26. October 2010 by admin.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just returned from Kashmir. He appealed for peace and requested the “separatists” to return to the negotiating table. He held a series of conferences with the officials and political leaders. And as expected, he announced over Rs. 1000 crore sops to the state. Importantly, to score some misplaced points, he threatened the armed forces to behave properly in Kashmir, forgetting the fact that but for those forces he, or any Indian Prime Minister, would not have been able to land in the Srinagar valley.

But one fails to understand what did the Prime Minister achieve overall from his two-day Kashmir visit in concrete terms? Well, the media, both national and international, went overboard. The press in Pakistan, where our homer minister and foreign secretary are heading later this month, got enough material to comment on. But the separatists have not been impressed. And what is worse, the security forces have been greatly demoralized. It has become now quite routine for the civilian regime and elites in Kashmir to effortlessly raise their fingers at the Indian armed forces for all their troubles, thus providing fuels to the extremists and separatists. And on the flimsiest of pretexts, officials of the military and paramilitary forces are being framed and suspended.

Ironically, the Prime Minister has not deemed it fit to travel to other, and in a sense more turbulent, part of the country – the North East, particularly Manipur and Nagaland. People there have been facing a blockade for more than two months now. The government has totally mishandled the Naga issue, of late. If any part of the country needed the presence of the Prime Minister to assure the affected people and encourage their morale, it is North-East. But, Singh and his advisors do not think so. And that is perhaps due to the fact that a visit to North East will not attract headlines the way a visit to Kashmir will.

I have no problem with the “news-worthiness” of Kashmir. But what is worrying is that the central government and the dominant section within the strategic community in the country find it politically incorrect to reveal the real problem in the Kashmir valley from the viewpoint of India’s national interests. And that real problem is the growing Islamisation of the valley, which, in turn, makes any negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue almost impossible. An “Islamic Kashmir” will have nothing to do with India. Let me explain this point.

Over the years, Kashmir has been witnessing what Bangladeshi scholar Abu Taher Salahuddin Ahmed says three principal trends – Indianness, Kashmiriness and Muslimness. The Indianness has been propagated by the federal forces of the country, be it the central government or national parties like the Congress and BJP. However, the problem in the state is due to the tussle between those believing in Kashmiriness and those loyal to Muslimness. Kashmiriness is an offshoot of the much talked about Kashmiriyat, which, while coexisting with Indianness, talks of inclusive or composite identity, binding all groups together and not offending any section. No wonder why despite being a Muslim-majority area, beef-eating, until recently, was virtually non-existent in the valley.

Of course, some scholars now point out that there were always differences between Muslims and Hindus (essentially Kashmiri Pundits) in their interpretations of the concept of Kashmiriyat. But those believing in the concept did promote coexistence. Majority of the Kashmiri Muslims, therefore, had no problems with the Hindus or for that matter with the Buddhists. And the important factor key to the success of the Kashmiriyat was the fact that overwhelming majority of the Kashmiri Muslims believed in Sufism or what is said the “Rishi tradition” that believed in saint and shrine worships. Of course, it was greatly facilitated by the fact that as was the case in other parts of the subcontinent, Muslims were essentially converts from the fold of Hinduism.

In contrast, the Muslimness always advocated the exclusive concepts in the valley. Promoted by the Wahhabi and Ahl-i-Hadith sects, this school relies more on the authority of the Quran and Hadith and totally opposed to the concept saints and shrine worships. This tradition or school has always been in minority in Kashmir, but it has been there always. It was behind the oraganisations like Muslim Conference and Kashmir Jamaat (KJ).

Needless to say that almost all the separatists and terrorist, including the so-called moderate separatist elements like Huriyat Conference, belong to the school of Muslimness. They have nothing to do with India. They believe in the theory of “Kashmir for Muslims”. Their essential argument is that they cannot coexist in a Hindu-dominated India.

Interestingly, these elements became active in Kashmir only after the 1979 Iranian revolution. It was after 1979 that one heard more and more of “liberation of Kashmir” and “Islamic revolution”. These elements became more vocal in politics also and formed many small political outfits. In September 1985, twelve such outfits came together to form the Muslim United Front (MUF). Soon the MUF claimed to provide an alternative to the National Conference of Farooq Abdullah on the ground that he “sold out” Kashmiris’ interests in the Accord with the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Since then, the political Islam has made firmer roots in the valley. The Pakistani support and assistance to the cause has greatly facilitated the cause. But what has really helped the Political Islam in the valley is the virtual politics of appeasement on the part of the central and state governments to the separatists. The likes of Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh have wrongly believed that by pandering to the demands of the Huriyat and civil right activists, the situation will improve. But appeasement will never work with forces of “Muslimness”; it will rather embolden them and strengthen the cause of “Kashmir for Muslims”. Did not we hear the likes of Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah even saying during the agitation over Amarnath Yatra last year that Kashmir must not compromise its Muslim character?

Fortunately, even today the majority of the people in the state would like to remain part of India, as evident by the recent opinion poll, conducted by Chatham House (UK) on either side of the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir. The poll said that showed that only 2 per cent of the people of J&K want to be part of Pakistan. As many as 58 per cent of the 3,774 polled, in J&K and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), are ready to accept the LoC as a permanent “soft border” — an idea dating back to the famous “Simla Agreement” of 1972 between Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

That being the case, it is high time the Indian Prime Minister, whichever party he or she may belong to, stopped inviting the separatist leaders to the negotiating table. Because, any amount of concessions will not satisfy them. They just need to be ignored and their militant supporters need to be disciplined. They do not represent the majority. If they are imposing the so-called bandhs and people are listening to them it is mainly because of the fear they have generated in the people’s hearts and the self-imposed helplessness of our security forces.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Islamization, Kashmir, Islam, United State of America, India | Print | No Comments »

19. September 2010 by admin.

An Islamic Strategy - HOW TO USE AMERICA versus AMERICA 

UK and France have recently witnessed riots and protests from muslim immigrants who have legally entered their country. The policy is simple and well tested….. and successful . Islamists have declared Southern France as an Islamic State and are working their way towards achieving the same in UK now. 

