Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Honor Killings

Here are a series of photos of tragedy, women (and men) who were all killed under the name of honor. I have posted these photos obtained from the excellent and dedicated site "International Campaign Against Honor Killings (http://stophonourkillings.com/index.php) which I recommend to anyone with concern about this horrible pandemic.

I make no apologies for bringing the subject up and picking and choosing the following images for a particular reason.

The crime of cultural and tribal honor killings is particularly pandemic in certain cultures, not religions. A large portion of Arab and Turkish culture (both Christian and Arab), Eastern European and in the Sub-continent (Hindu, Christian and Muslim India for example as well as the tribal clans of Afghanistan and Pakistan who are mostly but not all Muslim) to name a few who all partake in this horrendous and inexcusable crime.

These images were chosen because of the bigotry shown against Muslims and Islam by many in the west and elsewere claiming that the crime rests at the feet of Islam. This is particularly rediculous coming from Hindu agenda groups in India.

Such a claim is not only false, an insult to Islam but most of all an insult to the thousands of victims of honor crimes that occur throughout the world by others then those heinous acts done by abusive Muslims breaking their own covenant with the Qur'an.
These victims shown above, are all non-Muslim and mostly from India, killed due to abusing caste conditions. This is not an attack on Indians or Hindus, but the point I made is clear, and if there were photos of Russian honor killings or from other areas, I certainly would show them and if anyone has, feel free to e-mail me the reference, my address is in the blog summary.

Monday, 29 June 2009

Images of Fanatics, Extremists and Fundamentalists

No matter what religion, political views, cultural bias, the enemy is always those that consider their views, methods, faith and rights are above those of others.

Saturday, 27 June 2009

Do as I say, not as I do or - How to be an "Ass"

The self-proclaimed but certainly not Muslims Against Sharia did what I consider a pretty disrespectful gaff in one of the many items they are churning out about the situation in Iran. Here in Morocco, they would be referred to as a "Hammar" of donkey, refering to being stupid or an "ass".

MAS (I find it insulting even to spell it out) makes always a big scene to imply they are interested in the rights and liberties of the Iranian people, that the injustices and Islamic system's evil ways thrust upon them. Sounds noble, right? I guess, though it is viewed from a western perspective and automatically assumes that a future Iran will be like a future Iraq and another western-liberal democracy. But remember this site abhors Islam and thus condemns the basic tenants and beliefs of the majority of Iranians who may not love the fundamentalists, suffer from them but are faithful Muslims nevertheless.

The hypocrisy comes in the article today called "Sorry Neda, We Have a Pedophile to Worship". The article starts off with an interesting point that I have seen in some more respectable blogs, that while Iran burns and world history is being made, the American media dropped it like a lead balloon to concentrate on the death of the "King of Pop" Michael Jackson. I think the media does follow celebrities a bit too much, but if it sells ratings, so be it. I should also point out that his death is a sad event and historical, like his music or not, Thriller is still the highest selling album in history and probably that status will never be beaten.

The ugly point of the article is already implied in its name, it apologizes to the now famous victim Neda who died in the street fighting in Tehran that the media and the people are more interested in Michael Jackson - and proclaiming him a paedophile.

Jackson was accused and acquitted under the court system of the charge and he denied it to the end. Under the law, he is not and such a claim is libelous as well. This, itself makes the blogger from MAS a low-life, as it denegrates and disrespects those victims and their families of real paedophiles as well as those who have suffered being accussed of it, but are not.

My point is simple and I am sure many will understand it immediately. How can you pretend to stand-up for liberties and justice and condemn the actions of fundamentalists who by their very nature assume guilt and then unjustly punish people for "probably" being homosexual, a prostitute, immoral, marxist, communist, heretic, revolutionary, etc, and then do the same yourself.

I make no opinion about the lifestyle of MJ, I trust the court system and assume his innocence, because I believe in justice and liberties.

Friday, 26 June 2009

Iran and a symbol of how to make it all go terribly wrong

There is a far-right website/blog that more than often goes for the radical trash-postings that verge on pure bigotry. It has the ironic name of Atlas Shrugs. Ironic considering that I sit next to the mighty Atlas Mountains and look upon them daily.

Today there is another item on the horrible happenings in Iran and about how the former Bush Administration's controversial Ambassador to the United Nations - John Bolton said in a newspaper item that the US missed an opportunity for regime change in Iran and should basically take-out the Iranian government.
His statements are ridiculous and is the very attitude that helped bring the radical regime in the first place. The man is a war-monger and we can all thank God (Allah) or your lucky stars depending on what you believe, that he is not a man of influence anymore. I think even Bush found him a bit overboard even for his liking.

I responded with the following comment:

. . .

The situation is terrible, the hunger and demand for change is leading to the certain conflict with the government and their fundamentalist ideals will be hard to crack. As someone who knows much about the country and its people, it is going to be rough.

Mistakes have been made within and without (apart from the mistake of 1979) and many in the commentaries here as well.

John Bolton is the first and greatest. Calling for intervention to eliminate the revolution of '79 is doomed to failure and his arrogance in saying so is part of that old-world attitude that to a certain degree created it. It was the combination of abuse and out of touch Shah and the influences of the United States (including the now confirmed forced ousting of a government by the CIA) that was the catalyst for revolution that the fundamentalists jumped on. Perhaps the youth have forgotten much of this but middle-aged and the older Iranians (who are and will be any future government) do not. Bolton's attitude is from the 1970s and his out-of-touch method of dealing with things will only be a backwards step and turn Iran into Iraq or an Afghanistan.

My concerns is only the violence and how to tell the students and public to stop. Why? Because what was needed (to tell the regime that things have got to change) was done. There is no doubt that government wants to stay in power and are willing to fight for it, so either a full blown revolution will take place (with a probable loss and an even more hard-line government) OR they go home now with some pride and note that the more moderate (but "within the system") politicians (Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Co.) will certainly make capital and destabilize from the top down. At worst, let the population suffer another four years and the likelihood is that change will happen.

Though I know most on a site like this will disagree, President Obama did the correct and very smart thing. He wished the people of Iran all good will and sent a message to the Muslim World saying that things will change, that United States will lead the West into admitting that there is a world outside their own and that to get respect, the same must be given.

That, I believe, was one of the catalysts for the actions that happened after the election. The Iranian youth and middle-class just wanted it more quickly than they should have.
. . .

A lie well worded does not a truth make

Unfortunately I suffer the human habit of getting caught up in petty arguments when provoked with deliberate garbage. There is no denying that when I was reading the agenda-trash websites I started some arguments - or I should be more accurate - I pointed out errors and raised questions.
I guess it was simply a shock to them that their world of agenda-based bashing and self-encouraging mis-truths, misinterpretations and myths was challenged.

