Dienstag, 30. Juni 2009

US Presidential Candidate Taken Captive By Israeli Navy


http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2009/06/30/cynthia-mckinney-reportedly-taken-captive-by-israeli-navy/
Cynthia McKinney, who ran for President as the Green Party nominee in the 2008 US election race, is on board a ship which has been apprehended by Israeli navy, towed toward Israel and prevented from going about its business of carrying aid to Gaza, it has been reported. She is calling it 'an outrageous violation of international law', claiming the vessel was not even in Israeli waters.

Thanks to Nya

Sonntag, 28. Juni 2009

Honduras News Sites


http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/honduras.htm
I often get my news by text from various online friends around the world in different time-zones, and when I received word this morning that Manuel Zelaya, President of Honduras, had been ousted by the military there, in the sender's words, a move that 'smells of CIA'... I figured it would need posting on here, but it didn't really surprise. I'll just watch and see which kind of puppet takes his place...

What I do think is important though, is to check news sources local to the event, not only Reuters and BBC, NY Times and the like, even if these are the best established, often breaking news first. Likewise, across the political spectrum. If I only read Haaretz for Israel, CNN for America and Pravda for Russia, I'll get a distorted view of what's going on.

So here's a link to a few Honduras newspapers' sites...

___________________________________________________________


Consigo a menudo mis noticias por el texto de varios amigos en línea en todo el mundo en diversos time-zones, y cuando recibí palabra esta mañana que Manuel Zelaya, presidente de Honduras, había sido expulsado por los militares allí, en el sender' palabras de s, un movimiento que ' olores de CIA' … Calculé que necesitaría la fijación encendido aquí, pero la didn' de t sorpresa realmente. I' el reloj del ll apenas y ve qué clase de marioneta toma su lugar…

Qué pienso soy importante sin embargo, es comprobar las fuentes de noticias locales al acontecimiento, no sólo Reuters y BBC, los tiempos de NY y similares, incluso si éstos son mejor haber establecido, a menudo las noticias de última hora primero. Asimismo, a través del espectro político. Si leí solamente Haaretz para Israel, el CNN para América y Pravda para Rusia, I' el ll consigue una vista torcida de what' s que se enciende.

Tan here' acoplamiento del S.A. a algunos Honduras newspapers' sitios…

Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2009

The Opium Wars

Opium Wars

Opium Wars

Combat at Guangzhou (Canton) during the Second Opium War

The Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, lasted from 1839 to 1842[1] and 1856 to 1860,[2] the climax of a trade dispute between China under the Qing Dynasty and the British Empire. British smuggling of opium from British India into China in defiance of China's drug laws erupted into open warfare between Britain and China.Then the second opium war came.

China was defeated in both wars leaving its government having to tolerate the opium trade. Britain forced the Chinese government into signing the Treaty of Nanjing and the Treaty of Tianjin, also known as the Unequal Treaties, which included provisions for the opening of additional ports to foreign trade, for fixed tariffs; for the recognition of both countries as equal in correspondence; and for the cession of Hong Kong to Britain. The British also gained extraterritorial rights. Several countries followed Britain and sought similar agreements with China. Many Chinese found these agreements humiliating and these sentiments are considered to have contributed to the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864), the Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901), and the downfall of the Qing Dynasty in 1912, putting an end to dynastic China. The Opium Wars forcefully and suddenly opened China to the world.

Freitag, 19. Juni 2009

Foreign Office protests after Khamenei singles out 'evil Britain' | World news | guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/khamemei-iran-protests-diplomat

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICANS!
YOU HAVE JUST LOST THAT TITLE TO THE UK...





Foreign Office protests after Khamenei singles out 'evil Britain'


Ambassador called in over Iranian supreme leader's warning that Britain is the most evil of foreign powers



 








Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei giving his Friday prayer sermon at Tehran University. Photograph: Reuters TV/REUTERS


Iran's ambassador to London was summoned to the Foreign Office this morning after the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, singled out Britain as Iran's foremost enemy. In his speech during Friday prayers, Khamenei played on the historic suspicions many Iranians have of Britain by hinting at its involvement in the demonstrations and describing it as "the most evil" of foreign powers.


He held up the Westminster MPs expenses scandal as a prime example of the corruption which he said was rife in many western countries.


Then he unleashed a thunderbolt – a warning not to be wooed by foreign enemies.


Western countries were "hungry wolves ambushing us and removing the diplomatic cover from their faces. Do not neglect these people," he warned.


"The outstanding diplomats of some western countries who have talked to us with diplomatic courtesy up to now, have, during the past few days, taken the masquerade away from their faces and are showing their true image.


"They are showing their true enmity towards the Iranian Islamic state and the most evil of them is the British government."

