Archive for the ‘Religion’ category

A christmas message from Alex Jones to put fire into your belly

December 18, 2007

Not really a Christmas message, but certainly puts fire in yer belly! We should certainly have this spirit when confronting the apathy today in regards to politics and to give the people of this country again a vision of how good a people we could be if we put are minds to it.

Keep your hands off Serbia

December 10, 2007

Serbia is a great country full of warm lovely people.  Unfortunately the West has painted and contrary image of the Serbs,  sadly maybe due to the nationalistic appeals of Milosovic who perhaps like people such as Winston Churchill in the past used words to bolster moral in the face of adversary.  Easy pickings for the western propaganda machine to paint Serbs as mean,  evil christian fundamentalists who rape poor chaste Muslim girls on mass.  Bullshit.

Again,  the west is at it with the melt down in Kosovo.  Kosovo the heartland of the Serbian nation is primed to declare itself independent against the expressed wishes of the Serbian government which has jurisdiction over the province.  How can we let this be when Albanian muslims daily abuse and terrorise Serbian civilians in Kosovo,  whiloe NATO stands idly by and watches.  Serbians today are fleeing en mass to Serbia, totally disallusioned with historic churches being burnt down and Muslims overuning Serbian christian villages forcing them to leave.  What does the West do to stop this?  It does nothing but protect the Albanians and the Muslim fundamentalist who are bent on establishing and Islamic State in Europe.  It is navel gazing sick voyeurism on the part of the West.

Serbia’s only friend at the moment it seems is Russia.  Who can blame Russia for wanting to protect Serbia?  No one else seems willing.  I cannot express my deepest sorrow for the Serbians,  who no real fault of their own have been demonised by the West.  Had it been mosques being burnt down I am more than sure that Europe would be bombing the perpetrators eagerly.  But then again the West seems intent on establishing Islam in Europe,  even though it is wholly alien here.  Today is Kosovo but tomorrow it could be anywhere in Europe.

When will people wake up to what is happening on our doorstep!

Interesting article on the break up of Yugoslavia

December 2, 2007

An interesting article on the lies surrounding the break up of Yugoslavia. Don’t believe that the British government looks after your interests especially in their attempts to establish a hardline Muslim state in Europe. In years to pass will the same fate befall the United Kingdom? Especially pertinent since there appears to be a wave of new ethnic cleansing descending onto Kosovo, with tens of thousands of terrified Serbs getting ready to flee their ancestral homeland.

 

The Breakup of Yugoslavia

 

By Evangelos Mahairas
Beginning in 1990 Germany and the United States sought and achieved the breakup of Yugoslavia in two stages—1992-1995 and 1998-1999. The German government aimed at this division because it wanted to include as territory of its “vital interest” Slovenia and Croatia, the most economically developed states of the Yugoslavian confederation. These states were old allies in the Second World War (the Ustashi fascist group in Croatia and the nationalists in Slovenia). Through them Germany would achieve access to the Adriatic Sea.The United States was interested in the more recently established states (Bosnia, Serbia, the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia), which controlled the only route from east to west and from north to south though the Balkan mountains. The Balkan area, along with Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and the Arab nations, forms a European-Middle East bloc, which the United States wants to control (including the former states of the Soviet Union—Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) for the complete exploitation of the great oil resources of the Caspian Sea.

 

Toward accomplishing this goal, one year before the dissolution of the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia—specifically, on November 5, 1990—the Congress of the United States passed bill 101-513 concerning “appropriation of funds for operations abroad.” A paragraph in this bill specifically devoted to Yugoslavia initiated that country’s dissolution. In a single order, completely without forewarning, the United States cut off all forms of credit and loans to Yugoslavia in the event that within six months separate elections did not take place in each state of the federation.

 

As a consequence, Yugoslavia—no longer able to conduct foreign trade—was condemned to commercial bankruptcy, which reinforced the divisive tendency of its states, especially that of the stronger. Another crucial reason for the split was a provision in the bill that states holding separate elections would receive direct economic aid (not channeled through the federation). A third provision stated that even if separate elections did not take place, the United States could (openly now, and in addition to actions of the CIA and other secret services) economically support “democratic” factions or movements by way of “emergency humanitarian aid and promotion of human rights.” Finally, a fourth provision obliged the American representatives in all international organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, etc., to use their vote and influence to have their organizations apply the particulars of the bill.

 

The United States funded the states so as to dissolve the federation. The U.S. also supported parties and movements that would promote this process. Meanwhile, Germany shipped arms to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also trained “revolutionary corps” in special German camps to be sent into the states at the proper time to face federal forces.

 

In February 1991, on the initiative of Germany and with the support of countries decisively influenced by the U.S., like Great Britain, Italy and the Netherlands, the European Community backed the U.S. decision: If Yugoslavia did not announce multi-party elections, it would face economic isolation.

 

In the meantime, Croatian and Slovenian fascist associations in the U.S., Germany and Austria solicited money and arms, which they sent to the northern Yugoslavian states. In March of 1991, fascist organizations in Croatia demonstrated, calling for the overthrow of the socialist government and the expulsion of all Serbs from Croatia. On March 5, 1991, they attacked the federal army base at Gospic. Thus, civil war began.

