As Loring M. Danforth, a Professor of Anthropology, has stated, "Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the development of these ethnic idenbreasties and impedes the development of a strong Australian national idenbreasty." However, rather than being just an impediment, the long term results are actually destructive of the Australian national idenbreasty.
If this attack on Australia's heritage was being carried out by liberals, academics, and "lefties" only in their capacity as private individuals or groups, then we would not have too much to worry about as they are a minority opinion on the subject. But this is not how these people operate. They lobby and push their ideas through academia, the media, and the political machines; their ideas are then shoved into official acceptance, until they finally become "official policy". Once the "official policy" stage is reached, these lobbyists go into "overdrive"; "official policy" becomes the rationale to enable them to force their ideas onto the community: the public service is retrained and restructured to accommodate the new ideas; a veritable public service "industry" is created to build, promote, and propagate their ideology, encroaching as far as possible into other public service areas, as well as into private enterprise, and even affecting private individuals, becoming a self-serving, self-sustaining industry hell-bent on pushing its new ideology and justifying itself (they begin to wonder how we ever got along without them). In tandem with all this is the creation of new laws (enacted by self-serving politicians, buttisted by the new "Multicultural Industry" and their allies) which sets up the new ideology as "right" and "respectable", whilst painting any opposing views as "wrong", "unworthy" and, in certain circumstances, "illegal". The new policy has now become "politically correct"; and with the media, academia, and the parliamentary political parties being full of small "l" liberals, the public receives the impression that such views are not only "correct", but are held by the majority of the people (when, in fact, these ideas are held only by the majority of journalists, academics, and politicians). In such a climate, it then becomes "politically incorrect" to hold opposing views, with active opponents being effectively labelled as cranks, if not downright criminals ("racial vilification" laws will see some opponents jailed and-or scared off). Opponents in prominent positions are harbutted; while those in the public service, self-employment, or any other buttailable position, stand to lose their job or livelihood if they speak out.
The most serious aspect of all this is that of education. It is during the formative years of our young children that they are heavily indoctrinated by the education system into believing in multiculturalism (such indoctrination being made by both subtle means and overt means). No opposing viewpoints are given any credible airing (if given any "airing" at all), and multiculturalism is presented as a fact, rather than as a particular biased political viewpoint. As in the days of Galileo Galilei, our school children now believe that "the sun revolves around the earth", and that it is "dangerous heresy" to believe otherwise; in our modern context, that "multiculturalism is good for us", and that to oppose it is "dangerous" and "wrong", perhaps even "illegal".
The ultimate aim of the internationalist liberals is to destroy the Australian national and cultural idenbreasty (whether this aim be deliberate or incidental). The general idea is that Australia will have no national idenbreasty of its own; that all of the population will be "ethnics" who owe their cultural allegiance to cultures all over the world; creating a situation where, en mbutte, the people will be loyal to all nations and, paradoxically, will therefore be collectively loyal to none; that Australia will become an internationalist state (maybe even a building block, or a springboard, for an internationalist world). It would seem that Australia has become a multiculturalist experiment, as the place to create the United Nations' vision of the "brown man": a human creature belonging to no identifiable race, nation, or culture; the new citizen of the cosmopolitan internationalist multicultural world.
That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is beyond doubt. As an example, the government-sponsored document, Australia as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia's interests may have to be overridden by so-called international interests: "we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion than this: namely, the 'social good' of humanity as a whole. From this point of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system and the good of the wider system may override the well-being of Australia considered in isolation" (emphasis added). What began as a trendy liberalistic idea, and was picked up and carried along as a "migrant vote winner" for politicians, has become a huge menace to Australia's society and culture.
Islamophobia: The new witch-burning
Have you passed your diversity training? You'd better have.... the latest sport is spotting the person who has not completed their diversity training and correcting them. How do you know someone who hasn't completed "diversity training"? Easy, they don't scream "racist" every time someone refers to the obvious.
Posted By: James
Delingpole at Mar 20, 2009 at 12:05:27 [General]
Sometimes you
look at your newspaper's front page and you want to emigrate. (But where?) Today
was one of those days. 'She skipped diversity training! Burn her!'
I'm afraid I'm still in too dire a state of shock to bring myself to consider at any
length Dave's "Look, I'm not a Conservative. I really, really, REALLY am not a
Conservative," promise of a 45 per cent higher tax rate for all those stinking,
capitalist running dogs earning more than £125,000.
So let us instead foam and froth gently about the story of the headmistress
hounded out of a school by a clique of activists - including a Muslim
convert named Paul Martin - accusing her of Islamophobia.
Can someone help me make up my mind which aspect of the story is the most annoying: The loss - forever - of one of the few remaining decent, hard working, committed head teachers in the state system? The craven pusillanimity of the council workers too scared to stick up for her? The fact that an organisation as
pointless and vieux chapeau as the Commission For Racial Equality is still
capable of inspiring such fear? The further confirmation that "racism" and
"Islamophobia" have become the 21st century equivalent of "She's a witch! Burn
her!", brooking no defence, or rational debate of any kind? The £407,781 of
council taxpayers' money that has been squandered on compensation. The
God-knows-how-much-more that has been squandered on legal fees?
