(Continued from page 196)Islam, past or present, proven to be - Satanic!
Brotherhood at the table of 'democracy' in Egypt!
In light of dawah and taqiyya doctrines these Muslims are projecting views that are entirely consistent with the Brotherhood's contemporary plans - and also with historical Muhammadan tactics. Why should we trust Islam, past or present, when it has proven to be everything the Qur'an and hadith reveal it to be - Satanic!
That no branch of Islam can be trusted to supply genuine and accurate replies is seen repeatedly and another example of this in the context of the FCNA is that one of the signers of their oft-praised 'Fatwa Against Terrorism' was Fawaz Abu Damra, who once led the mosque attended by the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; this excerpt from an FBI transcript reveals Damra's true feelings about jihad and the Jews:
'Donate to the Islamic Jihad! Nidal Zaloum from the Islamic Jihad held a dagger and stabbed four of the Jews in the courtyard of Al-Haram Al-Qudsi … For the Intifadah, for the Islamic Jihad, I say it frankly for the Islamic Jihad. The Jihad is still erupting in Palestine from village to village, I tell you it is not for the organizations with respect to everyone but for the Jihad. The Jihad! One of them would leave his house with a knife to stab the Jews - twelve Jews after the events of the Gulf War. Brothers, the Intifadah calls you. Five hundred dollars! Who would add to five hundred dollars? Who would add to five hundred dollars? If you write a check, write it for the Islamic Committee for Palestine … [Muslims should be] directing all the rifles at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews.'
The Executive Director of FCNA is Zulfiqar Ali Shah whose hatred of Jews has also been made abundantly clear, as he made clear publicly at one Chicago gathering of Muslims:
'If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib [the holy city of Medina], where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That's the pinnacle of their motives.'
The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) has been key to Brotherhood plans for the USA since its origination (1963) and focuses on implementing sharia, particularly by advising and educating its members and officials on matters relating to its application. Thus FCNA has also espoused a version of classical Islamic law drawn largely from Qaradawi's rulings called fiqh al-aqalliyyat (Muslim minority jurisprudence) dealing with problems Muslims face in countries where they are minorities and which therefore concentrates on special and exceptional rulings for those special circumstances and yet remains highly intolerant. Unlike classic sharia law, it is only interim, encouraging Muslims to temporarily accept non-Muslim rule while heavily populating the West. The thesis posits that Dar al-Islam (the 'House of Islam') exists wherever Muslims live but prefers to call the Muslim world 'dar-al ijaba,' ('land of response') and non-Muslim nations, 'dar ad-dawah,' i.e., where Islam 'has to be spread.'
The depth of Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism in the USA is exemplified further by another front of the Brotherhood, the Islamic Circle of North America [ICNA], which is made up mostly of Pakistani and Indian Muslims and is also an off-shoot of the Muslim Students Association. Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky has identified members of the Pakistani terrorist group Jamaat-e-Islami operating within ICNA and terrorism analyst Steven Emerson (author of 'American Jihad') claims that documents show that Hamas officials have participated in previous ICNA events. 'The ICNA's hatred of the Jews is so fierce,' wrote Emerson, 'that it taunted them with a repetition of what Hitler did to them ... The ICNA openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terror attacks, issues incendiary attacks on western values and policies, and supports the imposition of sharia [Islamic law].'
The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of political Islam and has spawned at least a dozen major terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas, is a political force in Egypt that is also willing to participate in elections and in the civil institutions of society. The Holy Land Foundation, another creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, was the largest Islamic charity in America until it was raided by the FBI and put on trial in Texas for funding Hamas. One of the documents seized in a concealed basement at the Foundation headquarters and put into evidence by the FBI was the Muslim Brotherhood's plan for America. The stated goal of this plan was to 'destroy the American civilization' and called for building a secret leadership in America and for the creation of a series of Brotherhood front groups that would appear to be participants in America's democracy until the time came when force might be necessary to accomplish the Brotherhood's goals.
Whether by conversion or war, the Brotherhood's goal remains conquest of the West and full sharia criminal law demands, and routinely applies, capital punishment for apostates from Islam when Islam rules completely, directly contradicting constitutional rights to freedom of faith in the USA and parallel laws in other Western nations. In late September, 2009, Former Muslims United sent polite, respectful requests to several dozen U.S. Muslim leaders, asking that they sign its 'Freedom Pledge' to protect lives, property and rights to freedom of faith for all former Muslims. The recipients of these polite pledge requests included FCNA chairman Muzammil Siddiqi, vice chair Muhammad Nur Abdullah, executive director Zulfiqar Ali Shah, executive council members Mohamad A. El Sheikh, FCNA executive trustee Jamal Badawi, Abdur Rahman Khan and Zainab Alwani and member Ishan Bagby. All of these recipients claim to believe in 'moderation' in these matters. Should we be surprised that the result was that not one even replied to the request, let alone decided to sign their approval, tacit or otherwise.
