Monday, 6 September 2010

Sarah Palin on Ground Zero mosque

The Republican Sarah Palin, self-described rottweiler with lipstick, message to New Yorkers is:

“Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan"

“Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation"

Calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque" is misleading and UNNECESSARILY inflamatory.

The mosque is NOT being built at Ground Zero.

It is to be built 2 blocks away - replacing an uninteresting beat up building formerly housing a Burlington Coat factory store. Not exactly a noticeable landmark.

Standing at Ground Zero, you would never be aware of it.

The issue is "too raw" (to build a mosque) only if you fail to see the distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist.

Lastly, let us not forget that Muslim-Americans were killed in the September 11th attacks.

As a sensible person adds:

"So Palin and the Tea Party nuts would be offended by a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City federal building bombing? The perpetrators of that crime claimed to be Christians."

The "Christian" Oklahoma bombers murdered 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6 and injured more than 680 people in 1995.

Another sensible person wants to know:

Where would she like the mosque? If two blocks is too close for her , would three blocks be acceptable? Maybe four blocks? A half a mile, or two miles? What is the acceptable, respectable distance that Muslims should keep from Ground Zero? Should they keep that distance from other national monuments, as well? What other concessions should "peaceful Muslims" do to make Sarah Palin happy?

Yet,another sensible person wants to know:

Can you provide coordinates for your zone of insensitivity? Future plans may be subject to less controversy if we can establish the correct parameters now.

Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division will achieve nothing.

Palin supporters have the view that it "shameless for any muslim to want to worshiip on the graves of the people ... killed in the name of their religion" and "sing the praises of the murderers."

How hard is it, for a sensible person, to grasp that fact that the dead are NOT buried at Ground Zero and the mosque is not being built at Ground zero.

Guns hurt people every single day but I don't see republicans banning guns to respect those whose wounds are still fresh.

Should we also ban churches from being anywhere near native American burial grounds. They were, after all, slaughtered by Christians.

If you want to know how twisted SOME Americans (including the establishment) are towards Muslims read this Guardian article

Read more!

Sunday, 22 August 2010

Two Innocent brothers killed In Sialkot

In Sialkot 2 brothers, one 16 the other 18, were murdered by a mob in front of a policeman.

The victims mother said:

"I will never forgive them.
I want perpetrators to suffer the same treatment – only then will I have peace.
The spectators deserve the same."

The police, the perpetrators and the spectators should be "skinned alive".

There is nothing else that these bas***ds understand.

It is alleged taht robbers, fired gunshots, killed a man and wounded others.
The brothers arrived at the scene a few minutes later. The brother of the man killed, said that his brother was involved in a cricket match dispute earlier with these two, so they must part of the robber gang. The brother declared to all – that these two are the robbers. Then all hell broke loose.
The Police take 45 minutes to arrive, in the meantime all the town people viciously beat up the two boys near to death. The boys were then hung up outside the police station and beaten with sticks.
“Look we know these boys, they are not robbers”
Oops, wrong word because they get beaten up too.
This is not a village incident. It happened in a town, in this day and age.
What is more the police bast**rd in charge, made his 20-25 men encircle the scene so that no one could come to the boys aid.
A reporter who filed this barbarity could not sleep for three days.
The media reports glorified the fact that 2 robbers were caught and killed.
You cannot just kill people without a trial.
There could a hundred reasons to be wrong.
The people of Sialkot will testify that the two victims belonged to a very respectable family.
When the family receive the bodies of their two sons, in such a state , how do they feels. They only had 2 sons and a daughter. The police have labelled their son’s robbers. After 5 days no police report of the incident has been filed yet.

ooops that is not the whole or true story.
The boys were involved in a cricket dispute.
They were invited to come and make up.
What happened to them was pre-planned.
The story about the robbers was just concocted to blame them.
Read more!

Friday, 20 August 2010

Getting ready for Eid celebrations

Give a thought for the plight of these people.

Jaane kab honge kum, iss duniya ke gham by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

Read more!

Saturday, 14 August 2010

Trust Yusuf Raza Gilani ?

Fake Medical camp set up for Prime Minister of Pakistan of Pakistan Yusuf Raza Gilani.

He barely looked at the victim when giving them 5,000 rupees cheques.
On his departure all signs of the camp dis-appeared.

"Whatever you give, we will give an account of every single penny”
- PM Gilani.

Would you trust this man to "account for every single penny" given to him or his government?

Only a fool or madman would make such a promise.

The rich, powerful and politicians are not accountable to anyone.
Not even for the distribution of hard earned charity money.
Read more!

Thursday, 8 July 2010

CNN sacks veteran editor over remark

CNN has sacked a veteran Middle East editor after she wrote on Twitter that she "respected" the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

Ms Octavia Nasr wrote: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah... One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot."