Or the fact that this grim-sounding Muslim convert character Paul Martin has not yet been encouraged to show the full courage of his religious convictions by emigrating forthwith from the kufar-infested hellhole that is Woking to one of those more rigorously Islamic realms - where diarrhoea is a way of life, perhaps
Helmand?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Obama thinks a divided Israel is a peaceful solution. Obama is sadly mistaken
Obama says its critical to advance two-state solution
Mar. 25, 2009
hilary leila
krieger, jpost correspondent in washington , THE JERUSALEM POSTAs Binyamin Netanyahu moves closer to forming his coalition, US President
Barack Obama suggested that peace-making would be harder with the Likud leader
at the helm.Asked by the AFP at his prime time press conference Tuesday what an Israeli
prime minister "who is not fully signed up to a two-state solution and a foreign
minister who has been accused of insulting Arabs" does to the peace process -
referring to Netanyahu and Yisrael Beiteinu's Avigdor Lieberman, respectively -
Obama replied: "It's not easier than it was, but I think it's just as
necessary."While Netanyahu has embraced continuing the previous government's
negotiations with Palestinians, he has been more circumspect on endorsing the
two-state solution. That puts him at odds with Obama, who reiterated Tuesday
night that "it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis
and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and
security." Noting that the composition of the new Israeli government wasn't yet
clear, nor was the future make-up of the Palestinian leadership, Obama still
stressed that "the status quo is unsustainable."Obama also emphasized his commitment to keep pushing forward on the
Israeli-Palestinian issue as well as reaching out to Iran despite the
difficulties of the tasks.He pointed to his video greeting to Iranians last week which, despite his use
of the sensitive term "Islamic Republic of Iran" and explicit call to the
leadership, was brushed aside by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."Some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating
nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.' Well, we didn't expect that. We
expect that we're going to make steady progress on this front," Obama
maintained."That whole philosophy of persistence," he said, "is one that I'm going to be
emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come as long as I'm in
this office."Obama made his remarks about Teheran without prompting from reporters, who
focused almost exclusively on the economy during the nearly one-hour press
conference. Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan were not mentioned once.The president, who has just unveiled an ambitious bank bailout plan as well
as a new budget, defended his initiatives as necessary to restore economic
stability and future growth.He also rejected criticism over a tax provision that would reduce the
deduction for charitable giving among high-income donors, arguing that charities
were wrong in their belief that this would reduce contributions.He described the change as a way to "equalize" rates because it would bring
charitable deductions for high-income earners level to that of other earners.But the Orthodox Union, one of the Jewish organizations to assail the plan
because of its potential affect on charities, argued that a better equalizer
would be to raise the deduction for lower income brackets."Like so many others in the charitable sector, the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations remains gravely concerned by President Obama's budget proposal
that would harm charities and is disappointed that he continues to press for its
adoption," said OU Director of Public Policy Nathan Diament in a statement
issued following the press conference.
It's ok to be a RACIST it seems, so long as your being RACIST toward whites.
The global financial crisis was caused by "white people with blue eyes", says Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Standing next to visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at a news conference in Brasilia, Silva harshly criticised the world's top economies, blaming them for sparking the crisis.
It was caused by "white people with blue eyes" and the world's poorest nations should not have to pay for a crisis they did not create, he said.
"It's not an ideological question - the fact is that once again we find that most of the poor who have not even participated in globalisation have been the first victims of the crisis."
As leader of Latin America's largest nation with 190 million people and the globe's ninth-largest economy, Silva has been boisterous in his calls for a new economic order, saying nations including his own deserve more say in how to restructure the world's economy.
He has long blasted the US and the European Union for tariffs and other barriers to exports from developing nations.
Silva said Brown and all world leaders knew that "profound political decisions" were necessary to stem the crisis.
Brown said he would seek feedback from Silva and other leaders of developing nations when the G20 group of nations meets in London next week.
"I welcome Brazil's commitment to play its part," he said.
"Other donors, multilateral development banks, private sector and export credit agencies must also step up and play their part."
Silva added that if the world is to recover from the crisis, "It is absolutely vital ... that world trade is resumed to the benefit of all exporting and importing countries."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=794343Friday, March 27, 2009
Saudia Arabia: Dubai's new behaviour guidelines
Arab Islamic men like marrying little children but.......
SKIMPY shorts, bikinis and kissing in public could soon be banned in Dubai, say
authorities.
The glitzy Gulf city has laid down new behaviour guidelines in
the local media in an attempt to tame public behaviour.
The outlines of the
possible new restrictions appeared in Al Emarat al Youm, an Arabic-language
newspaper with close ties to Dubai's ruling family.
Dancing and playing loud
music in public will be banned, while couples kissing, holding hands or hugging
could face fines or detention.
Miniskirts and skimpy shorts would no longer
be tolerated outside hotels, while bikini wearers could be forced off public
beaches and only permitted on the fenced-off sands of luxury resorts.
Drinking alcohol outside licensed premises or swearing and displaying rude
gestures in public could also be outlawed, the newspaper said.
The report
warned, "pants and skirts are to be of an appropriate length" and "clothing
cannot be tight or transparent" with visible body parts. On the beaches
"appropriate swimwear, acceptable to the culture of the society and its values"
must be worn.
Authorities are hoping the new laws will give police more
leeway for fines or arrests in places such as beaches and malls.
The new
rules come a year after a British couple were convicted for having sex on a Dubai beach,
and later fined and deported after their prison sentence was suspended.
After the sex-on-the-beach trial, Jumeirah Group five-star hotel chain
cautioned guests that drunken behaviour in public is punished severely and
recommended tourists be discreet with public displays of affection.
Anything
more than a "peck on the cheek could offend those around you and even possibly
lead to police involvement," the advisory said.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25198762-5014090,00.html
Gates of Vienna: Make Room for Islam
Gates of Vienna: Make Room for Islam
Make Room for Islam
by Baron Bodissey
The Christian Church in all its various forms seems unable to stop apologizing for its existence, especially when confronted by angry and offended Muslims. With Islam advancing and Christianity receding, Europe’s churches have to step aside to make way for mosques.This is now literally true: in Bosnia a church is being moved to assuage the feelings of offended Muslims. According to the Austrian Times:
Church Moved for Muslims- - - - - - - - -
Church leaders are spending 100,000 GBP moving a chapel half a mile — so it doesn’t offend Muslims.
The Orthodox church was built on the site of a derelict mosque in Divic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and is being taken away to improve relations with local Muslim worshippers.
Builders will spend a week driving the church to its new location on a massive low loader truck.