Scramble for safety across the Middle East
Coptic Christians report Islamic Egyptian army attacks on three Coptic Orthodox monasteries in Egypt, with resultant demolition of their walls and the arrest and torture of the monks. The White House has remained silent while Christians in Egypt suffer, yet invite the Muslim Brotherhood to the table in the establishment of Egypt's new government. Meanwhile about 7,000 Coptic Christians staged a peaceful rally in front of the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo before marching towards Tahrir Square to protest against attacks by the military on their monasteries.
On Friday, 4th March, 2011, in the village of Sole, on the outskirts of Cairo, local Muslims decided they now had the freedom to burn down the town's Coptic church. Without a strong Mubarak police force they knew that no-one would stop them. While the media have sold the West on the Egyptian democracy 'dream' that would bring peace and a secular government, Christians know the truth. After torching the church the Muslims promised to build a mosque on that very spot.
On Tuesday, 8th March, thousands of Coptic Christians protested in front of the state-run television building in Cairo, carrying large wooden crosses to protest the burning down of their 'Church of the Two Martyrs'. Sadly, soon after, many of the protesters became martyrs when a mob of violent Muslims attacked them, killing at least 13 people and injuring about 150! The small military force on the scene apparently fired into the air, although some Christians in the protest march claim the military aided the Muslims' attack by getting out of the way of the Muslims and even firing on the Christians. Most of the Coptics are part of a local refuse collectors' settlement, and accuse the military of allowing the Muslims to start burning down their homes and looting and destroying property. Fire engines and ambulances were absent from the scene and eye-witnesses reported that the Coptics had to take their injured to hospital in their own garbage trucks. In the early hours of Wednesday morning the fighting stopped as military reinforcements finally moved in. As usual, the mainstream media either ignored the story or presented it as 'generic sectarian violence' between Christians and Muslims (cf. New York Times: 'Christians and Muslims in Fatal clash Near Cairo'; Financial Times: 'Sectarian Clashes Kill 13 Near Cairo'). But then, considering the growing apathy to report any of the regular attacks on Jews in Israel, or around the world, we should not expect the Satanic attacks on any of God's chosen to bother those who are in the enemy's camp - while the now relatively rare school-bus bombing in Israel (thanks to the effectiveness of the widely criticised security wall) gained fractional media coverage since it only killed one 16-year old boy because, fortunately, the other students had already disembarked; there was also almost no mention of the hundred plus rockets fired by Islamic terrorists in the same week!
Regarding the obviously contradictory behaviour by the Egyptian military (that receives $1.3 billion from the United States in aid every year!), it would not appear that the Obama administration has done anything to cause the military to control the Brotherhood - as their handling of Al-Qaradawi's performance in Cairo, and the recent attacks on Coptic Christians, shows. The Obama administration has already said it would support a role for the Brotherhood in Egyptian government and, incredibly, the group is not even listed on U.S. terrorism lists. If Egypt attacked Israel, the U.S. could cut off this funding, but it would be rather late - to say the least - and the whole policy of paying such loose cannon regimes to act as 'buffers' for the Western policies is called into question again.
Since revolution in Libya began, the Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other world governments, began scrambling to airlift their citizen's from Libya. Incredibly duped governments have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of being a CIA operation designed to de-stabilize Islamic nations throughout the Middle East. One of the supposed 'clues' to this policy claim is that the U.S. is abandoning the Middle East dictatorships they formerly courted and are concentrating on producing oil from massive oil reserves beneath U.S. soil under the mountains of Colorado, Utah, Texas, Alaska, and in their coastal waters. In opposition to the 1970's strategy led by CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) leader Henry Kissinger, who travelled across the Muslim world signing up huge oil deals between the U.S. and the Islamic nations, the U.S. would certainly be considered wise to develop oil reserves across the U.S., even in the massive oil shale deposits they reputedly hold.
While the price of oil is clearly going to sky-rocket in the West, as already felt in the USA and Europe, resulting in further struggles for our economies poisoned by the greedy thieves and spongers led by humanist loony policies, we also have to resist the muppetry of Al Gore and others to promote radical environmentalism and 'Carbon Footprint' panic. Oil may yet overtake gold and silver as the currency of the New World Order.
What will partially drive the final Armageddon? The many Islamic nations that surround Israel are obvious sources of oil, but Russia and Iran are among the world's largest independent oil producers with vast oil reserves. China is a major customer of these nations and the growing world power, while a U.S. exodus from the Middle East and a withdrawal from influence in the area will progressively leave Israel directly in harm's way, thus setting the stage for Ezekiel 38.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already declared that 'The Final Move Has Begun':
'We will soon see a new Middle East materialising without America and the Zionist regime and there will be no room for world arrogance (the West) in it.'
Ahmadinejad declares we are witnessing a revolution managed by Imam Mehdi, the 12th Shiite imam who disappeared as a five-year-old in the 10th century and who Shi'ites believe will return on 'Judgment Day':
'The final move has begun. We are in the middle of a world revolution managed by this dear (12th Imam). A great awakening is unfolding. One can witness the hand of Imam in managing it'.
Muslim Brotherhood hides real intentions
Gaddafi hangs on in Libya
The Muslim Brotherhood has followed its main 'softly-softly' objective of gaining ground by feigning 'democratic' intentions by deleting its objectives from its English-language website, as the Investigative Project on Terrorism recently revealed.