The ideology of Islam is to Islamise all the countries of the world. They are attacking America now.

How they are invading America is explained as follows.

The Strategy

You may have noticed, that the media in USA is pro-Islamist these days. Any American who is vocal about his/her concerns for the well being of this great nation, is labeled as racist/communal….and his argument is simply dismissed as “Islamophobia” . You will realize how they have a complete hold on the media. This is the first step.

The next step is to get into the judicial and political system of the country. While the media is used to brainwash people regarding the plight of minority muslims, a lot of money is also being spent to hire local Americans (in media and politics) who fight for the equal rights and religious rights of muslim minorities. The local Americans are however those people who try to project the liberal side of America. The law and the political system is being used to make this convenient. Amendments are being made in the law of the land to legally have a representative of muslims in the country’s parliament.

The next step is to use the law to declare innocent those muslims who are under suspicion of terrorist acts or have been convicted and are serving a sentence, or are under trial. The law here is again used to relieve them of sentences and they are declared innocent. In this process, people who were responsible (cops, judges, lawyers, etc) for arresting these criminals, the people who risked their lives to book the guilty are humiliated by either being dismissed from their duty and/or they are accused of falsely implicating muslims as criminals.

At the same time, they use their influence to distort the history of the country. Claims are made that Islam became popular because it is a religion of peace. History books in schools and colleges have chapters singing praises of how Islamic rulers and clerics influenced your country in a positive manner. However, the original historical heroes of the country who contributed and built the nation are projected in poor light. This is done to humiliate the local people of everything that they have ever been so proud of in the history of their nation. Watch out. It won’t be long before the muslims claim that America was originally an Islamic country, and people of other faiths are actually immigrants so they should either leave America or revert to Islam.

As the number of muslims grow in a country, their very next step is to gather themselves as a vote bank….and no politician would like to lose a large vote bank. This is how and why they get political backing. Once they have their representative in the parliament, the muslims use this as a tool to make amendments in the law of the land to favour Islam.

Defaming other Faiths/Religions

Another aspect that is simultaneously worked hard upon is the ‘conversion to Islam’ factor. A huge amount of money is also being spent on internet websites and personal propaganda to defame other religions to make Islam appear as the only religion that is true and scientific, and the only surviving religion of the world. So don’t be surprised when you come across statements like “Islam was always a part of your country”, or any propaganda that says “Christianity never existed” and “Jesus Was A Muslim”.

False propaganda is being circulated now, where they claim that thousands and thousands of people are converting to Islam every day. You will hear their propaganda that Islam is spreading like wild fire and people are submitting to Islam. Actually the fact is, that after 9/11 many muslims have given up Islam and converted to other religions because they were ashamed of being muslims for following the ideology of destruction and hate (this aspect is however never highlighted by them). Don’t we often complain that the voice of “moderate muslims” is missing when it comes to condemning Islamic terror attacks? Obviously, we don’t hear their voices because “the moderate muslim” has already quit Islam. In USA itself there are several organizations that have ex-muslims who are educating the rest of the world about the real ideology of Islam. See Youtube. You will find several videos showing people converting to Islam, but the videos showing muslims converting to other religions are flagged and removed. Please google “ex-muslims” for these organizations. Their statements should be valid enough for anyone to wake up.

Sowing the seeds for a FUTURE JIHAD

The original proposal of building a “Peace Mosque” at ground zero was seen by many as a symbol of victory by Islam in an infidel land.

Actually, the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is nothing but “Sowing The Seeds Of Dispute” for a FUTURE JIHAD. The reason to build a mosque there is to refute any claims in the future by anyone that the Twin Towers really existed and that America was ever attacked. It is obvious that there would be protests against the mosque. Nobody is against building a mosque. The mosque can be built elsewhere, why only on Ground Zero??? But these protests against building the mosque on Ground Zero will be used/projected to the Islamic world as “denial of freedom to follow Islam” by America … thus instigating further hatred by muslims for America and the West. This makes any muslim (who has grown up with the ideology that all non-muslims are their enemies) a potential recruit for a never-ending jihad against America, which they propose for many many generations to come….And with the number of muslims growing within America, there would be no need to look outside for help in jihad.

The War Today

One cannot deny that conversions are on the rise in America. Aggressive conversions are happening in different states because conversions are the fastest way to grow in numbers as compared to procreation and marriages with non-muslims to convert them into Islam (which is also on the rise now). The purpose of growing in numbers is to attain muslim majorities in different geographical pockets of a country. Once the muslim population is in majority in a state, their demand for a separate muslim state comes into play. They set up terror training camps, indulge in stone-pelting, riots and blasts, and they demand for a separate Islamic State within the country, tearing away a nation, piece by piece. That is the whole idea - To have separate Islamic states spread out from corner to corner of a country/continent…and then join all the dots to form a single majority Islamic State - the best and simplest way to Islamise a nation from within.

A majority of people who are being converted into Islam these days in USA are the African-Americans….especially those from ghettos and with criminal backgrounds. This is being done on purpose. Also being targeted are the illegal Mexican immigrants. Islamists know the history of America and how the Africans came to USA. These people are shown “Islam as a religion of tolerance and brotherhood”. They are told, “they will regain their pride and dignity if they embrace Islam. Islam will give them the equality that the white Americans always denied them and suppressed them”. Using Islam as a tool, these converts are now being brainwashed into believing that they must fight the Jihad for Allah. They will use the frustrations of African Americans against the White Americans. And why not??? With the growing number of muslims in USA, it is most convenient and in their best interest to fight this war from within. This is how they are going to use America versus America in their Jihad!!!