That remark ended the two decades career of CNN's senior editor of Middle East affairs because her credibility had been "compromised".

In Lebanon and in the Shia community worldwide Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was a spiritual giant whose teachings and writings placed him at the highest level possible.

The Ayatollah wrote more than 40 books and treatises. His rich legacy also includes charitable institutions and theological schools through which he will be long remembered.

He took a strong stand on many women's issues, and set up a number of women's centres.

Some of the fatwas (religious edicts) he issued were against female circumcision and "honour" killings, and he ruled that women had the right to hit back if beaten by their husbands. He also opined that abortion could be permitted in cases where a woman's health was at risk.

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah openly spoke against Israeli occupation and American foreign policy in the region ie American presence in Lebanon.

As such, he is said to have inspired Hezbollah.

No one is permitted to respect such a man, in the West.

If you do, then the response is immediate.

A perfect example of "complete freedom of speech".
Read more!

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

Israeli commandos kill nine people in international waters

Israeli commandos storm a convoy of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip killing nine people in international waters.

Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister said "Gaza will not be short of humanitarian supplies" even when Israeli only allows in a quarter of what the UN says it needs.

UN Security Council Resolution 1860 calls for the lifting of restrictions on access to Gaza.

Prolonged UN efforts to get more aid into Gaza have fallen on deaf ears in Israel, the US and UK. All Israel is willing to do is repeat warnings against breaking the three-year blockade of Gaza.

Britain's ambassador to the UN from 1998 to 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, described it as "the virtual starvation of Gaza".

But, according to Danny Ayalon, any attempts to bring more humanitarian aid into Gaza, in international waters, is a "premeditated and outrageous provocation" and an "armada of hate and violence in support of Hamas".

Deputy Speaker of the Israeli parliament Danny Danon said it was "clear intent to create a conflict”. We told the convoy “Give us the goods and we will send them by road".

There would be no need for this convoy if Israeli did not block three quarter of the humanitarian aid that the people of Gaza need. So who is creating this "premeditated and outrageous provocation".

No civilized or humane or caring person would allow the "three-year blockade of Gaza" to continue.

Nor would they allow UN Resolution 1860 (remove blockade of Gaza) to be flouted in international waters.

Nor can a "unbreakable bond" exist with such a inhumane country.

President Obama is only interested in watering down the condemnation of Israel. He is the man who said the "situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable".
Especially in Gaza. So what has he done so far other than demonstrate that the US bond with Israel was "unbreakable" no matter what crimes they commit.

The UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, deplored “the loss of life“. The UK has "consistently advised against attempting to access Gaza in this way" and done nothing to lift the blockade of Gaza even though they accept it is "unacceptable and counter-productive" and violation of UN resolution 1860.

Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves even when they are flouting UN resolutions and international law in international waters.

Yet humanitarian aid workers are labelled "terrorists" for trying to deliver humanitarian aid, in international water, in accordance with a UN resolution.

Very odd.
Read more!

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

BNP activist and teacher cleared of racial intolerance

Describing immigrants as "savage animals" and "filth" is not racist or intolerant. What is?

Neither is claiming that Britain was becoming a "dumping ground for the filth of the Third World".

The General Teaching Council (GTC) was hearing the case of teacher and BNP activist Adam Walker, accused of racial intolerance.

Chairwoman, Angela Stones, delivering the committee's verdict said some of Mr Walker's postings contained offensive terms and demonstrated views or an attitude that might be considered racist.

However, Mrs Stones added: "The committee does not accept that references to 'immigrants' are of themselves suggestive of any particular views on race."

The reason given is that a negative comment about immigrants is not “indicative of racist views or racial intolerance” because immigrants come from all over the world.

Neither would “Third World Immigrants” – that could refer to many countries.

But we all know he was referring to particular races when he referred to "immigrants".

"The committee's view is that, to be suggestive of intolerance, the postings would need to deny or refuse to others the right to dissent." In other words he can say anything.

The good news is that he claims that he has "never condemned all immigrants or asylum seekers."

Married to a Japanese woman, and having travelled the world, his comments clearly demonstrate how he values the beauty and diversity of different cultures.
Read more!

Monday, 5 April 2010

US military killings in Baghdad in 2007

This is a graphic depiction of how the US miltary behaves in Iraq and elsewhere.

It show the killings of civilians by the US military in Baghdad in 2007.

How dare any one pick up the wounded and take them to hospital?

Not while you got trigger happy Americans in a US Apache helicopter overhead.

Injured a few children in the attack?

Well, the fault lies with the father, who was trying to help the wounded

and not the trigger happy American, who just wants to kill.

Just ran over a dead body. Not against any US soldiers principles.

See for yourself:

"Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Read more!

Pregnant Afghan women were killed in bungled Nato raid

Nato officials admit that as well killing 2 innocent men, they also killed 3 innocent pregnant women in a bungled night time raid in eastern Afghanistan.

