When the Arabs Blame Israel for Their Problems, They Ignore A World of Self-Inflicted Failure

When the Arabs Blame Israel for Their Problems, They Ignore A World of Self-Inflicted Failure

In the real world, Israel cannot be blamed for:

  • The Muslim enslavement of black Africans in Mauritania,
  • The mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Arabs in a 13-year Algerian civil war,
  • The endless brutal oppression of Egyptian Christian Copts in Egypt by Egyptian Muslims,
  • The genocide of 2,000,000 black African Christians and animists in South Sudan by Sudanese Muslim Arabs over the past 23 years,
  • The genocide of 800,000 black African Muslims in Western Sudan (aka Darfur) by Sudanese Muslim Arabs over the past 5 years,
  • The blatant religious apartheid of the Saudi government in Arabia,
  • The mass murder of Arabian Shi’ites by the Saudi royal family,
  • The de facto maintenance of slavery as an economic institution in Arabia,
  • Saddam Hussein’s murder of hundreds of thousands of his own Iraqi citizens during his 32 years of repressive tyrannical rule,
  • The current Muslim-vs.-Muslim terrorist carnage in Iraq,
  • The Taliban reign of terror in Afghanistan,
  • The decades-old civil war between Islamofascists and non-Muslims in Nigeria,
  • Syria’s brutal 27-year occupation of Lebanon,
  • Six decades of Muslim terrorism against the Hindus of Kashmir and Gujarat,
  • The Muslim repression of Hindus in Bangladesh,
  • Islamic terrorism in East Asia (Bali, East Timor, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia),
  • Muslim terrorism against Russia (remember 186 dead children at the school in Beslan?)
  • The brutal Islamic subjugation of women prevalent in many Muslim countries for the last millennium,
  • The Muslim persecution of Christians and Jews throughout the Muslim world since the beginning of Islam,
  • The fact that the “religion of peace” spawned a thousand-year war against the non-Muslim world (aka Jihad) a thousand years before Israel came in to existence,
  • The grinding poverty and lack of productivity that typify even the richest of Arab countries, as documented in three recent UN-sponsored studies,
  • The fact that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists, for the past 30 years, are Muslims,
  • The fact that millions of Muslims every year flee their home states, Shari’a law, and Islamic sovereignty, to seek refuge, a better life, broader opportunities, freedom and a brighter future for their children . . . in Western states.   

Population Replacement in the Capital of Europe

Population Replacement in the Capital of Europe

In 2000, the Belgian authorities voted a so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act, bestowing Belgian nationality on foreigners as a simple procedure. Everyone who has lived in the country for a number of years (usually seven, but in some cases barely three, and sometimes even only two years) is entitled to Belgian citizenship. One does not have to speak the language nor prove one’s will to integrate in the host country.

So far the Quick Citizenship Act created 337,904 “new Belgians” – an average of 4,277 per month. Belgium has only 10 million inhabitants. One million of them live in Brussels, Belgium’s as well as the EU’s (and NATO’s) capital. While in 1960 7.3% of the Brussels population was foreign, today the figure has risen to 56.5%. The latter figure refers to non-Belgians (26.3% of the Brussels population) and to foreigners who have acquired Belgian citizenship since 1980 and their children (30.2%).

According to Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, the Brussels population replacement  “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Hertogen’s figures show that in 1991 28.5% of the Brussels residents held a foreign nationality and 4.5% were naturalized or “new” Belgians. In 2005 the number of foreigners had stabilized at 26.3%, but the number of “new Belgians” had grown to 30.2%. Hertogen expects that by 2020 75% of the Brussels population will be of non-Belgian origin.

Belgium is an artificial country, consisting of 6 million Dutch-speaking Flemings and 4 million French-speaking Walloons. The Francophile Belgian authorities reckon that foreigners will not feel much loyalty to Flanders because most of them speak French. Brussels, which used to be Dutch-speaking, has become a French-speaking enclave in Flanders.