The article doesn’t mention the fact that any mosque that now exists in Bosnia was — figuratively if not literally — built on the ruins of a church as well as on mounds of Christian corpses.
Are Christians offended by this fact?
Anybody?
C’mon now, speak up!
<>
Islamification: Is the USA next?
USA the sleeping giant is apparently scared of Mexicans. Meanwhile Obama has made a few changes to the current political language:
. no more "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo: they are now to be called "detainees"
. no more "war on terror": its now to be called "contingency operations"
. no more "terrorist acts": they are now to be referred to "man made natural disasters"
I have a strong feeling that USA is going to fall from the inside to Islam thanks to President Obama who doesn't understand the you have to fight for freedom, yes fight for freedom. To him, this little phrase doesn't make any sense. Fighting and freedom? Nope, they don't go together for a peacenik. Sadly the left as a whole doesn't understand the concept either despite the fact that they invented much of the ideas inherent in freedom and liberal democracy which are now facing demise at the hands of Islamists. We only have to look at the fine examples of the Netherlands, Sweeden and now the UK to see what "tolerance" and the wholesale welcoming all "cultures" into the western landscape has meant.
. no more "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo: they are now to be called "detainees"
. no more "war on terror": its now to be called "contingency operations"
. no more "terrorist acts": they are now to be referred to "man made natural disasters"
I have a strong feeling that USA is going to fall from the inside to Islam thanks to President Obama who doesn't understand the you have to fight for freedom, yes fight for freedom. To him, this little phrase doesn't make any sense. Fighting and freedom? Nope, they don't go together for a peacenik. Sadly the left as a whole doesn't understand the concept either despite the fact that they invented much of the ideas inherent in freedom and liberal democracy which are now facing demise at the hands of Islamists. We only have to look at the fine examples of the Netherlands, Sweeden and now the UK to see what "tolerance" and the wholesale welcoming all "cultures" into the western landscape has meant.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Chapter 68: Ragnarok: The Coming Fall of the West
PART 5: THE LESSON OF HISTORY -WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN PERIL
A civilization rises and falls along with its originating population: this is the great lesson of history which applies equally to any race in any country. Once the racial composition of a society changes, than that society itself changes.
The socio-demographic factors listed above are the most obvious indicators that the very nature of the White West is busy changing: it is becoming more violent; it is becoming poorer; and it is becoming more anti-White; it is becoming darker.
This is directly linked to the decline of the White people who originally made up that society, and their replacement by non-White newcomers foreign to the culture and civilization.
There are four ways through which a nation's population can vanish:
1. Through obliteration in war;
2. Through their lands being swamped by labor-driven immigration;
3. Through physical mixing with newcomers; and
4. The second and third factors above combined with a decreasing birth rate amongst the original population.
Ancient Rome vanished because of the last three factors: now exactly the same scenario is being played out in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Unless checked, the demographic trends show conclusively that Whites will be a minority in all three of these continents by the year 2100. After that, it is only then a question of time and Whites as a racial group will vanish completely.
Above: Sign of the times: Right: A banner carried by a Black demonstration in Lusaka, Zambia, 1970.
RACES DO VANISH
The notion of an entire race disappearing may seem incredible: but it is not. There are in fact at least four distinct racial groupings which have already vanished as a result of being absorbed into other racial groups which have occupied their territory during the course of history. One of these four groups was a White subrace.
1. The White subrace known as the Mediterraneans, were the race who originally occupied much of Europe and the Middle East. These were the people who built the very first European civilizations, and then afterwards helped build the civilizations in the Mesopotamian river valley and in Egypt. On the European continent the Mediterraneans were absorbed for the greatest part into the Alpine White subrace; the Proto-Nordics and then the invading Indo-European Nordic subraces.
This absorption occurred with relatively little disruption to the growth of the European continental civilizations, as all the mixing components were all part of the broader White race. In the Middle East and Egypt, however, the Mediterraneans were absorbed into the Arabic/Semitic peoples and the African Blacks: through this process they lost virtually all genetic contact with the rest of the White race. The Mediterranean subrace of the White race has then already vanished, along with the culture it created.
2. The Aztec peoples in Central America created an impressive, if somewhat cruel by Western standards, civilization in Central America. The arrival of the White Spaniards, who conquered the Aztecs through superior technology, did not destroy the Aztec people: they disappeared through racial mixing with the small number of Spanish conquerors, and the millions of Black slaves imported to the region by the Spanish. The Aztec Amerinds are the second distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
3. The Inca peoples of South America also created an impressive civilization in South America; they too were militarily beaten by a handful of White Spaniards using superior technology. The original Inca Amerinds have also to the largest part disappeared through integration with the small number of White Spanish conquerors and the millions of Black slaves imported into South America by the Spanish and Portuguese. The Inca Amerinds are the third distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
4. The Bushmen living at the southern most point of Africa, the Koisan, who formed a distinct race by themselves quite separate from the Black tribes in Southern Africa, existed undisturbed at stone age hunter gatherer levels when the first White settlers arrived in the region. Conflict with the White settlers caused a few Bushmen to flee into the reaches of the Namib desert - where isolation has ensured that a tiny number remained intact - but the vast majority of Khoisan were absorbed into what became the mixed-race "Cape Colored" population in South Africa, made up of Bushmen, a small number of Whites, Malay slaves, Indians and Blacks. The Khoisan of the Cape of Good Hope are the fourth distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
In each of these four cases, the civilization or cultures they had created, vanished with them. The lesson is clear: races do disappear, and once having done so, their civilization is extinguished with them.
Above: The continued existence of all groups is under threat: here is an advertisement which was placed in the Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Press, of 26 January 1973, which quite correctly points out that the Jewish culture will disappear if Jews marry outside of the Jewish people (extract below). The advertisement, placed by an organization calling itself "Jews! Be Jewish" points out that mixing will lead to the disappearance of the Jews. The advertisement then draws the logical conclusion and urges Jews not to intermarry. This principle is absolutely sound if the Jews, or any other group for that matter, do not want to vanish.
