Archive for August, 2011

Was the Libyan Intervention Really an Intervention?

August 29, 2011 Leave a comment

In today’s world, the international community has an obligation to protect fellow citizens from governments that forfeit their legitimacy.

Opponents of Muammar Qaddafi at a London protest / Reuters

On Libya, this week has seen a bumper crop of interesting pieces (that’s what happens when major news coincides with an August lull, particularly for academics). I recommend Joshua Tucker in The New Republic; Daniel Serwer on next steps; and Larry Smith in Huffpost. Many of the opponents of the original intervention have tried to move directly past the rebels’ entry into Tripoli and hence effective overthrow of the Gaddafi regime (though it’s not over yet) to talk about how difficult the next phase is going to be (not that anyone is arguing that it’s going to be easy, as several of my Twitter colleagues pointed out). That is the “do not pass go and do not under any circumstances admit you were wrong strategy.” (To those readers who are bound to raise the issue, I haveadmitted that I was wrong on Iraq and I learned vital lessons from being wrong.) So I have reverted to the earlier debate and lessons learned in a piece published this week in the Financial Times.

But here on the foreign policy frontier, I’d like to explore the question not of what the last five months of U.N.-authorized NATO, UAE, and Qatar military action in Libya means for the future of humanitarian intervention but whether it makes sense to keep talking about intervention at all. If we really do look at the world in terms of governments and societies and the relationship between them, and do recognize that both governments and their citizens have rights as subjects of international law and have agency as actors in international politics, then what exactly is the international community “intervening” in?

International lawyers know that “intervention” and the “non-intervention doctrine” are swampy and highly disputed areas of the law. Former colonies have many good reasons to insist on “non-intervention” by their former imperialist masters, but what exactly constitutes intervention — particularly non-military or quasi-military (sending arms, etc) assistance or sanctions — is often in the eye of the beholder. The UN Charter takes a firm stand: Article 2(7) provides: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”

But if an international coalition uses force on the authorization of the Security Council, because the Council has determined that a government has overwhelmingly failed in its responsibility to protect its own people, and because the vast majority of those people with access to free means of expression are asking for force to be used, doesn’t it make more sense to say that the citizens of many nations, as represented by their governments, are responding to a call for help from the citizens of a nation unable to compel their government to perform its most basic function?

Note the “closed sphere” assumption reflected in the language of the Charter: spheres defined by a government’s control over territory and a defined population. That control is sovereignty, which once meant, in law and theory if never in practice, absolute control without interference from others. The UN Charter dates from 1945; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not issued until 1949 and the various core treaties translating the Universal Declaration into law — the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture, the Convention against Genocide, the Convention against Discrimination against Women, and others — all concluded over the next five decades. All of these conventions give citizens defined rights against their governments, with varying degrees of supervision by the international community. And then finally, in the first decade of the 21st century, came the “responsibility to protect.” The UN World Summit in 2005, convened by Kofi Annan, adopted an outcome document with the following articles:

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. (cont’d)

The U.N. Security Council affirmed the provisions of these paragraphs in a 2006 resolution, giving them the weight of international law, although not as much weight as a formal international treaty.

Fred Kaplan, in an otherwise excellent piece on humanitarian intervention in Slate, says that the responsibility to protect (R2P) is just a sanitized version of humanitarian intervention. Not so, in my view. For the first time, international law and the great powers of international politics have recognized both the rights of citizens and a specific relationship between the government and its citizens: a relationship of protection. The nature of sovereignty itself is thus changed: legitimate governments are defined not only by their control of a territory and a population but also by how they exercise that control. If they fail in that obligation, the international community has the responsibility to protect those citizens.

The most compelling reason for the doctrine of non-intervention in the first place was that it protected weaker states from stronger states, on the assumption that the worst thing that could happen to a state and its population was invasion or some other use of force by another state. That made sense in the 19th century and much of the 20th century. But in the 21st century populations are often at equal or greater risk from their own governments as they are from other states. In a world of governments and societies, the responsibility to protect is the foundation of a new way to think about them both and the relationship between them.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. She was previously the director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department and dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Anne-Marie Slaughter
August 26, 2011

Related link –


The Truth about Libyan "Rebels"

August 28, 2011 Leave a comment

Here are three things Americans need to know about the Libyan “rebels” the U.S. government isn’t telling us.

One: The inspiration of the Libyan war is as much anti-Western as it is anti-Gadhafi.
The “Day of Rage” that kick-started the Libyan war on Feb. 17 marked the fifth anniversary of violent protests in Benghazi, which included an assault on the Italian consulate during which at least 11 were killed. The 2006 mayhem, as John Rosenthal has reported, during which consulate staff was evacuated after 1,000 to several thousand men tried to storm and burn the building, may be linked to the Italian TVappearance two days earlier of Italian minister Roberto Calderoli. It was then that Calderoli, in defiance of worldwide Islamic rioting against cartoons of Muhammad in a tiny Danish newspaper, revealed he was wearing an undershirt decorated with such a cartoon. In remarks widely reported in Arab media, Calderoli explained that “the gesture was a matter of a ‘battle for freedom.'” The minister said: “When they (the cartoon rioters) recognize our rights, I’ll take off the shirt.”