Inquiring into the Iraq war: Lessons to learn | The Economist


http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13884222
WHEN Gordon Brown told Parliament on June 15th that he was setting up an inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war, the prime minister barely mentioned the four preceding inquiries on the same topic. Two committees of MPs and two government-appointed panels of experts had examined aspects of the decision to invade Iraq alongside American forces—and none had satisfied critics of that decision. Instead, Mr Brown found in the 1983 inquiry by Lord Franks into the outbreak of the Falklands war what he called the “best precedent” for an investigation of the origins and conduct of the Iraq war, and the subsequent occupation of that country.

What Mr Brown meant was that this latest inquiry would, like Franks’s during the cold war, be held in private. That would protect national security and ensure that evidence would be “full and candid”. A public inquiry, he said, would mean delay and “lawyers, lawyers and lawyers”. The inquiry under Lord Saville into the “Bloody Sunday” incident—the killing by British forces of civil-rights protesters in Northern Ireland in 1972—is a cautionary tale. It has run for eight years and cost well over £150m ($246m), with no end in sight.

More at link

Donnerstag, 18. Juni 2009

Reading between the lines: BBC Analysis: Titanic clash for Iran's future

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108065.stm










Iran investigates 646 poll complaints




















By Jon Leyne
BBC News, Tehran


alt










Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Tehran, 16 June (Pic: Payvand.com )



The opposition is said to be trying to become more organised


The crisis over the Iranian election has developed with such dizzying speed it is hard to take in the implications.(...translation: "Even I had no clue such a thing was brewing")


Until barely two weeks ago, anti-government demonstrations were unheard of.  ...and were unthinkable.


Now the opposition routinely turns out hundreds of thousands of protesters on the street every day. ...whoever this opposition is must be powerful.


Now the foreign media are operating under some of the most sweeping restrictions in the world. ...duh!


So where is this crisis going, and what do the opposition want? ...translation:"please allow me to think loud, since I have no clue myself"


'Not open challenge'


For the moment, the demonstrators have just one demand - a re-run of the election they believe was won by the opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. ...Mousavi must have thought he was going to get it; and now is trying to salvage whatever it can.










Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei



Ayatollah Khamenei has publicly supported President Ahmadinejad



When they chant "death to the dictator", they do not say who they mean. But the suspicion is they mean not just President Ahmadinejad, but also the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. ...who's suspicion is that? I take our reporter is thinking louder to invent a plausible scenario.


Nevertheless, this is not an open challenge to the system, at least not yet. ...translation"don't fancy that Iran will turn secular. But, in case it does, I want to have my ass covered by pointing out the 'not yet' part"


The women in the demonstrations do not take off their headscarves, for example, even though many detest being forced to wear them. ...I hate this term: 'many'. What does that mean? Among the 100s of thousands of demonstrators there is more than one woman who detest? Two? I had a physics teacher who would mock us when we would refer to 'many'. He would say, 'there are some primitive tribes who count: one, two, many'. And what exactly signifies them, the
'many'(!), still wearing their head scarves? In ALL Muslim countries, women have been wearing a headscarf for eons. Before the Mullahs and after. Ah! But had these many women protested the headscarf mandate, then our reporter would have concluded that 'many' (some?) yearn for a Western style regime. Ahha. And then we could be hopeful... Alas, even those many do not take their head covers off. How disappointing...?


And the demonstrators chant "God is Great" to stress that they are just as religious as supporters of the government. ...it is a well known 'cover your ass' disclosure so that your opponents can't call you a heretic. Otherwise, if you give them any such opportunity, you are done with anyway. For example, even if it were a demonstration for a regime change, say for secularism, they still would emphasize that. Otherwise, the gov't could easily
agitate "True Believers" to hack down these infidels...(!)


Widespread arrests


Foreign ambassadors are called in, one after the other, and given a dressing down for even daring to criticise the shooting of demonstrators. ...that is what those ambassadors are for, no? "Don't dare to use these to your own ends. We are watching you. Otherwise, after we take care of the unrest, we'll get ecen with you!"


Meanwhile, the authorities have been sending out their thugs, the "Basijis" - members of the government militia - in a blatant display of intimidation. ..."You've got YOUR dogs, we have got ours...". Based on my observations, those "Basijis" are simply volunteer thugs, not militia in any sense of the word. I had lived through (survived is a better word) that scenario in the back country.


Student dormitories are ransacked. ...back then, our dormitories were ransacked not by basijis, but by UNIFORMED POLICE, who not only ransacked but also threw a few students out of the backony to their deaths. Ooops, sorry, they JUMPED themselves off the 4th floor, according to the reports.  


And widespread arrests have now stretched as far up - to include the man who was one of the closest aides of Ayatollah Khomeini, Ebrahim Yazdi. ...Ahha, there we go. He was. A long time ago. He fell out of favor. So, he has been scheming to grab the power. Bastard. Lock him up!


So far there has been no decision taken for a really sweeping crackdown, though that may come sooner rather than later. ..."Let us first weigh the opposition's power. They got us by surprise. Hence, first know thy enemy. Once they expose themselves sufficiently, we will get them. Muhahahaaa!"