Ragnarok - THE FALL OF THE GODS
The steady occupation of the modern White heartlands: Europe, Australia and North America by increasing waves of Third World non-Whites are a direct replay of the events which led to the fall of the ancient nations.
In exactly the same way that the White nations of old vanished after their population make-up changed, so will Europe, North America and Australia disappear as their populations change from White into non-White.
This is not a subjective opinion, or the wild ravings of an apocalyptic prophet of doom, it is simply a fact.
The prospects for the future of Western civilization are therefore, bleak. Whites will be increasingly squeezed out of their great cities, increasingly replaced by Third World non-Whites and mixed-race populations.
And so society will change its outer manifestations to reflect the new populations, and the last White-created civilization will vanish along with the declining White population.
The ancient end of the world in Norse mythology was the Ragnarok, the fiery fall of the Gods in Valhalla: this fate seems destined to come true after all - unless there is a conscious and determined shift in the political, demographic and social trends prevalent in the West today.
http://www.white-history.com/peril.htm
PART 5: THE LESSON OF HISTORY -WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN PERIL
A civilization rises and falls along with its originating population: this is the great lesson of history which applies equally to any race in any country. Once the racial composition of a society changes, than that society itself changes.
The socio-demographic factors listed above are the most obvious indicators that the very nature of the White West is busy changing: it is becoming more violent; it is becoming poorer; and it is becoming more anti-White; it is becoming darker.
This is directly linked to the decline of the White people who originally made up that society, and their replacement by non-White newcomers foreign to the culture and civilization.
There are four ways through which a nation's population can vanish:
1. Through obliteration in war;
2. Through their lands being swamped by labor-driven immigration;
3. Through physical mixing with newcomers; and
4. The second and third factors above combined with a decreasing birth rate amongst the original population.
Ancient Rome vanished because of the last three factors: now exactly the same scenario is being played out in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Unless checked, the demographic trends show conclusively that Whites will be a minority in all three of these continents by the year 2100. After that, it is only then a question of time and Whites as a racial group will vanish completely.
Above: Sign of the times: Right: A banner carried by a Black demonstration in Lusaka, Zambia, 1970.
RACES DO VANISH
The notion of an entire race disappearing may seem incredible: but it is not. There are in fact at least four distinct racial groupings which have already vanished as a result of being absorbed into other racial groups which have occupied their territory during the course of history. One of these four groups was a White subrace.
1. The White subrace known as the Mediterraneans, were the race who originally occupied much of Europe and the Middle East. These were the people who built the very first European civilizations, and then afterwards helped build the civilizations in the Mesopotamian river valley and in Egypt. On the European continent the Mediterraneans were absorbed for the greatest part into the Alpine White subrace; the Proto-Nordics and then the invading Indo-European Nordic subraces.
This absorption occurred with relatively little disruption to the growth of the European continental civilizations, as all the mixing components were all part of the broader White race. In the Middle East and Egypt, however, the Mediterraneans were absorbed into the Arabic/Semitic peoples and the African Blacks: through this process they lost virtually all genetic contact with the rest of the White race. The Mediterranean subrace of the White race has then already vanished, along with the culture it created.
2. The Aztec peoples in Central America created an impressive, if somewhat cruel by Western standards, civilization in Central America. The arrival of the White Spaniards, who conquered the Aztecs through superior technology, did not destroy the Aztec people: they disappeared through racial mixing with the small number of Spanish conquerors, and the millions of Black slaves imported to the region by the Spanish. The Aztec Amerinds are the second distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
3. The Inca peoples of South America also created an impressive civilization in South America; they too were militarily beaten by a handful of White Spaniards using superior technology. The original Inca Amerinds have also to the largest part disappeared through integration with the small number of White Spanish conquerors and the millions of Black slaves imported into South America by the Spanish and Portuguese. The Inca Amerinds are the third distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
4. The Bushmen living at the southern most point of Africa, the Koisan, who formed a distinct race by themselves quite separate from the Black tribes in Southern Africa, existed undisturbed at stone age hunter gatherer levels when the first White settlers arrived in the region. Conflict with the White settlers caused a few Bushmen to flee into the reaches of the Namib desert - where isolation has ensured that a tiny number remained intact - but the vast majority of Khoisan were absorbed into what became the mixed-race "Cape Colored" population in South Africa, made up of Bushmen, a small number of Whites, Malay slaves, Indians and Blacks. The Khoisan of the Cape of Good Hope are the fourth distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.
In each of these four cases, the civilization or cultures they had created, vanished with them. The lesson is clear: races do disappear, and once having done so, their civilization is extinguished with them.
Above: The continued existence of all groups is under threat: here is an advertisement which was placed in the Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Press, of 26 January 1973, which quite correctly points out that the Jewish culture will disappear if Jews marry outside of the Jewish people (extract below). The advertisement, placed by an organization calling itself "Jews! Be Jewish" points out that mixing will lead to the disappearance of the Jews. The advertisement then draws the logical conclusion and urges Jews not to intermarry. This principle is absolutely sound if the Jews, or any other group for that matter, do not want to vanish.
Ragnarok - THE FALL OF THE GODS
The steady occupation of the modern White heartlands: Europe, Australia and North America by increasing waves of Third World non-Whites are a direct replay of the events which led to the fall of the ancient nations.
In exactly the same way that the White nations of old vanished after their population make-up changed, so will Europe, North America and Australia disappear as their populations change from White into non-White.
This is not a subjective opinion, or the wild ravings of an apocalyptic prophet of doom, it is simply a fact.
The prospects for the future of Western civilization are therefore, bleak. Whites will be increasingly squeezed out of their great cities, increasingly replaced by Third World non-Whites and mixed-race populations.
And so society will change its outer manifestations to reflect the new populations, and the last White-created civilization will vanish along with the declining White population.