These by-laws clarify their real nature and intentions, declaring:
'... the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings ... defend the [Islamic] nation against its internal enemies. ... insist to liberate the Islamic nation from the yoke of foreign rule, help safeguard the rights of Muslims everywhere and unite Muslims around the world. ... The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic sharia, which would safeguard the personal rights, freedom of speech for active and constructive participation towards building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam ...'.
They are clearly happy for Arabic readers to know that the usual objectives apply, but have also modified their wording so that the home page of the English site mentions 'freedom' while the home page of the Arabic site has the official Muslim Brotherhood logo of two crossed swords and a Qur'an and an Arabic word that means 'make ready,' a phrase taken from Quran 8:60:
'Make ready for an encounter against them, all the forces and well-readied horses you can muster, that you may overawe the enemies of Allah and your own enemies and others besides them of whom you are unaware but of whom Allah is aware.'
Clearly the original language retains the use of 'force' (and 'horses' that would also have been an essential part of Muhammad's war-machine!) to emphasise the unchanging jihadic nature of Islam! Such a cover-up can only be aimed at those who naively believe the Brotherhood is moderate - such as the wilfully blind inhabiting the Obama White House.
In Egypt the Brotherhood is striving to cast itself as a democratic voice of moderation by, laughably, registering for voting under the name, 'Freedom and Justice Party.' Chairman of this 'party,' Mohammed Katatni, tries to maintain that it is separate from 'the Brotherhood', even though he is a top Brotherhood operative who led the parliamentary bloc as 'independents'.
Their media office claims: 'The Muslim Brotherhood are not seeking power. We want to participate, not to dominate.' But the facts show that they are unlikely to achieve a majority in the next government all on their own and therefore 'dominate' but, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, it will win enough seats to be a decisive voice in parliament. They may even form part of a parliamentary majority in a possible coalition with other parties and would then be in a position to help determine the government's agenda without overtly controlling it.
They have also chosen the strategy of proving they do not want to 'dominate' by not running a candidate for president, calculating that they would lose by a landslide in a presidential race that includes Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, who seems certain to be strong front-runner. The Brotherhood has also calculated that Mohammed el-Baradei is working sufficiently for them as a secular democrat, vigorously defending them and comparing them to 'evangelical Christians' and 'Orthodox Jews' and in 'no way extremist.' That he shares their hostility towards Israel is clear from his declaration that the 'Israeli occupation only understands violence' and it should be unsurprising to find that he shares many other Islamic attributes.
The Brotherhood has even informed its protesters to refrain from using religious language during demonstrations, nor to openly display the Qur'an or wave the Egyptian flag. While Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei claims that it is an Islamic revolution they are trying to insist that it is not religious in nature. Deputy head Mahmoud Ezzat attempts to cover-up their long history of anti-Semitism by claiming they '... will respect the peace treaty with Israel as long as Israel shows real progress on improving the lot of the Palestinians,' using language that leaves room for them to find a pretext to end the treaty. Mohammed Katatni was equally weasel-like in his response to the question: 'If the parliament approved the treaty that Sadat signed, it is still valid and will still be.'
The Brotherhood shares the attributes of all liars - forgetting their previous lie(s) resulting in them being caught out in their contradictions. They have always fully backed the violent jihad by their Palestinian wing, Hamas, to destroy Israel and, when the revolution in Egypt got underway, a senior official flatly stated that the Egyptian 'people should be prepared for war with Israel' while a deputy leader, Rashad al-Bayoumi, emphatically declared: 'After President Mubarak steps down and a provisional government is formed, there is a need to dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.' Mohamed Ghanem, another leader of the Brotherhood, recently told Iranian television that Egypt needs to shut off gas to Israel and prepare the army for war with them.
Katatni also lied regarding the institution of sharia, which is clearly the major purpose of its existence: 'We reject the religious state ... we don't want to force our beliefs on the parliament.' Magdy Ashour, a Brotherhood parliamentarian elected as an independent, says: 'We do not want to establish a country like Iran, which thinks it is ruling with a divine mandate. We want a government based on civil law, with an Islamic source of lawmaking.'
Brotherhood spokesman Ali Abdel Fattah is not quite walking in step: 'We basically want a government that will take on the demands of the people that were clear in the revolution in Tahrir Square … Sharia law does not differ from the demands of the people.' While Ashour says the Brotherhood is not like Iran, a top Brotherhood official returned from a conference in Tehran and stated: '[Ahmadinejad] is the bravest man in the Muslim world and we [in Egypt] need innocent, honest and brave leaders like him.' Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has made it clear that the White House recognises the true state of co-operation between these terrorist factions: 'They are using Hezbollah… to communicate with counterparts… in (the Palestinian movement) Hamas who then in turn communicate with counterparts in Egypt (who can only be the Muslim Brotherhood).'
Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood is supposedly well-practiced in the game of semantics, declaring that Islam 'has no problem with Judaism' but, at the same time, saying Muslims are religiously obligated to fight the Jews for the Holy Land - as he did in his recent rant in Tahrir Square, Cairo, when he called for the death of all Zionist Jews! He sees nothing wrong in condemning the killing of American civilians - but supports killing Israeli civilians, U.S. soldiers and pronounces that Muslims should fight alongside the Taliban. The fact that he can aver that he is 'for freedom' but 'supports executing apostates' obviously does not strike his conscience as one of the most pitiful forms of contradiction - freedom of religion is clearly not included in his available brain-cells!
Al-Qaradawi is consistent with the inconsistency he shares with all involved in lying deception - he redefines words so that they mean what he wants them to mean (Alice in Wonderland readers will recognise his character - '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"). When Al-Qaradawi uses terms such as 'freedom' and 'democracy' they do not mean what the real world recognises them to mean. All cults and false religions share this ability - not just the lying dawah and taqiyya doctrines of Islam employ this method. Communists (also a false religion, even though practitioners might think they were superior as atheists) use the same terms as well while feeding lies to their opponents. Roman Catholic priests, and Mormons, talk of 'grace' when they mean 'grace plus works'! In this way Al-Qaradawi's 'democracy' does not include secularism and the 'freedom' he believes in can only truly be attained under sharia - just as his vision of governance is one where 'any legislation contradicting the incontestable provisions of Islam shall be null and void because Islam is the religion of the State and the source of legitimacy of all its institutions…'.
This deception is the clear central strategy of the Brotherhood's plan for the United States and the world. In 1993, the Brotherhood held a secret meeting in Philadelphia to plan its strategy. The president of the Holy Land Foundation (a charity later shut down for being a front for Hamas), shared this Islamic view with Omar Ahmad, a co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
'War is deception. We are fighting our enemy with a kind heart and we never thought of deceiving it. War is deception. Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you're leaving while you're walking that way … Deceive your enemy.'
How very Muhammadan - and the dummies of the world suck it up. There is a saying that came into the British language sometime in the period between World War I and II - 'lying Arab.' Many fair-minded British people, who had never spent time in an Arab community and were brought up on strong Christian values, wondered how such a generalisation could be made - and questioned the very fairness of the phrase. In the last 10-20 years all of that has changed. We now know the Qur'anic doctrines that have made this lying behaviour endemic to Arab culture. It is done habitually to the point where there is little, if any, conscience about it.
While Egypt's nascent democracy has apparently taken its first steps to try and ensure a peaceful transition from an autocratic regime to accountable governance by proposing numerous amendments to the 1971 constitution, which will be put to vote via a referendum on March 19.
Although new political parties are being formed, and political debates have already begun in the lead-up to the multi-party parliamentary elections in June, legislative reforms are far from complete, and may fall short of public expectations. There is a recognisable undercurrent of fear in Egypt that the proposed amendments do not cover all eventualities, leaving room for corruption and potentially unfair elections. According to Hossam Khalaf, founding member of the Al-Wasat ('New Centre Party'): 'Many parties are announcing that they are established. But this has no legal value since the Party's law is still unchanged.' Since Al-Wasat was founded in 1996 as a breakaway group of the Muslim Brotherhood, and was rejected for party status four times by the government's Political Party Committee, it may be ominous to know that it finally gained recognition (February 19) by becoming the first party to win court approval in post-Mubarak Egypt.
Other groups have since followed suit, taking steps toward legal party recognition, such as the labour union leaders and workers' groups who announced the start of procedures to establish a Labour Democratic Party of Egypt, to represent and lead the workers' struggle for power.
It is clearly worrying that the proposed changes to Egypt's Constitution fail to address the question of who actually has power to authorize a party to enter the political arena. Rabab Fayad, a foreign relations analyst in Geneva, points out:
'Although Article 88 of the new amendments re-instates the judiciary as the body responsible for monitoring elections and addressing electoral legal grievances, it does not vest in them the authority to legitimize or certify political parties.'
At the moment there is a subsiding climate of fear as the state media becomes more open to different political views and people believe they can now speak out without state police interference. But the state of emergency has not yet been lifted and police can still arrest anyone with impunity - which may prevent candidates from speaking up and stifle openly run campaigns.
Amr Hamzawy, research director and senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, thinks that the proposed amendments to the constitution do not go far enough, however, because the constitution itself is problematic and 'supports an authoritarian system of government that gives too much control to the president, violates the powers of the legislative and judicial branches, and suspends citizens' liberties and rights.' His view is understandably that the constitution 'is therefore unsuitable for managing a safe transition to democracy.'
Nonetheless, Hamzawy, tries to insist that the proposed amendments will help ensure that a new constitution is written after the upcoming elections for, in particular, Article 189 requires that an Assembly draft a new constitution for Egypt within six months following the result of the national election. While June elections are planned, not all parties are sufficiently prepared to present their campaign messages publicly, as Khalaf conceded:
'We and many other parties are asking to delay parliamentary elections. Few parties are ready to present themselves in this short time.'
Of course, some have been preparing for this time for many years and will doubtlessly be ready to take advantage of the overall chaotic preparations that prevail.