Today, 589 of the 661 elected local councillors in Brussels are French-speaking. 170 of the 661 Brussels councillors are “new Belgians” or foreigners. Most of them are Muslims. 168 of the 170 foreign councillors are registered as Francophones. Foreigners make up 28.5% of the French-speaking and 3% of the Dutch-speaking councillors.

Wanted: A culture of self-defense

British Islamists’ Cyber Camouflage

British Islamists’ Cyber Camouflage
Dominic Whiteman – 4/18/2007
Partly due to the pressure of new terror laws in Britain and partly because of the effectiveness of Destroyers of jihadi websites like Internet Haganah, British-based radical Islamists have sought more imaginative online solutions both to maintain an online presence (even when they are banned) and to keep on recruiting (something they are increasingly desperate to do in a climate justifiably increasingly hostile towards them).

Whereas, in the past, Al Mujahiroun and its banned surrogate groups such as Al Ghurabaa and the Saviour Sect maintained an open web presence under Islamic generics like “Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma”, “Ummah” or “Salaf”, with open generic domain websites set up under variations of these names, now – infiltrated as they are – they consider even the password-protected forums they attach to these generic sites as lacking in security.

Following the example of more technically-aware radical Islamist groups like Hizb ut Tahrir – who have cleaned up their British websites, which (see retrospective search engines) used to be overloaded with anti Semitic and extremist content – the radical British Islamists have recently chosen to operate a defensive, layered approach to their online activities, now with added camouflage.

In the case of groups which are yet to be banned, this involves having a primary layer website associated with their name – which meets all terror law requirements. These sites are normally full of prejudiced political articles about the “Global war on Muslims”, about the failure of “Western Society” (stories of grannies in the west dying alone in poverty, of alcohol abuse by children and pedophilia supposedly rife in western society) and pick-and-mix religious articles, which use lines of the Qur’an willy-nilly to suit whatever particular point they are trying to make, whether justifying Iranian nukes or ensuring that their sister is wrapped from head to toe in black Egyptian cotton in case she’s offered cash by a scout from Plumpers gentlemen’s magazine (or, more likely, chooses to use facial expression to disagree with her misogynistic and repressive brothers).

In the case of banned groups, the primary layer is purposefully obvious – in the case of Al Mujahiroun-linked groups, sites such as omarbakri.info (named after Al Mujahiroun’s founder) include the odd extreme article and hot-headed video or audio file, hoping to attract and then delay less gifted law enforcers. Banned group names don’t get a mention, though tone and content both point blatantly to ownership by the banned group members.

The second layer of websites vary. In the case of groups which are not banned, they tend to use their foreign branch sites to get their true message across (Hizb ut Tahrir’s .org and .info websites link to their more extreme brother sites, based in places like Indonesia and Bangladesh, where they are less scrutinized and can get away with more extreme language). In the case of banned groups and groups yet to be banned, both tend to use second layer generics – for example 1924.org (the date of the end of the Caliphate as used by Hizb ut Tahrir in various formats….even Hizb ut Tahrir leader Imran Waheed’s publicly available cell phone number is 07074 1924 00) or aswj.net (Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma used by Al Mujahiroun) – to stock their more extreme material (much of which is illegal under current British terror legislation). Again, words like Ummah, Islam and Salaf keep springing up as parts of domains for their sites – islambase.co.uk, for example, currently houses a lot of al Mujahiroun stock material (Bakri rants, Izzadeen lectures etc) and through its password-protected forums within a few clicks you’re soon onto the more hardcore stuff (beheading videos, al Qaeda recordings and incriminating speeches). They figure that authorities will not dare ban names using Islamic generics as they would obviously be acting in an Islamophobic way.

But the real innovation of the last weeks, in terms of virtual British radical Islamism, has been the disguise of old radical Islamist websites, which have been redundant for several months. Whereas before the redundant sites simply displayed “This page cannot be displayed” or “under construction”, now these sites (the authorities know the names) display a brand-less search engine, made to look just like a Google affiliation or other affiliation site. At first glance, the enquirer will simply clock the standard advertisements and click away – thinking the domain redundant (as so many previously active domains used by these radicals are redundant). Even at second glance, pictures of bikini-clad women or dating services make the enquirer confirm his first suspicion – that the site is redundant, as the last thing prudish radical Islamists are going to do is have photos and advertisements of such kuffar (non-believer) wickedness on their active sites, even if their hero Bin Laden made regular drunken appearances in the early 1970’s at Beirut’s brothels or in later years fantasized endlessly about that arch kuffar temptress, Whitney Houston.