This strategy is however, not just limited to America. All nations in the east and the west who have resisted Islam for all these years are going through this pattern of Islamisation now.

This is war, my friends……….this IS “THE WAR”.

Open your eyes before it is too late.

If you think this makes sense, please circulate it among like minded people and your community.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

13. September 2010 by admin.

Western  Freedom

By Susan MacAllen

In 1978-79 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn’t see Muslim immigrants. 

The  Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated  the exotic, went   out  of its way to protect each of its citizens. It  was proud of its new brand  of socialist liberalism one in development since  the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to  struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The  rest of  Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior  educational system and a history of  humanitarianism. Denmark  was also most generous in its immigration  policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in  transportation, housing and  education. It was determined to set a world  example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of  political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the  streets -all because its commitment to  multiculturalism would come back  to  bite?   

By  the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population  was obvious - as was its unwillingness to  integrate into Danish society. Years of  immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive  enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they  considered the decadence of Denmark ’s liberal way of life, the Danes  - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values:  belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other  ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history. An  article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they accurately forecast, that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode.

In the article they reported: ‘Muslim  immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume  upwards  of 40 percent of the welfare spending.’ ‘Muslims  are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up  a majority of the country’s convicted rapists,  an especially  combustible  issue given that practically all the female  victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.’ ‘Over  time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers,  they wish less   to  mix with the indigenous population. A recent  survey found that only 5 percent of young Muslim  immigrants   would readily marry a Dane.’ 

‘Forced  marriages - promising a newborn daughter in  Denmark to a male   cousin  in the home country, then compelling her to  marry him, sometimes on   pain  of death - are one problem’.  ‘Muslim  leaders openly declare their goal of introducing  Islamic law   once  Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough-  a not-that-remote prospect.. If present trends  persist, one sociologist estimates, every  third inhabitant of   Denmark  in 40  years will be Muslim.’   It  is easy to understand why a growing number of  Danes would feel that   Muslim  immigrants show little respect for Danish values  and laws.

An example is the phenomenon  common to other European countries and    Canada: some Muslims in  Denmark  who opted  to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in  the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for  their   lives.  Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by  Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens  worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000  Jews by night to Sweden  - before  the Nazis could   invade.  I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the  bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi  soldiers - and I wonder what she would say  today.   

In  2001,   Denmark  elected the most  conservative government in some 70 years -one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas  about liberal, unfettered immigration. Today Denmark  has the strictest  immigration policies   in Europe  . ( Its effort to protect  itself has been met with accusations of ‘racism’  by liberal media across Europe - even as other  governments struggle to right the social  problems wrought by years of too-lax  immigration).   

If  you wish to become Danish, you must attend three  years of language classes.  You must pass a test on Denmark ’s  history, culture, and a Danish language test . You must live in Denmark  for 7 years  before applying for citizenship.  You  must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a  job waiting. If you wish to  bring a spouse into Denmark, you  must both be over 24 years of age, and you  won’t find it so easy anymore to move your  friends and family to Denmark with you.You  will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children  have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and  language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in  ways that past immigrants weren’t.

 In  2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus  Hjort Frederiksen,   spoke  publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on  the Danish welfare   system,  and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare  committee had calculated that if immigration  from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent  of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare  system in coming decades would be unnecessary.  In other words, the welfare system, as it existed,  was being exploited by immigrants to the point  of eventually   bankrupting  the government.

‘We are simply forced to adopt a  new policy on immigration’. ‘The  calculations of the welfare committee are  terrifying and show how   unsuccessful  the integration of immigrants has been up to  now,’ he said.   A  large thorn in the side of   Denmark ’s  imams is the Minister of   Immigration  and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj.. She makes no  bones about the   new  policy toward immigration, ‘The number of  foreigners coming to the   country  makes a difference,’ Hvilshoj says, ‘There is an  inverse correlation between how many come here  and how well we can receive the foreigners that come’  And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate  a willingness to blend in, ‘In my view,   Denmark  should be a country with room  for different cultures and religions. Some  values, however, are   more  important than others. We refuse to question  democracy, equal rights,  and  freedom of speech.’      

Hvilshoj  has paid a price for her show of backbone.  Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban,  demanded that the government pay blood money to  the family of a   Muslim  who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen,  stating that the family’s thirst  for revenge could be thwarted for money. When  Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was  common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country  is  not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The  Muslim reply came soon after: her house was  torched while she, her husband and children  slept. All managed  to escape unharmed, but she and her family were  moved to a secret location and she and other  ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time  - in a country where such murderous violence was  once so scarce.

Her  government has slid to the right, and her  borders have tightened.Many believe that  what happens in the next decade will determine whether   Denmark survives as a bastion of good living,  humane thinking and   social  responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation  at civil war with   supporters  of Sharia law.   And  meanwhile, Canadians clamor for stricter  immigration policies, and demand  an end to state welfare programs that allow many  immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in Canada look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us,  and see those  who enter our shores too easily, dare live on  our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture,  respect our traditions, participate in our  legal system, obey our laws, speak our language,  appreciate our history..  we would do  well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.  If  you agree with this article, then please pass it  on.

Posted in Denmark, War on Terror, Geopolitics, Europe, Islam | Print | No Comments »

13. September 2010 by admin.

– The Story You Won’t See In the Western Mainstream MediaBy Phyllis Chesler Published September 09, 2010 | FoxNews.com They are crossing the border illegally and violently displacing the indigenous population whose homes and possessions they either destroy or occupy. They are attacking the young, the elderly, and especially the girls and women, whom they kidnap, forcibly convert, or traffic into brothels. The locals are terrified of them. The police rarely come to their aid, nor do the politically correct media or government. Both are terrified by the criminals and terrorists who are riding these immigrant waves.