Obama in Wonderland
Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi is not the most popular leader in the Middle East for a variety of reasons. He was once bold enough to declare that he no longer believed in anything besides the Qur'an and that he had abandoned all of the prophet Muhammad's teachings (hadith). The tumult in the Islamic world resulted in Sheikh Mohammed Al-Gazoly, a scholar from Al-Azhar University, Egypt, leading a committee of scholars to meet with Libya's leader to discuss their concerns with him, face-to-face! They warned him that, if he did not repent and abrogate his statement, he would fall under the law of renegades and infidels as defined according to Al-Qaeda Al-Faquhia - the denial of fundamental Islamic truths which would force true Muslims to kill him! Qaddafi recognised the real threat to his life and promptly repented and 'took back' his statement so that the committee returned to Cairo and announced Qaddafi's repentance to the whole Islamic world. Even a man in the powerful position held by Muammar Qaddafi is not free to believe as he wishes because of the terrorist nature of the law of Islam. No Islamic nation or government can totally protect a renegade Muslim from the sword of Islam and no one - outside of an Islamic country ruled by Sharia law - would try to force a Muslim to change what is in his heart, or what he at least says he believes. Muslims force others to change their beliefs but the West treats Muslims with respect and gives them privileges and rights commensurate to those of the native population without trying to force them to change religion. Those who 'convert' to Christianity, or any other belief, do so of their own free will and their human rights are respected - something that can hardly be said of Muslim countries.
Even as we write there is another continuing saga of Christians in Saudi Arabia being tortured and persecuted for daring to hold a prayer meeting in their apartment. The mutaween ('religious police') who seized and tortured Yohan Nese and Vasantha Sekhar Vara also trampled on their Bibles, sprayed Islamic slogans on their apartment walls and tried to force them to convert to Islam! Equally galling is the fact that these Christians are from India and will receive no effective support from their own country in the struggle to regain their freedom after months in jail without proper representation.
There will be those that will say the U.S. should stay out of Libya, lest Qaddafi fall and an Islamist government comes to power. The reality is that it is very probable that the Qaddafi regime is coming to an end, and so the argument that the U.S. should start acting now to influence a post-Qaddafi Libya, for example, by helping non-Islamists organize, is also being mooted. It is incorrect to assume that Qaddafi's secular governance means that he is not contributing to the spread of radical Islam. He may not materially support terrorists or implement sharia law in his country, but he and his media outlets are factories of the ideology. For example, in February 2010, he had this to say:
'They want to prevent Muslims from undertaking jihad, which means 'struggle,' by calling it 'terrorism' ... We will not abandon jihad because it is Islamic duty. It is the defense of oneself, defence of religion, defence of the Prophet, defence of the Qur'an … defence of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and defence of our independence ... '.
He condemns Al-Qaeda but vocally supports jihadists fighting Western forces in Muslim lands, Israel, etc. It is not a coincidence that Libyans accounted for a large percentage of the foreign fighters in Iraq. Qaddafi even declared jihad 'by all means' against Switzerland for banning minarets on mosques, though he backtracked to say he did not mean through violence. The current uprising spread rapidly across the country as clashes escalated from the capital of Tripoli and the regime seemed certain to fall rapidly - until Qaddafi's security forces and mercenaries began to brutally massacre their fellow citizens in typical despotic Islamic fashion.
In the West we have not heard much about the many past attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and overturn his government by Libyan Muslims opposed to his methods but, even though he swore he had returned to 'orthodox' Islam and has made many Muhammadan type statements (i.e. contradictory, as above), his position is far from Islamic fundamentalism. After he took over in 1965, he ruled the country with his own rambling constitution, not Islamic law, as witnessed by his own 'Little Green Book' of 'political philosophy.' His original goal was to create his own 'inspired' democracy, perhaps out of admiration for the past president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser. He certainly employed Nasser's harsh methods for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood, for Nasser exhibited zero tolerance of radicals and twice rounded them up and slaughtered them - in 1954 and 1965. Qaddafi regularly addresses radical Muslims as 'street dogs' on Libyan national television and has likewise slaughtered them many times to eliminate their threat and influence in Libya. So it is easy to see that he will have made many enemies and dare not surrender to the 'rebels' who will inevitably want to deliver rapid Islamic justice rather than the soft Western type that has already allowed the Lockerbie bomber(s) to cock-a-snook at the families of the many innocent victims.
Libyan ambassadors to the Arab League, India and China resigned in the wake of the widespread violence against the protesters, with the ambassador to China calling on the entire diplomatic staff to resign and the army to intervene. When Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, addressed the country and admitted that 'mistakes' had been made and pledged sweeping reforms, it was seen by many as a sign that Muammar had fled the country, perhaps to refuge offered by his Venezuela ally, Hugo Chavez.
Saif called the deaths of protesters a 'tragedy' but then downplayed the losses, claiming that only 14 had been killed and that the death toll has been exaggerated by the media. But hundreds were estimated to have been killed in the first days, with number rising very rapidly. Saif al-Islam claimed that the protestors attacked the army first, and accused the opposition of trying to create an 'Islamic emirate' in Benghazi or of trying to secede from Libya. He warned that the unrest was bringing the country to the verge of civil war, and placed the blame on the shoulders of the regime's opponents while emphasising the Qaddafi's determination to fight to 'the last minute, until the last bullet - and the last man and woman.'