The ancient end of the world in Norse mythology was the Ragnarok, the fiery fall of the Gods in Valhalla: this fate seems destined to come true after all - unless there is a conscious and determined shift in the political, demographic and social trends prevalent in the West today.
http://www.white-history.com/peril.htm
Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'
Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/islamic_states_push_to_crimina.html
Incredible..... 57 Islamic States pull together to outlaw any criticism of Islam. Fucking amazing isn't that our world in 2009 looks like this: 57 Islamic states worldwide (and counting), an invasion of the west (let's call it occupation), and 1 single Jewish state trying to survive. It doesn't look good does it?
Don't you wish these Islamics would stop winging for more than one day at least?
Peter C Glover
A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.
Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion". Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."
The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.
UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'
The vote, at the end of March, comes ahead of the UN's World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, April 20-24. This conference is due to be a follow-up ‘review' of the UN's infamous Durban conference in 2001 which Islamists deteriorated into a attack on Israel which many participants viewed as antisemitic in tone. Fears are rife that April's ‘Durban 2' will simply provide the same Arab states with yet another global platform from which to launch a similar attack on Israel. Canada has already withdrawn because of the antisemitic tone of key documents. Australia is threatening to withdraw for the same reason. Italy, France, Germany and others have all notified their misgivings to the UNCHR. The United States, which walked out with the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when a resolution compared Zionism with racism, is also threatening to withdraw. The Israelis, not surprisingly, will not be attending.
Perversely, the very forum being sponsored by the UN's Human Rights Council to work for improved human rights and against racism, has and is providing Islamic nations, many of whom have some of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, with a global platform which openly espouses perjorative and racist anti-Semitic language against Israel's Jewish population. If the UN Human Rights Council does go ahead and endorse the resolution, aimed at criminalizing ‘defamation of Islam', at the end of March and the April conference it will amount to a major blow against free speech and as a further appeasement to Islamist bigotry.
Just as good in terms of ‘promoting better global relations', how about taking up US TV commentator Lou Dobbs suggestion that we, "bulldoze the large piece of real estate on the east side of Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build something useful". Or would that too deny Islamists their most effective weapon in the Jihad against Western free speech?
Peter C Glover is the British author of The Politics of Faith and writer on international affairs. For more go to petercglover.com.
Incredible..... 57 Islamic States pull together to outlaw any criticism of Islam. Fucking amazing isn't that our world in 2009 looks like this: 57 Islamic states worldwide (and counting), an invasion of the west (let's call it occupation), and 1 single Jewish state trying to survive. It doesn't look good does it?
Don't you wish these Islamics would stop winging for more than one day at least?
Peter C Glover
A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states is again pushing for the UN to make it a criminal offense to criticise or ‘defame' Islam. In a new resolution circulated at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" was circulated ahead of the Council's next meeting on March 26-27, when the resolution will be voted on.
Though the 57 nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc which also dominates the UN's Human Rights Council, have been lobbying for the move since 1999, the signs this time are that the resolution could well be made binding. While the resolution calls for protection against "defamation" of all religions, it only mentions Islam by name.
The resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a "serious affront to human dignity" which could lead to "social disharmony", "violations of human rights" and "incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular". If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at "local, national and international levels" start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.
Such is the domination of the UN HRC by Islamic states, backed by non-democratic members including Russia and Cuba, that the human rights agency UN Watch believes the "adoption of the regressive resolution is a foregone conclusion". Last December, Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that Islamic states were pursuing "the diplomatic battle with a vengeance" because of the post 9/11 war on terror and the issue of the Danish depictions of the prophet Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out, "The resolutions pose a major threat to the premises and principles of international human rights laws and harm Muslims as much as non-Muslims." Neuer went on to cite the failure of the Islamic states to address human rights violations in Muslim countries. He also pointed out that the latest resolution is "not really trying to protect individuals from harm" but is attempting "to shield a set of beliefs from question or debate."
The resolution's use of the phrase ‘defamation of religion' is also misleading. Under the terms of human rights law there is no such legal concept. Laws on defamation, in most Western countries, exist to protect the reputation of individuals, not belief systems or religions.
UN Watch's Neuer describes the resolution's text as "Orwellian" and warns that it distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech and religious freedom. He also points out that a binding resolution would first target "moderate Muslims" and that: "Next to suffer from the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West." The text singles out the freedom of the Western media which allows for ‘deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.'
The vote, at the end of March, comes ahead of the UN's World Conference Against Racism in Geneva, April 20-24. This conference is due to be a follow-up ‘review' of the UN's infamous Durban conference in 2001 which Islamists deteriorated into a attack on Israel which many participants viewed as antisemitic in tone. Fears are rife that April's ‘Durban 2' will simply provide the same Arab states with yet another global platform from which to launch a similar attack on Israel. Canada has already withdrawn because of the antisemitic tone of key documents. Australia is threatening to withdraw for the same reason. Italy, France, Germany and others have all notified their misgivings to the UNCHR. The United States, which walked out with the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when a resolution compared Zionism with racism, is also threatening to withdraw. The Israelis, not surprisingly, will not be attending.
Perversely, the very forum being sponsored by the UN's Human Rights Council to work for improved human rights and against racism, has and is providing Islamic nations, many of whom have some of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, with a global platform which openly espouses perjorative and racist anti-Semitic language against Israel's Jewish population. If the UN Human Rights Council does go ahead and endorse the resolution, aimed at criminalizing ‘defamation of Islam', at the end of March and the April conference it will amount to a major blow against free speech and as a further appeasement to Islamist bigotry.
Just as good in terms of ‘promoting better global relations', how about taking up US TV commentator Lou Dobbs suggestion that we, "bulldoze the large piece of real estate on the east side of Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build something useful". Or would that too deny Islamists their most effective weapon in the Jihad against Western free speech?