 

On June 25, 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence. In Croatia the extreme right wing party, “Democratic Union,” seized power. This party used the flag, emblems, and slogans of the pro-Nazi Ustashi party. Citizenship, property rights, employment, retirement benefits and passports were granted only to Croats and to no other ethnic group. Thus, 300,000 Serbs who were under threat armed themselves.

 

Federal forces intervened in Slovenia, where units of the autonomous militia had taken over posts on the Italian, Austrian and Hungarian borders. At once, on Germany’s initiative, the European Community threatened the federal government with economic sanctions and obliged it to withdraw its forces, given that within three months Slovenia and Croatia would undertake independence and participate in negotiations for a “peaceful solution.”

 

Of course the negotiations failed, and these two states, armed by Germany, officially declared their independence in October 1991. First Germany hastened to accord diplomatic recognition; then the other European countries and the USA, as well as the European Community in January 1992.

 

This recognition of independence reinforced the tendency to separation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Muslim party, headed by Aliya Izetbegovic, was in charge there. Its program was the establishment of theocratic Muslim rule and the expulsion of Serbs and Croats from Bosnia. Serbs were then thirty-one percent of the Bosnia population. Supported by Serbia and ethnic groups, they were prepared for conflict, ready to oppose whatever the European Community presented to Cyrus Vance from the USA and Lord Owen of the European Community as a “peace plan for Bosnia.”

 

In the meantime, the UN Security Council, with the approval of Motion Number 757/1992, established sanctions against the Yugoslavian Federation as responsible for civil war within its territory. In May 1992, the UN General Assembly granted membership to Slovenia and Croatia, and on September 22, 1992, it expelled the Yugoslavian Federation. The result of these acts was the cessation of operations by the Yugoslavian Army against Slovenia and Bosnia. The civil war, however, continued till 1995.

 

In 1993, American officers undertook training of the Croatian army, which was now armed by the United States. In return the U.S. received bases on the Croatian islands of the Adriatic. American officers also took on training the Bosnian army as well as directing operations against the Bosnian Serbs who were besieging Sarajevo. Finally, NATO intervened supporting Bosnia with bombing from 1993 to 1995. NATO’s pressure forced the Bosnian Serbs, who were also pressured by Milosevic, to accept the conducting of “peace negotiations” at Dayton, Ohio, where a neo-colonial agreement was drawn up involving two points—the establishment of a strong force of 60,000 NATO troops in Bosnia and the writing of the “Bosnian Constitution.”

 

According to this Constitution, Bosnia was made up of three democratic states—Muslim, Croat and Serbo-Bosnian—under the supreme authority of the Swedish official appointed by the UN Security Council, who had full executive powers in all matters and even the right to reject the decisions of the three local governments as well as to overrule the prime ministers and the appointed ministers. This supreme official would work in close cooperation with the Supreme Military Council as well as with various sources of funding or gifts. The Security Council, in turn, appointed an “Associate Director of Police” who would be under the head Director and would have a force of 1,700 policemen at his disposal.

 

The economic policies of the country would be controlled by the officers of Bretton Woods and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. The first Director of the Central Bank of the country was appointed by the International Monetary Fund. And neither he nor those succeeding him would be citizens of Bosnia or Herzegovina, or of a neighboring state.

 

On August 3, 1995, Croat forces supported by the U.S. and headed by an American general launched a decisive attack in Krajina, expelling 300,000 Serbs, killing 14,000 people, and burning tens of thousands of Serbian homes as well as Orthodox churches and monasteries.the

 

role of nato

 

According to a statement of the Pentagon published in the New York Times on March 8, 1992, “The first aim [of the United States] is to block the appearance of a new adversary. … First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. … Finally, we must also maintain the necessary means to overthrow potential adversaries, ambitious to attain a broader local or global role.” In Europe, specifically, this plan foresees that: “It is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security as well as a channel of exercising American influence and its participation in issues of European security. … We must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO.”

 

Applying these views, the United States torpedoed the European Community’s proposals for the peaceful solution of the Bosnian problem (the Vance-Owen plan of 1992 and the Vance-Stolemberg plan of 1993) in order to impose its own plan (the Dayton Agreement).

 

In the meantime, bases were established in Albania, the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia and Hungary, and NATO aimed to extend its sphere to the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, for the full encirclement of Russia and the access of the United States to the Caspian Sea. According to American journalists, the Danube is more important for Europe than the Mississippi is for commerce in the United States. Thus, all the countries in the Danube valley must be brought under the NATO umbrella and thereby under the influence (and exploitation) of the USA.

 

This is the reason that, although the Yugoslavian Federation had essentially broken up in 1995 (Serbia and Montenegro alone remained in the federation), any peaceful settlement in Bosnia was excluded and NATO intervention took place, resulting in the total success of American plans for its dominance in the Balkans. The Serbian opposition persisted, however. It had to be eliminated.

 

For this purpose the United States, Germany, Austria and other countries armed ethnic Albanian groups. In Kosovo and southern Serbia units of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (UCK are the initials in Albanian) had been forming with uniforms and arms provided by the U.S. Army, funded by the CIA as well as international aid. A continuous flow of arms and military supplies came from Germany.