Deep rivalry


Meanwhile, a separate power play is going on at the top of the political system. ...what separate power play? It is all one. There is NO separate power play.










Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani votes on 12 June 2009



Former President Rafsanjani is backing the opposition



Ayatollah Khamenei has many cards in his hand. ...he better have them... He is the supreme commander of the armed forces...so was the Shah. He is also loyally supported by the Guardian Council...we all are accountable to some body eventually. His time to explain his laps to the Council (board of directors?),
which is reviewing the election result. Until now , no-one ever dared question his authority - at least openly. ...since our reporter hardly has a clue of what the heck is going on, he re-iterates what he had been reporting so far, yet, admits that he has no clue on what is going on at those levels.


But on the other side is former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been backing the opposition campaigns. ...DUH!


As the election began, it became clear he wanted revenge against President Ahmadinejad, who beat him in the presidential election four years ago. ...tsk tsk tsk. Revenge? That is a primitive behavior. Revenge will get you nothing. He wants his power back! If he wanted to have "rewvenge", he would have his wife (wives?) kidnapped, gang raped, and photographed...THAT would be a revenge.


And there is probably a deeper rivalry with the supreme leader himself, whom Mr Rafsanjani helped to power when he succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. ...our reporter is making this up by attaching a 'probably': "I really have no clue, but way back in 1989 they were buddy-buddy."


The rivalry really erupted when President Ahmadinejad accused Mr Rafsanjani's family of corruption during one of the televised presidential debates. ...now he is talking about some useful bit of info. Why would a candidate accuse a non-candidate with corruption? ummm... because he is behind the opponent?




It is an accusation many Iranians might suspect is true, ...a phrase of absolutely no content to it: many?... 1,2, many. might? Equally, might not. suspect? Not even confident? I have NO doubt about  ANY politician's corruption. The only differentitor is the size. The less competent politicians manage smaller corruption, the 'better' ones shovel it. That exactly sets apart successful politicians from the fools...  but
the manner in which it was made caused outrage. ...the manner? Manner in politics? Naaah. It is NOT the manner, it is the opportunity to use it as propaganda for his own cause.


Mr Rafsanjani wrote an unprecedented letter to the supreme leader, calling him to act, and issuing a remarkable threat. ...BIG MISTAKE. You do not threaten your boss if you are competing for a promotion: "Look Mr Director, if you do not promote me to the position of Manager of Public Relations, I'll make you suffer". No no no. You will find yourself out on the street.


If nothing was done, "the volcanos fed inside burning chests will appear in society, as exemplified by gatherings we have seen in streets, squares and universities"....some more tid-bit of insight. He openly said the he will take his supporters out to streets.


Mr Rafsanjani has some powerful tools. ...hmmm... let's read on. Our reporter may actually know a few things.


He heads the Assembly of Experts, the body of clerics in charge of electing, supervising and dismissing the supreme leader.


For them to take action would indeed be unprecedented. But Mr Rafsanjani recently won re-election with a big majority. And Ayatollah Khamenei has many enemies amongst the clerical establishment. ...junk.


Mr Rafsanjani also heads the Expediency Council, which mediates on disputes between other organs of government. Not to mention his almost legendary wealth....it is getting more interesting!


Do not underestimate the fervour of supporters on both sides.


There may be government supporters encouraged or bussed to demonstrations, but there are many who also genuinely adore Mr Ahmadinejad. ...junk.


And for the opposition, the disputed election has unleashed years of frustration over a system that prevents them from meeting their aspirations. ...junk.


They may be arguing over a disputed election. But they are really arguing over the future of the country. A momentous, titanic struggle, whose outcome no-one can predict. ...a dramatic junk.










http://gdb.rferl.org/F2A20B40-2472-43C9-B342-C9FCDF51D896_mw800_mh600.jpg


http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070513/070513_turkey_hmed_10a.hmedium.jpg



Addendum: Year 2007. Place Turkey.


(Photo: People wave national flags as they fill the waterfront during an anti-government rally on May 13, 2007 in Turkey's western coastal city of Izmir. Thousands of secular Turks gathered in the city of Izmir on Sunday to protest against the Islamist-rooted government in a rally organisers hope will unite the opposition ahead of elections in July.

Izmirburakkaragetty_2

Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009

Israel and Palestine




Just some random images, inspired by and including a gallery I saw on Der Spiegel this morning (thanks Baglava). I've tried to show various sides here, give a relatively unbiased overview. Undoubtedly the world's most complex territorial dispute.

Sonntag, 14. Juni 2009

Netanyahu Supports Demilitarised Palestinian State


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFiCRRxlIfQuGBEsNH7PazHTPxZw


Netanyahu endorses demilitarised Palestinian state

By Ron Bousso – 3 hours ago

RAMAT GAN, Israel (AFP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday endorsed for the first time the creation of a Palestinian state, provided it was demilitarised, after weeks of pressure from Washington.

The White House called his speech "an important step forward."

But Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognise the Jewish character of Israel, a condition Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has long rejected.