In this case, a rather self-indulgent poster by the name of Nick in his Frozen North blog enjoys playing the word-game, rather than concentrating on the subject but rather my language skills. He considers it a clever ploy to discredit the critic rather than confront with facts.

The recent spat was on one subject but Nick attempted to confuse it by making it two. A accused (and still do) the blog Lambeth Walk of racism. The point I made was that the collective sum of the posts are either anti-Islamic or racist with the bloggist's obvious hatred for immigration spilling over into racial hatred. The constant us & them, them vs the white people, they are the cause and so on to ad-nauseum was collectively racist. An article about a group of African immigrant Brits who raped a girl and her boyfriend made the case, in particular implying it was racially motivated. Nick, not the blogger, claimed defence basically arguing that there was no racist remarks in the article, ignoring the point of collective articles, and started attacking my linguistic abilities and paragraph structure to ensure confusion.
The fact that I fell for arguing with Nick I regret, it was an obvious waste of time and he has done so before hand. He obviously enjoys this process knowing full well that his mastery of English and word-twisting as a weapon is better than my own. But of course it has no bearing on the subject or its validity, that was in fact carefully avoided altogether. When the point was reinforced, the criticism became more insipid and desperate, with the argument now being that the article in question did not follow the definition of "racist". Which was not my point, this is not a court case, but it is the reality and we know Lambeth Walk's low-life blogger's intention. The final curtain on this petty argument was Nick posting another condescending line, a quote and he has ensured that I cannot reply to attempt to provide an image of petty victory. I will now post my reply that he will not post.

“Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Arthur Conan Doyle

Being more realistic

What I should be concentrating on is the articles that I wish to publish here on the blog, thoughts and ideas, examples and possibilities and avoid getting caught in the web of arguing with low-lifes and game-players whom in the reality of all things are just individuals with problems and chips on their shoulders because the vast majority of the world does not think or support them.

The most ironic point about these bloggers is that they to a degree represent the element of fundamentalism that they hate so much. I also hate them, but for completely different reasons. Such bloggers will claim truths and condemn others for not sharing that same bigoted view. Add to that, they will sacrifice principles, norms and participation in the reality, to pronounce their goals even further.

There is a risk here that needs to be pointed out that I fear many do not realize. Being right-wing or left-wing is for me a matter of politics. But there is a progression of extremism/fundamentalism that does occur. Once you go to far to an extreme you are required to sacrifice, as mentioned above and going back is difficult. Geert Wilders did so to the point were he will not back down from his bigotry and slander and I am sure it will become worse before he is booted out of the Dutch parliament. The bloggers that I have come across can just as easily follow down the same path, increased racial vilification, ignoring the accepted norms of society, next it will be inciting violence. The same existed with religious fundamentalism and how it joined militancy and now up to terrorism. The parallels are there, albeit without guns but via the Internet - either way it is unacceptable.

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Musings on the price of power & divine indemnity

Something significant changed in the world between 1978 and 1979 that has made us all suffer in some form or another. This event opened a Pandora's Box that flows directly up to the horror attacks of September 11 and the subsequent disasters unfolding in front of our eyes in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The events that lead to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran may for Iranians be a well debated subject of internal politics, faith and freedom – but it has affected us all, particularly those of us living in the Muslim World. How is this possible, what does the revolution in Iran have to do with the attacks on the WTC, bombings in London or the battles in the high mountain valleys such as the Swat?

Before the revolution of ’79, most radical clerics and ideologues were unwanted outcasts, considered dangerous and had their movements or freedoms controlled by the states they lived in. Many in fact had fled their countries and in an eventually ironic twist, were given easily asylum and migration to the west as political capital on their country of origin (and not knowing what that would cost them later).

The Cold-War, forcing nations to side with one or the other block, left over post-colonial turmoil from often forced unhealthy and inappropriate systems and/or corrupt upper-classes installed by the past colonizer all contributed to many countries in dire need for a change – be it revolution or not.

Iran had all the symptoms, enforced trade, a totally out-of-touch monarchy that played the cold-war game as much as the super-powers did themselves, a large number of radical clerics and a very, very angry and suffering population ready for change. They also had something else – militant revolutionaries ready to struggle by using violence.

The event that occurred in parallel with the revolution was the joining of forces of the radical clerical community with the extreme militant groups and both sacrificing what normally would not be possible – clerics supporting the power-needs of militants regardless of its contradiction to religious principles and the militancy allowing itself to immerse itself completely in the ideology of the cleric and thus completing the combining like a newly mutated virus. The result in the case of Iran was the unified religeo-militant force and the Islamic Republic was born. This new regime with a mixture of force and faith with the all the power in the hands of an automatically ultra-conservative clerical establishment who now believe that they have that right to enforce their way on everyone.

The factor that makes this an issue outside of Iran that has affected us all is that the revolution showed the way for every other radical cleric or would be religious leader to increase their power, if not gain it. They all started seeking out militants who wanted to sell their souls to their ideology for the price of power and divine indemnity to the violence that certainly was coming.

The Muslim world trembled in 1979, not for the loss of the Shah, but for what this mad-unholy cocktail is capable. The more ultra-conservative the country, the greater the threat and it forced some countries to make great mistakes. Saudi Arabia gave in to the long-standing demands for more severe ultra-conservative and radical interpretations of Sharia Law by the Wahhabists. Later on, when attempting to turn back these decisions, some fanatics responded with violence and life-long grudges – such as Osama Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was born out of the fear of another Islamic Revolution and its animosity towards Saudi’s willingness to deal with and support politically the United States, the great capitalist Satan.

Certainly some levels of militant Islamist fundamentalism existed before-hand, but they were in most cases national causes, with clerics taking a senior role in the politics, not the other way around. The Brotherhood was a nationalist organization, certainly involved in ensuring their region’s internal politics was not interfered. Their anti-Zionist colors were clear and obviously politically. Religious overtones were there, everyone in those days would link religion into the argument if it increased popularity or votes. The Brotherhood changed completely after 1979, and the clerics within simply took over.

Even the struggle between Palestinians and Israelis changed, the enemy at the time for the Arabs was no longer the Israeli invaders backed by Uncle Sam – it was the Jews and their Satanic American supporters. Hamas and Hezbollah are all creations after the ideals set by the ’79 revolution.

The tribal groupings of Afghanistan and the mountains of western Pakistan were similarly torn-apart from the results of the cold-war, with the price of generations destroyed (and still to be destroyed) by the drug trade enforced upon them. Much of their tribal values were extreme to outsiders from the beginning, probably a result of the harsh lives and constant wars that passed through the region, Islam had given them a new set of rules that were obeyed and attempted to ensure fairness on this harsh world. The revolution in neighboring Iran changed all that, the radical clerics were quickly willing to allow for increased (and mostly anti-Islamic) tribal cultural influences under the banner of Islam along with the increases and justification of the trafficking of drugs - all if they supported the radical teachings of that cleric.