I am not talking about illegal immigrants to Europe or North America. I am describing Muslims who are penetrating India’s West Bengal region. These Bangladeshi immigrants are becoming conduits for criminal activities (arms, drugs, and sexual slavery) which also fund global jihad.

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Nathan Bloom in the preparation of this article.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Muslim Terrorists, War on Terror, Islam, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

11. September 2010 by admin.

Rumors are circulating on the Internet and Indian media over the reported presence of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, ostensibly to provide “protection for aid and construction workers”. It is not really unusual that the reports/news might be a bit over blown by the media, BUT China’s growing reassertion of territorial claims in the region will not go ignored by India and will give New Delhi and Washington another cause for cooperation. The prospect of greater U.S.-Indian defense cooperation and diminishing U.S. interest in Afghanistan will meanwhile drive Pakistan closer to China, creating a series of self-perpetuating threats on the subcontinent.Let us analyse the geopolitical implications on the subcontinent and relationship of India, Pakistan and China with each other and with United States. U.S. Pacific Command head Adm. Robert F. Willard is on a two-day visit to India to meet with the Indian defense leadership Sept. 9-10. Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony will follow up his meetings with Willard when he meets with U.S. defense leaders in Washington at the end of September. With an arduous war being fought in Afghanistan and India’s fears growing over Pakistan-based militancy, there is no shortage of issues for the two sides to discuss. But there is one additional topic of discussion that is now elevating in importance: Chinese military moves on the Indian subcontinent.Allegations over a major increase of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops in northern Kashmir have been circulating over the past several weeks, with an Op-Ed in The New York Times claiming that as many as 7,000 to 11,000 PLA troops have flooded into the northern part of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, known as the Gilgit-Baltistan region. This is an area through which China has been rebuilding the Karakoram Highway, which connects the Chinese region of Xinjiang by road and rail to Pakistan’s Chinese-built and funded ports on the Arabian Sea. Though Chinese engineers have been working on this infrastructure for some time, new reports suggest that several thousand PLA troops are stationed on the Khunjerab Pass on the Xinjiang border to provide security to the Karakoram Highway construction crews. Handfuls of militants have been suspected of transiting this region in the past to travel between Central Asia, Afghanistan and China’s Xinjiang province, and Chinese construction crews in Pakistan have been targeted a number of times by jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That said, a large Chinese troop presence in the region is likely to serve a larger purpose than simply stand-by protection for Chinese workers.Pakistan responded by describing the reports as fabricated and said a small Chinese presence was in the area to provide humanitarian assistance in the ongoing flood relief effort. Chinese state media also discussed recently how the Chinese government was shipping emergency aid to Pakistan via Kashgar, Xinjiang province, through the Khunjerab Pass to the Sost dry port in northern Pakistan. India expressed its concern over the reports of Chinese troops in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, said it was working to independently verify the claims, and then claimed to confirm at least 1,000 PLA troops had entered the region.Such claims of troop deployments in the region are often exaggerated for various political aims, and these latest reports are no exception. It is still not known for sure the exact number of PLA troops in and around Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (known as Gilgit-Baltistan) and what percentage of those are combat troops. It has been reported that a convoy of approximately 110 Chinese trucks recently delivered some 2,000 metric tons of mostly food aid through the Khunjerab Pass to the Gojal Valley, an area devastated by recent flooding and landslides. Chinese Bridges and Roads Co. (CBRC) has been working on expanding the Karakoram Highway for the past three years and has roughly 700 Chinese laborers and engineers working on the project. The highway expansion is expected to be completed by 2013, but the deadline is likely to be extended as a result of recent flooding.Though, as per various media sources, on-ground reports so far track closest with the Chinese claims of flood relief operations, such relief and construction work can also provide useful cover for a more gradual buildup and sustained military presence in the region. This prospect is on the minds of many U.S. and Indian defense officials who would not be pleased with the idea of China reinforcing military support for Pakistan through overland supply routes.

What can be the intentions behind this build-up?

Though Pakistan, as per its typical characteristic, has reacted defiantly to the rumors, Islamabad has much to gain from merely having the rumor out in the open. Pakistan’s geopolitical vulnerability cannot be overstated. The country already faces a host of internally wrenching issues but must also contend with the fact that the Pakistani heartland in the Indus River Valley sits near the border with Pakistan’s much bigger and more powerful Indian rival, denying Islamabad any meaningful strategic depth to adequately defend itself. Pakistan is thus on an interminable search for a reliable, external power patron for its security, and its preferred choice is the United States, which has the military might and economic heft to buttress Pakistani defenses. However, Washington must maintain a delicate balance on the subcontinent, moving between its deepening partnership with India and keeping Pakistan on life support to avoid having India become the unchallenged South Asian hegemon.