The uprising quickly spread to Tripoli, with clashes occurring around Green Square that involved gunfire with many deaths while, nearby in Al-Zawia, protesters tried to reach Qaddafi's palace. Defections from among the police and military were predictable, given the past history of Quddafi's debatable Islamic belief and previous attempted coups.
A large group of more than fifty influential tribal chiefs, Muslim clerics, and intellectuals from around the country, including Tripoli, released a statement demanding that the government stop using violence and, incredibly, claimed that the actions of the government violated Islam! Which actions would these be - to make it up as you go and kill people as it suits you? The Warfala tribe, which represents about 15-16% of the country's estimated 6 million people, officially joined the fight against Qaddafi. Soon after, the Tuareg tribe in the south, numbering over half a million people, joined in and began attacking police stations and government buildings. The leader of the Al-Zuwayya tribe in the east pledged to 'stop oil exports to Western countries within 24 hours' if the 'oppression of protesters' continued and thus paralyze the economy and government, since oil exports account for 75-90 percent of the regime's revenue.
Libya, which is primarily a Sunni Muslim country, has a strong tribal tradition that has remained intact throughout the modern era. Qaddafi's regime, which came to power in a military coup when he was 27-years old, has kept the country artificially unified, mainly by crushing oppression, for the last forty years. Before the overthrow of King Idris in 1969, power had been concentrated in the east, where the monarchy was located. Under Qaddafi, power shifted to the west when Tripoli was made the capital city so that spoils from Libya's oil industry were circulated predominantly in the west, despite the fact that many of the major oil fields lie in the east. Subsequently a strong rift deepened between the east and Qaddafi and it is no surprise that the uprising emanated from this region. If the 'civil war' conflict persists it will likely continue to divide east and west, and control over the OPEC country's oil resources will doubtlessly be significant in that battle.
An outgrowth of the anti-Qaddafi east, in 1996 the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group attempted to assassinate the autocrat and the dictator responded by massacring over a thousand jailed Islamists and eastern political prisoners, according to Human Rights Watch. Thus these early demonstrations saw the regime release 110 members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group, apparently with the false belief that this was a concession that would appease the opposition (the late Egyptian government apparently attempted a similar ploy). Qaddafi also tried the late Saddam Hussein's tactic of trying to direct the energy of the unrest toward Israel, loudly calling on Muslims to join Palestinians in non-violently gathering in Israel to demand a Palestinian state. He also attempted another old, and over-used, scape-goat ploy of claiming that the regional revolutions were in reaction to 'American arrogance.'
Thus, in the west and in Tripoli, palpable support still remains for Qaddafi, no doubt because of oil-funded largesse, as state television showed small crowds waving flags and hoisting pictures of the dictator. Much of the military remains loyal to the Qaddafi regime, although there are stories of air-force planes which ostensibly took to the air to bomb the opposition but flew to Malta to claim asylum instead. The desultory bombing shown on BBC News would seem to support the muted behaviour of Qaddafi's air-force.
The unrest quickly spread to Benghazi, which is ironically where the September 1, 1969 coup brought Qaddafi to power. In scenes reminiscent of the fall of Saddam, video captured protesters wrecking a monument of Qaddafi's 'Little Green Book' (not nearly as famous as Chairman Mao's 'Little Red Book', but equally specious!). Libyans say that about 1,000 inmates, including dozens of political activists as well as murderers and every other kind of violent criminal, were released by government forces deliberately to undermine anti-Qaddafi protests. The move, which was also used in the anti-government protests in Egypt, seems designed for a period of time when law enforcement officers, whether police or army, are confused and disorganised. Government forces opened most Libyan prisons 'allowing the criminals out in order to create chaos,' said Najla al-Mangoush, a spokeswoman for the rebel revolution coalition. Whichever Muslim group is responsible in each case, it certainly speaks volumes for the nature and origin of sharia.
The willingness of Qaddafi to slaughter thousands of innocents in order to continue his reign cannot be underestimated, but the possibility of the rise of the Brotherhood is far more serious in the long-term. While many see Libya as a lesser threat to the world since giving up its WMD programs (and subsequently being taken off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list), this is a regime that regularly preaches anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism - although the contradictory rants of Qaddafi have regularly backtracked over this and virtually every other matter that becomes known world-wide.
Many are applauding the thought of a post-Qaddafi Libya without one iota of knowledge of the possible future which may be only fractionally safer in the short-term - if safety is ever possible under sharia - as the world-wide record of indiscriminate violence towards women and non-Muslims clearly reveals.
Barack Obama's statement on the uprising in Libya asserted that: 'throughout this period of unrest and upheaval across the region the United States has maintained a set of core principles which guide our approach.' He clearly sided strongly with the Libyan people and other Middle Eastern protesters, assuming that the recent Middle Eastern uprisings were all idealistic, humanistic pro-democracy movements while, in reality, they are anything but.