The aftermath of September 11, the residence of Al Qaeda in the mountains in Afghanistan, the sharing of a common enemy with Taliban is now common knowledge. What is not so commonly known is that so-called wahhabist purists like Bin Laden are of a different radical variation of Islamism than the mockery followed by the Taliban and the two groups split (even violently) at times because the Wahhabist Bin Laden certainly was unable to tolerate the ancient pagan-tribal values of the Taliban. But desperation situations makes for desperate measures.

I believe that the Iranian Revolution affected us all. The horrendous and murderous attacks in the United States, later in Indonesia, Spain, here in Morocco, England and others have affected us all. There are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, piracy in Somalia, well infiltrated and long-established terrorist-linked groups in Europe (due to that ironic error mentioned above) and obviously more to come before the world is forced to get its act together and change it.

My Muslim World is now suffering the double-whammy of being riddled with radicals whom believe they have the right to change us all to their version of Islam and in some of these countries add to that they have guns willing to do it. Some of the countries, such as Iran which started it all, have imbedded these very principles that strangely the radicals over here in North Africa would find insulting. There is no single radical strain of this fundamentalist virus. The second whammy and for me as serious plus a reason for my blogging, it has created an image problem with the rest of the world that Islam is dangerous and ammunition to every Christian radical and bigoted low-life to spout what I can only find one word appropriate – crap. The image problem is real and to an extent justified, the taking advantage of it by right-wing crap-artists is another.

Whilst observing the current surge of demand for political change in Iran, I continue to muss over what the world would have been like if the Iranian Revolution did not happen. A question that justifiably only God (Allah) knows.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali does well but always misses the critical point

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has released an items that I found in the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25635164-7583,00.html) entitled Obama should speak truth to Islam because others can't. Well worded as usual and many, many interesting points but still she misses some critical points that in the end really matter.

The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise ("... it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed ... our mastery of pens and printing."), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it.

This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn't lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the President should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it's here that Kindles could be of use.

I imagined him offering the king, the sheik and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln's case against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding."

Nowhere in the world is bigotry so rampant as in Muslim countries. No difference is greater between American and Islamic principles than the founding ideals of both. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of Islam that al-Qa'ida and other Muslim puritans insist on the implementation of sharia law, jihad and the eternal subjection of women. It is on the basis of the founding ideals of America that blacks and women fought for -- and gained -- equal rights and gays and new immigrants continue to do so.

What she misses is that the rhetoric is an important sign that the United States has at last realised that there is a world out their other than their own and more importantly, recognition and acknowledging that there is no "my world is better than yours".

Her comments that so easily place her experiences in Somalia as an example of the entire Muslim World comes up over and over again in all her writings and this article is no difference. Yes there is a lot of bigotry, personally I think Arab culture especially in the peninsula and gulf states is very sexist and bigoted - but that is cultural and not Islamics.

I would also say she has it again wrong that it is the principles of Islam that the founding of Al Qaida is based on. Al Qaida say they are Muslims, but the KKK say they are Christians, but can you say that the KKK based their prejudices and violence on Christianity? I guess technically yes you can but the total picture will say no, the same goes with the Al Qaida comment.

The problem is her emotional attachment and personal hatred with everything to do with Islam that has made her bad company and not a chance of contributing to a peaceful world - her animosity alienates 1.6 billion of humanity. We all know that fundamentalism and extremism has engulfed much of the Muslim world and so the answer is not to kill-off Islam but to support the Muslim World's liberals and moderates in eliminating that radical element. She is unable to support that.

Monday, 22 June 2009

Sarkozy's statement on the Burqa

President Sarkozy has made it clear, the burqa is not welcome in France. He is correct and spot on!

The burqa (the full body covering from head to foot and not the head-scarf or hijab) is a cultural and tribal method of controlling women and it stand against everything that France, Europe and Western values stand for. In fact I would argue that it stands against Islamic principles as well but let us just say that time is a long, long way to even contemplate now.

Muslims in France and Europe must get this fact that they are not in system controlled often by fundamentalists that are dominated not by the faith of Islam but every bigoted aspect that suites the status-quo that puts women as slaves and that their way of thinking is the only one.

A number of these low-life bigoted websites such as Muslims against Sharia (created by non-Muslims of course) and others like Pajamas Media have come across a ridiculous argument that shows 1) they know nothing about Islam and 2) they are still after scoring against anything liberal and in this case President Obama.

There argument is that Sarkozy is saying something against what Obama said in Cairo with the statement against the burqa, when he has not. Sarkozy of course is talking about banning the burqa as what I noted above I think is correct, if not spot on! Obama was talking about protecting Muslim women's rights to wearing the hijab which I also think is spot on! The hijab is a Muslim modesty subject that around 70 per cent of all Muslim women follow and if anything demand. Not all, but most do. I should point out that I have no opinion either way, my wife does not wear (though she retains the right to perhaps do later on in life) and my only thought is that if you chose to wear it, do it for the right reasons, not for fashion or to just be with the crowd.

I think it is rather pathetic and low to make political gain out of ignorance and confusion.

A letter to the "Amir" of Revolution Muslim in New York

Below is the letter I sent to Yousef Al-Khattab, the self-proclaimed Amir (or Prince) of the Radical Fundamentalist "Revolution Muslim" group, based in New York. Let us hope for a response, though I am doubting it.
Asalam alaikum,

Yousef Al-Khattab, I appose you and your belief structure. The greatest enemy to humanity is radical fundamentalism, particularly in religion. Be it Christian Evangelism, Hindu-Chauvinism or radical militant Islamism, all is in my understanding, haram.

I have over 28 years since embracing Islam (humdulillah!), travelled the world as a western diplomat and a specialist in international security, I now work in the field of identifying and thwarting the financing of known terrorist organizations. I now live in Marrakech, Morocco a country that supports those whom wish to live a halal life - be it with liberal modernist views or as a strong conservative, as long as it does not impose or force on others. That point which is what is important here.

Your beliefs and those of your outlawed would-be-Caliph are a minority and for good reason. Embracing conflict, radical response, forcing of your views upon others and worse - claiming them to be the only truth, that of the spirit of Islam whilst ignoring that basic fact which is your not supported by the overwhelming vast majority, be they simple people or educated experts. A sign of this is the simple reality, that you and your beliefs are not welcome amongst most Muslim nations and you are border-line legal in the country you chose to live in. This point of choice of country is another important point.