Unfortunately – and not just for the Italian minister – Calderoli’s boss, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, didn’t recognize those rights. One day after the Benghazi rioting (“We feared for our lives,” the consul general’s wife told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera), Calderoli resigned, a political collapse indicative of Western tendencies to renounce rights that conflict with Islamic law (Shariah).

Two: The anti-Gadhafi, anti-Western forces that NATO power has brought to apparent victory through an air war and not-so-secret deployment of special forces (so far costing U.S. taxpayers $1 billion) include jihadist forces the U.S. and NATO allies have been fighting for the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Captured al-Qaida documents analyzed at West Point reveal that not only did Libya send far more recruits per capita to fight with al-Qaida in Iraq than any other nation (including Saudi Arabia), but also that the “rebel” stronghold of Darnah sent more recruits per capita than any other city. Bonus info: 85 percent of Libyan recruits in Iraq listed their “work” as “suicide bombers.”

This Libyan surge, the report explains, may have been due to the “increasingly cooperative relationship” with al-Qaida of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). What is the LIFG? Designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 2004, the LIFG is a prominent faction among anti-Gadhafi forces today. Little wonder the Los Angeles Times discovered there are “at least 20 former Islamic militant leaders in battlefield roles” in Libya (while what the paper called “hundreds of Islamists” are either “participating or watching from the sidelines”).

These include LIFG leader Abdelhakim Belhaj, described in recent days as the rebel commander in Tripoli. Another rebel leader and LIFG member, Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, is also an ex-Gitmo detainee, as the New York Times has pointed out. And another rebel leader, Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi, as John Rosenthal hasreported, admitted to Italian media earlier this year not only to “fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq.” Some of those same recruits “have come back and today are on the front at Ajdabiya,” al-Hasadi explained, referring to a northeastern Libyan town. “They are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists. The members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader,” al-Hasadi added.

Three: The draft constitution of the anti-Gadhafi forces cites “Shariah” as the “principal source of legislation.”

Shariah is Islamic law, the basis of conquest or control of non-Muslims, conscience, speech and other Western-style liberties. Not too surprisingly, rebel spokesman Mustafa Abdul Jalil, former Libyan justice minister, sports a “zabibah,” the forehead bruise of fanatical adherence to Islamic law. He also has animus toward Israel on the brain. WikiLeaks tells us, as Andrew Bostom has reported: “In the course of the discussion of the Criminal Code (with U.S. Ambassador Gene A. Cretz in 2010), Abdul Jalil abruptly changed the subject from freedom of speech to the ‘Libyan people’s concern about the U.S. government’s support for Israel.'” In 1998, Abdul Jalil grotesquely sentenced six Bulgarian nurses to death in a notorious show trial. Maybe more grotesquely, as appeals court president, Abdul Jalil twice upheld death sentencesfor five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian medic tortured and unjustly convicted for infecting Libyan children with HIV virus.

Such is the man touted as one of the powers-to-be in post-Gadhafi Libya, which U.S. government officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, promise will be “moderate,” “modern” and “secular.” But don’t laugh too hard. The joke is on us. Contributor Diana West is a journalist and columnist whose writing appears in several high profile outlets. She also has a

Diana West
August 28, 2011

GE Stabs the U.S. in the Back

August 28, 2011 Leave a comment

In 1876 Thomas Alva Edison opened a laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey for the purposes of exploring how to produce and distribute electricity. History records that he invented the incandescent electric light bulb there. By 1890, he had established the Edison General Electric Company, now known simply as GE.

In 2011, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE and the chairman of President Obama’s “Jobs Council” is eliminating jobs for American employees of GE at a furious pace. To add insult to injury, in 2010 GE paid no federal taxes at all despite worldwide profits of $14.2 billion. GE claimed a tax benefit of $2.3 billion.

From an America corporate icon to an American disgrace, GE epitomizes how federal policies, cronyism, and rent seeking is destroying America from within by avoiding taxes and shipping jobs overseas. Keep in mind, none of this is illegal. It is, however, unconscionable.

A recent article at took a look at the way GE is “moving jobs and economic infrastructure to China at a blistering pace.” For example, “GE makes more medical-imaging machines than anyone else in the world and now GE has announced that it is ‘moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.”

The article notes that, “Under Immelt, GE has shipped tens of thousands of good jobs out of the United States.” Even the liberal learning Huffington Post reportedthat

“As the administration struggles to prod businesses to create jobs at home, GE has been busy sending them abroad. Since Immelt took over in 2001, GE has shed 34,000 jobs in the U.S. according to its most recent annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But it has added 25,000 jobs overseas.”

“At the end of 2009, GE employed 36,000 more people abroad than it did in the U.S. In 2000, it was nearly the opposite.”