He also ruled out a halt to all Jewish settlement activity as demanded by the United States.

"If the Palestinians recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people, then we arrive at a solution based on a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside Israel," Netanyahu said.

"The Palestinian territory will be without arms, will not control airspace, will not be able to have arms enter, without the possibility of striking alliances with Iran or (the Lebanese Shiite militia) Hezbollah."

Netanyahu also ruled out a complete stop to settlement activity in the occupied West Bank -- which the Palestinians have said is a condition for relaunching talks -- and said Palestinian refugees would not be resettled inside Israel's borders.

The Palestinians recognised Israel as a state in 1993 as part of the Oslo accords but have refused to recognise it as "Jewish" because doing so would effectively mean giving up the right of return for Palestinian refugees, a key Palestinian demand since Israel was created in 1948.

The Palestinians quickly slammed Netanyahu's speech, which Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said "torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region."

"It hobbles all efforts to save the peace process, in a clear defiance of the US administration," he told AFP.

The Islamist Hamas movement ruling the Gaza Strip condemned it as reflecting a "racist, extremist" ideology that denied Palestinian rights.

The speech was billed as a response to Obama's address to the Muslim world 10 days ago in which he reiterated Washington's "unbreakable" bond with Israel but also called the Palestinian situation "intolerable."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement Obama "welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech."

The US statement reiterated Obama's commitment to a two-state solution, with a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine "in the historic homeland of both peoples."

Obama "believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal," it said.

In recent weeks Washington had increased pressure on Israel's new government to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state and halt all settlement activity.

The Obama administration's position raised fears in Israel that its main ally may ease its support as it tries to improve relations with the Muslim world.

The US stance put Netanyahu in a difficult position, as his heavily right-wing 10-week-old government could collapse if he gives in to too many of Washington's demands.

"It was a brilliant speech but it had one miserable phrase that laid the cornerstone for the creation of a state of Palestine," Likud MP Danny Danon said following the premier's address.

"I will do everything in my power in parliament to prevent this from happening."

The main settlers' organisation in a statement condemned the speech.

"We deplore that the prime minister has agreed to the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state after he has said for years that such a state, even demilitarised, would be a threat to Israel," the Yesha Council said.

But Daniel Ben Simon, an MP from the centre-left Labour party, part of Netanyahu's coalition, called it a "revolutionary speech" and said Israel's centrist parties should encourage the hawkish prime minister.

He added that such support could "lead to a miracle of a peace agreement with the Palestinians under a centre-right government, something at which left-wing governments never succeeded."

A Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said the speech "is certainly encouraging and gives us a lot of work with."

"I think everyone understands Israel's concerns and the demand for a demilitarised (Palestinian) state has always been part of the agenda."

Washington provides Israel with 2.4 billion dollars of annual military aid as well as diplomatic support, making the United States its most important ally.

Israel and the Palestinians relaunched their negotiations at a US conference in November 2007, but the talks made little progress and were suspended during Israel's blistering war on Gaza in December and January.

Netanyahu on Sunday also responded to the elections in Iran, saying the "biggest threat to Israel, the Middle East and the entire world is the crossing of a nuclear weapon with radical Islam."

Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has accused Iran of racing to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, allegations Tehran vehemently denies.

Freitag, 12. Juni 2009

UN Resolution Against North Korea for Recent Nuclear Test - Key Points

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5517205/North-Korea-resolution-key-points.html



# Calls upon all states to inspect all cargo to and from North Korea, in their territory, including seaports and airports when there is reason to believe the cargo contains banned items related to North Korea's nuclear and missile activities.

# If a flag state does not consent to inspection on the high seas, it decides that the flag state shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities.

# If a flag state does not consent to inspection on the high seas, it decides that the flag state shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities.

# Decides that member states shall prohibit the provisions by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services to North Korea vessels in case of reasonable ground to believe they are carrying banned items.

# Extends the arms embargo decreed in Security Council 1718 adopted in 2006 after North Korea's first nculear tests to "all arms and related materiel as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms or material.

# The text however makes an exception for "small arms and light weapons and their related material" although it requires states to notify the Security Council sanctions committee "at least five days prior to selling, supplying or transferring small arms to North Korea."

# Calls upon states to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the North Korea's nuclear related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs or activities.

# Calls on all states and international financial institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance or concessional laons to North Korea except for humanitarian and development purposes addressing the needs of the civilian population or the promotion of denuclearisation.

# Calls on all states not to provide public financial support for trade with North Korea (export credits) where such support could contribute to Pyongyang's nuclear and missile-related activities.

# Decides to extend an assets freeze decreed in a 2006 resolution to additional North Korean entities, goods and individuals. The Security Council sanctions committee was tasked with updating the list within 30 days.

# Calls on member states to report to the Security Council within 45 days of the adoption of this resolution on "concrete measures they have taken in order to implement effectively" the sanctions.