Choosing to live in a country that you do not support, in fact attack, is a hypocrisy of the largest order, and I remember one Ramadan watching a speech by the Grand Mufti in Cairo telling us how above all, Islam hates the hypocrite. I am not an American and much of what has spread from that country's previous government was for me a great damage to the relationship between that nation and the Muslim World. But at the same time, my eyes are not shut to the realities of that nation, a country proud of its heritage based on freedom from oppression, which its people from varying backgrounds created through democracy a great and powerful nation. That from this, regardless of the efforts of the far-right and its own radical Evangelical menace can produce a president that is himself from a minority background and appreciates that there is more than one world out there. It is therefore the simple human and dignified responsibility, which the Holy Qur'an tells us, to participate in life - not fight it. Certainly not in this fight to then usurp your faith to support that.

When President Obama showed us that perhaps the his country has grasped that there is more than one world and one view on this small planet of us, most of us Muslims cheered and sighed 'at last', and that the image of the Ugly American may be soon ready to depart, insha’allah.

But he was right, the pendulum swings both ways, and the Muslim World must also eliminate the Ugly Muslim. That Ugly Muslim is the epitome of that image the West in general gathers up each time when the world Muslim is raised. Violent, Jihadi and Oppressive.

We Muslims are quick to say that we are the Religion of Peace and it is true, but regardless we must prove it. We Muslims know that the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) told it clearly that Jihad al Kabir is the great struggle. We also should all know that the last sanctioned and acceptable Jihad al Sghrir was in the 11th century AD. We know from the Message from Allah as given to us in the Holy Qur'an tells us that "Allah loveth not the oppressors". It goes without saying that the Muslim World has an image problem.

Yousef Al-Khattab - the Revolution Muslim organization that you represent is a shining example of why the Muslim World has an image problem.

In my prayers, I ask that you and your members seek forgiveness from Allah.


(Solkhar is the pen-name for a retired western diplomat, a liberal-Sunni Muslim since the age of 17 and an expert on terrorism-financing. He has settled in the Moroccan city of Marrakech).

"Solkhar's World - A view from the Atlas" (

Extremist Islamist Organisations in the West - Revolution Muslim

If one looks up http://revolutionmuslim.com/mission and reads the mission statement of this organisation (if you are not interrupted by the active videos on the side columns showing the planting of signs in NY declaring the destruction of Zionism, condemnation of any supporters of Israel, etc, etc) you will see a not-so-clever document that insights hatred falsely under the pretext of the divine words of the Holy Qur'an.

"Our mission is to one day see the Muslims united under one Khalifah and under the commands of Allah (SWT). "

These are the words of the so-called purists such as Salafism and Wahhabism that strive to have the world go backwards to the time of the original Caliphate. The theory to have that spirit and unity of that period is commendable but realistically impossible and of course, being the extremists they are, they will confuse everything from that time as being pure - including 7th century Arab tribal cultural practices.

The other question, like that of bringing Sharia to the world also falls flat due to the basic reality check. A Caliphate under who's leadership? Which Sharia do you wish, Hanafi, Maliki, Wahhabist?

Islam is my faith and I am very proud of it, I do not see where it says that reality must be ignored?

"2) To support the dawa of our beloved Sheikh Abdullah Al-Faisal, recently released from prison and secure in Jamaica preaching the religion and serving as our spiritual guide"

What I cannot stand is personality cults, the Qur'an is our Guide and The Message.

Worse, this is not a religious movement, this is a political movement based on particular views and of course they are implying that it is representative of all of Islam and with a subtle implication that those who do not agree are some how unclean or "haram".

I live in Morocco, this group is unheard of here, I have shown a few people including a university professor of Islamics this website who muttered a verse of the Qur'an that is used when something unholy is witnessed.

Though carefully avoided in most elements, this website is pushing for violence, abusing the laws of the United States and indirectly calling them "the enemy" even though they all want to live in that country. They support the destruction of the State of Israel and are not interested in peace and a two-state solution even though the majority of Palestinians want that. They simply think, like all religious extremists (fundamentalists) that their view is the right one and the rest are not only wrong but must change.

No wonder their "dear leader" is exiled in Jamaica.

Sunday, 21 June 2009

Hypocritally named "Muslims Against Sharia" Blogger Shows True Color

As it is my policy to attempt to inform websites & blogger when I post about them, I did so with the hypocritically named "Muslims Against Sharia" blogger.

True to form, he has replied by e-mail and I repeat in full ;

"Fuck off, you Islamonazi camelfucker"

Obviously I do not endorse the pathetic and juvenile language, but rather show it verbatim to confirm the real intentions of the website and blog, or should I say the true color and value that they cannot defend.

What's in a Name?: The Meaning of 'Muslim Fundamentalist'

Below is an excerpt from an article by Professor David Watt, teaches in the History Department at Temple University. He is a specialist in the history of religion and is the author of two books on American religious history. The item was found in the Origins & eHistory website (reference at end of article).

What's in a Name?: The Meaning of 'Muslim Fundamentalist'

Language and Politics

Is it a death tax or an estate tax? Are they dead civilians or collateral damage? Was he a member of the resistance or a terrorist? Is it a cult or an innovative branch of the Christian Church? These sorts of questions remind us of a point made long ago by George Orwell: modern political life is concerned, in very large part, with language. The words we use do not just reflect reality: they shape the way we perceive that reality. In so doing the words we use also become a part of the world we are trying to understand. One cannot understand contemporary American politics without understanding the keywords that define it and that shape the way the American public perceives reality.

Among the most potent of those keywords in our politics right now are “Muslim fundamentalism/ist” and “Islamo-fascism/ist.” Take these examples:

In February 2008, the Ottawa Herald—a newspaper in eastern Kansas—published an opinion piece by one of its employees, Gary Sillett, about Barack Obama’s rhetoric. Sillett’s piece, titled “Don’t Betray Your Heritage for Obama’s ‘Change’” made use of a keyword that is on many people’s lips these days: fundamentalism. In his essay, Sillett argued that the junior senator from Illinois was not to be trusted: “Barack Hussein Obama hit the campaign from nowhere” and had gained an amazing amount of momentum by exploiting “generic catchphrases” given to him by his handlers.

Sillett said that there was nothing wrong per se with words like “hope” or “change,” and implied that he could sympathize with a desire to install a new person in the White House who was very different from George W. Bush. However, turning over the reins of government to a “Muslim fundamentalist” like Obama would be a tragic mistake. Electing him president would be like “spitting on the graves of the victims of 9/11.” The Democratic Party, Sillett said, “intends to put a Muslim fundamentalist in the White House.” Right-thinking Americans have a duty to thwart that plan. To allow the Democrats to hand over the government to a man like Obama would be to betray America’s heritage. Of course, Senator Obama is neither a Muslim fundamentalist, nor even a Muslim. Sillett clearly does not like Obama and calling him a “Muslim fundamentalist” was simply the easiest way to convey that.