Obama condemned 'the use of violence in Libya,' declaring that 'the suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya.' He affirmed that 'the United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people,' and enumerated several of those rights: 'That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny.' Obama seems to believe that the crowds thronging the streets of Tripoli, crying out for Gaddafi's blood and holding up pictures of him with Stars of David drawn on his forehead, somehow resemble a peaceful movement that his Administration can work with to 'effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.' Peaceful? When?
Obama expressed satisfaction that 'the change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn't represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.' And he quoted a Libyan who said: 'We just want to be able to live like human beings.' In conclusion, he vowed that 'throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.'
President Obama never explains on what basis he believes that the Libyan, Tunisian or Egyptian people are interested in principles and rights, such as the freedom of speech and the dignity of all people, or hold an understanding of freedom and justice remotely comparable to that of any of the democratic nations or the American Constitutional system. While violence continues to rock Libya, speculation about Obama's tactics are varied. U.S. troops are doubtlessly on alert, but the Libyan 'rebels' are wary that military intervention will steal their thunder and are rumoured to have rejected arms offers, insisting that they can liberate themselves. The U.S. government supplied Gaddafi with some weaponry, because it backs just about every dictatorship in the Middle East so they have buffers, pitting one dictator against another. Just as they did in Egypt, when protesters are successful in overthrowing the regime the U.S. tries to intervene in a way that allows it to be influential over whoever is the successor. But, just as the U.S. have probably underestimated the widespread influence of the Brotherhood inside the USA, the outcome of the current revolutions in the Middle East are difficult to predict or control. But any move by Gaddafi that threatens Libyan oil will certainly lead to U.S. action, even if it is only the instigation of a 'no-fly zone' manipulated through the UN or NATO.
The signs all point to the usual source of hate, for it is not insignificant vandalism that causes protesters in Libya to mark Gaddafi's picture with the Star of David, but a clear indication of their world-view dominated by Islamic anti-Semitism. When Muslim protesters want to demonise someone they draw the Star of David on their images. The naiveté of those who claim that the demonstrators in Libya, Egypt (where the Star of David was also drawn on Mubarak's picture) and elsewhere in the Middle East are pro-democracy secularists will doubtlessly be recognised if huge victories for the Muslim Brotherhood and similar pro-Sharia groups result in the near future. The ubiquitous chant of the Libyan protesters has not been 'Give me liberty or give me death,' but 'No god but Allah!'
While Obama gives approval to these protests as 'being driven by the people of the region' he seems to have missed the unquestionably anti-American and anti-Semitism spirit that existed well before CBS reporter Lara Logan was brutally attacked in Cairo's crowded Tahrir Square by a mob chanting, 'Jew! Jew!'. Other mainstream media reporters from the United States were also treated violently or otherwise endangered, including Anderson Cooper and Christiane Amanpour. Ironically, these two are hard-Left journalists who have repeatedly insisted that Islam is a 'Religion of Peace' and anyone who said otherwise was bigoted and racist - but, in Cairo, they finally encountered the reality.
When Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, gave his recent speech in Tahrir Square, Egypt, he called for the murder of Qaddafi and it was also noticeable that, apart from the wildly enthusiastic reception he received, it was contrasted with the barring of secular liberal Wael Ghonim from the same stage. Ominous signs that genuine democracy is not in the offing in Egypt, either.
Two thousand Christians mounted a protest in Cairo soon after this speech, calling for a change in Egypt's Constitution to guarantee a secular state and Egypt does not fully implement Islamic law, Article 2 of its Constitution currently stipulates that 'Islam is the religion of the state ... Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (sharia).' This resulted in more violence, arson, vandalism and theft on targeted Christian buildings and their congregations.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was more realistic than Obama when he remarked: '... it is quite probable that hard times are ahead, including the arrival at power of fanatics. This will mean fires for decades and the spread of extremism.'
Meanwhile, the United Nations indulged in its usual toothless performance while Qaddafi's regime continued to violate the basic human rights of its own people, deploying tanks, planes and helicopters against protesters who, at best, had anti-aircraft guns mounted on everyday 4 x 4's. Somehow, this corrupt edifice finds any excuse to attack the only democratic country in the Middle East - Israel - yet allows Libya to remain a member of 'good standing' on the United Nations Human Rights Council! Verbal condemnations are the most their spokesmen can manage, rather than demanding Libya's immediate suspension from the Human Rights Council as long as the current regime remains in power. The thought of sending any kind of armed 'Peace Force' to force elections on the Libya Qaddafi stole is clearly beyond them.
We could wait forever for the tardy independent investigation recommended by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, before coming to the self-evident conclusion that the government's shooting of its own unarmed citizens to death in cold blood definitely is a crime against humanity that deserves immediate punishment. Apparently, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke for about forty minutes on the telephone to Qaddafi, insisting that he 'stop violence against demonstrators' and that 'human rights and freedom of assembly and freedom of speech must be fully protected.' As we can see - this has been as effective as King Canute's reputed performance on a beach.