Though Pakistan will do whatever it can to hold U.S. interest in an alliance with Islamabad — and keeping the militant threat alive is very much a part of that calculus — it will more often than not be left feeling betrayed by its allies in Washington. With U.S. patience wearing thin on Afghanistan, talk of a U.S. betrayal is naturally creeping up again among Pakistani policymakers as Pakistan fears that a U.S. withdrawal from the region will leave Pakistan with little to defend against India, a massive militant mess to clean up and a weaker hand in Afghanistan. China, while unwilling to put its neck out for Pakistan and provoke retaliation by India, provides Islamabad with a vital military backup that Pakistan can not only use to elicit more defense support against the Indians, but also to capture Washington’s attention with a reminder that a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan could open the door for Chinese military expansion in South Asia.Chinese motives in the Kashmir affair are more complex. Even before the rumors, India and China were diplomatically sparring over the Chinese government’s recent refusal to issue a visa to a senior Indian army general on grounds that his command includes Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. Such diplomatic flare-ups have become more frequent over the past couple of years, as China has used visa issuances in disputed territory in Kashmir and in Arunachal Pradesh along the northern Indian border to assert its territorial claims while trying to discredit Indian claims. Even beyond Kashmir, China has injected life into its territorial claims throughout the East and South China seas, much to the consternation of the Pacific Rim states.China’s renewed assertiveness in these disputed territories can be explained in large part by the country’s resource acquisition strategy. As China has scaled up its efforts to scour the globe for energy resources to sustain its elephantine economy, it has increasingly sought to develop a military that can safeguard vital supply lines running through the Indian Ocean basin to and from the Persian Gulf. Building the Karakoram Highway through Kashmir, for example, allows China to substantially cut down the time it takes to transit supplies between the Pakistani coast and China’s western front.China’s increasing reliance on the military to secure its supply lines for commercial interests, along with other trends, has thus given the PLA a much more prominent say in Chinese policymaking in recent years. This trend has been reinforced by the Chinese government’s need to modernize the military and meet its growing budgetary needs following a large-scale recentralization effort in the 1990s that stripped the PLA of much of its business interests. Over the past decade, the PLA has taken a more prominent role in maintaining internal stability — including responses to natural disasters, riots and other disturbances — while increasing its participation in international peacekeeping efforts. As the PLA’s clout has grown in recent years, Chinese military officials have gone from remaining virtually silent on political affairs to becoming commentators for the Chinese state press on issues concerning Chinese foreign policy.The PLA’s political influence could also be factoring into the rising political tensions in Kashmir. After all, China’s naval expansion into the Indian Ocean basin for its primarily commercial interests has inevitably driven the modernization and expansion of the Indian navy, a process the United States supports out of its own interest to hedge against China. By both asserting its claims to territory in Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir and raising the prospect of more robust Chinese military support for Pakistan, the Chinese military can benefit from having India’s military focus on ground forces, which require a great deal of resources to maintain a large troop presence in rough terrain, while reducing the amount of attention and resources the Indian military can give to its naval modernization plans.

The Indian Response

There may be a number of commercial, political and military factors contributing to China’s military extensions into South Asia, but India is not as interested in the multifaceted purposes behind China’s moves as it is in the actual movement of troops along the Indian border. From the Indian point of view, the Chinese military is building up naval assets and fortifying its alliance with Pakistan to hem in India. However remote the possibility may be of another futile ground war with China (recall the Sino-Indian war of 1962) across the world’s roughest mountainous terrain, India is unlikely to downplay any notable shifts in China’s military disposition and infrastructure development in the region. India’s traditional response is to highlight the levers it holds with Tibet, which is crucial buffer territory for the Chinese. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit with the Dalai Lama was certainly not lost on Beijing. Chinese media have already reported recently that India is reinforcing its troop presence in Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, which flanks the Tibetan plateau. Singh also recently warned that India would have to “take adequate precautions” against Chinese “pinpricks” in Jammu and Kashmir, while maintaining hope of peaceful dialogue.The Chinese relief work in the area so far does not appear to have reached the level of criticality that would prompt India to reinforce its troop presence in Kashmir. However, tensions are continuing to escalate in the region and any meaningful shift in India’s troop disposition would carry significant military implications for the wider region.India has been attempting at least symbolically to lower its war posture with Pakistan and better manage its territorial claims by reducing its troop presence in select parts of Indian-administered Kashmir. If India is instead compelled to beef up its military presence in the region in reaction to Sino-Pakistani defense cooperation, Pakistan will be tempted to respond in kind, creating another set of issues for the United States to try to manage on the subcontinent. Washington has faced a persistent struggle in trying to convince Pakistan’s military to focus on the counterinsurgency effort in Pakistan and Afghanistan and leave it to the United States to ensure the Indian threat remains in check. Though the Pakistani security establishment is gradually adjusting its threat matrix to acknowledge the war right now is at home and not with India, Pakistan’s troop disposition remains largely unchanged, with 147,000 troops devoted to the counterinsurgency effort in northwestern Pakistan and roughly 150,000 troops in standard deployment formation along the eastern border with India.

The United States, like India, is keeping a watchful eye on China’s military movements on the subcontinent, providing another reason for the two to collaborate more closely on military affairs. Willard was quoted by the Indian state press Sept. 10 as saying that “any change in military relations or military maneuvers by China that raises concerns of India” could fall within U.S. Pacific Command’s area of responsibility, while also maintaining this is an issue for the Indian military to handle on its own. 

Though the United States is being exceedingly cautious in defining its role in this affair, it cannot avoid the fact that every time U.S. and Indian defense officials get together to discuss Pakistan and China, Islamabad’s fears of a U.S.-Indian military partnership are reinforced, drawing the Pakistanis closer to China. This combination of insecurities is creating a self-perpetuating threat matrix on the subcontinent with implications for U.S., Indian, Chinese and Pakistani defense strategy.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Geopolitics, China, War on Terror, Pakistan, Kashmir, United State of America, Islam, Jihad, India | Print | No Comments »

7. September 2010 by admin.

Rethinking American Options on Iran

By George FriedmanCourtsey: www.stratfor.comPublic discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked. The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased. But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse. There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try. In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations. The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter — and far more urgent — than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria’s close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz

I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would “just” leave the major issue — Hormuz.The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming. There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren’t going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran’s maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.) Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn’t deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran’s conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran’s conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed. Just as Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran’s nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus. In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That’s not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran’s conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is merely an added benefit. Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran

At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad’s handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don’t yet know, but the internal tension is growing.The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy. From the Iranian point of view — and from ours — Washington’s intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration’s stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don’t, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Iran, Geopolitics, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