During his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for President, Fred Thompson spoke with great passion concerning the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. “We have yet to come to terms fully with the threat that Islamic fundamentalism presents to this country,” Thompson said. “The whole world is watching and waiting now, friends and foe alike, to see how we are going to react to the pressure they are going to put on us.”

John McCain’s pronouncements on this issue have been no less emphatic: “The struggle against Islamic fundamentalism is the most transcendent foreign policy challenge of our time.” McCain has made it clear that he is fully committed “to winning this battle, enhancing the stature of the United States as a beacon of global hope, and to preserving the personal, economic, and political freedoms that are the proud legacy of the great sacrifices of our fathers.”

These terms are so commonly used now we might assume that we all know what they mean. In fact, we do not; these phrases mean different things to different people and in different contexts. If we are going to understand and evaluate our current political debates, we ought to take some time to examine this language.

The History of the Term

For starters, there is no universally agreed upon definition for the term "Islamic fundamentalism." In general, the phrase is applied to Muslims who are thought to adhere strictly to ancient doctrines, to literal readings of the Koran, and are determined to resist modernity and modernization. It is also used for Muslims who want to use the traditions of Islam as a blueprint to build a more just society through the application of Koranic law.

More generally, the words “fundamentalist,” “fundamentalists,” and “fundamentalism” were all created in the 1920s. In the years between 1920 and 1978, the category fundamentalist was almost never used except in reference to people who were Protestant Christians. It is very hard—though possible—to discover any examples of commentators using the concept to analyze Muslims in those years. Thus, as late as the mid-1970s, a writer who referred to a Muslim as a fundamentalist ran the risk of confusing his readers. Muslim fundamentalists were as rare and as oxymoronic as Muslim Presbyterians.

Already in the 1920s, fundamentalism and fundamentalists began to accumulate a set of extremely negative connotations. Under the tutelage of men such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, H. Richard Niebuhr, Talcott Parsons, Richard Hofstadter, and Martin Marty, Americans learned to think of fundamentalism as a dangerous byproduct of a “sociopsychological” fact: many people have trouble adjusting properly to “modernity and modernization.” (Those phrases come from Martin Marty's article “Fundamentalism Reborn.”) Americans thus came to associate fundamentalism with anti-intellectualism, backwardness, and obscurantism. Fundamentalism was a label that was affixed almost exclusively to Protestant Christians who were thought to stand in the way of progress.

This began to change in 1979 when the Iranian revolution deposed the US-backed Shah. Starting with that event, Muslims have been and continue to be characterized as fundamentalists with great frequency. Indeed, it is quite possible that in contemporary English the term is now used more frequently to refer to Muslims than to Christians. When we hear the word today we are, I suspect, more likely to conjure up an image of a stern-faced Muslim cleric than one of William Jennings Bryan or Carl McIntire.


Does Hate Live in Your Backyard?

The above named item was found on a very interesting website called American Renaissance.Com or amr.com. Below is not all of the amr.com item but nevertheless is very well presented and I think pertinent for what I am striving here - to understand that the debate on racism is so hot that it divides nations and can creates extremism on both sides.

I have a no-opinion on the owner/founder of AMR, as I am only starting to read into this, but the well presented item published shows the debate, thought processes and emotions involved and that is what I am interested in understanding.


Does Hate Live in Your Backyard?

Gregg MacDonald, Fairfax County Times, June 18, 2009
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which makes an annual national list of active hate groups, defines them as having “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

According to the SPLC, there are at least four separate organizations in Fairfax County that hold similar opinions and are officially considered hate groups.

One is the American Renaissance/New Century Foundation in Oakton. According to the SPLC, it is classified as a white nationalist organization.

Its leader, Jared Taylor, is a dapper, erudite intellectual who is fluent in Japanese. He was educated at Yale, but has since adopted a philosophy that he calls “race realism.”

Taylor, who accordingly identifies himself as a “race realist,” said there are three primary components to that definition.

“First, we believe that race is a legitimate, biological phenomenon. Second, there are racial differences that go beyond mere appearance, and thirdly, we have a sense of racial solidarity,” he said. “Racial diversity is a source of conflict and tension rather than being a strength.”

Taylor called the Holocaust Museum shooting “a horrible act of wanton violence,” but added that “if the country really cared about what crime really means, we would try to understand why, year-in-year-out, blacks are 30 to 40 times more likely to commit violence against whites than the other way around.”

Taylor said his organization “deplores violence and any form of racial or ethnic hatred.”

But a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that was declassified in April says that “the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment” that could potentially become a catalyst for violence.

It says that right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors and home foreclosures.

The April DHS report says that if the economy continues to decline, right-wing extremism could fuel a resurgence toward that type of domestic terrorist activity. “White Supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts,” the report theorizes.

But Taylor finds fault with that analysis. “If we are interested in examining the motives of violence, we should examine frequent, chronic crimes rather than aberrant cases,” he said.
He pointed out that earlier this month, “a black convert to Islam” opened fire on an Army recruiting center in Oklahoma City, killing one soldier and wounding another.

“Although Muslims have killed thousands more Americans than anti-Semitic nuts have, no one is wondering what the recruiting center incident means for America or for Islam or for blacks. Why the double standard?”

Some thoughts on Racism - and a good example of one.

Today while taking a quick peak at that low-life in Lambeth Walk I noticed how the "R" word - racist. OK, this should be interesting. Very quickly it turned out that it talked about a tragic incident when a group of black British nationals invaded a home of a white girl, made her call her boyfriend and then subjected them to unmentionable horrors. A tragic event, but there was no reference to racism or racially motivated reasons for the crime. So why say it was a racist attack.

The blog says it .... because it was "carried out by black criminals against white people".

So to make it clear - the low-life in Lambeth Walk considers any attack by someone of color against a white individual as being racist and thus by definition - more serious a crime than if the opposite was made. I have heard nothing like that since the earlier days of apartheid.

So, here you have it - self declared white supremacist in Lambeth Walk - not just a basic low-life - a racist one at that.

Saturday, 20 June 2009

How far anti-Islamic websites will go.....

The website Muslims Against Sharia has one interesting fact which I find both disturbing and ridiculous - it was created and run by non-Muslims.

Trying to hide its xenophobia and blatant anti-Islamic hatred, it tries to start by implying it is there to help moderate Islam from the forces of fundamentalism, extremism and militancy - which is a bold and I think noble claim. The thing though is all the real and not-so-hidden agenda of anti-Islamic hate comes out time and time again - and just in this preamble attempting to justify itself. We are there to support Muslims but we are against elements of the Qur'an and that it should be changed. Something of course like - we are not against Muslims but against Islam itself. Muslims of course know that Muslim, Qur'an and Islam are all the same.
So what about the rest of it then?