# Condemns in the strongest terms" the May 25 North Korean nuclear test in violation of and flagrant disregard of (Security Council) resolutions.

# Demands that North Korea not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using missile technology and shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and immediately cease all related activities.

# Decides that North Korea shall suspend all activities to its ballistic missile program, immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and return to the six-party talks on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. 

Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009

Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2009

Conspiracy Theory - 9/11 Truth Movement

A calm argument presenting the rationale for doubting the official 9/11 explanation:

Two-part series 1, Part 1:

and part 2:

Two-part series 2, Part 1:

and Part 2:

Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009

The Conservative Shadow Cabinet, UK




After disastrous European election results for Britain's Labour government this week, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown's leadership in jeopardy, it is possible he may call an early General Election. Even if not, the next one isn't far away... and these are the people who will probably form the next British government. Worth getting to know their names and faces - you might be seeing a lot of them in the news soon.

Photos taken from Conservative party's own website.

Montag, 8. Juni 2009

What This Group Is For - A Clarification


Following the censorship / deletion of a few posts here recently, after I noticed an increasing number of them were getting to be off-topic and outside the scope of what this group was set up to document and discuss, I am called upon to clarify what exactly is wanted here and what is not.  I wrote a similar piece to this early on, and some general guidelines... but frankly few read them, and perhaps now we're more operational, more of us will read this, and I won't need to delete anything else.


First of all, what is 'Geopolitics', as opposed to any other politics?  As group founder, have I understood that correctly... do others not think of it in the same way?  I'm open to being corrected where I'm wrong, and any discussion that comes from this post should clear this up once and for all.

HERE are a couple of different definitions, giving us a good all-round idea of the meaning.

Personally, I understand it to be about the things listed in the group's profile - international relations, war over natural resources like oil, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, rivalry between ideologies as in The Cold War, territorial disputes and man's inability to co-exist peacefully unless there's a mountain or an ocean in the way...  a blend of politics and geography, then?

I see it as international, but perhaps that is wrong.  Can more local issues such as at the State level be 'geopolitical' too?  The gas row between Russia and Ukraine which froze half of Europe last January, that's geopolitical.  What about the MP's expenses scandal in Britain recently?  Is that?  Or the issue of Sotomayor's ethnicity, in the US?   

The single biggest subject within that third of the group's title was always going to be Islam, Israel, the West's crusade in Central Asia and associated terrorism.  With that in mind, I would ask a couple of things of everyone...

It is hoped that we can develop a peaceful environment, perhaps even unique among these groups, where all political affiliations, nationalities and religious creeds can come and talk openly without being offensive or being offended.  Take this as an opportunity.  In order to acheive that, it's my job, with some help, to make sure people who are only here to mock and abuse those who they don't agree with, are kept in line, or kept out completely.  There are plenty of other groups that allow much more freedom to insult each other... that's not welcome here.  If you have an axe to grind about Islam, Israel, America or whatever else... make your point without being rude about it, please.  Without wishing to single anyone out, can we not have provocative titles on posts, either?  The fact that you have x or y viewpoint is already respected - but not everyone will agree with you.  Please understand that.  And one post on the same subject is usually enough per person, per day... it takes more than a day for a post to become a quality 'thread', with replies.

Theology and religion, too... some discussion is unavoidable if you're talking about Kashmir, Afghanistan, Israel and the like.  Religious differences are at the very heart of the matter, but there is one aspect of religion which makes it unsuitable for a forum like this.  This is the fact that 'God' or 'Allah''s law is more important to the religious adherent than any ground-rules laid down here.  If you are so strictly religious that you are unable to abide by some basic standards in debate, you're not likely to fit in here (I don't think this has been much of a problem thus far, but bashing and baiting in general are, by common sense, not helpful).  I said right at the beginning... ok, so you don't like Muslims / Jews / Christians / Atheists / left / right... fine, say so. But don't expect everyone to like it.  Personally, I'm an atheist and I think you're all going to get us killed if we carry on the way we are.  But that's just one opinion.

'Attack the idea, not the person' is a standard that works well elsewhere - I've seen some threads getting a little too personal, which is alright if it clears the air and we achieve better understanding.  But not if it doesn't.

So... what about 'Spies & Lies'?  Well, lies and politics go hand-in-hand, I think we all understand that perfectly.  'Spies' refers to the intelligence agencies and covert ops, secretive groups working behind the scenes, the general topic of 'espionage', I suppose.  This could extend into 'corporatocracy' and some economics, just as the geopolitical / tribal issues might extend into the realm of 'anthropology'.  'Lies' could equally be about debunking myths... there are a few here who I know love taking conspiracy theories apart.

Also, groups like the United Nations, military alliances such as NATO, developments like Iran's alleged nuclear program (is it just for energy?) or Kim Il Jong's persistent sabre-rattling.