The last GE factory in the U.S. that made light bulbs closed last September. This came on the heels of the federal government’s ban on the 100-watt incandescent light bulb and its push to require Americans to purchase the new CFL light bulbs as part of Obama’s green jobs initiative. The CFL bulbs have been universally denounced as providing less equivalent light, costing more, and using mercury as part of their manufacture.

When John Rice was appointed GE’s head of global operations, responsible for growth in markets that include China, India, the Middle East and Brazil, the Huffington Post revealed that GE planned to spend $500 million on research and development and new customer innovation centers in China, adding more than a thousand jobs there. “More than $1.5 billion is expected to be put toward joint ventures with Chinese state-owned enterprises in high-technology sectors.”

At the same time, Daily revealed that GE “is arming China to compete with Boeing—and America.” Peter Cohen that “General Electric plans to sell its aircraft electronics to Chinese companies” noting that China just flight-tested a prototype stealth fighter” as it continues to build up its military. GE is selling technology “it developed for U.S. companies like Boeing to Boeing’s Chinese competitors.”

“America is being de-industrialized at lightning speed and very few of our politicians seem to care,” says TheEconomicCollapseblog while noting that in 1979 there were 19.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States and today there are 11.6 million.

“The United States has lost a staggering 32% of all its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.”

While President Obama berates the Congress for the lack of free trade agreements, he neglects to say that several such agreements with Latin American nations linger on his desk and none can be acted upon by Congress until he sends them for approval.

While Jeffrey Immelt flies around in his corporate jet and issues vacuous, hypocritical statements about jobs for Americans, he and his close friend in the White House are undermining the economy. Other U.S. corporations are following suit.

The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the world, but you will not hear any talk of lowering this tax rate, only meaningless class warfare blather about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” more when, in truth, those taxes will fall heaviest on small business owners.

This is the deliberate destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector. Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a daily commentary, “Warning Signs”, posted on his blog An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of the National Anxiety Center. His book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, is published by Merrill Press.

Alan Caruba
August 28,2011

Related link

It’s a Real War, Stupid!

August 25, 2011 Leave a comment

If we are going to win in the Middle East, we have to get the context right.  As I wrote in The War Against the Terror Masters, long before the invasion of Iraq, we cannot just “do” a country like Iraq, or today, Syria, and then move on.  That’s one of the strategic mistakes Bush, Rice, Hadley, Cheney and Rumsfeld made.  They viewed Iraq in isolation.  They thought they could just “do Iraq,” and then consider their options.  We then belatedly discovered (even though our enemies publicly announced what they were going to do) that Iraq and Afghanistan could not have decent security so long as Syria and Iran actively supported terrorists in those countries.   American soldiers and countless Iraqi and Afghan civilians have paid a terrible price for our failure of vision.
The regional war has expanded, but we still look at each battle field in isolation, rather than seeing the war whole:
  • Israel has been  invaded, and is under constant rocket attack;
  • The shooting war in Libya, where American pilots and trainers  conducted operations, and others trained and helped organize the anti-Qadaffi campaign;
  • We have declared diplomatic and economic war on the Assad regime in Syria, just as we began with Qadaffi’s regime in Libya;
  • The war against the Kurds:  Turkey now routinely bombs and invades PKK camps in Iraqi Kurdistan, while Iran shells and invades the same region.  We are directly involved on this battlefield;  we’ve been providing intelligence to the Turks on the Kurds since at least 2007;
  • The violence against our troops, and against our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is relentlessly increasing.