If you enter the blog sphere of this website, it instantly shows its true bigoted colors. The website has countless pro-Israeli banners, articles defending illegal settlements in the occupied territories and of course the countless items denouncing Islam as a whole. In addition, to hide under, patriotic American items and banners about supporting soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq to somehow link patriotism to this blogger's bigotry. I certainly know quite a few proud and decicated US servicemen and women who would find it insulting to have the armed services even mentioned by such a low-life.

With the increased liberalness in the non-Muslim world that has started to grasp the fact that there are other worlds outside the West and that they must be engaged and respected to get the same back - these far-right hate-groups are just simply having to work so much harder to justify their postings - posing as Muslims for example - pretty much desperate to go so low.

Islam's very big image problem in the West

When you ask the average westerner (be it American, Dutch, Swede, Australian etc) what is Islam to you? What would be the response? Certainly some would say "another religion", "something Arabs worship", "the Taliban", "terrorism" or the like. Why?

Image management, be it from those within and without. Agendas have a great deal with it, by its very nature, agenda groups seek to control image.

I was today reading a very good article called "Taliban, Image-War, and Iconoclasm" by Michael Sells (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/msells.htm) which I was impressed on how it explains this issue. I will give some excerpts here that are most relevant:

The current effort to differentiate "terrorists" from Muslims in the U.S. has been undermined by a naivete in the West about the power of images, while the Taliban and Bin Laden employ a sophisticated understanding of image and media to present themselves as representatives of Islam and to haunt--and taunt--the Western producers of such media.

When the Iranian militant hostage-takers, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban invited the media in for staged photo-ops, they were taking control of the image of Islam in the Western world. They set us up. Images of Taliban students sitting above the written text of the Qur'an allegedly "studying the Qur'an" (when actually they are studying intense political indoctrination), or of Bin Laden surrounded by Arabic script and Islamic symbols, are shown repeatedly by the media, interspliced with pictures of the planes flying into the Towers or other horrors, along with the human suffering of the victims and their relatives and survivors.

Once that image-association is made, explanations that not all Muslims are terrorists are as effective lectures on dangers of cigarette smoking after someone has ingested thousands of images of smokers as Marlboro man, Sexy man, Sophisticated Woman, Liberated Woman, Thoughtful Man, Social Man, Powerful Woman. Advertisers spend billions of dollars finding the exact association that will work in an instant fly-by billboard flash that most people are hardly conscious of as they are driving, but which are clearly effective.

Once someone has seen the image association of mass-killer (Saddam, Bin Laden), Islamic symbol (written Qur'an, Muslims praying, sounds of the call to prayer) and atrocity (towers burning and collapsing, relatives of victims in anguish), it becomes extraordinarily difficult, however much that person tries, to hear and listen to the voices of the vast world of Islam beyond such associations.

I find these four paragraphs perfect in explaining a serious image issue.

It is certain that the average non-Muslim would be unable to differentiate between the beliefs of the average Muslim compared to the very well publicised image of extremist Wahabists, those running Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

To add to this image problem of course is the very real, deadly, violent and intimidating activities that the extremists/fundamentalists do, not only within the Muslim World. From the horrors of 9/11 to the political machine infiltrating the Muslims in the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere - this certainly provides what some would imagine is the "proof" that Islam is exactly what they have learnt from Bin Laden & Co.

Add to this the power of communication through the Internet and the media plus the efforts of groups apposed to Islam for their own agendas (be it religious, political extremism or simple bigotry) and the battle that we have of image and factual accuracy goes on.

The question is how can we battle this. I know this little blog of mine is just a drop in the bucket, but one small drop may eventually become a cup full, a bucket and even a flood.

Ignorance-fed chauvinism

Do not get me wrong, I like America and have many, many American friends and even relatives who are citizens and live there. I grew up with American television, comedy which I enjoy, I admire what principles that the country was built and developed on and much, much more.

But unfortunately, like in most parts of the world, there are elements that make it ugly. Though not violent, repressive and destructive say like the militant fundamentalists that have infected much of my Muslim World, there is an evangelical arrogant Christian power-base that espouses a view that only can be viewed as ignorance-fed chauvinism.

I came across a while back an item on the Washington Post's "About Faith" section. It was written by "Charles "Chuck" Colson" whom is "an attorney, syndicated columnist and author of 25 books, Colson served as special counsel to President Nixon. His daily radio commentary, BreakPoint, is broadcast nationwide." So we can assume that he represents a significant view and considering he worked for President Nixon, he is a good gauge for the establishment of that era.

The item he posted is an example of what must be changed, it was a simple phrase that exemplifies the automatic and I stress "ignorance-fed chauvinism" that the establishment in the United States holds and so evident in the last eight years of the W Bush Administration. Colson's item "Women Vital in Christianity " started with a paragraph that I will quote the first sentence:

"Contrary to popular stereotypes -- and the way in which some religions, like Islam, oppress women -- the Christian faith has been the single greatest source for the advancement of women's rights".

There was this immediate jibethat was so innocently thrown in that I can picture in my mind the shrug and wave of a hand by Mr Colson when he added it, but it says a great, great deal about the mind-set that says it. I of course replied to the item;

"Dear Mr Colsen, I refer to your opening remark "and the way in which some religions, like Islam, oppress women -- ".

I find your blatant verbatim comment incorrect and to be frank rather offensive, especially in this current climate, as it only increases the hysteria and misconceptions that exist against Islam.

Islam's core beliefs certainly does not repress the female gender. As another commenter made, equality does not mean identical. In Islam it is made clear that for biological and thus social roles there is a difference and from that the roles and obligations for both women and men are clear, such as motherhood and keeping the fabric of family life for women and for men protecting and feeding the family, participating in community life. Islamic principles does not preclude women from community activity and even politics but based on the fact that the obligations are also fulfilled.

Please, do not generalise and certainly do not confuse the actions of fundamentalists and those from tribal areas that confuse (by ignorance or on purpose) there own sexist tribal behaviour with the core principles of Islam."

Considering the background of Mr Colson, we have to assume that he is not unique and that many will automatically think like him. That the facts are wrong does not matter when the reality is that this ignorant view exists and the establishment around it makes no effort to change it. The new Obama Administration does recognise it and though not an expert on US politics, I think Colson is from the other side and thus not following the enlightened view.

Let us hope that Republican America is also going to shrug-off this ignorance-fed chauvinism.