Even when you click on the search engine links of these particular sites, other links appear, which have been copied off genuine affiliation sites or actually link to genuine affiliations. Only the really curious will see this as an Aladdin’s cave of prosecutable material, where an “Open Sesame” password or technique is required. Most will click around on the links a bit and get directed to genuine advertisements and genuine sites – and go away bored. Even those who type jihadi terminology in the search box are referred to sites as you’d expect from standard search engines like Google or Altavista – they get nowhere either.

The thing is, these search engines are a cover. There is a way of getting into these “caves” if you want to. It’s not a question of guessing keywords to enter in the search engine, nor is it a question of wasting time clicking on loads of links with their annoying pop-ups and further links – much simpler. Once you’re inside you see that the radical groups are unaffected by new laws and government initiatives designed to curb Islamist extremism – that they and their contents are as radical as ever. That their first and second layer sites are tame compared to these.

How do you get in? Put it this way – the new sites have been designed like mazes, as if all visitors are entering at ground level. They fail to comprehend that an aerial view can be readily obtained by those with the necessary wings. No point even trying to get in – unless you are licensed or don’t mind law enforcers walking off later with your computer.

Right now there must be a lot of Britain’s radical Islamists wasting their time thinking up how to cover their true purposes. They fail to recognize that they do not have the guile or the funds to beat their enemy, whatever they try. They fail to halt the progress of the army of hackers who follow their every move, who have spread, and daily spread, their virtual spy ware into the very heart of their online operations. The Islamists are scared stiff of the “jinn” (ghostly beings living on earth in a parallel universe) – well, it seems the jinn are friendly Tinkerbell fairies compared to the virtual weapons of radical Islamists’ unrelenting tormentors.

The Islamists are still using the Internet as if it was set up by cranks like Ayman al-Zawahiri or Taqiuddin al-Nabhani –or perhaps the fairy jinn themselves. Look at the WHOIS data behind domain names used by the radical Islamists in their online operations and more often than not they fall for using anonymous registration services – just as the less lazy Islamists use software to hide their IP addresses when they communicate with their extremist brothers. Do they really think their data is protected? Do they really think that companies like Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc are going to hold out against intelligence agencies, with whom they are obliged to work hand in glove? Online the Islamists can get messages to each other in drop accounts and in code without much chance of being found out – but they can’t recruit as they’d want to by being secretive (Islamism is the combination of Islam and politics – successful political action involves making statements to the many not the few and thus they are exposed in the House of Internet, which never belonged to them and never will).

The British radical Islamists’ old advantage online was the languages they spoke, which British intelligence officers lacked. Amazingly, some of them think that this advantage still exists – ask al Mujahiroun’s diminutive Abu Yahya who daily virtually builds his own jail cell in almuhajirun.com – but they fail to recognize how many of their so-called brothers and sisters make really good money out of being born polyglots. Nor the use of various names by the Islamists – Trevor Brooks, for example, is Abu Izzadeen is Omar Brooks is on bail – nowadays beats even the village Bobby’s (basic) analyst notebook software. Sure, the Islamists’ multiple name usage is annoying, but not nearly as annoying as having to listen to Omar Bakri talking about ankle exposure when listening to audio needing transcription (five minutes before and five minutes after for context) for the courts.

The Internet is a big place. But those radical Islamists who use the Internet to try to recruit, attract and grow – however much they try to conceal their true aims – will always be watched, translated and transcribed. As for their search engine camouflage – back to the drawing board, lads……

Dominic Whiteman is spokesperson for the London-based VIGIL anti-terrorist organization – an international network of terror trackers, including former intelligence officers, military personnel and experts ranging from linguistic to banking experts.