To date, insofar as we have had a regional strategy,  it has largely been based on wishful thinking, even when applied to more than one  problem at a time.  The administration hoped that Syria would choose friendship with us rather than strategic alliance with Tehran, that Tehran would accept our “outstretched hand” rather than continue to wage its 32-year old terror war against us, that Turkey would be our proxy ambassador to Syria and Iran, helping us to “peel off’ Assad from the mullahs and to convince Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to be reasonable about nukes, and that Obaman diplomacy would bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  None of it 
To be sure, there was nothing new about most of that;  Obama was simply embracing the failed dreams of the two Bushes and the Clintons.  The only difference was timing:  the others slowly came to believe that a Grand Bargain with Iran and Syria was doable, while Obama started with that fantasy.  All believed—and perhaps some of our policy makers still believe—that Turkey was a friend and would support our goals.
What happens when an administration’s dreams are shattered?   In a very important article in the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes and Tom Jocelyn suggest the administration may have drawn the obvious conclusions from the failure of wishful thinking, and may now be changing course.  “With the public accusations that Iran is harboring the next generation of al Qaeda leadership and is facilitating the operation of al Qaeda’s key pipeline for funding and operatives,” they suggest, “the Obama administration seems to be saying that this conciliatory approach has now come to an end.”  It’s a bit clearer with Syria;  we are now publicly committed to regime change in Damascus.
Whatever Obama’s intentions, he has certainly laid the groundwork for more vigorous action against Syria and Iran, whose bonds are so intimate they constitute a single strategic enemy of the United States.  The Iranian regime is fighting feverishly to save Assad:  committing billion of dollars, sending Damascus weapons and technology to censor and monitor internet and cellular communications, dispatching Quds Force killers (some of whom are Syrian Kurds, so that if they’re captured Assad and Khamenei can blame Kurdish “terrorists”), and even publicly warning the Turks to butt out.  If Tehran has to choose between Syria and Turkey, the mullahs will choose Syria.
It’s easy to understand Khamenei’s anxiety, now on public display as he sends a new ambassador—Mohammadreza Raouf Sheybani, a notoriously tough Revolutionary Guards veteran –to Damascus in the middle of Ramadan.  Iran has long waged war through Syrian-based proxies, from Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and on to terror groups with secular, rather than Islamist, ideologies.  In all probability, Syria and Iran have conducted a joint nuclear program.  The fall of Assad and his replacement by a less Iranian-compliant government would be a catastrophe for Khamenei:  it would be a terrible blow to Hezbollah and the other terror proxies.  It would deep-six whatever nuclear schemes are in the works, and it would undoubtedly send a powerful emotional charge through the ranks of the Iranian opposition.  If the regime can be beaten in Damascus and Homs, they will reason, why not in Tehran and Tabriz?
Khamenei’s worries about Syria are likely a component of the new assault against Israel as well.  Such an ambitious action is at least in part designed to mobilize the region against the Zionist entity, and forget about the poor Syrian people.  On the other hand, the fall of Qadaffi is bad news for the whole collection of Middle Eastern tyrants, whether Sunni or Shi’a, in Tehran or Riyadh.  They all  know that American power brought him down, and they all saw the ferocity with which his opponents fought to bring down his regime, just as they see the remarkable courage of tens  of thousands of Syrians taking to the streets, even though suffering and death await them.  And they remember the similar scenes in Iran, which in so many ways inspired the insurrections across the Arab world.
The short march to the best available outcome right now runs through Damascus to Tehran.  Regime change in Syria and Iran would be a godsend for our travails in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for the increasingly irrelevant peace process.  Unlike Libya, we should not resort to military means to bring down Assad and Khamenei; in addition to sanctions, we need to support political revolution in both countries.  And while we’re at it, American support for the Kurds is long overdo.  They are critical components of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.  Despite ongoing spats, they have long cooperated in a regional strategy aimed at gaining autonomy in all four countries, pending the opportunity to test the possibility of a Kurdish state.  They are very well informed, and they are good fighters (ask the Turks and the Iranians, both of whom are badly bloodied when they venture into Kurdish territory).  The Kurds should be part of our political strategy.
When Obama says that the future of Iran and Syria will be determined by the people of those countries, he never says what we all know to be true:  those people have already decided what they want, and we should help them achieve it.  Our successful support of dissident democratic groups in the Soviet Empire provides many of the guidelines:  build strike funds for Syrian and Iranian workers;  find ways to help the dissidents communicate with one another to organize more effective protests and confrontations;  make their cause a daily talking point for all our national security officials, civilian and  military, both in their statements to media reporters and via our national radio and TV stations from VOA to Farda.
As we do that, we need to have a serious conversation with the Saudis.  King Abdullah was one of the first national leaders to yank his ambassador from Damascus, demonstrating his disgust with Assad, and it may well have been a turning point for others as well.  But the kingdom remains the major financier of radical Islamic mosques and schools (and a forthcoming book in England  revives suspicions of Saudi involvement in the 9/11 operation), which are an assembly line—not the only one, but certainly the biggest–for the next generation of terrorists.  That has to stop, and we need to make them stop it.  That demarche, and whatever actions necessary to accomplish its goals, must be high on our strategic to-do list.
Yes, it’s a lot to do.  But it’s a big war.  And we’re a big country.  It’s a challenge worthy of us, and we should embrace it. Contributor Dr. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is also a contributing editor at Pajamas Media and at National Review Online.

Michael Ledeen
August 25, 2011

Related link

Two Human Rights Activists, Recipients of Nobel Peace Prizes & their Visions

August 25, 2011 Leave a comment

DefendIranDemoc – Aug 25, 2011
Two human rights activists, recipients of Nobel Peace Prizes talk about their visions for their countries. One from Iran, Shirin Ebadi, whose fear from threat and tyranny made her flee the country, Iran only to leave her oppressed fellow countrymen alone. And the other Aung San Suu Kyi whose courage and commitment find her a prisoner of principles and integrity in her own country, Burma. One who spent her whole life to defend Islam, and the other who courageously opposed herself alone to the rifle barrels to defend her people’s freedom and democracy.

Is the U.S. Willing to Fight Against Islamic Terrorism?