Christopher Logan - the face of Islam in Action Exposes his Bigotry

I received this very amusing email from a Christopher Logan, whom is the blog owner of the Islam in Action bigot-site. I put the message here in total:

I stand against Islam, I stand against Muslim immigration which is not harassment because they are not in the country. Is that clear enough for you? Post away....
BTW....Wilders is against Islam because it is disgrace to Western civilization.
Post that to...maybe you will actually have some readers.

Well, so if it is not harassment to seclude one community or in this case an entire religion of 1.6 billion people, then what is harassment? Considering that he wishes to do so because he "stands against Islam" just identifies it. Add to that his xenophobic, anti-Islamic hysteria that is mostly meaningless and baseless "crap", it does more than identify his bigotry as pure harassment (that he claims his site avoids) but it is an obvious hate-site.

There is no doubt that he supports dangerous political extremists such as Wilders - as I am sure Mr Logan needs him as a resource to fill his desire to express his own ignorance.

Here is a pretty obvious hate-blog called Islam in Action

The blog site called Islam in Action is a very good example of a hate-blog, dedicated to hypocrisy.

It condemns itself in its opening summary below its name: "Islam in Action is a site dedicated to exposing the worldwide issue of Islamofascism. The owner of this site is not calling for any violence or harassment of Muslims. He is looking for political solutions. One being putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration"

Thus its owner thinks that he has covered his tracks by saying that the "owner is not calling for violence and harassment" but then calls on stopping Muslim immigration......... as if that is not harassment. Bigotry is selective targeting of a community.

Sadly but showing, the blog has put patriotic banners (and a help donate to protect me from Muslims button) to somehow give itself credibility and fails miserably.

Friday, 19 June 2009

The low-life defends the indefensible

Further to the item about the low-life from Lambeth Walk trying to abuse the detestable situation of a child abused and killed in England and not identified by a doctor who treated him - to score a poin against Muslims,. He quickly tried to deny the charge and change the point .... and failed miserably at both.

"This doctor was incompetent, and that is a perfectly worthy reason to post this story" he said on his blog in response to my pointing out his shameless attempt. Mind you, I think I have only seen one item on his postings that is not about "Muslims", even the current item which is trying to attack French President Sarkozy quickly changes to items about Muslims destroying that country, and so on and so forth.....ad nauseum.

The low-life then tried to change the subject "The fact she was trained in the Third World is relevant, I feel; we have a lot of cases of incompetence from such doctors - Third World staff, Third World service." Again, just looking at the item in question on his own post, the doctor in question was trained both in Pakistan AND Ireland. I guess the low-life has a poor opinion about Ireland. I replied to him with this point and also that the UK does have a screening and qualifications test before a practicing license is given, as do most countries, but I am sure it will fall on deaf ears.

It would be worth pointing out that I have no intention on commenting and making any capital on a tragic event that happened, but rather pointing out that there are low-lifes out there who will do it without hesitation. I find it both disgusting and indefensible.

A first great step, now ensuring the rest will follow….

President Obama has started the repairing of the confidence and respect gap that exists between the Muslim World and the United States. Let us hope that this process does not stop nor pause, to fail would be a set-back of the first magnitude.

Looking back at the past and particularly the eight years of the George W Bush Administration, the difference is remarkable. The culture of “us and them”, “we are better” and worse, “we are the world’s policeman” was simply making America’s image stink in the eyes of many in the world, particularly those in the Muslim one.

In the recent past, the far right-wing political movement in the United States obviously had the number to sway things in their closet-evangelist persona, hiding under more diplomatic phraseology such as “exporting democracy”. Of course it was worse than that by far – be like us, follow us or our giant economy will ensure you comply later one but without benefit.

“Be like us” is probably the key phrase, a xenophobic assumption that “my way” is better than “your way” and what is scary is that this was the way a giant like the US was run. It made no friends and certainly encouraged the diminishing of any good relations with those that did not follow it.

The fact that is undeniable is that much of the world is not in-line with some of the way things are done, perceived and supported in the United States of America or the West in general. The Muslim World in particular has by its very nature priorities of a different family value system, the level of influence religion has in general life, morality and even banking and finance. Though most of the Muslim World does have secular legal systems, most are Qur’anic (Sharia) inspired when it comes to morals and punishments. Fundamentalist run countries are of course another matter.

We Muslims simply will not and cannot accept that any nation, be it the United States or other, telling us that our faith is wrong and our beliefs must change, to target those key differences is by its very nature doing that. Of course the answer is something akin to “go to hell”.
As President Obama has grasped this problem and understood that there are differences AND that there are also many more similarities that all is needed is to respect the other’s differences and cooperate and concentrate on those we can share. This last piece is more critical than one can express and to fail is the potential disaster I mentioned before.

Like it or lump it, the battle against radical and militant Islamist fundamentalism is global. Though it is primarily a battle that we Muslims must lead, history and politics has ensured it is global and everywhere and all nations must involve itself in it to varying degrees. The United States is in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and there lives are as much as stake as others. Fundamentalism must be rooted out and that can only be done by supporting the liberal-moderate Muslims whom more than often are the educated middle-class and civil servants of many of the nations suffering directly from fundamentalists.

Supporting them is easy, mostly by dealing with them as equals, simply acknowledging what Barrack Obama has just done, that we share this world, we respect you and you have your rights. This very act will ensure that Muslims are not concentrating on how the West views them, which unfortunately does often dominate their lives, instead of concentrating on more imortant matters. Also, this simple level of respect takes away the ammunition that the fundamentalists are constantly claiming, that the Ugly Americans will never accept the Muslim World as equals and thus you must fight them. With that ammunition gone, the moderates and liberals will show that partnership, progress is possible and with that the benefits that come with it. The target audience for this is the bulk of the Muslim World; poor, uneducated, conservative and wanting hope in their lives.

The Lambeth Walk strolls a crooked line

There is a blog called the Lambeth Walk which is a not-so-clever home for bigotry and xenophobia.

Examples today are two postings, the first about the sad case of the dreadful abuse and death of "Baby P ". I would never go so low as to post an item on this case for anything other than to show my dismay, outrage and respect to the family. But of course the only reason it was placed on the Lambeth Walk blog was because the doctor that should have identified the danger and abuse that child was a Muslim and her photo was shown because she wears a hijab.

There is nothing more disgusting and low-life than to make capital out of someone else’s misery.

The second item is an example of this low-life blog’s outputs. Non-stop individual examples of errors, criminal acts or anything else negative by Muslims, regardless if any of it was done under the name of Islam or not. The constant use in items adding the word “Muslim” to somehow turn the reader into thinking things are a conspiracy of some sort.

I had a go at the low-life blogger from Lambeth Walk a while ago because of this abusive practice. Showing a list of individuals who did bad things and ensuring that it was “this Muslim” or “the Muslim ….” But avoiding making any reference to the even to the thousands or hundreds of thousands of crimes, violent acts etc that occur each day in the west by the average westerners themselves. Crime is crime, a criminal is one regardless if he is Muslim or not, why single out one group unless you have a motive?