4. September 2010 by admin.

Imagine A World Where Everyone Is A Muslim An American Muslim author wrote a huge volume to counter-attack the book of Ibtihal. He called his book; “Imagine a World With Everyone a Muslim.”Written by Dr. Thomas Ahmed His book too was sold in large numbers. It was really an amazing and interesting work and deserved some praise. He imitated the writing style of Dr. Ibtihal and began his book by saying, “Yesterday night I had a beautiful dream. In my dream, I woke up in a world with everyone a Muslim. I asked the people around me where the Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews went. They told me they had all willingly embraced Islam.” As the prophet Muhammad prophesied, that Allah had given him the entire earth planet as a mosque for prayer. Allah fulfilled his promise and made the light of truth to shine in each and every heart. I shouted praises and thanked Allah for the great victory that Islam achieved. Then, I began a tour around the globe to see how the world would look with everyone a Muslim. I began my world trip by visiting Europe. Every country I went to I saw women dressed up decently with the Islamic clothes covering the tempting parts of their bodies. I had never seen any thighs or hips of a woman. No woman was exposing half of her breasts or putting on tight jeans and shirts that revealed her sexual body. The only part of the woman I was able to see was her face. I had never seen a boy and a girl holding hands and walking shamelessly in the streets of Europe. In the public transportation women sat on one side and men on the other side. Women seemed to be happy and contented by sitting separately. No woman was physically touched or harassed by men. I left Europe and travelled to the United States of America. When I landed in New York, I felt as if I landed in Makka. Men wore long beards and white Islamic clothes. Everyone was carrying a rosary in one hand and in the other hand a copy of the Qur’an. There were no gangs in New York. When I asked what happened to those thousands of gangsters, I was told since America implemented the Shari’a law the gang activities were reduced gradually until the last gang leader was executed in public. Every thief got his hand cut off. No man and woman were permitted to live together without marriage. Many married men and women were stoned to death because of their adulterous relations. Unmarried women and men were scourged with hundred lashes for unlawful sexual relations. The Shari’a law made the Americans devout Muslims and compelled them to visit the mosques five times in a day without fail. The FBI and other American police were given the right to arrest everyone found roaming on the streets during the prayer time. I went to the beaches to see what change had happened there. To my surprise, I found all the beaches in America were converted into fishing places. The Islamic government in the White House considered the beaches as the places of vices where Satan used the bare-naked bodies of women to entice men to commit adultery, take drugs, and kill their fellow human beings. At that time, America had an eternal president who was ruling the White House forever like el-Gaddafi of Libya and Mubarak of Egypt. Only death could remove him from power. President Muhammad Ahmed Mahmud Al-Ameen had been ruling in the White House for a decade and a half.All places of entertainment were officially closed after America adopted the Islamic rules. There were no more cinemas, casinos, nightclubs, bars, etc. Men were encouraged to spend their free time at night in prayer. Women were discouraged from going out of their houses unless it was necessary such as going to school, work, or to the hospital in case of sickness. Moreover, women were discouraged from working in places where men could spend time with them in seclusion. The government of America nullified all drivers’ licenses that the American women used to possess during those dark years of unbelief. It was a crime for an American woman to drive a car. Girls were not allowed to ride bicycles. Female students travelled in buses from their houses to schools. American jails were almost empty most of the time. All maximum-security penitentiaries were shut down for lack of prisoners. The Shari’a law solved the problem of the huge amount of money that the government used to spend on keeping criminals in prisons. Every one who stole got his hand cut off. Every gangster was beheaded. All drug dealers got their heads chopped off. Every adulterer and adulteress were scourged with one hundred lashes. Every rebellious wife got beaten by her husband. Children were flogged by their parents in homes and scourged by their teachers at schools. In that way, children were well disciplined by their parents and teachers. Those kids who continued to be rebellious the law controlled them. I left America and traveled to the Middle East. I felt paradise had come to earth when I landed in Palestine. There were no more Muslims and Jews killing each other. Everyone had become Muslim. I traveled around the other Arab countries and I found people were living in peace and harmony. People sometimes left their shops and stores open and went to pray. No one ever dared to stretch his hand and steal a thing that did not belong to him. I went to Iraq and I did not find American marines, I traveled to Afghanistan, and I did not see the NATO troops. Taliban were ruling the country of Afghanistan. The so-called Islamic terrorists became main leaders of all Muslim and Arab countries. Muslims were able to restore the Caliph. All countries in the world accepted the President of the United States of America, Muhammad Al-Ameen as the Supreme Caliph and the rulers of other countries became governors under his control. The Supreme Caliph in the White House had the right to change any governor without giving any reason for that. The only country that rebelled against the Supreme Caliph was Iran. The Supreme Caliph tried to solve the problem of Iran through diplomacy but he could not. When Iran began to influence the Shiites of Iraq which finally led to civil war the Supreme Caliph in the US hit the rebellious country with nuclear weapons and erased it from the world map. Therefore, I was not able to visit Iran because it did not exist any more. I was told that America threatened to use weapons of mass destruction to hit any country that refused to accept Islam. The White House and the Pentagon were following the hadith of the prophet in which he said, ‘’I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, if they say it they uphold from me their wealth and bloods.” Countries that were totally destroyed and erased from the world map because of their refusal to convert to Islam and submit to the Supreme Caliph of the White House and used military force to combat against the invading armies of the Muslim Mujahedeen were Iran, Australia, India, China, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Denmark, Netherlands, and Canada. Those countries and their inhabitants were turned into desolation. I could not understand how a super power country like the United States of America was forced to convert to Islam whereas less powerful countries like those that resisted conversion were destroyed. I asked someone to explain to me that riddle. I was told that America was not converted through military force. An African American applied the law of Tayyiqia until he reached the White House as a senator.Then, he continued to act as a Christian until he won the general election and became the President of the United States of America.As soon as he won the election and occupied the White House as a head of the States, he declared himself to be the First Muslim Man to rule America.Of course, he did it gradually and in a very subtle way.First, he began to open the door and help some African American Muslim leaders to work in the society by winning Americans to Islam. In one of his speeches, he admitted openly he was a Muslim before he was brainwashed by his non-Muslim relatives and converted to Christianity. Then, he delivered another speech and said he found more religious tolerance and brotherhood in Islam than Christianity. In order to support his point he referred to the example of the famous boxer Muhammad Ali Kelly who was once a persecuted and ill-treated Christian and then converted to Islam. He said he found the justification of Kelly were compelling and his testimony of being a Muslim more promising. To cut a long story short towards the end of the second year in his reign the African American President of the United States of America surprised the world one particular morning when he declared his conversion from Christianity to Islam. The congress tried desperately for a year to impeach him for lying to the public before his election but it could not succeed. Article 18 of the Charter of Human Rights stood in the way of impeaching the converted president of the USA. Article 18.Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. After his conversion, the Muslim president succeeded first in converting each and every African American to Islam. Politics and ethnicity played important roles to the mass conversion of the African Americans. Christianity was made to represent slavery, racial discrimination, and the cause of all the ills that had befallen the African Americans whereas Islam became the symbol of brotherhood and freedom from the exploitation of the white men. Some African American Muslim leaders called for African Americans’ Liberation Movement (AALM). The new movement did not only convince African Americans but led many white Americans to forsake Christianity. The Muslim leaders openly preached in their mosques and public places against the Church and condemned it as the place of hypocrisy and deception. Many churches were forced to shut down due to the lack of membership and funding. Before the president ended his second term in power, half of America became Muslims. The new president elected was African American Muslim. This new president began persecuting the remaining Christians. By this time, many Christian Americans began a mass immigration to Canada and Europe. This immigration helped Islam to have a stronger grip in America.When Muslims became the majority in the States, there was public pressure on the White House to forsake the man-made laws and implement the divinely revealed laws of God. On the fourth year of his reign, the second African American Muslim President applied the Shari’a law and declared himself as Caliph.Then, began the American Islamic Invasions to other countries of the world. The first country that was invited to Islam and refused to accept it was the neighboring country Canada. The Pentagon used weapons of mass destruction to destroy Canada and erased it from the world map. Then, followed forced conversion of the other European countries. The United Kingdom willingly and gladly accepted Islam. This happened because there was military alliance between the two super power countries. After that, the countries of the world were converted one after the other. All Arab and Muslim countries joined the new Super Power Muslim country and accepted the President of the USA as the Supreme Caliph. Those rebellious countries, where Satan still had a strong hold on its leaders were invaded and hit with the weapons of mass destruction. During those invasions around two billion people perished. Millions of books were written in description of how those wars were fought and who were the outstanding military leaders in those wars. After those wars, Islam became the One World Religion and the Shari’a law was implemented all over the world.When I heard that the entire world applied the Shari’a law and Islam became the religion of everyone I shouted “Allah Akbar” and I woke up from my sleep and behold it was a dream.” Diana Stone wrote: “Dr. Ahmed, I’m reading your book, Ibtihal and Muslims’ Liberation Movement. You did an outstanding job of providing more information about Islam in one book than I have read anywhere. Writing it in a novel format made it easier to understand and retain the information. It’s a massive volume you must have spent years working on it”. Chapter 175 from my book, “Ibtihal and Muslims’ Liberation Movement”. Click on this link to view the book. http://www.publishamerica.net/product56703.html