Peter C Glover is the British author of The Politics of Faith and writer on international affairs. For more go to petercglover.com.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Church schools could be forced to promote Islam and homosexuality
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4927264/Church-schools-could-be-forced-to-promote-Islam-and-homosexuality-Catholics-fear.html
I don't mind my kids being educated about homosexuality. Its about love between consenting adults of the same sex. To my knowledge, there are no lies taught to children about what homosexuality is about.
Islam on the other hand is about sex with underage children, battery, and violence; and there are plenty of lies taught about this subject to children, the big one being that Islam is a religion of peace. Lets stop lying to children.
Islam = Dangerous totalitarian ideology which admits hatred and intolerance of western values.
Homosexuality = Consensual love between two grown men or women
Ummmm, what's the comparison between Islam and homosexuality again?
Mahaha, here's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one:
"The Islamic Human Rights Commission"
http://www.ihrc.org/
What is their job exactly?
Ensuring that "human rights" are properly ignored and denied in the name of Allah? Making sure that people are exploited and taken advantage of?
It makes you wonder whether these people even understand what a human right is, much less be-able to protect those human rights.
Islam is completely incompatible with "human rights". We need only take a look at the piles of evidence that speak volumes about Islam's intentions. Shit,we don't even need to do that, just take a look in the Koran.
These people, the IHRC, are either completely and utterly delusional, or they are fully aware of their hypcrytical chosen associations, but choose to ignore them. I'm going to go ahead and assume both utterly delusional, and totally aware of the hypocritical nature of their associations.
I fail to comprehend how you can align yourself with an aggressive, brutal and oppressive, anti-humanitarian ideology such as Islam, and yet "claim" to be humanitarian.
The mind boggles, the mind boggles....
Islam-oh-phobia?
Davopedia
Islamophobia is the WORD used to describe the legitimate opposition and/or resistance of Islam, by Muslims of Islamic culture and western Islamic apologists. Legitimate opposition/resistance of Islam can be characterised by the factual observation that all or most Islamics are religious fanatics, who have violent tendencies towards non-Islamics, and Islam's admitted rejection of such concepts as ethics, equality, tolerance, democracy, freedom, liberty and humanism.
Opposition and resitance to Islam is viewed as a new form of racism by Islamics, a religious group, not a race, constructed nevertheless as an totalitarian political ideology who's expressed purpose is total domination of the world and the destruction of Israel.
Islam is a set of negative superstitious belief systems, that are imposed on the entire group to the detriment of members of that group.
During the 1990's many sociologists and cultural analysts observed a shift in forms of prejudice from ones based on skin colour to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness. This prejudice still survives to this day in the form of Islam and its intolerance of western cultures and particularly the western democracy and people of Israel.
Lets take a look at the definitions of Islamophobia, shall we.. :-)
This definition, from the 1997 document 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All' is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
The eight components are:
1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
True. Islam IS a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
Partly true. Islam is separatist and 'other'. Islam does not share the values in common with other cultures. Islam does have a deleterious effect on other cultures. Islam influences other cultures through terrorism and brutality and other immoral, unethical and inhuman behaviours.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
True. Islam by its very nature, is endemically and inherently irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
True. Islam is violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in an self admitted intention of Global totalitarian conquest, through any means possible.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
True. Islam is a political ideology, in the same category as Fascist Nazism. Islam is used for political and military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
False. The west is currently bending over backwards to appease Islam in an insane reverse discrimination backed by hypocritical left wing apologetics, anti western racism and xenophobia.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
False. Read above.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
False. Opposition to "Islam" is seen as natural and normal.
So what we have here above is an example of Islamic reverse discrimination, where the victim becomes the criminal and the criminal becomes the victim.
In reality, Islam is a brutal, totalitarian ideology which has absolutely no place in a modern western society or culture. A legitimate and righteous concern for preventing the spread of Islam ought to be the responsibility for any rational human being that loves and appreciates liberty and freedom and opposes oppression and abuse.
Opposition and resistence of Islam is opposition and resitance to a dangerous and toxic ideology.
The only phobia present here, is freedomophobia, by the power elite.
Three BIG CHEERS for sanity: Australian patriotic nationalists make their thoughts known
Anywhere in this following article where you see the terms "racist or racism" (a defamatory comment used to side step the legitimate issues and concerns of "Australian citizens"), just replace this bigoted comment with either "patriot" or "nationalist" or "humanist". - Dave
A win for racists in Camden
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/753/38913Pat Donohoe
31 May 2008Organised racism scored a win on May 27, when Camden Council voted unanimously to reject a proposal to build the 1200 student Al Amanah Islamic College in the south-western Sydney suburb.
The decision came after recommendations were given by council planners on May 23 not to approve the development on planning grounds.
In their report to Camden Council the planners claim that the “proposal is not consistent” with planning and policy for the area. However, it seems clear that action taken by organised racists from both within and outside Camden had some influence on the council decision.
Indeed, the authors of the report mention the “level of community interest evidenced by the number of submissions” the council had received in regard to the application.
According to a May 27 report in the Australian, from the time the application by the Qur’anic Society Dar Tahfez El-Quran Inc was made public on October 17, 2007 until public submissions closed on November 13, Camden Council received 3000 submissions — only 50 of which were in favour of the proposed Islamic school.
The organised nature of the racist and Islamophobic opposition to the proposal was demonstrated by a public meeting of around 800 people organised by a group calling itself the “Committee for Public Affairs Education” on December 19, 2007. Under the guise of a local residents group, the far-right Christian Democratic Party (CDP), led by Fred Nile, organised this meeting.
Members of other right-wing groups, such as the NSW Knights of the Southern Cross (a conservative Catholic organisation) and the far-right Australia First Party, also participated. Nile was the keynote speaker. Other far right speakers included the MC, Robert Balzola, who is a Christian lawyer and member of the NSW KSC and the Religious Freedom Institute (a Christian lobby group).