August 23, 2011 Leave a comment

In his address to Congress after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said it was “a date which will live in infamy.”  Nine-Eleven is likewise a date that will live in infamy.  The war with Japan lasted almost four years.  The war that began on 9/11 with the Islamist terrorist world is now ten-years-old with no end in sight.  
Islamist terrorism now exists in 62 Muslim countries and is supported by millions of fanatics.  That campaign of terror is also supported by homegrown Islamist terrorists in the U.S. and European countries, and we have seen major acts of homegrown terrorism in the U.S., Great Britain and Spain, by those born and raised in western countries.  
Those who suffer most from Islamist terrorism are Muslims, sometimes Sunni and other times Shiite.  Those two branches of Islam have been engaged in a civil war for centuries.  Muslims have been killed by the tens of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc., by other Muslims in their ongoing religious civil war.  Muslim citizens in western countries suffer unfairly from being viewed by many fellow citizens as a potential fifth column. 
Do we of western civilization have the intestinal fortitude to keep fighting generation after generation to preserve our values and our liberties?  Or will we ultimately, in effect, surrender. 
Our country’s recent foreign policy has not been encouraging.  In Afghanistan, we have attempted to engage the Islamist terrorists including the Taliban by supporting the Karzai administration’s efforts to bring the Taliban into the government.  The Taliban, which formerly ruled that country, gave Osama bin Laden a place of refuge when the conspiracy of 9/11 was plotted and executed.  That conspiracy to murder caused catastrophes in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania resulting in the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people.  If the Taliban agrees to forgo violence, does anyone believe they would keep such a pledge? 
In Egypt, the opponents and successors in government to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, an authoritarian leader but long-time friend of the U.S., are overwhelmingly Islamists.  When the so-called “Arab Spring” uprising spread to Egypt, we quickly dropped our support of President Mubarak naively forgetting that his opponents are not friends of this country and want to end Egypt’s peace with Israel. 
The New York Times of August 21st reported:
“By removing Mr. Mubarak’s authoritarian but dependably loyal government, the revolution has stripped away a bulwark of Israel’s position in the region, unleashing the Egyptian public’s pent-up anger at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians at a time when a transitional government is scrambling to maintain its own legitimacy in the streets.”
We will soon see if the Libyan rebels who appear to have toppled Muammar el-Qaddafi – he should have been assassinated by our special forces long ago – will be any different than their oppressor.
I do not mean to suggest that we should not support popular uprisings.  My point is that we must judge each situation on its merits and not immediately conclude that those who take to the streets in the Arab World are like those who took to the streets to fight the Soviet Communist governments in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ukraine and elsewhere. 
In the case of Syria, the popular uprising is most likely in the U.S. interest.  However, we have been exceedingly slow in throwing our support behind the Syrian people’s efforts to topple a brutal regime that is a close ally of Iran.    President Bashar al-Assad has ordered the killing of his own people.  His soldiers have shot down several thousands of them in the streets of major Syrian cities – men, women and children.  He ordered the Syrian Navy to bombard the seaside city of Latakia, inflicting civilian casualties.   
NATO has been told many times not to take military action in Iraq and Afghanistan during Ramadan, a Muslim holy month.  I believe in our wars against those countries we overwhelmingly observed those religious requests, but in Syria, the Muslim government didn’t hesitate to put down the revolt while Ramadan was taking place. 
Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast with values similar to the U.S.  It is a country of six million Jews and one million Muslims, surrounded by six Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria – which have waged at least five wars against it.  Fortunately, Israel won all five.  Had it lost only one, it would have been subject to savagery beyond belief, as the Muslim world took its revenge upon the Jews. 
The western world now demands that Israel engage in peace talks with the Palestinian Authority that now includes Hamas, which is described by western countries as a terrorist organization.  While President Obama has demanded that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders with “swaps,” Hamas believes that Tel Aviv is part of the Palestinian inheritance, and that every Jew who entered historic Palestine after 1917 must be expelled.  Yet, western nations expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas, which is reminiscent of Britain and France insisting at Munich that Czechoslovakia negotiate with Hitler. 
If we are willing to pressure Israel to negotiate with a terrorist organization and wesupport Afghanistan’s negotiating with the Taliban, another terrorist group, can we be certain that our president won’t ultimately direct Secretary of State Clinton to negotiate with the Islamist terrorists to achieve peace in our time?  Iraq, which we liberated from its oppressor Saddam Hussein, is now aligning itself with Iran and Syria. 
It was shocking to me to learn that every Democratic member of the House of Representatives elected in New York City voted against renewal of the Patriot Act.  The Act is the major law enforcement legislation used to uncover terrorists here and abroad.  Fortunately, it passed in the House by a vote of 250-153 and in the Senate by a vote of 72-23.  New York State Senator Kirsten Gillibrand voted “aye” and Senator Chuck Schumer did not vote. 
I would ask the New York Congressional members who voted “no” or “abstained,” do you recall the Twin Towers of 9/11?  Are you aware that when further acts of terrorism occur, it is highly likely that they will take place in New York City?  If that occurs, will you then defend your vote?
Do we have it in us to stand up for freedom, no matter how long it takes to achieve victory and no matter the cost in blood and treasure?  I wonder. Contributor Ed Koch is the former mayor of New York City.

Ed Koch
August 23, 2011

Related link

Regime change in Syria and Iran will come only if people unite as in Libya

August 23, 2011 Leave a comment

The citizenry in Iran and Syria must take up their own collective responsibility and shake off fear to depose their dictators, as the people did in Libya. Democracy promotion from outside simply isn’t practical or effective.