There is certainly a difference when the crime is done in the name of religion; there is no doubt in that. Then the topic comes up and it must be looked at from the perspective of the religion, which then in all cases comes out as being the act of a minority but violent fundamentalist group. Also, by definition, the fundamentalist is (or should be) a minority group not accepted by the bulk of the population and so their actions are also not that of the majority. Thus we can put it back to criminals, be it religious ones.

Lambeth Walk’s low-life blogger has another problem, he know he is towing the bigot line and his arguments are unsustainable in a debate, thus he will let anyone post a comment or rebuttal as long as he thinks he can win it, when he cannot – your comment mysteriously disappears.

On the road to oblivion, Wilders needs to suffer – being ignored

Easily said than done, the would-be-megalomaniac has a team devoted to keeping his name in the spotlight. Sadly, he exists for the singular purpose of sensationalism based on scare-mongering.

I guess every half a century comes out someone who appeals to the basic desire of the average person to seek a personality and when there are none existing in the local political sphere, the extremists come out with one. In a desire to capture on complacency, the economic or social woes in a country, this filth (because that is what they are) start pointing the finger on outsiders, minorities because it is human nature to not endorse change or perceived change.

The part of Wilders is pretty much singular in its political agenda, thus they have no strong points on economics, solutions to local social needs and would not even have the remotest understanding of international relations or obligations. No to Islam, Muslim Immigration and throw in "No to Europe" because there maybe some votes in that.

But to simplify Wilders like this is to make the mistake that many have done in the past to great disaster. Wilders is not stupid, he is ugly, a disease on society (thus the filth label) but he has structured himself in a way that certainly takes coordination. The basis for his funding is also an issue, certainly not a example of support or acceptability but that he is connected to other agenda based groups – and that is a concern.

Wilders has admitted to and public records show his frequent travel to the State of Israel and he has notoriously stated that the country is his second-best preferred home after The Netherlands. He even spent time in a Kibbutz. Though not getting into the Israeli/Palestinian debate (at least not right now), it does not make for much deliberating to consider that much of his rhetoric and probably funding comes from those elements within that country. Anti-Islamic sentiment in that country is certainly as strong as the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic elements in the Arab and Muslim World. That is just a reality.

Wilders has certainly stepped over that invisible line that makes it impossible for extremists to back-track. He simply can not turn back the clock, give up his perverted ideal and thus he is even the more dangerous as he has painted himself into the proverbial corner.
Using the easily shouted but incorrect phrase of “freedom of speech no matter what” is the major defense he uses now to justify all his hate. Yet that phrase is probably the one that will condemn him in the end, regardless of the success or not of the legal cases against him on inciting hate. His publication of the abusive Fitna fiction is no longer claimed by him as “fact” but he simply says it is his right to publish it, as freedom of speech. But at the same time, he is not interested in such freedoms within his own world.

His party is a personality cult, there is no democracy or dissent - it is not tolerated. Those that represent the party must toe the line or be booted out and show absolute loyalty to the leader Wilders.

Wilders avoids public debate, claiming that it is for personal safety because the Muslims want to kill him. Strangely as video debate or within the parliament building is offered, it is turned down. Most interesting though, and this links back to his “freedom of speech no matter what” defense, he carefully has avoided the topic that recently was thronging the airways of Holland – holocaust denial. Those that deny the holocaust argue that it is their right under freedom of speech and you would imagine that the one standing in the front of that group would be Wilders. “No matter what” he said. Wilders will certainly not go that direction at all, why? To do so would alienate him from that particularly important lobby and support group – the Jews and Israel – who would condemn him instantly. Wilders has painted himself in that corner and his only response is to shut-up and let the paint dry.

Though not for certain, it is a good chance that in the end he will be silenced by the court system as finding him guilty will take him out of the government/parliamentary domain that he has tarnished for so long. He will fall slowly but surely into public oblivion – ironically the best punishment for someone who almost certainly started down this track because he wanted to be in the spotlight.

Edmund Backwards James

There is a blogger in Canada that I love to on occasions take time to drop by and see what he is up to. Edmund Onward James as he calls himself has a blog site that is certainly a rant and from the proverbial old-fart genre – a political/social dinosaur with a view that would instill panic in its readers if it was not so hysterically obviously just one old codger’s ranting.

Poor Edmund is leaning so far to the right that must have constant neck-aches when trying to sit up straight to type his dribble. His myopic view of politics means that he must hiss even at the name Obama and though he is Canadian, avoids most of the time even discussing issues there.
His obsession with the “evil religion of Islam” is rather comical, and takes his postings and comments direct from all the most typically agenda based net-rags available. What he certainly has not shown, is any personal knowledge or understanding of the issues he so desperately wants to be seen raising – it begs to wonder if he has actually an opinion on the religion itself, he just cuts & pastes and presumes there is a “jihadist” under his bed, somewhere between his potty and his videos on crop-circles.

Poor old sod, he hates me with a vengeance, I discovered him on the CCD forum which was pulled down because of its hijacking by right-wing extremists and the almost outlawed Jewish Defense League. I complained about the unfair culling of postings by those that do not spout those views and it was closed down, and they even had to change the closed for technical revisions notice which now says “spam, cyber-attacks, defamatory postings, and other assaults” when before it included “jihad-bots” which is rather exaggerating but certainly showing the views of their late administrator/bigot.

Anyhow, it is a good laugh every once in a while to see how the old fellow is doing.

John Feehery has a problem

The American political pundit and blogger John Feehery annoyed me recently, showing some incredibly bigoted language in his postings on the The Hill's Pundits Blog (http://pundits.thehill.com/). I expressed it in a comments section and of course out came a number of ludicrous defenders with similar western-chauvinism and ignorance of the world outside the US.

I have a "no opinion" about his comments on most internal politics, health-care and other national political debate, mostly because I am neither American nor resident in that country. But when he opens up about the world outside his own, he falls into that line which to be brutal is "the ugly American" that was so evident in the eight Bush years. Though carefully written, much of his writings in one particular post basically assumed that the "his world" was better, that the Muslim world was dangerous and destructive and shoved the latter into one single basket.

His contribution "June 5, 2009 The Trouble with the Obama Speech" bagged Obama (he does all the time because he is from the right and so no matter what he will complain) and started the ranting. Though I have no side in the politics of the US, President Obama is correct and his intentions are the right direction in accepting that there is a world outside the United States and that there is no "better" or "worse" just different. It is not a down-play when here in the Muslim World there was a collective sigh of relief and "at last" when the President identified that there needs to be a change and it starts with that perception.