PBS Silences Filmmaker on Radical Islam

Exclusive: PBS Silences Filmmaker on Radical Islam
Susan MacAllen
Author: Susan MacAllen
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: April 17, 2007

The liberal left may be the greatest threat to America’s freedoms, concludes FSM Contributing Editor Susan MacAllen in this probing examination of an apparent growing alliance between leftists and radical Islamists throughout institutions charged with forming public opinion. This frightening analysis will definitely raise the level of your concern – possibly also your outrage.

PBS Silences Filmmaker on Radical Islam

By Susan MacAllen

First, it was the Smithsonian and now it is the Public Broadcasting System.  When liberals meddle in institutions that traditionally have been associated with public education – using public tax dollars – the outcome should alarm you.

The Liberal Left may be the greatest threat to freedom of speech in America.  While in the past, many of us cringed as the ACLU advocated for the right of “artists” to display obscene photographs of homosexual foreplay and obscene paintings of Christ, we could not have imagined that within a few short years the same liberal philosophy would be responsible for the squelching of other deliberately selected ideas… despite our tax dollars.

Filmmaker Martyn Burke has learned just how leftist the powers at PBS are.   The road to the inclusion of his film Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center in the popular PBS series America at a Crossroads has been rocky from the beginning.  The film means to explore the ways in which moderate Muslims in the U.S. are threatened and silenced by radical Islamists.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting fully funded the film with federal grants but, early on, PBS and project managers at an affiliated station demanded that Burke fire two colleagues that had brought him into the project in the first place.  In a February formal letter of complaint to the corporation and to PBS, Burke stated that the demand was on political grounds: Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev were vocal conservatives and both have written on the threat of Islamofacism to the West.  They also are president and vice-president, respectively, of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank.

Burke says that before filming began, a Crossroads project manager, Jeff Bieber of WETA in Washington, D.C., said to him, “Don’t you check into the politics of the people you work with?”  This is an ironic question, given that WETA created an advisory board to deal with the making of the film; the board included Aminah Beverly McCloud, director of World Islamic Studies at DePaul University.  McCloud took segments of the film which she considered objectionable (insulting to radical Islam) and showed them to a Muslim journalist and to Nation of Islam leaders.  This action led to outrage in the Muslim community over the film, and the Nation of Islam has threatened to sue.  In other words, McCloud instigated the very thing the film tried to portray; the tendency of radical Islamists to use threats and lawsuits to silence moderate Muslims and others who object to their ideology.

Burke’s letter cited various other incidents of tampering with the film, including Crossroads managers beginning a new film after grants were already made which used the same interview subjects Burke had used, and overlapped with his material.   WETA openly wanted a key theme in Burke’s film eliminated; the claim that Islamists work to establish parallel societies in the Western societies they inhabit, setting up Shariah law, and  “Islamic Courts”.  The evidence that this has been attempted repeatedly in Europe and America is extensive, but WETA apparently feels that this fact is too inflammatory for the general public to handle.

Martyn Burke is concerned about the hold radical Islam is taking in the West, and he is concerned about the silencing of moderate Muslims.  He claims that the documentary asks, “Where are the moderate Muslims?” and explores ways in which they are “reviled and sometimes attacked” by radicals.  He is also concerned that journalistic freedom and integrity is impossible in the atmosphere of censorship that is present at PBS and at liberal-bias news organizations across the country.   America at a Crossroads was conceived only three years ago, originally in an effort to enhance public knowledge around issues of terrorism and homeland security in the wake of 9-11.   The collection of documentaries it features is financed with $20 million in federal grants (taxpayer – our own – money) from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Filmmakers are asked to submit film proposals for consideration.  Competition is stiff: there have been 430 submitted proposals.  Burke’s proposal was one of the 21 chosen, and he received $700,000 to make Islam vs. Islamists.