When future generations look back, they will remember 2011 as the year of the end of dictators in the Middle East and the Maghreb. Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi appears to have now joined the Middle East parade of despots rejected by an uprising. Practically nine months after Tunisia’sPresident Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted after 23 years of authoritarian rule and the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was thrown out of power by a few weeks of protests in Tahrir Square, Qaddafi is at the end of his reign after 42 years of dictatorship.

The year, 2011, could indeed be considered the starting point of a paradigm shift in the Middle East that will bring the downfall of the remaining despots in the region while restructuring the way energy resources are priced and supplied around the globe.

However positive regime change may be in the longer term, the short-term social and political consequences are likely to be quite challenging. It goes without saying that the overthrow of dictatorial regimes in the Maghreb and the Middle East will have proven easy compared to the difficult and uncertain establishment of secular and democratic governments.

So far, the remaining authoritarian regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria have sought to insulate themselves from an Egypt-like scenario. They continue to practice a high degree of violence against their opposition, believing they can hold onto power as long as they succeed in terrorizing their citizens.

RELATED: Seven reasons why Syrian opposition hasn’t toppled Assad

As we’ve seen in recent months, that tried-and-true strategy that has worked for decades no longer does. Yet, since they have no other option, these regimes nonetheless brutally pursue it.

Mr. Qaddafi, Mr. Mubarak, Mr. Ben Ali, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and those like them have long professed to be the beloved leaders of their people while holding their people by their throats. They have all shared two characteristics: the use of extreme violence against dissidents and protesters and unfulfilled promises. However, if there is one thing history teaches us, especially of late, it is that there is a limit to sheer brutality practiced by a despot against his people. In the end, a dictator cannot jail, execute, or exile such an enormous number of his people while also inspiring loyalty.

Now that the challenge to Qaddafi’s regime is coming to an end with a violent uprising that forced a long-ruling autocrat out of power, all other dictators in the region will certainly undertake their own risk assessments and try to adopt strategies to reduce their vulnerability to a similar scenario.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Assad and Iran’sRevolutionary Guards can manage to continue terrorizing their fellow citizens extensively enough to win a chance of dying in their own bed. Leaving aside wishful thinking, what is certain is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes, even though they have lost their moral and political legitimacy, are doubling their efforts to crush and fragment civic actors precisely in order not to end up like Egypt or, now, Libya.

In doing so, they have created enormous obstacles to the nonviolent transition in these countries.

RELATED: Muammar Qaddafi: Five ways Libya’s leader has held onto power

Nonetheless, ending the reign of terror in Syria and Iran is not totally blocked if the formerly cowedcitizenry takes up their own collective responsibility, as they did in Libya, to end human rights abuses. However painful it might be to admit, the time is long past for “dictator containment” by an international community that seeks to guide leadership succession and create a space for moderate autocrats.

Democracy promotion from outside is simply not practical or effective as long as the people are not willing to band together and, at the risks and costs to their own lives, to shake off the fear and depose their dictators. As Machiavelli said, “Men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear.”

Dictators like Qaddafi, who had long professed to love his people while cultivating an image of himself as a father figure feared by his children, have proved to be fooling only themselves. The truth is that at the end, dictators are neither loved nor feared. Sooner, if not later, that same truth will visit Syria and Iran.

Ramin Jahanbegloo, one of Iran’s best-known dissidents, headed the contemporary studies department of the Cultural Research Bureau in Tehran until his arrest in April 2006. He was released that August and now lives in exile in Canada, where he teaches at the University of Toronto.

Ramin Jahanbegloo
August 23, 2011

Related link:

Sharia and Western Compliance

August 22, 2011 Leave a comment

Article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam states:
  1. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a
  2. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’a.
This declaration – made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and intended as a counter measure to the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – exposes the slippery slope on which Western societies tread when indulging Shari’a-based interpretations of rights and freedoms. If every such right and freedom is bounded by religious edict, then no such rights and freedoms will exist.
Accommodation without limit is in effect enslaving supplication.  Any parent with a wayward histrionic child will know that.  Churchill knew it.  Even Roosevelt knew it.  Certainly Lincoln and JFK knew it.  Do our leaders (politicians, intellectuals and clergy) know it?
Apparently not. Many Western European countries (Holland, UK, France, Italy, Norway) have made allowances for these fundamental restrictions, the same restrictions that have produced deadly fatwas issued against those who propagate ideas hostile to Islam.  Where does it end? Imams central to current Islamic orthodoxy (such as Qadi ‘Iyad, who died in 1149) confirm that any Jew or Christian who reviles Mohammed, or commits blasphemy, should be burned or beheaded unless they convert.
Authorities in these same countries often inhibit the criticism of Islamic history and doctrine.  One can easily exhibit, in the West’s leading museums, Christ and Pope figures fornicating, or publish in our press cartoons of demonic Jews with Stars of David and skulls-caps feasting on Palestinian babies.  Yet our media will not darepublish cartoons of Mohammed or demand an open, fear-free discussion of all the reasonable and varying interpretations of the Koran that stand as alternatives to the current immovable, literal and fundamentalist doctrine – to do so will engender an earthquake, as the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper found out.
To censor any criticism of Jihad, to disallow any open discussion thereof, is to accommodate fascist authoritarianism, anti-Semitism and anti-secularism.  This supplication by its very nature is oppressive and dehumanizing.  This is not what the French Revolution was about, nor the American Bill of Rights – never mind what brought Moses down from Mount Sinai.
If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that it is not pleasant for non-Muslims living in societies influenced by Sharia law. We see the ongoing burning of Coptic churches in Cairo, forced abductions and conversions of Coptic daughters, suicide bombings against the Baghdad Christian community, the de-Christianizing of Bethlehem, a simmering war on the Hindus in Kashmir, the illegality of bibles and crosses in Saudi Arabia, and Bahai’s under enormous pressure in Iran. Our goal in the West should be to foster tolerance, not to make allowances for its erosion.
Until the Muslim world rejects its dominant fundamentalist ideology, until it allows a long overdue reformation in Islam, the hazards of Shari’a and the inviolability of Koranic law will remain an ominous threat to the West’s ongoing freedoms, democracy and tolerance. Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. He has a  called Strength and Tolerance.