With the meeting underway, a crowd chanted “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi” as Nile spread his message of racial and religious intolerance. He told the meeting that he was against the Islamic school because Islam was against Christianity, and that in the Christmas season the Koran condemned Australian Christians for singing Christmas carols.
The objections to the proposed Islamic school voiced at this public meeting were not based on sound planning concerns.
Nile has a three-decade career of right-wing intolerance. He has recently branched out from his standard homophobia and conservatism to speak out against Islam and to call for the end of Muslim immigration to Australia. This was added to the platform of his CPD last year. In a media release before the 2007 federal election Nile also called for all Islamic schools to be closed.
But the public meeting of December 19 was not the first piece of racist intimidation that Camden has been subjected to. On November 28 last year two pigs’ heads were impaled on pikes and an Australian flag draped between them on the proposed site for the Islamic school.
Muslims in Australia and other Western countries have suffered increasing levels of racism, intimidation and discrimination since the beginning of imperialism’s current wars in the Middle East. The case of the Al Amanah Islamic College demonstrates that this intolerance has reached even sleepy, semi-rural Camden.
[Pat Donohoe is a teacher and member of Socialist Alliance.]
In their report to Camden Council the planners claim that the “proposal is not consistent” with planning and policy for the area. However, it seems clear that action taken by organised racists from both within and outside Camden had some influence on the council decision.
Indeed, the authors of the report mention the “level of community interest evidenced by the number of submissions” the council had received in regard to the application.
According to a May 27 report in the Australian, from the time the application by the Qur’anic Society Dar Tahfez El-Quran Inc was made public on October 17, 2007 until public submissions closed on November 13, Camden Council received 3000 submissions — only 50 of which were in favour of the proposed Islamic school.
The organised nature of the racist and Islamophobic opposition to the proposal was demonstrated by a public meeting of around 800 people organised by a group calling itself the “Committee for Public Affairs Education” on December 19, 2007. Under the guise of a local residents group, the far-right Christian Democratic Party (CDP), led by Fred Nile, organised this meeting.
Members of other right-wing groups, such as the NSW Knights of the Southern Cross (a conservative Catholic organisation) and the far-right Australia First Party, also participated. Nile was the keynote speaker. Other far right speakers included the MC, Robert Balzola, who is a Christian lawyer and member of the NSW KSC and the Religious Freedom Institute (a Christian lobby group).
With the meeting underway, a crowd chanted “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi” as Nile spread his message of racial and religious intolerance. He told the meeting that he was against the Islamic school because Islam was against Christianity, and that in the Christmas season the Koran condemned Australian Christians for singing Christmas carols.
The objections to the proposed Islamic school voiced at this public meeting were not based on sound planning concerns.
Nile has a three-decade career of right-wing intolerance. He has recently branched out from his standard homophobia and conservatism to speak out against Islam and to call for the end of Muslim immigration to Australia. This was added to the platform of his CPD last year. In a media release before the 2007 federal election Nile also called for all Islamic schools to be closed.
But the public meeting of December 19 was not the first piece of racist intimidation that Camden has been subjected to. On November 28 last year two pigs’ heads were impaled on pikes and an Australian flag draped between them on the proposed site for the Islamic school.
Muslims in Australia and other Western countries have suffered increasing levels of racism, intimidation and discrimination since the beginning of imperialism’s current wars in the Middle East. The case of the Al Amanah Islamic College demonstrates that this intolerance has reached even sleepy, semi-rural Camden.
[Pat Donohoe is a teacher and member of Socialist Alliance.]
Islam takes over Europe
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510364,00.html
Finally a story in the American media about the fact that Islam is now threatening to take over Europe. In some European cities, Muslims are dominant in number and political influence. I wonder how long it will take before we have a similiar article in The Australian warning us of the same fate looming in Australia. I wonder how long it will take for America to wake up and humbly realise they are not immune from Islamification either.
It was not long ago that an academic warned western countries: allow muslim populations to reach over 10 per cent and it will mean an irreversible change. What is not factored into predictions of future population growth in the Islamic communities is the fact that Islam allows men to have several wives and therefore a greater number of children being born to the same man. Also, Islam allows forced sexual r'ships with women meaning potential for far greater numbers of 'unplanned' pregnancies (women have no choice in Islam with regards to whether they have sex or not) and Islam allows for children to become wives to middle aged men and bear children. All in all, these facts on top of very generous immigration mean the potential for a continued escalation of muslim populations in the west including Australia.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Islamic moral bankruptcy at work again
Watch this video and get an idea of the moral bankruptcy of Islam
Yahweh or Hubal
Click here for a good read: http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=1
Monday, March 23, 2009
More anti-liberty anti-freedom bullshit from the "liberal left"
http://www.theage.com.au/national/labors-blogwatch-plan-hits-whirlpool-of-dissent-20090321-951z.html
Labor's (liberal left) blog-watch plan hits Whirlpool of dissent
- Josh Gordon
- March 22, 2009
THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.
Soon after Senator Conroy praised Singapore's Government for reducing monitoring of blogs, tender documents issued by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy reveal it is looking for a "comprehensive digital monitoring service for print and electronic media".
The department later attached a clarification confirming the term "electronic media" included "blogs such as Whirlpool".
http://whirlpool.net.au/Whirlpool, the only blog site mentioned, has criticised Senator Conroy's plans to filter internet content and his handling of the Government's $15 billion national broadband network. It is a community-run internet forum devoted to discussing broadband internet access.
Senator Conroy this month told a conference in Germany that it was a "really positive sign" that the Singaporean Government had given up monitoring blogs.
But the documents suggest the Australian Government is just about to start. Senator Conroy's spokesman said it was "only natural" that the tender include services for monitoring relevant blogs.
"Whirlpool is a long-established online platform for news and information covering a wide range of topics across the telecommunications sector," the spokesman said. "It and other websites provide valuable insight into the industries in which we work."
Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin claimed it was "extreme" and an unacceptable use of taxpayers' money to expand media monitoring to blogs.
