My Views on News

Digging the Iraq Hole Deeper

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 21:24

Rami G Khouri

via Post Global

The land mine analogy is catchy, but, alas, not very pertinent. The hole-digging analogy is slightly better: when you're sinking into a deepening hole and you need to stabilize the situation, stop digging.

The fact is, nobody really knows how Iraq can be defused while the United States insists on keeping its military forces there, and even sending more. The presence of 150,000+ American troops and the advent of a stable, peaceful Iraq are probably mutually exclusive. We should start by acknowledging this, and from there seek a practical route to a stable, unified Iraq by asking the U.S. to declare the start of a gradual but steady withdrawal from Iraq, restoring the country to a sovereign state.

That might trigger a more vigorous effort by Iraqis to achieve a constitutional accord, because they would have a legitimate indigenous government to aspire to join and influence. The Iraqi government today, backed by U.S. armed forces, enjoys only tenuous legitimacy. Many in the country shy away from association with it or seek to replace it. Legitimacy will spur stability, rather than the confused American sense that more troops and security operations will create a stable situation.

Technorati Tags: Iraq

Shiitization in Syria

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 11:57

Author:  Issandr El Amrani

My friend Andrew Tabler, the editor of Syria Today and a very knowledgeable guy on all things shami, has a thought-provoking piece in the NY Times Magazine about the “Shiitization”of Syria:

Over the last five years, however, Iranian donors have financed the restoration of half a dozen Shiite tombs and shrines in Syria and built at least one Shiite religious school near Damascus; the school is named after Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Meanwhile, Iran and the Shiite militias it supports in Iraq now sponsor a number of Arabic-language Internet portals as well as satellite TV stations broadcasting Shiite religious programming into Syria.

Direct inquiries into Shiite numbers in Syria raise more questions than answers, as the sensitive topic gives observers complex incentives to round up or down. When I asked Sayyid Abdullah Nizam, leader of Syria’s Shiite community, to estimate the size of his flock, he put it at less than 1 percent of the population of 19 million. Asked the same question, the leader of Syria’s Sunnis, Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmad Badr Eddin Hassoun, replied carefully; he said that 6 to 8 percent of Syrians now adhere to the “Jaafari school,” the school of Islamic jurisprudence followed by mainstream Shiites in Iran and Lebanon.

It was only when I met an actual convert that the mufti’s words began to make sense. Louay, a 28-year-old teacher in Damascus wearing jeans, a wool sweater and a close-cropped beard, seemed the epitome of the capital’s Sunni middle class. Yet within the last year, as Hezbollah rose to national prominence in the Lebanese government, he — along with his mother — began practicing Shiite Islam. He changed the wording of his prayers and his posture while praying, holding his arms at his sides instead of before him, and during Ramadan he followed Shiite customs on breaking the fast. In many Middle Eastern countries, his conversion wouldn’t be possible — it would be considered apostasy. The Syrian regime restricts its people’s political liberties, but unlike most other ruling dynasties in the Arab world, it allows freedom of religion. “In Saudi Arabia, they ban books on other faiths,” Louay said. “In Syria, I can buy whatever book on religion I want, and no one can say a word.”

Politics, it seems, is only one of the attractions of Shiism. In addition to Louay, I spoke with four other Syrian converts, who asked not to be identified for fear of harassment by Sunni fundamentalists. Louay and the others all spoke of religious transformation as much as of Hezbollah. “Half the reason why I converted was because of Ijtihad,” Louay said, using the Arabic word for the independent interpretation of the Koran and the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Suddenly the mufti’s enigmatic answer became clearer. Ijtihad is practiced more widely by Shiites of the Jaafari school than by Sunnis. These Shiites believe that, on all but the largest moral issues, Muslims should interpret their faith by reading holy texts and reasoning back and forth between them and current issues. Many Sunnis say they quietly practice Ijtihad in everyday life as well, but conservative Sunnis do not encourage individual interpretation of the Koran.

. . .

Even if Shiitization is at this point as much a rumor as a confirmed fact, the subject is highly charged. It is part of a much larger discussion among Washington’s Sunni allies about the rise of a “Shiite Crescent” — an Iranian-backed alliance stretching westward from Iran to Syria to Lebanon that could challenge the traditional power of Sunni elites. With its Sunni masses and minority Tehran-backed regime, Syria is the weak link in the chain. Many Syrians say they are worried Iraq’s sectarian strife might spread to Syria; the execution of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, at the hands of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, infuriated many. The conversion of Syrians to Shiism could create still more conflict.

Meanwhile, the regional politics are becoming ever more delicate. Damascus is reportedly unhappy about Iran’s recent dialogue with Saudi Arabia over the future of Lebanon; Tehran, in turn, is rumored to be questioning Assad’s recent peace overtures toward Israel. Both sides denied a rift when Assad visited Tehran in February. But only days later, a group of Syrian intellectuals and parliamentarians loyal to Assad lambasted an Iranian deputy foreign minister in scripted fashion in a closed-door (but widely reported) session. The point of contention? Their unhappiness with what they saw as Iranian support for the Shiitization of Syria.

Sorry for quoting so much it, but I think the article raises a lot of important questions. Is Iran actively trying to convert Sunnis in Syria and other countries? Does it do so alongside its alliance with Syria, and what kind of tension exist between the two policies? What role, if any, does the regime’s mixed Sunni-Alawi nature have in shaping that attitude — in the Alawi community in particular? Is it an issue for other groups in Syria, notably the Muslim Brotherhood? Can we read too much into Iranian efforts to proselytize their faith — after all the US, under domestic pressure from evangelicals, monitors the religious freedom of Christian minority groups across the world and there is a long history of close collaboration between missionaries and the State Department (or indeed missionaries and the European colonial powers).

I am tempted to see any claim that there is a pro-active, widespread Iranian Shiitization program in the region as highly dubious. However, I can certainly understand the appeal of certain forms of Shiism to Sunnis who are living in an increasingly charged religious atmosphere, with Salafist ideas of interpreting the Sunna gaining ever more dominance and extreme concepts such as hezbaijtihad as a Shia is fascinating, and I can understand that might be so in a country where Shias are in a minority — but is it really the case in Iran, where there might be a lot of social pressure to follow this or that mujtahid or marjaa? becoming commonplace in countries like Egypt. The only Sunni convert to Shiism I know “switched” because he was appalled by the growing influence of Wahhabism on mainstream Sunni thought and believed that strand of Islam was heading to the dustbin of history. Andrew’s mention of “easier access” to

View Original Article

The Administrations Misleading Public Statement on Iraq

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 08:32

Author:  nytexan

I ran across this very interesting web site Bush on Iraq, The Bush Administrations Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statement on Iraq. The site draws all its information from a report prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman in 2004 “Iraq On The Record” . The report deals with the misleading statements made by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice.

The web site breaks down each statement by person and gives the reason for why it’s misleading. Or you could have the pleasure of reading all 36 pages yourself of Waxman’s report.

From Their Website:

Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.

Waxman has been very busy gathering information the last few years. The report looks very strong for impeachment and treason.

View Original Article




Technorati Tags: US, Iraq

Mission Accomplished

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 08:28

thumb-accomplished.jpg

Bush has accomplished many things since the invasion on Iraq:

The death of habeas corpus;

The destruction of the bill of rights;

The patriot act 1 and 2;

Wire tapping and ease dropping;

Abandon the treaties of the Geneva Convention

Dropping the U.S. statues in the world community; 

Authorizing torture; 

Integrating church and state;

Al Qaeda in Iraq;

Made more terrorist;

Instability in the Middle East;

Increased the number of enemies worldwide.

These are but a few things Bush has accomplishments in the last four year.

View Original Article



Technorati Tags: US, Bush

How a British jihadi saw the light

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 06:40

Ed Hussain, once a proponent of radical Islam in London, tells how his time as a teacher in Saudi Arabia led him to turn against extremism


During our first two months in Jeddah, Faye and I relished our new and luxurious lifestyle: a shiny jeep, two swimming pools, domestic help, and a tax-free salary. The luxury of living in a modern city with a developed infrastructure cocooned me from the frightful reality of life in Saudi Arabia.

My goatee beard and good Arabic ensured that I could pass for an Arab.

But looking like a young Saudi was not enough: I had to act Saudi, be Saudi. And here I failed.

My first clash with Saudi culture came when, being driven around in a bulletproof jeep, I saw African women in black abayas tending to the rubbish bins outside restaurants, residences and other busy places.

“Why are there so many black cleaners on the streets?” I asked the driver. The driver laughed. “They’re not cleaners. They are scavengers; women who collect cardboard from all across Jeddah and then sell it. They also collect bottles, drink cans, bags.”

“You don’t find it objectionable that poor immigrant women work in such undignified and unhygienic conditions on the streets?”

“Believe me, there are worse jobs women can do.”

Though it grieves me to admit it, the driver was right. In Saudi Arabia women indeed did do worse jobs. Many of the African women lived in an area of Jeddah known as Karantina, a slum full of poverty, prostitution and disease.

A visit to Karantina, a perversion of the term “quarantine”, was one of the worst of my life. Thousands of people who had been living in Saudi Arabia for decades, but without passports, had been deemed “illegal” by the government and, quite literally, abandoned under a flyover.

A non-Saudi black student I had met at the British Council accompanied me. “Last week a woman gave birth here,” he said, pointing to a ramshackle cardboard shanty. Disturbed, I now realised that the materials I had seen those women carrying were not always for sale but for shelter.

I had never expected to see such naked poverty in Saudi Arabia.

At that moment it dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free and were given government housing.

Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia. At that moment I longed to be home again.

All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal.

Standing in Karantina that day, I reminisced and marvelled over what I previously considered as wrong: mixed-race, mixed-religion marriages. The students to whom I described life in modern multi-ethnic Britain could not comprehend that such a world of freedom, away from “normal” Saudi racism, could exist.

Racism was an integral part of Saudi society. My students often used the word “nigger” to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world’s most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.

Part of this local culture consisted of public institutions being segregated and women banned from driving on the grounds that it would give rise to “licentiousness”. I was repeatedly astounded at the stares Faye got from Saudi men and I from Saudi women.

Faye was not immodest in her dress. Out of respect for local custom, she wore the long black abaya and covered her hair in a black scarf. In all the years I had known my wife, never had I seen her appear so dull. Yet on two occasions she was accosted by passing Saudi youths from their cars. On another occasion a man pulled up beside our car and offered her his phone number.

In supermarkets I only had to be away from Faye for five minutes and Saudi men would hiss or whisper obscenities as they walked past. When Faye discussed her experiences with local women at the British Council they said: “Welcome to Saudi Arabia.”

After a month in Jeddah I heard from an Asian taxi driver about a Filipino worker who had brought his new bride to live with him in Jeddah. After visiting the Balad shopping district the couple caught a taxi home. Some way through their journey the Saudi driver complained that the car was not working properly and perhaps the man could help push it. The passenger obliged. Within seconds the Saudi driver had sped off with the man’s wife in his car and, months later, there was still no clue as to her whereabouts.

We had heard stories of the abduction of women from taxis by sex-deprived Saudi youths. At a Saudi friend’s wedding at a luxurious hotel in Jeddah, women dared not step out of their hotel rooms and walk to the banqueting hall for fear of abduction by the bodyguards of a Saudi prince who also happened to be staying there.

Why had the veil and segregation not prevented such behaviour? My Saudi acquaintances, many of them university graduates, argued strongly that, on the contrary, it was the veil and other social norms that were responsible for such widespread sexual frustration among Saudi youth.

At work the British Council introduced free internet access for educational purposes. Within days the students had downloaded the most obscene pornography from sites banned in Saudi Arabia, but easily accessed via the British Council’s satellite connection. Segregation of the sexes, made worse by the veil, had spawned a culture of pent-up sexual frustration that expressed itself in the unhealthiest ways.

Using Bluetooth technology on mobile phones, strangers sent pornographic clips to one another. Many of the clips were recordings of homosexual acts between Saudis and many featured young Saudis in orgies in Lebanon and Egypt. The obsession with sex in Saudi Arabia had reached worrying levels: rape and abuse of both sexes occurred frequently, some cases even reaching the usually censored national press.

My students told me about the day in March 2002 when the Muttawa [the religious police] had forbidden firefighters in Mecca from entering a blazing school building because the girls inside were not wearing veils. Consequently 15 young women burnt to death, but Wahhabism held its head high, claiming that God’s law had been maintained.

As a young Islamist, I organised events at college and in the local community that were strictly segregated and I believed in it. Living in Saudi Arabia, I could see the logical outcome of such segregation.

In my Islamist days we relished stating that Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases were the result of the moral degeneracy of the West. Large numbers of Islamists in Britain hounded prostitutes in Brick Lane and flippantly quoted divorce and abortion rates in Britain. The implication was that Muslim morality was superior. Now, more than ever, I was convinced that this too was Islamist propaganda, designed to undermine the West and inject false confidence in Muslim minds.

I worried whether my observations were idiosyncratic, the musings of a wandering mind. I discussed my troubles with other British Muslims working at the British Council. Jamal, who was of a Wahhabi bent, fully agreed with what I observed and went further. “Ed, my wife wore the veil back home in Britain and even there she did not get as many stares as she gets when we go out here.” Another British Muslim had gone as far as tinting his car windows black in order to prevent young Saudis gaping at his wife.

The problems of Saudi Arabia were not limited to racism and sexual frustration.

In contemporary Wahhabism there are two broad factions. One is publicly supportive of the House of Saud, and will endorse any policy decision reached by the Saudi government and provide scriptural justification for it. The second believes that the House of Saud should be forcibly removed and the Wahhabi clerics take charge. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are from the second school.

In Mecca, Medina and Jeddah I met young men with angry faces from Europe, students at various Wahhabi seminaries. They reminded me of my extremist days.

They were candid in discussing their frustrations with Saudi Arabia. The country was not sufficiently Islamic; it had strayed from the teachings of Wahhabism. They were firmly on the side of the monarchy and the clerics who supported it. Soon they were to return to the West, well versed in Arabic, fully indoctrinated by Wahhabism, to become imams in British mosques.

By the summer of 2005 Faye and I had only eight weeks left in Saudi Arabia before we would return home to London. Thursday, July 7, was the beginning of the Saudi weekend. Faye and I were due to lunch with Sultan, a Saudi banker who was financial adviser to four government ministers. I wanted to gauge what he and his wife, Faye’s student, thought about life inside the land of their birth.

On television that morning we watched the developing story of a power cut on the London Underground. As the cameras focused on King’s Cross, Edgware Road, Aldgate and Russell Square, I looked on with a mixture of interest and homesickness. Soon the power-cut story turned into shell-shocked reportage of a series of terrorist bombings.

My initial suspicion was that the perpetrators were Saudis. My experience of them, their virulence towards my non-Muslim friends, their hate-filled textbooks, made me think that Bin Laden’s Saudi soldiers had now targeted my home town. It never crossed my mind that the rhetoric of jihad introduced to Britain by Hizb ut-Tahrir could have anything to do with such horror.

My sister avoided the suicide attack on Aldgate station by four minutes. On the previous day London had won the Olympic bid. At the British Council we had celebrated along with the nation that was now in mourning.

The G8 summit in Scotland had also been derailed by events further south. The summit, thanks largely to the combined efforts of Tony Blair and Bob Geldof, had been set to tackle poverty in Africa. Now it was forced to address Islamist terrorism; Arab grievances had hijacked the agenda again.

The fact that hundreds of children die in Africa every day would be of no relevance to a committed Islamist. In the extremist mind the plight of the tiny Palestinian nation is more important than the deaths of millions of black Africans. Let them die, they’re not Muslims, would be the unspoken line of argument. As an Islamist it was only the suffering of Muslims that had moved me. Now human suffering mattered to me, regardless of religion.

Faye and I were glued to the television for hours. Watching fellow Londoners come out of Tube stations injured and mortified, but facing the world with a defiant sense of dignity, made me feel proud to be British.

We met Sultan and his wife at an Indian restaurant near the British Council. Sultan was in his early thirties and his wife in her late twenties. They had travelled widely and seemed much more liberal than most Saudis I had met. Behind a makeshift partition, the restaurant surroundings were considered private and his wife, to my amazement, removed her veil.

We discussed our travels.

Sultan spoke fondly of his time in London, particularly his placement at Coutts as a trainee banker. We then moved on to the subject uppermost in my mind, the terrorist attacks on London. My host did not really seem to care. He expressed no real sympathy or shock, despite speaking so warmly of his time in London.

“I suppose they will say Bin Laden was behind the attacks. They blamed us for 9/11,” he said.

Keen to take him up on his comment, I asked him: “Based on your education in Saudi Arabian schools, do you think there is a connection between the form of Islam children are taught here and the action of 15 Saudi men on September 11?”

Without thinking, his immediate response was, ‘No. No, because Saudis were not behind 9/11. The plane hijackers were not Saudi men. One thousand two hundred and forty-six Jews were absent from work on that day and there is the proof that they, the Jews, were behind the killings. Not Saudis.”

It was the first time I heard so precise a number of Jewish absentees. I sat there pondering on the pan-Arab denial of the truth, a refusal to accept that the Wahhabi jihadi terrorism festering in their midst had inflicted calamities on the entire world.

In my class the following Sunday, the beginning of the Saudi working week, were nearly 60 Saudis. Only one mentioned the London bombings.

“Was your family harmed?” he asked.

“My sister missed an explosion by four minutes but otherwise they’re all fine, thank you.”

The student, before a full class, sighed and said: “There are no benefits in terrorism. Why do people kill innocents?”

Two others quickly gave him his answer in Arabic: “There are benefits. They will feel how we feel.”

I was livid. “Excuse me?” I said. “Who will know how it feels?”

“We don’t mean you, teacher,” said one. “We are talking about people in England. You are here. They need to know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel.”

“The British people have been bombed by the IRA for years,” I retorted. “Londoners were bombed by Hitler during the blitz. The largest demonstrations against the war in Iraq were in London. People in Britain don’t need to be taught what it feels like to be bombed.”

Several students nodded in agreement. The argumentative ones became quiet. Were they convinced by what I had said? It was difficult to tell.

Two weeks after the terrorist attacks in London another Saudi student raised his hand and asked: “Teacher, how can I go to London?”

“Much depends on your reason for going to Britain. Do you want to study or just be a tourist?”

“Teacher, I want to go London next month. I want bomb, big bomb in London, again. I want make jihad!”

“What?” I exclaimed. Another student raised both hands and shouted: “Me too! Me too!”

Other students applauded those who had just articulated what many of them were thinking. I was incandescent. In protest I walked out of the classroom to a chorus of jeering and catcalls.

My time in Saudi Arabia bolstered my conviction that an austere form of Islam (Wahhabism) married to a politicised Islam (Islamism) is wreaking havoc in the world. This anger-ridden ideology, an ideology I once advocated, is not only a threat to Islam and Muslims, but to the entire civilised world.

I vowed, in my own limited way, to fight those who had hijacked my faith, defamed my prophet and killed thousands of my own people: the human race. I was encouraged when Tony Blair announced on August 5, 2005, plans to proscribe an array of Islamist organisations that operated in Britain, foremost among them Hizb ut-Tahrir.

At the time I was impressed by Blair’s resolve. The Hizb should have been outlawed a decade ago and so spared many of us so much misery. Sadly the legislation was shelved last year amid fears that a ban would only add to the group’s attraction, so it remains both legal and active today. But it is not too late.

© Ed Husain 2007

Extracted from The Islamist, to be published by Penguin on May 3, £8.99. Copies can be ordered for £8.54 including postage from The Sunday Times BooksFirst on 0870 165 8585

Leaving Islamic Fascism

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 06:30

Author:  Wolf Pangloss

Ed Hussain, former militant agitator for islamist causes in Londonistan, moved to Saudi Arabia with his wife and went through a process that ended up with Hussein being disgusted by Saudi Arabia, Arabs, Jihadism, and eventually rejecting Islamism. Now he believes not in Islamism, and moreover believes that Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamist groups should be banned in England and elsewhere.

  • He started with indoctrination into Islamism when he lived in England. He believed in segregation of the sexes, segregation of the races, veiled women, strict separation between Muslims and non-Muslims, sharia, jihad, dhimmi and jizya, overthrow of non-Islamic governments, reconquest of all formerly Islamic lands, a Caliphate, and conquest of the world for Islam.
  • Then he and his wife moved to Saudi Arabia to teach.
  • The propaganda that there is no racism in Islam came up against the fact that there is no more racist place than Saudi Arabia, and that Muslims are not equal if their skin is dark.
  • The propaganda that there is no sexism in Islam because women are covered came up against the fact that there is no land on earth that is more difficult for women to live in than Saudi Arabia. They cannot drive, they cannot leave their homes because they are likely to be kidnapped by sex-crazed Saudis, they cannot work or even leave the country. Hatred and objectification of women is endemic in Wahhabist Islam.
  • The propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace came up against the fact that the state sect of Wahhabism really does mandate the jihad of the sword against non-Muslims, or actually of non-Wahhabists, and prohibits those who believe in it from feeling any shared humanity with anyone who is not a Wahabbist Arab Muslim.
  • The propaganda that Islam respects facts came up against the widespread refusal of Wahabbists to believe anything bad about Muslims and to blame everything bad that happens on Jews, who are accused of engaging in the wildest conspiracies imaginable.
  • The propaganda that Jihad isn’t really criminal mass-murder and a wicked perversion of the religious impulse came up against the fact of 7/7/2005 in London, and the near death of the author’s sister who was nearly caught in one of the blasts. Combine this with the total callousness of Saudis after 7/7 for a shock to anyone who keeps an innate sense of morality or decency or goodness and acts on it.

The trick is not to recognize the wickedness and weakness of the Wahabbist Assassin ideology, an ideology that promotes death and hatred instead of life and love, but to find out how to spread this knowledge to Muslims to save the Muslims who already believe in the Assassins’ ideology, and to inoculate those who believe in a kind and humanist non-political Islam against the propaganda of the Islamists so they don’t fall for it when they encounter it.


h/t: Pajamas Media

View Original Article

Muslim Woman Runs for Danish Parliament

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 03:42

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A Muslim woman denounced and ridiculed by nationalists for wearing an Islamic head scarf announced Friday she was running for Parliament — a move bound to rekindle heated debate about Islam in Denmark.

The next election is not expected until 2009, but the mere thought of Asama Abdol-Hamid entering the legislature has revived fears of clashing cultures that emerged last year when Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sparked riots in Muslim countries.

Even mainstream politicians and party colleagues in the left-wing Red-Green Alliance have questioned whether Abdol-Hamid, who moved to Denmark at age 6 with her Palestinian family, shares the fundamental values of Danish society.

Besides covering her hair, the 25-year-old refuses to shake hands with men. Instead, she greets them by laying her right hand on her heart in Muslim tradition.

“I want another Denmark where we talk about the difference between groups,” she said at a news conference announcing her candidacy. “When we talk about values, (we need) to be open to whatever people are, Muslim or non-Muslim.”

Abdol-Hamid has repeatedly been questioned about her views on the death penalty, gender equality and gay rights — issues on which many Danes believe Islam conflicts with their values.

Abdol-Hamid said she does not support the death penalty, which is outlawed in Denmark, and is “unconcerned with whatever sexual or ethnic background people have.”

“We have a constitution in Denmark and it will be upheld,” she added, smiling broadly under a shimmering, turquoise head scarf.

A social worker from the central city of Odense, Abdol-Hamid made headlines in 2006 when she became the first woman to host a Danish TV show wearing a head scarf. The program sought to promote dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark in the wake of the prophet cartoon crisis.

Danes were shocked last year when massive protests erupted in Muslim countries against the 12 drawings first published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in several Western media.

While Danish embassies were set on fire in some countries, Muslims in Denmark demonstrated peacefully, denouncing violence and calling for more respect for their religion.

Still, many Danes feel Muslim immigrants, who number some 200,000, have brought with them conservative views on women and sexuality that clash with traditionally liberal values in this country of 5.4 million.

After her plans to run for Parliament became known last week, members of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, a partner of the center-right government, took turns explaining why she was not fit for the assembly.

One said the Islamic head scarf was a totalitarian symbol and compared it to a swastika. Another suggested Abdol-Hamid had been brainwashed and needed psychiatric help.

Most other parties dismissed such comments, while Muslim leaders said they underscored a lack of respect for Islam in Denmark.

“I thought we had learned something from the cartoon crisis but we haven’t,” said Zubair Butt Hussain, spokesman for Muslims in Dialogue. “We are still engaging in monologues, blaming each other and making generalizations about Islam.”

But even among those who rejected the People’s Party’s comments, there were some who felt Abdol-Hamid’s religious views could be problematic.

“If you don’t shake hands with men, you can’t be a part of the Danish Parliament,” said Hamid El Mousti, a member of Copenhagen’s city council. “I’m from Morocco and we shake hands with women. If you do not salute people, communication between you and others will be very bad.”

Associated Press writer Katie Rice contributed to this report.

An Issue Of Justice: Origins Of The Israel/Palestine

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 03:23

Author:  Tartan

The best lecture I’ve heard on the creation of Israel and how we’ve arrived at the present day situation. Mostly about the Israel/Palestine conflict but also covers the invasion of Lebanon. Interestingly the title of this blog was inspired by this lecture where Finkelstein advises calling solidarity groups “justice for Palestine” groups. [...]

View Original Article

Former Head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit: Don’t Buy Tenet’s

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 03:21

On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” ex-CIA Director George Tenet told CBS’ Scott Pelley the Bush administration misrepresented his now famous “slam dunk” reference to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (video available here).

However, one of Tenet’s former employees, Michael Scheuer, published an op-edCaptain Ed) in the Washington Post Sunday cautioning that “the former director of central intelligence is out to absolve himself of the failings of 9/11 and Iraq.” (h/t

As a result, in Scheuer's view, “we shouldn't buy his attempts to let himself off the hook.”

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, who I interviewed last September, wasn’t shy with his criticisms of his former boss, who apparently has quite a history of blaming others for his own failures (emphasis added throughout):

View Original Article

Syrian Regime Mentality

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 03:08

via  Free Michel Kilo Now - Enough Already:

My friend Hashem responded to Alex (a very visible Regime Apologist) on Mosaics in a formidable way as usual, please read.

Alex:

We’ve had this conversation before and we are just going round in circles. All I’d like to say is, Bunni doesn’t deserve 5 years in jail whatever he said. I don’t believe anyone is an advocator of civil war in Syria, but this is what the regime wants us all to believe to stay in power. And please excuse me for not believing anything this regime says, I have my reasons you see. In any case, things *have* got worse since our last conversation. Let’s not forget the atrocities of the Syrian regime either, which were more than just words. I’ll stop right here…

When you say that one should meet the regime half way, isn’t that what Michel Kilo did for many years – Some even accused him of being too soft on the regime. He did meet them half way, look were he ended up. His arrest was a warning to all Syrians, it has a profound warning behind it, since Bashar supported it even though he always used to show off on TV that he had opposition (meaning Michel), but then he turned against him when it suited him. The same happened to the Damascus spring lot. They were very civil and met the regime half way. Look what happened to them. This regime doesn’t understand the word civil. They react to a bullet by bombs and to words by beatings and jailing.

Thanks to George (Bush) and Bashar who have made sure that there is no real or credible opposition in our region let alone Syria. That’s where I really disagree with you or anyone who attacks the notion of opposition. Of course there is no credible opposition, they are all in jail if not dead and others wouldn’t dare utter a word even if it’s for the good of the country anymore.

While we don’t have a choice for having Bashar for another 7 years, but I do have a choice that I will always voice my opinion in opposition to their atrocities. At least, I refuse to accept the rhetoric of the Syrian regime and more importantly their blatant belligerence against our good people.

When you say there are no alternative solutions, when the Syrian regime stops the atrocities against its own citizens (unlikely) then there’ll be many solutions, otherwise it will not happen. The regime reacts with contempt against our people when they feel threatened or strong and there’s no end to this behaviour in sight.Why should they loose power?don’t blame me for thinking that the only way this regime understands is force. Look how they were kicked out of Lebanon like dogs. They humiliated Syria, they couldn’t have used an ounce of brain power (I know it’s difficult for them) and realised that it’s time to go, and keep relations good between the two neighbours who have a lot in common. We had colonial powers who kept excellent relationships to this day with the countries they colonised, but for the Syrian regime, this is incomprehensible. It’s better to commit atrocities, overstay their welcome then expect everyone to be on their side. This alone explains what kind of people make up this defunct regime.
When the regime stops the atrocities, (killing, stealing, jailing …) then things will change. However, they won’t allow this to happen. And

Meanwhile, am I supposed to listen to you and wait indefinitely while the best Syrians are rotting in medieval prisons in horrible conditions?

Having said that, the Syrian regime is showing its true colours to a whole new generation and the way their plans are going will ensure they will not be able to continue in this manner. They might be feeling strong now because of a couple of foreign visits (scraping the barrel or what) but this is transitory. Their economic direction alone will cause them problems. The very system they used to rob the country will work against them.

I don’t trust the regime and their backward cronies who are too scared to voice an opinion and are just there as yes half men – I knew I could one day find a more appropriate use for this instead of calling all Arab leaders half men on public television. What travesty…

Winograd Findings Lead to Calls for Olmert to Resign

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 02:37

The interim Winograd report on the Second Lebanon War has not yet been published, but leaked previews have already prompted calls for the government's resignation.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and ex-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz all came in for varying degrees of sharp criticism regarding their functioning in last summer's war with Hizbullah. Some details of the preliminary findings were publicized by Channel Ten news over the weekend.

Though the members of the Winograd Commission were practically hand-picked by Olmert, they found him to have "failed" in the way he oversaw the war. The word "failure" repeats itself several times in the Commission's summary of his performance, though neither he, nor anyone else, is specifically called upon to resign.

Findings in Brief

Olmert "acted with hastiness and arrogance," the Commission found. He did not consult with bodies other than the IDF, such as the National Security Council, and did not even convene the mini-security Cabinet before ordering the army to act. He was led by the army, instead of leading. The Prime Minister did not demand that the army provide him with alternatives, and did not properly deal with the "local operation" becoming a full-fledged war.

Peretz was castigated for assuming the position of Defense Minister altogether without having been properly prepared for such. He also did not properly study the problems at hand, and did not consult sufficiently with the experts in his office. Peretz was cleared of responsibility for the army's lack of preparation, which largely occurred in the years before he became Defense Minister.

Gen. Halutz, who resigned following the army's internal investigation of the war three months ago, was found to have belittled Hizbullah's Katyusha rocket capacities, and did not provide alternatives to the government.

Full Version on Monday

The full version of the report is to be publicized at 5 PM on Monday, and Olmert will receive a copy one hour earlier.

Though the Commission was appointed in order to review the errors of the Second Lebanon War so that the proper lessons might be learned and the deficiencies be corrected, the immediate result of the leaked findings appears to be only political. The question at hand is: Will public opinion force the Prime Minister to resign? Olmert and allies are bracing to remain in power, the Opposition has already begun steps to oust the government, and some members of Kadima and other coalition parties are remaining on the fence, waiting to see what develops.

Opposition leader MK Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud met on Friday with far-left Meretz party leader MK Yossi Beilin, to discuss the report's political ramifications. Beilin said, unsurprisingly, that he would not support a replacement government headed by Netanyahu. Despite this, following the Channel Ten revelations, Beilin said that Olmert must resign immediately.

Within the coalition, Labor's Danny Yatom - an underdog in the Labor race for party leader next month - said the entire government must resign. MKs Zevulun Orlev and Aryeh Eldad (National Union/National Religious Party) also called, once again, for Olmert's resignation.

National Union faction chairman MK Uri Ariel has already submitted a legislative proposal for the dissolution of the Knesset and new elections.  "The Winograd conclusions and the resulting public sentiment require that we prepare for new elections," Ariel explained, "and we might as well come up with an agreed-upon date among the various parties."

 

Anti-Government Rally on Thursday

A large anti-government protest rally has already been announced for this Thursday in Tel Aviv. The protest has been called by the Civil Coalition, headed by retired IDF General Uzi Dayan.

A critical question is whether Olmert's Kadima party will stick with him. On the one hand, Kadima generally supported the war effort whole-heartedly, but some pockets of resistance were heard within a few days of the beginning of the war. Most worrisome for Olmert is the fact that his main competitor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will be able to say that she asked for limitations on the offensive and the opening of diplomatic channels just days after the war started, but Olmert did not agree.

Source:  Arutz Sheva

Qaeda infiltrates UK strategic sites

munaeem | 30 April, 2007 01:59

Suspects linked to Al Qaeda have obtained sensitive jobs in vital industries that could be the target of terrorist attacks, The Telegraph reports.

The individuals were uncovered by police and the security services in operations designed to protect key British sites such as transport hubs, power stations and the water supply.

Security chiefs believe that they may have become radicalised while already in employment, thus evading the strict vetting procedure for applicants for security-sensitive posts. Following the discovery, the British government is to draft new guidelines for companies to strengthen systems for monitoring staff. Employees will be encouraged to report any concerns they may have about suspicious behaviour by colleagues. The government has also drawn up plans to defend telecommunications, food supply, finance, key health facilities and the emergency services.

A senior Whitehall source told The Telegraph: “Police and the intelligence services are coming across more names - I’m not saying a huge number, but more cases - where they are identifying people they are concerned about that are working in jobs of some sensitivity.”

British intelligence agency MI5 is understood to have unmasked Al Qaeda sympathisers who joined its ranks during a recruitment drive aimed at young British Muslims, following the London bombings. At least three Metropolitan Police officers have also been investigated over visits they made to Pakistan, according to the Association of Muslim Police.

This month, a former employee at America’s biggest nuclear power plant was charged with taking access codes and layout plans to Iran. Mohammed Alavi, 49, a US citizen, is accused of downloading sensitive information about Palos Verde Nuclear Generation Station while on a visit to Teheran. He denies wrongdoing but could face up to two years in prison if convicted.

Global leaders of Al Qaeda have called on the organisation’s followers in Western countries to adopt tactics that include the infiltration of key industries, known in security circles as the critical national infrastructure. A tactical manual published in 2004, The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji, urges Al Qaeda supporters to “infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies, private security companies, sensitive civil institutions”.
 
A service provided by Al Bawaba