 

Because these units were not strong enough to defeat the Serbian forces, the Western forces developed unprecedented propaganda concerning supposed genocide against the Albanians in the Kosovo area. They finally decided on direct NATO intervention with horrendous aerial bombardment (31,000 bombs, ammunition with depleted uranium), which forced Serbia to submit.

 

Western propaganda, as it had been throughout the Bosnian civil war, was as effective as the depleted uranium weapons. There were daily reports in all the mass media against Serbia, involving, for example, the bomb that exploded in a Sarajevo market (which finally proved to be an act of provocation to invite NATO intervention). Their accusations of the rape of Muslim women, which from the fall of 1992 to the spring of 1993 scandalized western news broadcasts citing figures of 100,000, but finally with research reduced significantly to 40,000, later to 4,000 and finally to only seven women who testified to being victims.

 

These false or exaggerated reports provoked widespread outrage in western public opinion and among blindfolded “human welfare organizations,” which saw criminal acts only on the part of Bosnian Serbs. The Muslims and Croat militaries were presented as angelic in behavior, even though they executed unarmed Serbs, raped women, and burned homes, churches and monasteries. It is significant that in the Special Tribunal formed to judge war crimes in Bosnia, sixty Serbs were indicted but only six Bosnians and Croats.

 

In turn, regarding Kosovo the Western media reported that the Serbs expelled 300,000 ethnic Albanians, committed mass killings of unarmed citizens and all sorts of atrocities. Finally it was shown that prior to the NATO bombings only some 20,000 to 25,000 people had taken refuge in Albania and the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. After the onset of the bombing more than 250,000 ethnic Albanians had fled to save themselves from the bombs. As for genocide, the “mass graves” about which there were daily references in the Western media were never found.

 

To be sure, there was the atrocity of Srebrenica, but on the opposing side there were the atrocities of Bihac and Krajina, about which not a word appeared in the Western press, just as there were no references either during the course of its militia action or after the bombing to the crimes of the UCK against Serbs and other ethnic groups in Kosovo, which the UCK called “police duties”! These actions put into effect the total removal of Serbs, Gypsies, Turks and Jews from Kosovo through killings, burning of villages, churches and monasteries, and unprecedented terrorism.

 

But for the UCK there, “purification of Kosovo” was not enough. Its action was extended to the area of Presovo (southern Serbia), though without success, since there the UCK faced the Serbian army, and to the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. There of course the UCK would disband with the complete cooperation of NATO, the USA and the European Community. The problem was whether the UCK would stop there or extend its action. That depended on the U.S. agenda for the region. The UCK could have been used as a means of exerting pressure on Greece to compromise on the issues of Cyprus and the Aegean Sea. Greece’s allies had been habitually involved in such “friendly” actions from the time of the establishment of modern Greece up to today.

 

the role of the un security council

 

For the illegal (criminal) acts of NATO in Yugoslavia, enormous responsibilities are borne by the United Nations Security Council, which violated virtually all the regulations of Articles 44-50 of the UN Charter. According to Article 46 of the Charter, plans to use armed force will depend on the Security Council in consultation with the Committee of the Military Council of Article 47. This power is not relegated to NATO or “any other” military alliance. The Military Council of the UN would never permit the use of bombs with depleted uranium or bombing of unarmed civilians, schools, nurseries, hospitals and churches, as NATO did in Yugoslavia.

Moreover, the Security Council established the ad hoc International Tribunal to judge war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. But the UN Charter nowhere provides the right to establish such a court. Article 92 founded the International Court based in The Hague. Its members are elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council from a list of the permanent Administrative Court that was founded by The Hague agreement of 1907.

 

This Administrative Court can assemble a unit that can render judgments concerning a particular issue, in agreement, however, with regulations (Article 26, par. 3, of its charter). The expenses of this court would be covered by the UN in a manner determined by the General Assembly.

 

Thus, the Security Council does not have the right to establish an ad hoc court. That Court is illegal. It is a court of expediency and its mission was to serve the political purposes of the powers that supported its establishment. It is significant that its expenses are covered not by the United Nations but by “benefactors” from the U.S., from multi-national corporations and entrepreneurs like George Soros! The manner of establishment and funding also belies its manner of functioning.

 

Milosevic’s abduction in violation of the Constitution and justice system of Yugoslavia was the first step. The justice system would be completely put to shame in what followed. However, the greatest crime of the U.S. and its followers (Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy) was the debasing of the UN. The next step will be its dissolution. For the hopes of the peoples as expressed in the prologue of its charter are not in agreement with the imperialist “New World Order.”

 

“We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to save coming generations from the scourge of war, which twice during our time brought insufferable pain to mankind; once more proclaiming our belief in human rights, in human dignity and worth, in equal rights of men and women and large and small nations, we unite our efforts to achieve these goals.”

The imperialists, however, desire global rule and not the equality of small and large nations. They wish to impose their will with war using bombardment and any other criminal means (Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and later). From their position in the UN they license NATO as the supreme arbiter of all international crises over the length and breadth of the earth, though it is not an international organization but a military alliance of Western forces.

Evangelos Mahairas was president of the Association of Athens Lawyers (Bar Association) Athens from 1981-1984, honorary president since 1985, elected in 1986 president of the Greek Peace Movement and in 1990 president of the World Peace Council. He is a fighter for peace, human rights and the environment.

From book HIDDEN ADENDA, U.S./NATO TAKEOVER OF YUGOSLAVIA, which this piece is excerpted.

Muhammeds tea party

November 29, 2007

muhammed maybe?I thought I would say how ridiculous this whole furor over the naming of a TEDDY BEAR muhammed is. I mean teddy bears are supposed to be all cute and cuddly not prophets of God.  It really is ridiculous. People are now calling for this poor misguided, befuddled teachers death over this issue. To think that the mere naming of a toy bear(not even named after the prophet but one of the children) can cause such an explosion of emotions and international tension. With message boards being jammed on most newspapers calling on instant sanctions and suspension of aid to these extremist countries. Yet, there is relative silence over this issue by our politicians and ‘human rights nazis’.

It is all mohammed-cartoon-danish-thumb.jpegso predictable, maybe if there was a chance to get some backhand cash for the labour party out of this problem something would be done sooner. I doubt it though. Probably this will draw on for some considerable time and give some sort of attention to Sudan’s beleaguered government. Islam is full of attention seekers and are so puffed up with self importance that it really tests that most controlled and ethical persons temper in many ways.

Episodes like these should have been banished to the middle ages, but apparently not.

However Europe is continuing it ‘deep attachment’ for via it s crush on Islamic principles, well governments are at least. I guess they see how much power they can wield through it. Beware my friends this is Sudan today, but if we continue to follow the path which Europe has decided to take, it may well be your neighbourhood soon.

Proof of this can be seen in Bosnia, Europe’s very little own Islamic Fascist state, with all the help and money from Saudi oil is Europe’s own breeding ground from Islamic fascists. London is another example in which home grown fanatics are being groomed.

When will the time come when normal people white, black, yellow, pink or whatever colour you are start to rally like in other European countries to ask for a stop to all this. The British people are being coiled to their breaking point with current laws (PC laws, immigration, hate laws, multiculturalism) and when will it snap no one knows…

Recently the labour fool Jack ‘boot’ Straw wants to invite Turkey into the fold of the European Union “as an experiment to prove Islam and the West can co-exist” IS HE MAD? Look no further than to England, or to the Ottoman Empire, or the Caliphate that nearly overran Europe. This is a religion based on FIRE AND BRIMSTONE(much like Christianity’s old testament but with none of the references to ‘love’ seen in the New Testament).

There is no hope that the west can co-exist with Islam as Islam will always want to impose its will on others. It is a deeply insecure religion. The follows know no better as they are conditioned into it at an early age. I worry about people that convert to Islam and am very suspicious over their motivations. islam is definitely NOT a religion of peace.

Maybe in the end it is less about religion and maybe more about power manipulating religion for its own ends.  Sudan which perhaps wants more leverage to achieves its goals, in relation to aid perhaps or to Darfur is using this to squeeze concessions out of the West.  Or maybe it is a case of religious factions flexing their own control over the government and reaffirming that religion is the significant factor in that country,  or perhaps both.  What is clear is that it is painting a very negative image to the world of Islam and Islamic countries.

Looking on the internet, I could find no Muhammed bears, but here are a few Christian ones…jesus.jpg

Prince Charles convert of Islam?

November 26, 2007

I was reading an article about Prince Charles visit to Turkey and I was struck by his timeless fascination with Islam.  The article can be found here.

After reading this article I decided to search about Prince Charles interest in Islam and found an interesting article which I don’t know to make of.  Has to be absurd conspiracy surely.  Anyway,  you can make up your own mind.  Sure is an extreme article…

Prince Charles: The Constantine of Islam?


By Ali Sina 

2005/11/03

When Constantine began his rule, only 5% of the Western Roman Empire was Christian. He came to power at the age of 24 and did not baptize until he was in his fifties and close to his death. Technically, he did not force his subjects to convert, but he gradually introduced Christianity and changed the laws making it harder to practice paganism. 

He increased taxes for the pagans while exonerated the churches and the Christians priests from paying them. He granted lands and built many Christian churches. He gave Christian bishops the authority of judges – against whom there would be no appeal. He imposed moral codes by creating severe penalties against adultery, concubinage and prostitution. For a variety of other crimes, people were to have their eyes gouged out or their legs maimed. In keeping with Paul’s instructions that slaves should “obey their masters with fear and trembling” [Eph 6:5], he passed a law allowing masters to beat their slaves to death. He allowed infants born to slaves to be sold and allowed slaves who were caught seeking refuge among “barbarians” to have a foot amputated. Slaves in the public services caught attempting to leave town were to be beaten. With the agreement of bishops, slaves who sought refuge in Christian churches were to be returned to their masters. 

Constantine did not abolish democracy, but introduced policies that made the Senate even more ineffective. Cities continued electing their officials but under him municipal governments declined. He revived the secret police, which was notorious for its reputation.

These changes were gradual. They destabilized the democratic system and inaugurated an era of despotism which ushered Europe into obscurantism that lasted over a millennium. The Church received governmental grants to build orphanages, hospitals, inns for travelers, and it founded old age homes, all of which helped increase Christianity’s prestige and popularity. Constantine was gullible and the priests used him to advance their cause. 1

Is Prince Charles being groomed to become the Constantine of Islam in England?

Prince Charles has come to America for an eight-day tour. His mission is to persuade W. Bush and the Americans of “the merits of Islam”. He has voiced private concerns over America’s “confrontational” approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate “Islam’s strengths”. He thinks United States has been too intolerant of the religion. 

What is behind this interest in Islam? Why would the Prince of Wales become an ambassador of this Arabian religion? 

In a 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled “Prince Charles of Arabia,” Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman looked at evidence that Britain’s Prince Charles might be a secret convert to Islam.

This claim was put forward by no less a personage than the grand mufti of Cyprus: “Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can’t say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You’ll find that your future king is a Muslim.”

The Prince has not made any announcements about his conversion.  But he is no stranger to surprises. After all, didn’t he surprise everyone with his confession to adultery when he was still married to Princess Diana?

Charles has made several strong and disturbing public statements endorsing Islam “as the solution to the spiritual and cultural ills of Britain and the West”. When Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for lampooning Muhammad in his novel Satanic Verses, rather than defend Rushdie’s right to free speech, Charles reacted to the death decree by reflecting on the positive features that Islam has to offer the spiritually empty lives of his countrymen.

His views on Islamic terrorism are similar to those expressed by the apologists of Islam. He believes that Islam has been hijacked by the extremists. In a major address on Islam on October 27, 1993, at the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford where he is a vice patron of the Centre for Islamic Studies, Charles declared:

“Our judgment of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to the norm. . . . For example, people in this country frequently argue that the Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practiced. The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Qur’an, should be those of equity and compassion.”

These are the words of an apologist of Islam. They are of course absurd. The Quran calls for cutting the hands of thieves 5.38 and those who wage war against Allah and his messenger 5.33 i.e. anyone who criticizes Islam. If Muslims rarely practice this law it is a credit to them. It shows they are more humane than their prophet. But Charles is defending ISLAM. He is claiming that the guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law is taken straight from the Quran. Cutting the hands is straight from the Quran. What spirit of the Quran is Charles advocating when he brushes under the carpet its clear mandate? Which part of the Quran teaches equity and compassion? No one expects kings to be intellectuals, but shouldn’t they be minimally intelligent?

Charles went as far as to suggest that European women may even find something to envy in the situation of their Muslim sisters:

He said: “Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt and Syria gave women the vote as early as Europe did its women-and much earlier than in Switzerland! In those countries women have long enjoyed equal pay, and the opportunity to play a full working role in their societies.” 

This is typical Islamic propaganda. Muslims love to compare the worst of the West with the best of Islam and even take credit for what is anti Islamic. If at one stage these countries disregarded Islam, despite of it adopted secular laws and gave women some recognition, why should Islam be credited for that? Isn’t this a non sequitur logical fallacy? Doesn’t the Prince read the history of these nations to learn that women’s status there was gained because the secularists beat the Islamists?  Doesn’t he know that in 1920 the French defeated King Faysal in Syria and it was they who gave women voting power? Doesn’t he know that the emancipation of women in Egypt is owed to a secular reform called Egypt’s Liberal Experiment (1924-1936) that mimicked the European style of government?  Do I have to tell him that Ataturk’s reforms were not Islamic?  How can Islam give voting rights to women, when it does not recognizes democracy? All these reforms failed and all these countries now harbor terrorists. Islam cannot accept modernity. How can the future king of England make comments so uninformed?

Lambasting at the Western civilization and declaring Christianity as inadequate to the task of spiritual restoration, this future head of the Church of England, has declared that “Western civilization has become increasingly acquisitive and exploitive in defiance of our environmental responsibilities.” Instead, he praised the “Islamic revival” of the 1980s and portrayed Islam as Britain’s salvation: 

“Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the Universe. Islam-like Buddhism and Hinduism-refuses to separate man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world around us. . . . But the West gradually lost this integrated vision of the world with Copernicus and Descartes and the coming of the scientific revolution. A comprehensive philosophy of nature is no longer part of our everyday beliefs.”

It is disturbingly clear that Charles is disdainful of enlightenment and nostalgic of obscurantism. He concluded his speech by suggesting that “there are things for us to learn in this system of belief which I suggest we ignore at our peril.”

Like what? What is it exactly that Muslims have that if the Britons ignore it would be perilous to them? Is the Prince talking about stoning, hand chopping, beheading, public beating, polygamy, dictatorship, misogyny, marriage of little girls, honor killing, patriarchy, human rights abuses and all other ills that are directly inspired by the Quran? In what ways Islam is superior to the Western culture?  Apart from the fact that Islam treats humans like animals and punishes them for thinking independently, in what other ways it unifies man and nature?

If Charles is concerned about the decline of morality in England, shouldn’t he, as the “defender of the Faith” and the head of the Church of England revive Christian values of morality and to begin with, set better personal examples? Doesn’t Christianity prohibit adultery? [Mat.5:29] It is not that Christianity does not have moral and family values. If most Christians have abandoned those values, it is not the fault of Christianity. Why the Britons, or anyone for that matter, need to embrace a barbarian cult such as Islam to become moral when all they have to do is practice their own faith? It is foolish to believe that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and the alien is always superior to the familiar.