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Infidels, Jihad, Islam | Print | No Comments »

1. September 2010 by admin.

Western forces fighting in southern Afghanistan had a problem. Too often, soldiers on patrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy. Their behavior suggested he was not the boy’s father. Then, British soldiers found that young Afghan men were actually trying to “touch and fondle them,” military investigator AnnaMaria Cardinalli told me. “The soldiers didn’t understand.”

All of this was so disconcerting that the Defense Department hired Cardinalli, a social scientist, to examine this mystery. Her report, “Pashtun Sexuality,” startled not even one Afghan. But Western forces were shocked - and repulsed.

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means “boy player.” The men like to boast about it.

“Having a boy has become a custom for us,” Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. “Whoever wants to show off should have a boy.”Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is most prevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan’s most important tribe. For centuries, the nation’s leaders have been Pashtun.

President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has six brothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family been bacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me they know that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid of retribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific for publication.

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an official capacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior “was rampant” among “soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talked about boys all the time.”

He added, “I didn’t see Karzai with anyone. He was in his palace most of the time.” He, too, declined to be identified.

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are a popular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeup and bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged men who throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Department report called “dancing boys” a “widespread, culturally sanctioned form of male rape.”

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens of thousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other place on Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can’t even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

“How can you fall in love if you can’t see her face,” 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. “We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful.”Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are “unclean” and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli’s team “how his wife could become pregnant,” her report said. When that was explained, he “reacted with disgust” and asked, “How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?”

That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It’s not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren’t in love with their boys.Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goal for coalition governments, as it should be.

But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who are victims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives - and Afghan society.“There’s no issue more horrifying and more deserving of our attention than this,” Cardinalli said. “I’m continually haunted by what I saw.”

As one boy, in tow of a man he called “my lord,” told the Reuters reporter: “Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my own boys.”Joel Brinkley is a professor of journalism at Stanford University and is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times.Source Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/28/INF21F2Q9H.DTL#ixzz0yFBsuz4j

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Muslims, Taliban, Afganistan, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

26. August 2010 by admin.

Why Christian Concept of Secularism is meaningless in India?