There are really two alarming issues in play here.  The first is the increasing liberal bias in journalistic media; it has become so blatant that it will readily compromise its own integrity to keep a conservative view silent.   In the case of Burke’s film, those holding the purse strings are making decisions about how to use our tax dollars to push a liberal agenda and silence a conservative view, regardless of how balance plays, regardless of truth.   When Newsweek was forced to apologize for its published lie that U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo were throwing Korans on the floor, flushing them down toilets, and otherwise degrading them, we should have been amazed and outraged.  Millions get their news from such news magazines, and the American public and those around the world assume that they print the truth.   When major U.S. newspapers favor liberal editorial over hard news, we should be worried.  And when institutions use federal taxpayer money to mold public opinion according to their own worldview, we should be scared. 

The second issue at stake is the reluctance of the liberals in the U.S. to recognize the very real threat of radical Islam.  Their reluctance is not only uninformed and unrealistic, but when they take steps to silence an opposite viewpoint, they put our future in jeopardy.  We can confront radical Islam now by exposing its more sinister activities in the West – public education can go a long way toward stemming its increasing influence.  Or, we can close our eyes and remain uneducated about it, and have a bigger, more violent conflict with it in the future, right on our shores.  Just ask the Europeans. 

It is core to the American character to be reviled by the idea of having one’s views molded by anything but truth.  Yet, in a nation where non-partisan research organizations repeatedly warn that our news media is left-biased, and where our educational systems present Islam as equal to other religions, we are in fact having our thinking molded.   

When one takes a look back through history at the dynamics in play when fascist movements took hold in peaceful societies, the patterns are always the same: well-meaning people downplay the dangers of a radical movement, and people with radical agendas downplay the dangers too.  Those who speak out against the growing menace are shouted down, threatened and made to feel paranoid and crazy.  This works to the advantage of radicals.  In a society committed to “inclusion” and “fairness” and “understanding”, a radical ideology can easily take root. 

 A fascist ideology creeps into a society slowly, not overnight and in front of one’s face; it never announces its presence.  It creeps in as it always has – through newspapers and books, into classrooms and the halls of universities until one day a public awakens and can hardly bear to remember the way it once was, and look at the way it has become, without its heart breaking.

FSM Contributing Editor Susan MacAllen writes a political blog, http://askew.blogharbor.com, and has written on an extensive array of subjects for over 20 years.  She has lived overseas and been intimately involved in the French culture since the Muslim immigrant population emerged in the south of France.  A Certified Veterinary Technician, she currently resides in the American West. 

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to COY7m@aol.com.

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

 Click here to support Family Security Matters

The friends of Andrew Young — Andrew Young: Carter buddy, Arafat friend, Wal-Mart basher, antisemite and now PROFITEER.

The friends of Andrew Young

Ed Lasky
Andrew Young: Carter buddy, Arafat friend, Wal-Mart basher, antisemite and now PROFITEER. From the New York Times today:

LAGOS, Nigeria — For years, Andrew Young, the civil rights leader, has been deeply involved in this country through the lobbying and consulting firm he heads, GoodWorks International. Its motto is: “We do well by doing good.”
But the question of what exactly GoodWorks is or is not doing here has turned Mr. Young and his firm into something of a lightning rod, as Nigerians prepare to elect a successor Saturday to this country’s president, Olusegun Obasanjo, whom Mr. Young has known for 30 years.
“We believe that the relationship between GoodWorks International and Nigeria is foisted on juicy financial benefits to the former,” said an editorial earlier this year in a newspaper here, This Day.
For his part, Mr. Young, the former congressman, United Nations ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, dismissed such comments as sniping by opponents of Mr. Obasanjo’s party, which is expected to win the weekend election.
But there is also little question that Nigeria has been very good for GoodWorks; thanks in part to Mr. Young’s long ties to Mr. Obasanjo, his firm in Atlanta has earned millions of dollars here over the years through a network of business dealings that extend far beyond lobbying.