What is not needed here are links to adult friend-finders, reviews of toy robots (though that was quite funny) or discussions about whether Noah let a raven or a dove go first during the Biblical flood.  I anticipate some UFOs and stuff like that... but if you start on about Ancient Sumeria and Atlantis, you will be asked for evidence.  On your head be it  :)

I don't enjoy coming across like I haven't got a sense of humour, but it's how it is in these groups... anyone here now or in future who I find just taking liberties and testing to see what they can get away with, I will smite their souls with my wrath.  I'm not daft - I can tell the difference between someone having a joke and someone being nasty about someone else's religion etc

I have one last question... for the members to decide.  'Demographic' topics, such as abortion rates among different ethnic groups, China's population control, cultural matters such as the role of women in Indian society... shall we expand the scope to things like this?  I can see how that fits...  just not the results of last night's 'baseball game', as Gurcan eloquently put it yesterday.

I hope that's everything, and the last time I need to say this for a long while.  I'm sorry if you've had something of yours deleted, but that's how it has to be.  I hope nobody leaves after reading this, and of course, if you know anyone who might like it here, please invite them.

Samstag, 6. Juni 2009

President Obama's Cairo Speech : Transcript by the BBC



 

I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and co-operation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalisation led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of 11 September 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the co-operation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognising that change cannot happen overnight. I know there has been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us: "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilisation's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. (Applause.) It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognise my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote: "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they have excelled in our sports arenas, they have won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - and that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practise one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognising our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes - and yes, religions - subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that there are still some who would question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonising for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5bn each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8bn to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. (Applause.) I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honour our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, 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. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognise that they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognise past agreements, recognise Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab States must recognise that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognise Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognise the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together. (Applause.) As in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. (Applause.) That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realise this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy. (Shout from audience.) Thank you.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it first hand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, and the heart, and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfil their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfil zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action - whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.)

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalisation is contradictory. The internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change to communities. In all nations - including America - this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities - those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognise that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st Century. (Applause.) And in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasising such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programmes, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centres of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programmes that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitise records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organisations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilisations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply sceptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has build up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilisation, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you.

(References to applause, from the audience in Cairo, inserted by the BBC)

Dienstag, 2. Juni 2009

Death Sentence

Here's another great blog entry reproduced with permission from elsewhere on Multiply.

The author wishes to remain anonymous.


Death Sentence

April 12th 2009

Two Malaysian policeman were sentenced to death Thursday for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, in a case that has had tongues wagging from Kuala Lumpur to Penang and everywhere in between. Remains of Altantuya's body were found in a jungle clearing in 2006, after the Mongolian had been blown up by military grade expolsives. The reason people are talking has to do with the fact that both policemen are members of an elite unit that guards the Malaysian prime minister and deputy prime minister, neither had a motive to kill the 28 year old model and it's known that an order to "erase" the model was made after she began to harass a high level person for money after an affair. Malaysia's top blogger Raja Petra has suggested that the newly signed up PM Najib is linked to the murder, and for his troubles Petra was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), an opinion shared by opposition members in parliament who say questions have not been answered during the trial and that just as many "answers" need to be questioned. PM Najib has strongly denied any involvement in the murder, saying that he had never met the model, yet the allegations persist and the opposition has called for an independent and transparent inquiry, a request that has been denied.
 

Karpal Singh, an opposition politician and leading lawyer who is representing Altantuya's family, has said there are too many holes in the verdict, there is no motive and the murder chain goes beyond the two who have been charged. To make things more interesting, the French Liberation newspaper has suggested that Altantuya may have been pregnant when she was killed, that Altantuya was involved as a translator (the model grew up in Saint Petersburg and was fluent in Russian, Chinese and Korean) on a trip to Europe in 2005 that involved sealing submarine purchase deals with military contractor Armaris and that the car in which she had been taken away, when she was kidnapped, was a government registered vehicle. During this time Najib was Malaysia's Defence Minister. During this time his close associate Razak Baginda, later arrested for his involvement in the murder (Baginda was eventually acquitted), received a very fat payment to his bank account from Armaris. During this time Altantuya's entry into Malaysia had been erased from Malaysian Immigration records. And when Baginda was arrested he received a text message from Najib promising him that he would talk to the Inspector General of Police and that everything would be "cool".

 The French paper also alleges that Altantuya was "shared" between Najib and Baginda. But it suggests that the murder had more to do with Altantuya becoming difficult after not getting her "tip" for her services on the submarine deal rather than the murder having anything to do with a lover's "tiff" gone wrong. It's also suggested that the Russian FSB (ex KGB) has taken a keen interest in the trial (and has people in Kuala Lumpur who aren't here to visit the Butterfly Gardens). The Malaysian media, of course, has asked many pertinent questions, has looked under every stone and has largely kept the matter on the front pages, keeping it's spotlight off such unimportant issues like "spirits served at the elite Royal Selangor Club were not the Genuine Article". Shocking stuff. Tainted whiskey!    