The very idea of a secular form of government- with priestly authority separated from the affairs of the state- is relatively a recent development in Europe. But it is a practice of extremely long standing in India- going back to Vedic times. 

Brahmins in India have long been classified as Vaidika and Laukika. Vaidika Brahmins are those that are engaged in priestly duties, while Laukika Brahmins are those that are active in the secular professions like medicine, engineering, law, teaching and others.

More importantly, the texts used as guides for religious and secular activities have always been different. This is not the case in Islam in which the Quran is not only the prayer book, but also the law book. It is claimed to be the basis for Shariat - or Islamic Law.

We can see this distinction more clearly when we look at Hindu religious texts. Many devout hindus use the Vishnusahasranama or some other prayer book in the religious functions. But it has never been Dharmashastra and others authored by sages like Brihaspati, Manu, Gautama. Kautilya’s Arthshastra was a standard manual on adminsitration. None of these is considered a religious text, or ever used in religious ceremonies. We find a clear separation the religious and the secular.

This was even true in vedic times. The vedas and the Brahmanas are religious texts, but they were never used as law books. The guidelines for legal and adminsitrative duties were laid down in sutra works like Dharmasutras, Nyayasutras and others. Even among sutra works, there was separation into Grihya (household) and srauta (sacred).

This was so even in practice as we learn from from ancient literature. The famous vedic sage Vishwamitra was born into a royal family but wanted to be known as a vedic seer. He has to give up his kingdom and perform a long penancebefore he could gain recognition as one. The reverse was also true. In the case of emperor Bharata (son of Dusyant and Shakuntala) it was the opposite. Finding his owns sons unfit to rule, he adopted a son of vedi priestly family of Bharadvaja as his heir. It was this Bharadvaja’s son Vitatha who succeeded Bharat as King. But he was no longer recognized as a sage or priest.

This remained true even in historical times. The famous Madhava seer Jayatirtha (1440-88) was born into royal Deshpande family. But he had to give up his claim to royalty before being accepted as the head of the Madhava sect. The message is simple: one could not be both ruler and priest. Theocracy was out of the question - both in theory and in practice. It is well know that Gautama Buddha was born into a hindu royal family, but gave up his claims when he founded his religion. Same is the case with Vardhman Mahavir, who was also born into a hindu royal family but gave up his kingdom and later founded Jainism. 

Madhavachaerya, better known as Vidyaranya inspired the founding of the Vijayanagar Empire when Hinduism was facing its greatest crisis. Similarly, Ramdas inspired Shivaji. But neither Vidyaranya nor Ramdas sought any political power. 

Contrast this with the record of Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran.

This record of Hinduism should be compared to the history of Christianity (of medieval Europe) and Islam, and the ideology that underlies them. Both these religions are also theocracies. In Islam, Quran is not only the prayer book, it is also the law book. For the same reason, there is no clear separation between priestly and secular duties as there has been in Hinduism since time immemorial. The Islamic code of law - the so called Shariat- is based on the Quran which is also the prayerbook of Islam. Muslim clergy claim the right to interfere in the affairs of the stae in the name of religious duty.

The same was true of Medieval Christianity. Government as the secular arm of the church and therefore subject to priestly authority was a claim that was fully broken only by the disestablishment of religion in Europe following the French Revolution. In the United States, the First Amedment to the Constitution removed all influence of religion upon the government.

Seven hundred years ago Pope Boniface VIII has assereted his secular authority in the following words:

”Both swords, the spiritual and the material (or secular), are in the power of the Church. The Spiritual is wielded by the Church; the material for the Chruch. The one by the hand of the priest; the other by the hands of kings and knights at the will and sufferance of the priest.”

This is a clear statement of how the Church regarded the state as the “secular arm” of the Church. West broke the power of Church through secularization of the state. In Islamic countries this has still not happened. For this to happen these countries have to completely remove the influence of clergy - the mullahs- from the affairs of the state. Even in India, muslims have not let that happen, organizations like Muslim Personal Law Board are insisting on separate laws - laws that would be administered by the clergy. The same phenomenon is raising its head in Britain. Even in United States, there has been one at least one case of forced marriages of under-age Muslim girls against the law of the land. Blasphemy law has also been exercised by assassinating an Egyptian scholar living in Texas for expressing his dissenting views. In India, in the name of “Secularism” and “religious rights”, muslim religious leaders are demanding the right to function as a theocratic State with a State administered according to Islamic Law.

The reality is: as with Medieval Christianity, Islam even today regards secular authority as far more important than the spiritual content. More often than not the Muslim clergy have no spiritual vision to offer, being simply politicians in religious garb. God is simply the pretext used to extend and strengthen its power and influence in the temporal world. This is the characteristic of a theocracy rather than a true spiritual tradition. 

The question is what is the source of this theocratic ideology?

The simple answer is Monotheism/Exclusivism is the foundation of Theocracy.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Christianity, Politics, History, Islam, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

18. July 2010 by admin.

Why Islam will never accept Israel It is a common belief that the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict. However, if anything, the conflict is more of a “Muslim-Jewish” one than an “Arab-Israeli” one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of “jihad,” “Allahu Akbar,” and the bloodcurdling scream of “Idbah al- Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly “secular” PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel? There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: “Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!” It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel. Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself “Messenger of Allah” in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad’s “calling,” three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur’an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad. Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the “final seal of the prophets,” he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar. In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad’s Arab pagan enemies and had “betrayed” him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a “concubine.” In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as “second-class citizens.” Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D. This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur’an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur’an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. “The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”‘ Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own “final solution” in store for the Jews already in the 7th century. The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur’an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine “Palestine” in the 7th century, the land became part of “Dar al-Islam” (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel’s extermination), she remains part of “Dar al harb” (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of “real estate.” Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur’an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel. Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of “reformation,” it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Israel, Islam | Print | No Comments »