Rep.Lee Hamilton disappoints The Democratic congressman offers an endorsement to Hezbollah

Rep.Lee Hamilton disappoints

Ed Lasky
The Democratic congressman offers an endorsement to Hezbollah: A Short History by Augustus Richard Norton:

Hezbollah is a timely and landmark work. Richard Norton draws on his extensive expertise to offer a comprehensive history that will be of interest to anyone who seeks a better understanding of Hezbollah, Lebanon, or current developments in the Middle East.”–Lee Hamilton, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission and Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group.

Norton (from my article):

Augustus Richard Norton. His membership on this blue ribbon panel (how about calling it a green and white-the colors of Islam- panel) is a surprise. His pedigree is thin to justify being on such an august (who can resist the pun?) Commission. He has served on the faculty of Cairo University and now serves as a professor of anthropology and international relations at Boston University. What does seem to qualify him for the Group is his anti-Israel attitudes. Key quotes:

“I can’t recall any U.S. president who has subordinated American interests to Israeli interests like this one.”

“Israel is primarily targeting Shiite Muslims and that’s going to fuel the sectarianism that is feeding the civil war in Iraq.”

Israel is now striving to turn parts of southern Lebanon into a largely depopulated “killing box,” where Hizbullah and its capability can be whittled away. In the process, hundreds of thousands of people are being forced from their homes.

He has said that Israel’s “vainglorious attempts to consolidate hegemony over its neighbors usually provokes the emergence of even fiercer adversaries.”

He wrote in the Boston Globe : “ISRAEL’S WAR in Lebanon, like its 1982 forbear, was launched with the ambitious aim of buttressing Israel’s regional hegemony and security.”

Hezbollah is designated by the United States as a “terrorist group,” a label that Israeli officials use with alacrity to cement support for their actions. The word “terrorism” is a convenient rhetorical bludgeon. It substitutes for serious thinking and leads to the nonsensical conclusion that whatever Hezbollah does is an act of terrorism. The result is a US policy that supports Israel’s “counterterrorism” war to the point that a third of Lebanon’s people are now refugees, hatred of America has become red hot, and the war has caused a major rift with important European allies.

In a New York Times article he stated that Hezbollah’s “hatred was created by Israel; it wasn’t there at the beginning.”

At last!

At last!

Clarice Feldman
At last! Some sensible limitation on Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how-not whether-to perform an abortion. [/quote]

This is a practice the majority of Americans find morally repugnant and despite prior state law limitations on it, remained unchecked due to the expansive interpretation of the Court’s Roe v Wade ruling by lower Courts.

Muslims forcing Christians in Baghdad to pay jizya

Muslims forcing Christians in Baghdad to pay jizya

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” — Qur’an 9:29

An update on this story: “More on Muslims Forcing Christian Assyrians in Baghdad to Pay ‘Protection Tax,'” from AINA, with thanks to all who sent this in:

(AINA) — On 3-18-2007 AINA reported that Muslims were forcing the Christian Assyrians in the Dora Neighborhood of Baghdad to Pay the jizya, the ‘Protection Tax’ demanded from Christians and Jews by Islamic law. AINA has obtained testimony from two residents of Dora and an observer. All names are withheld to protect the safety of the individuals.Baghdad Observer:

Elements of Al-Qaeda have moved into Dora from Anbar. No security forces are to be seen there, it seems to be abandoned by both Iraqi and Coalition. In Hay Al-Mechaneek (which is in Dora across the bridge) people have been warned by these insurgents to uninstall the satellite dishes since this is “Haram” (forbidden) in Islam. In Dora where christians live in Hay Al-Mualimeen [Teachers quarter] and Hay Al-Athorieen [Assyrian quarter] is where they are telling people to convert, leave, pay “Jizya” taxation.

Email From Dora Resident:

This has been going on for the past week, and it started even before Easter. We talked to many people within the American Embassy and Iraqi Government, but it seems no body really cares, because they have done nothing, or sometimes I wonder if they care at all. Neither the Iraqi nor the US army have any activity there, and they have delivered Dora to insurgents; and above all the US army went and put a camp in the Chaldean church (Babylon Theology College) to raise the hate among those Mislims toward christians, as they are seeing them allies for americans, and that worsen things more.