"The minister has been caught out telling an important international audience one thing, while at the same time putting the wheels in motion back home to use taxpayers' money to do the complete opposite," Senator Minchin said.
A spokesman for the department said it had used Whirlpool as an example of a blog site that might be monitored because a prospective bidder for the contract had asked for a clarification.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Muslims demand exclusive prayer rooms at a Melbourne University - Shared prayer space is not good enough....
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25224369-29277,00.html
MELBOURNE Muslim university students will protest tomorrow, saying they are being sexually harassed and discriminated against due to a lack of prayer rooms.
But RMIT University management deny this, insisting Muslim students are well catered for.
The RMIT Islamic Society want Muslim-only prayer rooms on the university's city campus.
In late 2007, construction work on the building that contained a dedicated Muslim prayer room meant the facility was demolished.
The Islamic society said the university reneged on its promise to replace that with another room. "As a result, students and staff have been forced to pray outside in the heat of summer and the cold of winter," the society's website said.
It alleged females have been subjected to sexual abuse, harassment and religious vilification while praying.
They are now forced to pray two at a time in cramped women's rooms, corridors and empty classrooms.
The society said "enough is enough", insisting it was sick of being given the run around and would hold a mass protest at the university on Monday afternoon.
"No longer can we remain quiet and have students compromise between their safety and prayers, RMIT made a promise, it must fulfil it," the website said.
But the university described the action as "unfortunate and unnecessary".
There are already eight Muslim prayer rooms across the university's three campuses, Dr Maddy McMaster, Acting Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students) said.
"The university's policy is that prayer rooms in its spiritual centre are multi-faith, open to bookings by members of all faiths," she said.
Muslims get preferential access to two of those rooms.
"With space at a premium on our city campus, we have bent over backwards to find an amicable solution," she said.
Gestures of good faith have been rejected, she insisted.
"Multi-faith spaces are commonly accepted as supporting a range of religious practices, including those of the Muslim faith.
"It is disappointing that the RMIT Islamic Society chooses to reject established multi-faith principles," she said.
The society did not respond to AAP requests for comment.
If the OIC succeeds in turning criticism of religion into 'defamation', freedom of expression will be eradicated.
- guardian.co.uk Friday 20 March 2009 19.00 GMT
Facts speak for themselves. Omid Reza Mir Sayafi, 29, a journalist and blogger, has taken his own life in Evin prison in Iran, where he was serving a two-year sentence for "insulting Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei", and awaiting further trial for "insulting sacred values", which would have meant more years in prison. He was a sensitive man, who blogged mainly about music and the arts, and imprisonment was a hellish experience for him; he was reported to be profoundly depressed and anxious.
Safayi is yet another victim of religion. If the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has its way, it will become impossible to make such a remark.
At the United Nations Council on Human Rights in Geneva, the OIC is trying again to have "defamation of religion" banned. The aim is a universal gag on free speech, blocking the right of anyone to criticise the too frequently negative effects of religion on individuals and society. The OIC has yet to appreciate that if it succeeds in its effort to protect Islam from legitimate challenges to its less attractive doctrines and practices – to say nothing of Islamism with its murderous extreme – the relentless antisemitism from its own side of the street will have to stop too.
If it succeeds in turning criticism of religion and its main beneficiaries into "defamation", we might not be free to express our condemnation of a sentence just handed down in Saudi Arabia against a 74-year-old woman, condemned to 45 lashes, three months in prison, and deportation to her native Jordan, for having two male visitors in her home who were not relatives.
And here is another thing we might not be able to discuss. The Pope's iteration of his church's doctrine on contraception, while on his way to visit Africa where 21 million people in sub-Saharan countries are infected with HIV, millions have died of Aids, and millions of Aids orphans live in frightful conditions of semi-slavery and destitution, has been rightly condemned by many around the world.
But the HIV/Aids tragedy of Africa is only the tip of an iceberg. Opposition to control of family size in the poorest part of the world condemns women to endless pregnancies if they are not – as many are – killed or incapacitated by childbearing in difficult circumstances. The difficulty of looking after numerous children in abject poverty is, on its own, a grinding oppression, to say nothing of the immense barriers to the opportunity for decent lives later on for the children. These brutal facts are as nothing to the Pope: in his view the blight of too many pregnancies, too many children, infant mortality, starvation, disease, poverty and immiseration is all part of the deity's plan. For anyone who goes by evidence, if there is a deity, this suggests that it devotes its spare time to pulling wings off flies.
The Pope's attitude to sex is mainly informed by having to deal with child-abusing priests (latest reports say that in the US complaints against abusive priests rose to 800 in 2008: that's more than a dozen a week), which is why his advice to them – abstinence – seems to be the only thing he can think to suggest to everyone else, and most of all as a guard against HIV infection. Plenty of people lack insight into the deep imperatives of human nature, so let us not blame the Pope for adding this particular deficit to his already rich repertoire of them: but let us ask whether a marrying clergy might not be part of the solution to sexually abusing priests, if there has to be a clergy at all. Best of all as a policy for the Pope and his church on matters of sex might be silence. To adapt Wittgenstein, "Wherof you know nothing, shut up."
The chief point is that Vatican policy on contraception is in every sense a hideous crime against humanity and ought to be treated as such.
And that takes us back to the OIC. The OIC dislikes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the very good reason that religion, not excluding their version of it, is a systematic violator of human rights, not least the rights of women – who are one half of the world, a fact the OIC does not notice, or if it does it applies religious arithmetic to solve the problem: one woman is worth half a man. The OIC is trying to change the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accordingly.
It has introduced its own version of "(Hu)Man Rights": it is an instructive read, and illustrates the importance of abating the nuisance of religion in today's world. How is this to be done consistently with the right to believe stupid things? By entrenching, and making effective, the principle that whereas you can believe as many stupid things as you like, you are not free to act on those beliefs in ways that harm others.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/20/islam-unitednations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)