Becoming moral is a personal struggle. Whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or an atheist, it is YOU who must strive and become moral. Religions don’t give you a magic pill. If morality is what you want, why can’t you exert to become more moral by becoming a better Christian? Is Christianity against morality? Does Christianity separate Man from Nature? Why one has to embrace a dark faith such as Islam that resembles a cult of terror in order to become moral or discover his unity with nature? The only thing Islam has is FEAR. Islam frightens its followers with the imagery of a dreadful hell. Do we really need that stick to do the right thing and be moral?   

The Prince of Wales knows nothing about Islam. He is ignorant of the bloody history of this cult, its violence, its misogyny, its intolerance, its enmity with science, its antagonism towards intellectuals, its disdain for fine arts, its incompatibility with democracy, and knows nothing about the objectionable character of its founder.

Charles obviously does not subscribe to the draconian Islamic laws. He is relieved that the majority of Islamic countries do not practice Sharia and do not cut the hands of the thieves as prescribed in the Quran. He believes in the “reformed Islam”. Apart from the fact that reformed Islam is only a chimera, a lie created as window-dressing to fool the Westerners and all it means is “less Islam”, the question that begs an answer is: why decry Christianity, which is already reformed and support an alien belief system that cannot be reformed and in its pure state is so inhumane that even the Prince can’t stomach? 

Is the Prince tired of democracy? Does he secretly envy the Islamic system of government where the rulers have absolute power and can even impose morality on their subjects? Or is he completely misinformed? Where Charles gets all these erroneous concepts about Islam? 

Gordon and Stillman reveal that Charles has set up a panel of twelve “wise men” (in fact, eleven men and one woman) to advise him on Islamic religion and culture. The group was reported to have met in secret. Of course no comparable body exists to inform the crown prince about other faiths practiced in his future realm. Has Charles already fallen prey to Islam and is he now practicing kitman? (hide one’s belief) 

The news coming from the royalty is disconcerting. Gordon and Stillman say that Charles has taken steps to give Islam a special status. “Among the many titles borne by the British sovereign is ‘Defender of the Faith,’ a reference to the fact that the monarch heads not only the government but also the Church of England. But the prince has reservations about this title. In a June 1994 television documentary he declared his preference to be known as “Defender of Faith” rather than “Defender of the Faith,” leading to a rash of speculation that he favors the disestablishment of the Church of England.”

It appears that this council of “wise men” has already a plan of action for the future king of England to Islamize the country. Discussing the role of Islam in the United Kingdom, in a speech at the Foreign Office Conference Centre at Wilton Park in Sussex on December 13, 1996, Charles called on Islamic pedagogy and philosophy to help young Britons develop a “healthier view of the world”. Praising Islamic culture in its traditional form for trying to preserve an “integrated, spiritual view of the world in a way we have not seen fit to do in recent generations in the West,” he went on to say:

There is much we can learn from that Islamic world view in this respect. There are many ways in which mutual understanding and appreciation can be built. Perhaps, for instance, we could begin by having more Muslim teachers in British schools, or by encouraging exchanges of teachers. Everywhere in the world people want to learn English. But in the West, in turn, we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads. 

According to the Prince, all that Muslims need to learn from the West is English, while the “spiritually bankrupt” Westerners are in dire need of learning Islamic philosophy and values.

What philosophy? What values? Tell me what Islam has that Christianity doesn’t and I will tell you a million things that the Western culture has that Islam doesn’t. First and foremost is freedom of thought and respect for human dignity. In the West people are people. In Islam they are slaves and like animals their thoughts do not count. If they dare to express a thought contrary to Islam, they will be executed.   

Why like all Muslims you compare the unbelieving decadent ‘Christians’ with the ‘ideal Islam’? Why don’t you compare Christians with Muslims, fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims and Christianity with Islam? When you stop this logical fallacy of comparing apples to oranges, you will see that Christianity is a thousand time superior to Islam and Christians are a thousand time better than Muslims. Fundamentalist Christians are just nutcases. All you have to do is ignore them. Fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. You can’t ignore them. And there is no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. The former was a super saint, the latter was a thug.

While criticizing the Western civilization Charles added:

During the past three centuries, in the Western world at least, a dangerous division has occurred in the way we perceive the world around us. Science has tried to assume a monopoly ­ even a tyranny ­ over our understanding. Religion and science have become separated, so that now, as Wordsworth said, “Little we see in nature that is ours”. Science has attempted to take over the natural world from God; it has fragmented the cosmos and relegated the sacred to a separate and secondary compartment of our understanding, divorced from practical, day to day existence. 3

Science does not pretend to have answers to all human questions. Science has its own modus operandi and does not concern itself with things that are not verifiable through scientific means. It is not up to science to speculate on supernatural and spirituality. But science per se, is not tyrannical. Scientists may not agree with your views but they will never jail you, torture you or behead you for believing in what they regard scientific heresies. In the midst of the most scientific societies, you are allowed to believe in, and even preach, hocus-pocus and do not have to fear for your life. It is Islam that claims monopoly of the truth, jails its dissidents, tortures them and beheads them. What would befall to a Muslim scientist if he dares to say Jinns are fairytale, Muhammad did not split the moon and Mi’raj (the alleged ascension of Muhammad to heaven riding on a winged horsy) is ridiculous? 

What part of the Quran is scientific? This book is an insult to human intelligence. What has been the contribution of Islam to science? Nothing! Islam has been a hindrance to science. The few scientists who were born in Islamic countries and gave birth to what now Muslims claim to be “Islamic science”, were all apostates and unbelievers. Some of them, like Razi, ridiculed religions and called the prophets, “billy goats” and “charlatans”. The quartets of Khayyam, the great poet/mathematician, is full of ridicules of the Quran and its epistemology. Others, like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd were denounced as heretics and often were on the move to escape persecution. Whatever these scientists planted with their “heads” was nipped in the bud by true Muslims like Al Ghazali and Rumi who followed their “hearts”. Islam put an end to science and scientific quest. Rather than investigating the causes of the natural phenomena, everything was explained as the “will of God” and the researchers were mocked. What harmony of science and religion Charles sees in Islam? Why he does not enlighten us?   

As is to be expected, Charles has reached a hero status among Muslims.

CAIRO, June 21 (IslamOnline.net) – Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei will award Prince Charles, the heir to the British crown, an international prize for his contribution to understanding Islam in the West during a London ceremony on Thursday, June 24.

The Prince of Wales was unanimously chosen by an international jury set up by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) for his earnest efforts to promote dialogue between the Islamic and Western civilizations, 4

John Casey of Cambridge University, warns that the British public lacks a clear understanding of Charles’s standing in the Muslim world:  

The extent to which the Prince is admired by Muslims-even to the point of hero-worship-has not yet sunk into the consciousness of the British public. When it does, that public may or may not be pleased.

As it is clear, Charles likes to think with his heart rather than with his head. Heart is for feelings. To find one’s way one must use his head. Impressionable people like Charles can easily be coned. He, obviously is being used by Muslims with whose help they hope to penetrate England and indoctrinate the Britons with Islam. Gordon and Stillman write: “At a private dinner with Prince Charles in May 1997, Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia announced a donation by King Fahd of $33 million to Oxford University to construct a new Centre for Islamic Studies at Oxford, a gift designed “to establish Islamic studies at the heart of the British education system.”

Centre for Islamic Studies is just a fancy name for madrassah. Thousands of mosques, madrassahs and Islamic centers have been sprouted all over UK. Islam is gradually penetrating in that country, destabilizing its democratic foundation and fomenting terrorism among its Muslim population. Muslims’ ‘generosity’ does not come with no-strings-attached. Wherever they invest their money, whether it is in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, UK or USA, the objective is to advance Islamic imperialism. Soon terrorism will follow and the country will become a war zone.

The Britons should know that the first allegiance of a Muslim is to Islam. Every Muslim, whether he is a pauper or a prince has the duty to advance the cause of Islam and make it dominant. 

 

  

Muslims, function as the fifth column, in favor of Islam, wherever they reside. The Britons must realize that Islam is not just another faith. Islam is a fascistic doctrine that uses religion to advance its political agenda. If the king of England has sympathies towards Islam, whether he is a convert or just a ‘useful idiot’, this should be a matter of concern to everyone. His sympathy to Islam will boost Islamic zealotry and will feed Islamic terrorism.  

With so much scandals oozing out of the House of Windsor, Charles flirting with Islam and his son Harry wearing a swastika armband, maybe it is time that the Britons see whether they really have any need for the archaic institution of monarchy. Apart from providing fodder for the tabloid industry what other useful function does monarchy have?

Instead of coming to America and lecturing to Americans about a faith of which he knows nothing but some lies and clichés that he has been told, I challenge the Prince of Wales to urge his panel of “wise men” to confront me and prove that my charges against Muhammad are false. Will he at least ask them to do that? If he really cares about the truth, this is the least he should do.

  

Is Prince Harry also a Muslim in closet?

 

This article should be read by the President of the United States before listening to Prince Charles’s charade about Islam. Please forward it to him, to the Secretary of State, to all the members of the Congress, to your governor and to your mayor. Send it  to your local newspaper and ask them to publish it. Don’t assume that truth will always win. This is a childish belief. It happens only in fairytales. History shows that only those who are determined win. If you are not determined the Isamists will win and mankind will lose.  

Permission is granted to publish this article  and I encourage you to promote it as much as you can until it reaches the Prince and millions of others who like him are fed with lies about Islam. Being a ‘useful idiot‘ is just as dangerous as being the enemy itself, or perhaps more.  

 

Related subject:

A letter to HRM Queen Elizabeth II 

Defender of the Faith

 


1- http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch24.htm

2- [Quoted in Giles Milton, The Riddle and the Knight: In Search of Sir John Mandeville (London: Allison & Busby, 1996), p. 78.]

3-  http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~ig/islam/abbas/prince.htm

4- http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-06/22/article03.shtml

Source of unspecified Quotes in this article is: Prince Charles of Arabia by Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman  SEPTEMBER 1997 • VOLUME IV: NUMBER 3 http://www.meforum.org/article/356

 

Muslims will take over Europe within a few decades – Gadhafi

November 24, 2007

From the horses mouth, so to speak, see here. Muslims will take over Europe in a few decades according to Gadhafi. He seems to be on the money with the way in which successive governments in the UK and in Europe have let a flood of migrants come into Europe. According to Gadhafi there are already 50 million Muslims in Europe already, with the succession of Albania, Bosnia and of Turkey it will increase the number of Muslims in Europe by another 50 million. This estimate is probably out of date now as by the time Turkey aspires to join the EU its population will be nearer 100 million(99% Muslim).

Gahdafi continues on a pro-Islamic diatribe exposing contradictions from the Bible while claiming that the Koran(which incidently is just as full of inconsistancies and errors as the Bible) is unfallible.  He finishes by saying that ‘All people must be Muslims’.  Such arrogance and such small mindedness to suggest that a religion created, in historical terms, recently has the the priviledge and precident to represent to govedern us all.

Firstly had not the religion primarily been an Arab God formostly?  What about all the cultures that came before the Arabs and the Hebrews and the Christians.  Cursed to hell?  And what of the far future when we all finally succeeded in blowing ourselves up to the afterlife(presumably) are they to be governed by Islam too?   It is fascist and it is a terrifying prospect.

These are the terms in what we should be framing these words.  There is a battle going on quietly for your heart and your mind:  to that there can be no uncertainty.

With Jack Straw saying that Turkey should join the European Union(click), is there any hope that the UK battled culture will stand any chance. Especially with the population so depressed, obese and docile. Like domesticated livestock(micro-chipped and bar-coded) our nation is being sent to the abattoir of cultural destruction.

Why does the EU NEED to be expanded further, is it not enough for us just to trade with the Turkish people. Why do they need to be in the European Union? The amount of strain and pressure it will put on Europe will make the accession of the former communist states look like child’s play. The Eastern European peoples culture at least is more similar to the that of the West. Firstly they are a primarily Christian people, I don’t think that these new states will like to see Turkey join the EU as it will take resources (for nor) directed at their door, towards Turkey.

Turkey with a long history of oppression of Eastern European countries, such as Greece, Bulgaria and Romania; and recently with growing religious intolerance towards non-Turks and non-Muslims is EXTREMELY worrying. The European Unions borders then will move towards Iraq, Syria and Iran. The furthest East since the times of the Roman Empire.

Territory and money aside, this issue has more to do with cultural change and what sort of future we want to leave to our children. Are people in the West really wanting to embrace Islam? What is wrong to defend the culture of Europe, we are not an Arab culture, we are not an Islamic culture, so why is it being forced upon us?

It makes me so mad. Have humans learnt nothing from history? Here we stand as a CULTURE and as a unique PEOPLE on the precipice of being consigned to the past. Do we want to preserve our way of life. I think we should too. Having traveled extensively through Eastern Europe I certainly know that they do to.

Have HEART we are not alone. And the fools that have lead us to these dark corners will find that the light will burn very brightly upon them when the tide does turn.

Police State tactics to surpress media documentary detailing radical preachers

November 19, 2007

An interesting article from the Daily Telegraph detailing a recent Channel 4 dispatches documentary documenting the culture of intolerance being preached in Mosques around Britain(namely Birmingham). The documentary shows preachers and worshipers furiously denouncing women as ‘deficient’, non-Muslims are attacked and Muslims are told that homosexuals should be thrown off mountains and killed.

Unhappy with the state of affairs in Britain the Police decided that they would launch a criminal investigation directed at Channel 4 and NOT the Muslims in question. One has to ask the question, what are the motivations behind such behavior. The articles mentioned the fact(which is true) that Muslims are forming into a strong political alliance in which the Labour party needs if it is too remain in power.

Unable to persue criminal preceedings against Channel 4 under ‘inciting racial hatred’ (WHO WAS PREACHING THE RACIAL HATRED HERE?) the police fall back on tactics obviously gleaned from Stalinist Russia to supress information that is in the public interest ever being shown. A complaint was lodged to OFCOM the Television Broadcasting regulator to block the transmission of the documentary.

Embarrassingly, for the police, OFCOM ruled in favour of Channel4 after viewing transmitted material and transmitted material, continued to judge that the broadcast was fair and impartial.

The reasons for these events are staggering, why in a country that seems to be a fruitful radicalization ground(forget about Afghanistan) with documentary evidence of the culture of hate being indoctorated into Muslim youth is nothing done about it. Why should the police then attempt to cover these facts up with the threat of legal action and censorship.

The government is walking a tight-rope on one hand engaging in policies in such areas as immigration, legislation in regards to terrorism and hate crimes, coupled with doctrines of capitalism that have little regard for long standing traditions and cultures; while simultaneously seducing the public with their tough stance on terror and intolerance.

Given the behavior of the police in trying to supress this documentary and afterwards NOTHING DONE TO DEPORT AND SEND HOME THESE PREACHERS OF HATE, it stands to reason that the government doesn’t want to do anything about this. Instead it is quite happy to let this pressure cooker simmer away until bursting point.

How long this can go on I do not know. The article can be read here.