While the Emir of Qatar and the Secretary General call for the international community, in particular Arab leaders and the UN, to demand an immediate end to the acts of violence, and for the 'launch of a broad-based dialogue,' Qaddafi insists:
'Moammar Khadafy is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution. Moammar Khadafy is not a normal person you can poison or lead a revolution against…I will die here as a martyr.'
Ban Ki-moon's press spokesman also released a statement setting forth the Secretary General's expression of outrage:
The Secretary-General is outraged at press reports that the Libyan authorities have been firing at demonstrators from war planes and helicopters. Such attacks against civilians, if confirmed, would constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law and would be condemned by the Secretary-General in the strongest terms.
When the Secretary General's spokesman was asked specifically what the UN was doing about reports that Qaddafi was recruiting mercenaries from Nigeria, Guinea and Ghana, he replied that he was not aware of the UN looking into the matter. Why such neglect when the UN has in the past specifically focussed its attention on the use of mercenaries by other countries?
The United Nations Security Council has been no less decisive meeting in a closed session to produce this response to the violence:
'[the UN] condemned the violence and use of force against civilians, deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians.'
Libya will not be suspended from the UN Human Rights Council while the same Council is populated by other human rights abusers, such as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, despite the Obama administration's decision to join the Human Rights Council with the futile goal of 'reforming' it from within. The Security Council could have imposed an arms embargo on Libya, a travel ban and an asset freeze on senior Libyan officials and military commanders who remain loyal to the regime, and a no-fly zone to stop Libyan aircraft firing on protesters. While countries likely to supply mercenaries to Libya could have done something to prevent the flow at its source, it becomes even more obvious that the shift of power in the world has moved to China who are likely to exercise a veto against any meaningful action (if they have not already done so covertly) in order to protect their vast commercial interests in Libya (in 2010, trade between China and Libya grew to $6.6 billion). Just as the world and the UN have stood by while Sudan, which has similar strong commercial links with China, has allowed its non-Islamic population to be raped and murdered by Islamic terrorists, we should not expect strong action any time soon.
The United Nations has once again proven its worthlessness in dealing with mass slaughters by brutal, dictatorial regimes. The story is the same whether we look at the horrors of Rwanda in 1994, when the UN leadership deliberately ignored warnings of an impending genocide, or Bosnia in 1995, where the UN left the Serbians alone when they promised not to harm the UN peacekeepers themselves, while the Serbians proceeded to commit horrible atrocities against the Bosnians. The same behaviour occurs in the Middle East, where the UN has rewarded aggression against Israel on repeated occasions while turning a blind eye to Islamic terrorism. There are countless other examples of United Nations incompetence, connivance, and corruption proving it to be incapable of enforcing decisions to any reliable or adequate degree, contrary to the aims that their statutes would seem to promise.
Speculating that U.S. involvement in Libya, or anywhere else, could prevent Islamists out-organizing secular opponents and enable terrorists such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to gain a foothold hardly holds water when we compare the Brotherhood methods of organising 'democratic' groups in the USA, and worldwide. Proposing that Qaddafi might reconsider his abandonment of 'weapons of mass destruction' and therefore encourage other dictatorial leaders in the region to use the same manner of violence is hardly logical when Muammar has already chosen violence as his first, second, and third option. Many are hoping that the U.S. will get involved to reverse the 'anti-Americanism' that they believe Bush's reaction to 9/11 caused when he gave the order to invade Afghanistan and Iraq! Thus, they speculate, the destruction to Libya will be limited and a smooth transition that gives an advantage to non-Islamists will be underway, Western investment would be invited in as the country stabilized and this would encourage all those fighting Iranian-type governments who use violence to know they could win!
Libya and the World-wide Oil Crisis!
Fear of destruction of the oil facilities in Libya leading to disastrous economic worldwide conditions discounts the alternatives of extraction from oil shale, or revival of the old 'Nazi World War II' technology that produced liquid fuels for motor vehicles and aircraft from coal. People seem ignorant of recent developments in oil technology. Chinese energy company, Shenhua Corporation, opened a chemical plant to make liquid fuel in February, 2008, in Inner Mongolia, using this technology in order to break its booming economy's reliance on foreign oil. China was already the world's biggest coal user and ignored the predictable counter-Satanic plan from 'environmental campaigners' and their feared 'carbon emissions' and increasing 'global warming'. China plans more plants to increase this effective output and the U.S. and India have also begun investing heavily in the technology, which is being quietly, but heavily, promoted by coal companies across the world as a cost-effective solution to soaring oil prices and concerns about energy security.
The Chinese facility was the first of its type in the world, but three similar plants were built in South Africa to beat the apartheid-era oil sanctions, and still produce almost a third of South Africa's energy needs. Similar projects are planned or under way in Japan, the U.S., Australia, China, New Zealand, India, Botswana, Indonesia, the Phillippines and South Africa. The high price of oil will persuade more companies to turn to the coal conversion technology, which was traditionally too expensive to compete with conventional petroleum-based fuel until oil prices were consistently above US$25-40 a barrel - and the record shows that oil has now been double that for over a year - as the chart on the next page reveals:
(Continued on next page