In February, Nato forces killed two innocent men in a botched night-time raid in eastern Afghanistan.

The men, a district prosecutor and local police chief were shot dead when they came out of their homes carrying firearms to investigate what was happening outside.

Nato forces, according to “reliable information” were expecting the men to be Taliban insurgents.

Nato officials said they were killed because they appeared to show "hostile intent", in other words, when they came out to investigate, they were armed.

Nato military officials claimed that 3 pregnant women, inside the same house, were killed by unknown assailants before the raid in Gardez in Eastern Afghanistan on 12 February 2010. One was a pregnant mother of 10 and another was a pregnant mother of six.

Now, in April, Nato admits that the women were killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.

How difficult is it to tell if you shot dead 2 innocent people or 5 innocent people?

Why lie about how many people you killed?

Nato will, once again, apologise and pay compensation to the family of those killed. An Afghan life is not worth much and Nato can easily afford it.

After the incident, Nato said that the three women were found bound and gagged hidden in a room in the house. Now they say this was based on a report by troops unfamiliar with Islamic burial customs.

The Islamic burial custom does not include the person being bound or gagged.

How difficult is it to tell if a dead person is bound and gagged?

Did the dead district prosecutor and local police chief perform the muslim burial customs?

Why is it so difficult for Nato officials to speak the TRUTH?

The New York Times and Britain's The Times -- said that the foreign troops involved in the shooting were members of US special forces who tried to cover up the deaths by removing bullets from the bodies.
Read more!

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Israeli MP: British are disloyal "dogs"

Britain bends over backward to appease Israel but how do the Israelis view Britain.

Britain decided to expel an Israeli diplomat because there was "compelling reasons" to believe Israel was responsible for 12 forged British passports used in the killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January 201.

The fact that Israel was a friend added "insult to injury".

How did the Israelis react?

National Union party member of the Kenesset Aryeh Eldad called Britain "dogs" for expelling the diplomat.

His party colleague, MK Michael Ben-Ari, added: "The British may be dogs, but they are not loyal to us, but rather to an anti-Semitic system, and Israeli diplomacy partially plays into their hands. "This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism".
Read more!

Thursday, 4 February 2010

Shah Rukh Khan has no reason to apologise

Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan, owner of IPL cricket team Kolkata Knight Riders, expressed his disappointment that no Pakistan cricketers were picked for the 2010 Indian Premier League.

This has angered Hindu hardline party Shiv Sena so much that they are demanding an apology from Shah Rukh Khan.

Unless he apologises, his next big release "My Name Is Khan" could be banned in Mumbai.
In fact all Shah Rukh's films could face a ban in the city.

Multiplexes and single-screen theatres in Mumbai have taken off posters and hoardings of Shah Rukh Khan’s My name is Khan following an order by the Shiv Sena.

Sena leader Sanjay Raut is quoted as saying "Let us see how he dares to take in Pakistani players. We will see to it. We will not tolerate anybody praising Pakistanis. Balasaheb has already given instructions on the issue. You will see what Shiv Sena will do in the coming days."

Effigies of Shah Rukh Khan have been burned in India

It does not take much before Hindu extremists parties start terrorising the people.

To say “India belongs to all Indians” would get Hindu extremists blood boiling, as in the case of taxi permits in Mumbai.

Certainly not a place where people of different persuation can co-exist.

The only extremists that are tolerated and above the law are Hindu extremists.
Read more!

Sunday, 31 January 2010

Blair: I'd do it again

Tony Blair believes that the Iraq war has made the world a safer place.

UN Security Council approval
Tony Blair shared Mr Bush’s views that UN Security Council's support "wasn't necessary" to take military action against Iraq.

This was because they could not get the UN support. So why were they concerned about Saddam Hussein flouting UN resolutions?

Weapons of mass destruction
There were no weapons of weapons of mass destructions. Over 95% of them were destroyed by the weapons inspectors. Blair said: “could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes”. In another words he did not have any.

Saddam would “support terrorist groups"
There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeeda. The invasion of Iraq was open invitation to Al Qaeeda. It is 2010, after all the death and destruction, Iraq has 200,000 foreign troops and Al Qaeeda is still going strong.

Blair: "I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place."
Al Qaeeda in Iraq is destabilising more countries in the region. They only arrived after the invasion of Iraq and will leave after the invasion forces leave.

Blair said the UK had not taken a "cavalier" attitude to post-war planning.
After the destruction, there was no police, army or institutions. The US was the dictator in charge for the first year. Then slowly and grudgingly it handed back some responsibility to the Iraqis. How credible is a puppet Iraqi government that wants to ban current MPs from standing for election? What planning did that take?

Blair feels that Iraqis were now better off.
In 2010, Iraqis still fear 200,000 foreign troops and Al Qaeeda in Iraq. Who feels better off? A stable environment has been replaced by unpredictable chaos.