Lesli Sacks
August 22, 2011

Related link

Where is the International Support for Victims of Tyranny?

August 22, 2011 Leave a comment

The Arab Spring has been blooming everywhere in the Islamic world but some regions receive international support while some are being ignored. It looks like there is a selection process for the international community and “western democracies” that indicates whom to support and whom to ignore.

Let us rename the movements “ Freedom Spring” because not all that has been happening has been among the Arab Countries. The gardeners of human rights have been picking and choosing which particular garden they will water with support,and which they will ignore and allow to wilt.

These freedom seekers are dying to learn what kind of qualifications they need for the American administration and the European governments to consider them eligible for their support. Perhaps the UN should put out a list of criteria to which the people who want to be freed from dictators and Islamist fascists will try to adhere, whenever they want to rise up in protest.

Millions of young Iranians and Syrians are all wondering why all the leaders of the western democracies jumped on the band wagon to support the Egyptian people. They were puzzled when the western media went along to force president Hosni Mobarak to step down, but kept its lips sealed about the killing spree against the Syrian people carried out by the dictator Bashir Assad. The question is; why is it that all the bloody bodies of the Syrians on the streets of Damascus and the dying faces of young Iranians on the tarmac of Tehran are not important to the world but Tahrir Square gets a worldwide propaganda campaign?

Is it because in the case of Egypt, President Hosni Mobarak was a friend and therefore easily dispensable, but with enemies the choice is appeasement? It seems that we are rewarding the worst and punishing the not so bad! 

What is the message that United States is sending to the dictators and the people of the Muslim countries through its pick-and-choose methods? What are the policy criteria of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton? The least we can do is let the freedom seeking people of the Muslim world know where we stand with each one of them.

Why did the west decide in haste to go all out and even resort to a costly military campaign, considering our economic situation, in support of the people of Libyan people against Muamar Ghadaffi? 

Didn’t Ghadaffi  respond to the extended hand of President Obama and give up his nuclear plans and initiate a friendly relationship after 40 years of animosity? Why, then, are we adamant that Ghadaffi needs to go, but not Bashir Assad or the Islamic terrorist regime of Iran? These have been behind more terrorism in the Middle Eastand Africa than any single government in the world.

Meanwhile the United Nations that was established after WWII for the sole purpose of supporting universal human rights preventing the rise of the dictatorships and fascism, after the WWII, is silent? None of its auxiliary organizations, UNCSW, UNHR, UNIFEM, etc., have uttered a word. I have wondered if the United Nations has forgotten what its real mission and responsibilities were when it was established.

The people of Iran rose up for their human rights and freedom, thinking that United States and the international community would stand with them. They were ignored and the regime killed over a thousand and have doggedly been pursuing, imprisoning and torturing thousands more to this day. 

In Syria Bashir Assad has been on a killing spree of the people who have been purring it to the streets, in search of freedom, day after day for months but the United Nations and the international community has chosen to pretend they are deaf, Dumb and blind.

Can the United Nations please publish the policy that makes a people eligible for support in their quest for freedom? Contributing Editor Manda Zand Ervin is a human rights activist for Iranian women and children and the founder of the Alliance of Iranian Women.

Manda Zand Ervin
August 19, 2011

Related link

Women’s Worth in Islam

August 22, 2011 Leave a comment

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:
“Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”[Italics are mine]
The declaration prohibits, “Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’”
Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration. 

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wantonpractices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11 “Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.” 

There are many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
Women are inferior to men:
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is most high. Qur’an 4:34
Women are worth half the value of a man:
“Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a women equal to half that of a man?” The women said “yes”. He said “This is because of the deficiency of the women’s mind.” Sahih Bukhari 3:48:82
Women are sex slaves:
“And now, people, you acquire certain rights over your wives, and they do you. The right you acquire over them is that they should not let someone you hate sleep in your beds, and not to commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a beating, though not too hard. If they give over, they get their provision and clothing with kindness; I command you good-will for your wives, for they are your captives that do not own anything of their own. You have taken them by the faithfulness of God, and made their sexual organs lawful for you by the words of God.” Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-nabawiyya (Cairo, 1963), 4:251.
Women are Toys:
“Omar [one of the Khalifs] was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: ‘You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you.” Al-Musanaf Vol. 1 Part 2, p. 263
Women are Weak:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet had a Had (a camel driver) called Anjasha, and he had a nice voice. The Prophet said to him, “(Drive) slowly, O Anjasha! Do not break the glass vessels!” And Qatada said, “(By vessels’) he meant the weak women.”Sahih Bukhari 8:73:230, See also: Sahih Bukhari 8:73:228 & Sahih Bukhari 8:73:229
Women are a Tilth for Men to Cultivate:
“Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.”Qur’an 2:223
Women are Like Devils
Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart. Sahih Muslim 8:3240
Woman are Evil Omen:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: I heard the Prophet saying. “Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:110
Men May Marry up to Four Women”
“If you fear you can not treat orphans (girls) with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three or four of them. But if you fear that you can not maintain equality among them, marry only one or any slave girls you may own, that will be more suitable. And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, eat it with enjoyment, take it with right good cheer and absorb it (in your wealth).” Qur’an 4:3
Violence Against Women”
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” Qur’an 4:34
The Afterlife of Women:
“Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301
Women are relegated in Islam at best, to a second-class status, depriving them of many rights enjoyed by men. Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid. 

Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second-class status is null and void.

Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs andpractices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religiousapartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

            * On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care. 

            * In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.

            * The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.  

Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice. 

Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others. 

It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.

Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is already inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy. Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. He maintains a website at Imani is the author of the riveting bookObama Meets Ahmadinejad and the upcoming thriller Operation Persian Gulf.

Amil Imani
August 21, 2011

Related link


American Muslims vs. the Cultural Imperialists

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

One of the most politically toxic issues of our time is called Islam in the West, and Khomeinist Political Islam by the people of Iran.
What was supposed to be another Abrahamic religion has become an apparatus for global blackmail; and it is being emboldened by power grabbers sitting atop the World of Islam’s Ivory Tower, and fanned by the Western ideologues and the uninformed mainstream media.
There have always been those who have made a good living out of chaos and mayhem; but the antidote to these people should be support for the sane victims, not the insane aggressors.
While the silent majority of the American Muslims are going to work every day, paying their taxes, sending their children to school and saving for their college, they still have to worry about what the Islamists are going to come up with next, to yet again upset their lives — and worse, how the Islamists will be appeased by some politicians and the mainstream media.

Organizations such as the Council of American Islamic Relations [CAIR], or Islamic Society of North America [ISNA], who represent the Islamists, are created not by the American Muslims but by the foreign petrodollars — with the mission to use some of the more vulnerable young American Muslims as a tool for intimidation, to shift the American culture from within, through double talk and guilt, by presenting themselves as victimized Muslim Americans.
Islamist cultures have shamefully failed their citizens. There is an epidemic of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance in almost every Muslim country, even among the petro-rich such as Iran, which according to the IMF report, had 0% economic growth in 2010. Sadly, itt seems that the same people who failed us in the old country are following us to the new country here in America.
American Islamist organizations are anti-freedom, anti-democratic and anti-America. They have no respect for human rights and dignity. They are by no means accepted by any of the diverse American Muslim communities; these simply want to be allowed to live their lives. Yet these Islamist organizations have succeeded in becoming a political Mecca for the American ideologues and the mainstream media.
The Breivik massacre in Norway was an example of how the mainstream media is ready to attack the alleged perpetrator who is a Christian — but a Muslim terrorist gets a pass; according to the white European American mainstream Media and politicians, Muslims are not to be held on the same standards of civic behavior as everyone else: Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and others, Muslims could have a lower intelligence or a different culture and so should be treated under different standards of ethics, accountability, law, social rules and etiquette. Muslims, it seems, should be kept under their protection, like children. According to people such as Senator John Kerry, we American Muslims are incapable and devoid of the same capabilities and knowledge that White European Americans have
These are the people we call “cultural imperialists.” Black politicians are allowed to get away with crimes that no white American politician would ever. Be allowed to get away with. Cultural imperialism is when the Bell Curve is the applied standard, and in which ethnic norms are held higher for one group only, and everyone else is assumed to be under a lower, less-worthy yardstick and is treated as such. Cultural imperialism is not only discrimination, but in its even-if-well-intended condescension, worse than discrimination.
Perhaps the ideologues in politics and in the international media should decide whether they want to respect us, or continue to treat us like children or the insane — the same way Sharia law does.
Manda Zand Ervin
August 19, 2011

Relate link

The Secret US plan to Overthrow 7 Countries’ Governments in 5 Years

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment
Uploaded by RBoon on March 17, 2007

In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.