          The whole affair has all the ingredients for a movie, the story of Altantuya reminiscent of the tragic Mata Hari figure. With the ghosts of disappearing witnesses, the heady mix of sex and politics, the duplicity of the protagonists and the amount of greasy money that passed between sweaty hands it makes for a saga that won't vanish into the background with the broken-necked charged. This will grow into a bigger creature, the kind that gobbles up political careers, causes suicides, leads to cracked marriages (though the marriages involved have been cracked a long time, by all accounts) and will never be buried. No matter how often some swear on the Koran. No matter how much some try to shoot bullets through it's skin. This will not leave. It will stay around until there's some justice hopefully.

The story of Altantuya will not be sucked into the darkness. And the more the government and the media try to avoid it the more the whispers will build into a wave that could wash away more than a few submarines. When the two policemen hang there will be more than just their families looking for heads to roll. Mongolia is watching. Malaysia is watching. There is no such thing as a perfect murder. But there is such a thing as a perfect storm. It seems like it may be making it's way here.


Montag, 1. Juni 2009

Re-titled: Dr. Arpad Pusztai, Eugenics and GM Food

The following is a blog entry today by one of Multiply's most talented Politics & History writers, who has no interest in being part of this group, but has kindly given his permission for this article to be reproduced here:


http://aaranaardvark.multiply.com/journal/item/199/How_Cleaning_Your_Moat_Became_The_Biggest_Crime_in_History_?replies_read=9

 

"Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people."

Henry Kissinger 1974


The media in UK has for a couple of weeks now, been obsessed with the political scandal of British MPs defrauding taxpayers with their outrageous expenses claims for such things as 'cleaning up their moats'.

The whole structure of  Britain's political institutions has been rocked by these revelations. People are up in arms, righteous indignation has gripped the land and politicians have become the universally detested pariahs of this unfolding moral panic.

The arrogance and corruption of Britain's political elite has been exposed in unprecedented ways.

The tinpot New labour dictatorship over which Gordon Brown now presides is about to come crashing down, a cultural revolution is currently taking place which affects all political parties in Parliament and the entire structure of British governance, from the electoral system to the unwritten constitution of the UK that is now being widely debated by the chattering classes.

In some ways this is a triumph for those of us who have been predicting this legitimation crisis for decades now, but in other ways it is absurd.

The British public are appalled by the way that MPs have behaved as if they were a race apart. The corruption revealed in high places and the pathetic media wittering of politicians caught with their grubby hands in the cookie jar.... are a joy to behold.

The paralysed inaction of the police to use their powers to investigate these offences demonstrate a political control over them that would be well at home in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Pinochet's Chile.

London's Metropolitan police, who were a few weeks ago challenging G20 protesters to 'bring it on' in an orgy of strutting machismo... seem to have completely lost their 'bottle' and are caught like rabbits in the headlights of history just like their German, Russian and Chilean counterparts before them.

If this MP expenses debacle is in the end what it took, then all well and good, thank the Lord for small mercies, whatever it takes to get the job done and so on.

But this is really the least of many offences against the people and not just the people of this country, but also many other countries around the world like Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have brought disgrace to this country, they have been the Quisling puppets of the United States government and a willing partner in their illegal wars and widescale crimes against humanity.

They have been globalising pawns of the Rockefeller Foundation just like the corrupt political elite in Washington, who paper over the cracks of America's sham democracy and stuff their pockets with lobbyist bribes, while they routinely betray those people who elected them.

Blair, Brown and the leadership of New Labour are employed by the Bilderberg Group (one of many Rockefeller front organisations) to run Britain on behalf of their masters in Washington and do their bidding irrespective of the best interests of the British people they were elected to serve.

So they are not only corrupt, they are an embarrassment, a government of toadies sucking up to the American military-industrial complex, with a cringe making deference to the megalomaniacal ambitions of their deranged sponsors.

The game is truly up.

But how would Britain's enraged electorate react to the knowledge that they have been exposed to deadly technologies by our New Labour government, in order to further the eugenic ambitions of the globalism they tirelessly promote?

The expenses issue is only a symptom of the contempt the British government and Westminster politicians in general have shown toward the British people who elected them, there are much more serious charges to answer than those.

Allow me to offer an example that goes to the heart of the so-called 'special relationship' and at the same time dispels those conspiracy theories that have identified some vague masonic and occult 'Illuminati' who are said to be the secret geniuses behind the New World Order.

Let us consider facts not theories and the evidence that shows the hegemony of arrogance and megalomania of which, the expenses scandal in the UK is a mere wisp.

For that we must go back to Tony Blair's first term of prime ministerial office...to Aberdeen, Scotland  in 1998 and the strange case of Dr Arpad Pusztai a genetic scientist of Hungarian descent.

Pusztai's story is a parable for the fall of New Labour and makes far more interesting reading than hysterical media stories of politicians greed and self satisfied impropriety, that's just a storm in a teacup by comparison.

The background to this story is the way that the term genetic science was invented and rapidly replaced the term 'eugenics' in the post-war American science community, because of the bad name the latter had derived from the activities of the Nazis.