Any one with links to the Baath party will not allowed to stand in elections, even if are currently serving MPs. Was the intention to remove Saddam Hussein or deny any one who supported Saddam a say in the future of Iraq?
Read more!

Friday, 29 January 2010

Lord Goldsmith changed his view over Iraq

A month before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith believed it was "safer" to get a fresh UN resolution.

Foreign Office lawyers Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst believed the invasion would be a "crime of aggression" without explicit UN approval.

But a month later Lord Goldsmith changed his mind but still told ministers that the UK could be taken to court in the event of military action.

Without his change of mind, Britain could not have gone to war.
Who or what changed his mind?

It is "complete and utter nonsense" to suggest that he could be persuaded by the establishment to tow the British government line.

Only after discussions with US diplomats did the "true meaning" of resolution 1441 became clear" to Lord Goldsmith.

That explains it.
Tony Blair was gob smacked by the status of the US President and decided to become his poodle.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, learnt the "true meaning" of law and UN Resolutions from the Americans.

A wiser man would have been brave enough to ask the French for their interpretation.
Read more!

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Israel issues stern rebuke to Turkey's ambassador?

When Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned the Turkish Ambassador to rebuke him over a fictional television series, he ensured the Turkish ambassador was seated on a much lower chair, removed the Turkish flag from the table and did not shake his hand or smile.

TV footage widely broadcast by the Israeli media shows him urging journalists to note the Turkish ambassador's low seating position at the meeting.

He is also heard saying in Hebrew that "there is only one flag here" and "we are not smiling".

The incident has been widely seen in Israel as an intentional humiliation.

According to Reuters Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said "In terms of the diplomatic tactics available, this was the minimum that was warranted.”

One Israeli newspaper marked the height difference on the photo, and captioned it "the height of humiliation".

Intentional humiliation for whom?
Israel or Turkey?

This intentional and stupid behaviour will do nothing more than show the true face of this Israeli government to the world.

When Turkey demanded an apology, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister was forced to say "It is not my way to disrespect ambassadors' honour, and "in future I will clarify my position in a diplomatically acceptable manner.”
Read more!

Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no legal mandate

A Dutch inquiry finds that the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq was not justified by UN resolutions.

The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".

The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence.

The Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK took precedence over the legality of the invasion.

The committee said “the wording of [UNl] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

Iraq's alleged breach of Resolution 1441, was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify the invasion.

However, a leaked memo by the Dutch foreign ministry lawyers indicated that war would be illegal under international law.

Will the British enquiry conclusions be based on the evidence?
Read more!

Monday, 11 January 2010

Israel to build barrier along Egyptian border

A quote on the BBC website reads:

"We have an influx of illegal refugees, but "these poor people are being murdered trying to cross into Israel by the Egyptians"

The Egyptians are only following Israeli orders.

To stop this suffering, the Israeli's are going to build a barrier along the Egyptian border to keep them out.

In PM Benjamin Netanyahu words, it ""is a strategic decision to secure Israel's Jewish character" and keep out "illegal aliens."

Israel has also been building a controversial barrier in and around the occupied West Bank in recent years to make life more unbearable for the Palestinians.

It is also building a steel wall on the Gaza Strip border to ensure Gaza remains a prison and unable to rebuild its infrastructure.

Where will the next wall be?
Read more!

Sunday, 10 January 2010

UAE sheikh cleared in torture case!

Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the bother of the president of the United Arab Emirates, has been found not guilty of torture.

A video in circulation shows Sheikh Issa repeatedly beating Mr Poor, a grain merchan, and running him over with a car. Several other men assist in the torture, including a member of the security forces. Mr Poor survived the torture, but needed extensive hospital treatment.

The court ruled that Sheikh Issa had been drugged and so was "unaware of his actions" and was "a victim of conspiracy" over the torture of Mohammed Shah Poor.

The statement that the trial had taken place was "a sign that the UAE is showing that everyone in this country can be put in front of law and judged" is bollocks.

"At the same time, it's proven justice to Mohammed Shah Poor.”

The victim:

- was beaten with a wooden plank with protruding nails
- had a cattle prod forced into his anus and turned on
- was run over by a Mercedes SUV
- had lighter fluid poured on his genitals and set alight
- had salt poured on his wounds

In the video Sheikh Issa urges the cameraman to "Get closer. Get closer. Get closer. Let his suffering show."

Is this verdict, justice for the victim?

It merely proves once again that the extended royal family and those Emiratis in positions of power are above the rule of law.

The initial response by the UAE Ministry of the Interior that
  • the matter had been privately settled between Sheikh Issa and his victim (by more torture???)

  • "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department" in the torture

was more beleivable.

There are alleged to be at least 25 other people being filmed and tortured by Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
Read more!