Testimony of Dora Resident, Currently A Refugee In Syria:

Yes it is true, today a family [name withheld] arrived from Dora/Mualimeen street, and they said some terrorists knocked on their door and when they opened the door they were told to either pay money (jizya) to support the insurgents or convert to Islam, or leave the house within 24 hours or else be killed.

Hizballah official: Ayatollah Khomeini, Islamic religious law give us permission to kill Israeli civilians

Hizballah official: Ayatollah Khomeini, Islamic religious law give us permission to kill Israeli civilians

“Even with regard to the firing of missiles on Israeli citizens, when they were bombing citizens on our side… This was done in order to put pressure on them. Even that required general permission based on Islamic law.”

Where are the reformers challenging the Islamic legal provisions upon which such rulings were based?

“Hizbullah Deputy Sec-Gen Sheikh Naim Qassem: We Have Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out ‘Martyrdom’ Operations, Fire Missiles on Israeli Civilians From Ayatollah Khomeini,” from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, which aired on Al-Kawthar TV on April 16, 2007.TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1425 .

“Martyrdom is Valuable, Sacred, Respectable, and Great – Not Something That Can Be Used as an Accusation; It is an Honor For Us to Be Accused of Believing in the Culture of Martyrdom”

Naim Qassem: “As for the issue of the culture of death, the culture of martyrdom, the culture of life – with all its different names… It is no secret that the materialistic West, and the atheists in general, and all those who see that the power of Islam is on the rise, and that it is gaining influence – and especially with regard to the philosophy of martyrdom-seeking… They all take a negative position and exert pressure, in order to make the believers abandon the culture of martyrdom.


“So they challenge us, or provoke us, by saying that we have a culture of death. They call martyrdom ‘death,’ in order to make us renounce martyrdom. If we renounce martyrdom, we will only have the strength of our weapons and our numbers, and then they will be able to overcome us. The enemies will be able to overcome us.”


“Do we really believe in a culture of death? Absolutely not. We believe in the culture of martyrdom. Martyrdom is valuable, sacred, respectable, and great, not something that can be used as an accusation. It is an honor for us to be accused of believing in the culture of martyrdom.

“What is martyrdom? It is death for the sake of Allah, and in defense of what is just. Can martyrdom change the fact that a person dies when his time has come? ‘When their time comes, they shall not remain another hour, nor go before it.’ We say that, one way or the other, a person dies at a specific time. Brother, instead of dying – when your time is up – in your bed, die – when your time is up – on the battlefront, through martyrdom.”

Interviewer: “It’s the same moment anyway. You will live the same number of years.”

“With Regard to Martyrdom Operations – A Person Cannot Kill Himself Unless He Has Jurisprudent Permission”

Naim Qassem: “You benefit from this, and, at the same time, you end your life in a glorious manner, which is accepted by Allah.


“Hizbullah, when it comes to matters of jurisprudence pertaining to its general direction, as well as to its jihad direction, based itself on the decisions of the Jurisprudent. It is the Jurisprudent who permits, and it is the Jurisprudent who forbids. When the resistance of Hizbullah was launched in 1982, it was based on the jurisprudent position and decision of Imam Khomeini, who deemed fighting Israel to be an obligation, and therefore we adhered to this opinion. How Israel should be fought, what equipment you should prepare, when you should or shouldn’t attack – these questions are guided by principles in Islamic religious law, and you can act in this direction, according to your abilities. Therefore, we covered our jihad position with regard to fighting Israel with the decision of the Jurisprudent. “With regard to all the other details – whenever we need jurisprudent clarifications regarding what is permitted and what is forbidden on the jihad front, we ask, receive general answers, and implement then. Even with regard to martyrdom operations – a person cannot kill himself unless he has jurisprudent permission.


Even with regard to the firing of missiles on Israeli citizens, when they were bombing citizens on our side… This was done in order to put pressure on them. Even that required general permission based on Islamic law. As for Hizbullah, it receives general permission from the Jurisprudent, and if we have questions regarding the religious law, there are channels through which we can learn what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is our obligation, and what is the extent of our freedom of choice.”