It is a tale of intrigue and obsession that eventually led to the GMO revolution and the use of food as a weapon by the United States.
A fascinating history I think, but I am jumping ahead of myself here, so let's go back to Blair's Britain in the late 1990s.

Dr Pusztai was at that time working at the Rowett Research Institute at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He was one of the world's leading plant geneticists with a distinguished research career behind him. Pusztai was recruited by US agribusiness giant Montsanto to research plant lectins, (an area in which he had significant expertise) for their genetically modified seed programme.

The role of GMO food is the key to all the conspiracy theories as well as post war geopolitics and the nature of political power and influence in the United States and beyond it, particularly I believe in Britain under the auspices of New Labour.

The mechanics of the GMO revolution and part this plays in the globalising agenda cannot be overstated, it is the bedrock of US foreign and domestic policy and has been for decades, forget Bush and Obama they are pretty much irrelevant functionaries.

F.William Engdahl's excellent and well researched book Seeds of Destruction (2007) traces the unfolding intrigue by which globalisation and 'full spectrum dominance' have become the defining characteristics of the Anglo-American empire

His book covers the roots of the strategy to control "global food security" that goes back to the 1930s and the plans of a handful of American families to preserve their wealth and power.

But it centers on one in particular that above the others "came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of the emerging American century" that blossomed post-WW II.

Its patriarch began in oil and then dominated it in his powerful Oil Trust.

It was only the beginning as the family expanded into "education of youth, medicine and psychology," US foreign policy, and "the very science of life itself, biology, and its applications" in plants and agriculture.

The family's name is Rockefeller.

Arpad Pusztai was almost destroyed by his involvement with Montsanto, after his research indicated massive human health risks associated with GMO foods which entirely changed his perspective on the technology as a result. He paid a high price for his candour.

He was hounded and persecuted by not only the Blair government but other elements of the British establishment including academia, all of whom were jumping to Montsanto's tune.

Engdahl reviewed the Pusztai affair, the toll it took on his health, and the modest vindication he finally got.
Already out of a job, the 300-year old British Royal Society attacked him in 1999 and claimed his research was "flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it."
It was another blow to a distinguished man who deserved better than what Engdahl called a "recognizable political smear" that also tarnished the Royal Society's credibility for making it.

Rats fed GMO potatoes by Putszai had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes.

It got worse.

Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer.

Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

Pusztai's attempted ruination had no basis in fact and was done because his bombshell threatened to derail Britain's hugely profitable GMO industry and do the same thing to its US counterpart.

Pusztai had inadvertently come up against the power of the Rockefeller Foundation and it's obsession with the genetic domination of the world by a sort of private sector fascism intended to accrue all wealth into the grasping hands of a self selected few, that is what we actually mean by globalisation and the New World Order.

Montsanto complained to Bill Clinton, who immediately pushed the complaint down the line to his protege Tony Blair, who then directly intervened on behalf of Monsanto to have Pusztai sacked from his job, discredited by the University of Aberdeen, professionally vilified and discredited by an influential section of the British academic establishment.

And that my friends is an example of the 'special relationship' in a nutshell.

The UK intended by US agribussiness to act as a GMO bridgehead in Europe because of restrictions imposed on companies like Montsanto by the EU held back the Project for a New American Century and the ambitions of the Rockefeller dynasty.

In the US today GM foods saturate  the national diet, but despite EU restrictions they also abound in the UK food chain.

Over 80% of all supermarket processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils; soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter).

They're unrevealed to consumers because labeling is prohibited yet the more of them we eat, the greater the potential threat to our health.

For the latter day eugenicists like the Rockefeller Foundation and the agribusiness bio-imperialists like Montsanto, genetically modified food produces a race of small brained people, neutered by reduced testicles in males, i.e  mentally retarded eunuchs produced at ever growing profits to the avaricious few in America and their hangers-on.

GMO seeds are a weapon of imperialism being deployed world wide to seize control of the very staff of life, maybe the pro-life Christian fundamentalists who campaign so vigorously against abortion, a population control method historically favoured by the Rockefeller Foundation, should really get their heads around the implications of genetic modification for their holy crusade on behalf of all life?

The implications for the current upheavals in British politics is that it is pointless stopping the critique at a few corrupt MPs, or even the Brown government.

The Montsanto/ Pusztai affair demonstrates that a eugenic agenda is supported by establishment pillars like The Royal Society, elements in the university sector and the entire globalisation agenda of Britain's servile political establishment.

There are worse crimes than using taxpayers money to clean your moat....the selling out of the British population and putting in jeopardy the health of millions of people to further the already obscene profits of the US agribusiness giants is, I would suggest, one of them.

What the Blair/Brown governent has done is in every sense a crime against humanity... from the individual scientist smeared and discredited for telling the truth, to the intended nutritional enslavement of the entire human population of planet earth.

Crimes don't come much bigger than that I don't think.



Related:  http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp