Goodbye Islam: Hello Normalcy: the End of the Religion of Poverty

Eradication of Islam by:

Ali Sina Islam:

The Religion of Poverty

The greatest gift of Islam to its followers is poverty. All Islamic countries with the exception of those that have oil are poor. Amazingly even Iran that is oil rich and before the Islamic regime was a prosperous country, is now a poor third world country. With over 20 billion dollar revenue only from the Oil industry, the per capita income of the Iranians is $1200 annually. Just recently an 18-year-old girl burned herself. She died within a few days. When questioned why, she replied that without her there would be one less mouth to feed in her household and more food for her younger siblings. 20 million Bangalis have immigrated to India in the search of a better life. Bangladesh and Pakistan are languishing in poverty while India is now experiencing an economical boom. As for Afghanistan, let us not even mention it. Some Afghani women are forced to go “grazing”. They go to the mountains looking for a blade of grass to eat and feed their children. All Islamic countries are completely unproductive. Half of the population, i.e. women, virtually is left out of the work force. Those who work waste one month of a year in a quasi-hibernating state during the Ramadan and 5 time obligatory prayers rob the economy millions of valuable man-hours of productivity. Schools instead of teaching real science teach the Islamic non-sense of Fiqh and Shaira and brainwash the youth with mumbo-jumbo of creation, story of Noah and the miracles of Muhammad. If it weren’t for oil all Islamic countries without any exception would be the poorest countries of the world. Millions of Muslims from all Islamic countries to invad the West in the search of better life. Islamic Expansionism One would think that at least those economical refugees who have escaped the hardship of their native land, are mildly aware that the cause of the poverty of their brethrens back home is Islam and they would try to get away from it now that they have escaped from it and have managed to make some fortune in the Kafir land. One would expect that at least they would not slay the goose that lays the golden eggs and would not try to infiltrate Islam in their new homes. Unfortunately Muslims are bereft of that much discernment. When Muslims go to non-Islamic countries and once they overcome their economical hardships they start demanding special privileges to practice and promote their religion. They take advantage of the democracy in their host countries and start building mosques calling their hosts Kafir and strive to eradicate that democracy, and impose the brutal laws of Sharia. In the West, they have started converting the whites and inculcated in them the hate of their own culture to the extent that these new converts harbor the desire to destroy their own churches, loath democracy and capitalism and endeavor to establish the rule of Islam and theocracy of Khalifat world wide. In a Statement laid on the table of the house of Assam (India) Legislative Assembly under item no. 12 dated 6.4.2000 Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta the Chief Minister, Assam wrote: “During the recent past, Assam Police has gathered sufficient evidence to prove that the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI has been actively involved in fomenting violence and terrorism in the State. These activities are mainly in the following areas: a. Promoting indiscriminate violence in the State by providing active support to the local militant outfits. b. Creating new militant outfits along ethnic and communal lines by instigating ethnic and religious groups. c. Supply of explosives and sophisticated arms to various terrorist groups. d. Causing sabotage of oil pipelines and other installations, communication lines, railways and roads. e. Promoting fundamentalism and militancy among local Muslim youth by misleading them in the name of ‘jehad’. f. Promoting communal tension between Hindu and Muslim citizens by way of false and highly inflammatory propaganda.” This report goes on giving the details of various activities of the ISI in Assam and how Pakistan is training the Muslims, mostly the Bangali economical immigrants for their terrorist activities in India. The World React to Islam Many Indians justifiably are alarmed of the growth of the number of Muslims in India and fear that this would eventually result in another bloody civil war and further secession of their country. It is unfortunate though, that this threat has forced them to form militant fundamentalist groups to combat the spread of Islam in India. A similar move has already started in England where the Pakistani youth have clashed with the ultra right angry British youth and even police in several occasions with much property damage to the shops and private businesses. The anti Islamic sentiment is also brewing in Italy, France, Denmark and Germany. I cannot say that this fear of Islamic expansionism is unfounded. Islam must be confronted though violence is not the right method. In fact it is quite counterproductive and dangerous. This would make Muslims feel martyred and strengthens their resolve making them go deeper into their ignorance, become fundamentalists with the inevitable escalation of violence and terrorism. The world should know that terrorism for a true Muslim is a religious virtue. Jihad was prescribed by Muhammad (Q.2:216), and killing the non-believers is regarded a service to Allah (Q.4:84). The problem here is not Muslims but Islam. It is Islam that prevents Muslims from mingling with their hosts in amity, and integrate with the culture of the country where they reside. It is Islam that teaches them to separate the world in two quarters of Dar-al Harb and Dar-al Islam. The solution to this problem cannot come from the non-Muslims but from the Muslims themselves. What Feeds Islamic Frenzy? It is a fact that Muslims are encouraged by the news that their number is growing. This is of course a total misrepresentation of the truth because their number is not actually growing by conversion but by procreation. It is true that Muslims are the fastest growing population but they interpret this, as ISLAM being the fastest growing “religion” and they delight even in such an obvious self-deception. In one of my essays called Who Feeds Fundamentalism I quoted an article that reported the case of a woman born and raised in a middle class Muslim family of doctors in Malaysia. She turned a terrorist and a jihadi after reading a book telling the stories of the Western women converting to Islam. Those stories blazed her religious fervor making her conclude that Islam must be a true gem that now the Westerners are discovering it. She started to wear hejab, started throwing dye at women not wearing the Islamic veil, was encouraging her husband to take a second wife, had many brushes with the law for her subversive activities and proudly told the reporter that she wants her sons to grow with gun in their hands. Any news of the success of Islam, make Muslims dig deeper in their fundamentalism and foments their religious zeal transforming them into terrorists, killing and hating machines. It is a fact that Islam is kept alive because Muslims look at each other telling themselves: “not all these people can be wrong”. This is what is called sheep mentality. One sheep jumps; the other jumps too. Even Muhammad was aware of this weakness in human psyche and took full advantage of that. In the early days of Islam he targeted the influential Meccans like Omar and Abu Bakr. Many early Muslim’s faiths were fortified when they learned that these two important personalities have also accepted Islam and it made it easy for others to join. “If important persons like Omar and Abu Bakr have accepted Islam, then it must be true”, they reasoned. Today Muslims use names like Cat Stevens and Dr. Bucaille (who is not even a Muslim) to impress themselves and their victims. They even claim Neil Armstrong is a Muslim, though he himself has categorically denied this rumor. The Other Side of The Coin However, this coin has another side too. Just as the news of the growth of Islam and its alleged successes kindles religious fervor in Muslims, transforming them into zealot fanatics and terrorist zombies, the news of the failure of Islam disheartens and discourages them. Just as the news and even the rumors of the conversion of a great number of people to Islam strengthen the Muslims in their faith, the reverse is also true. Islam, especially in recent years, has had many setbacks, but they have not been publicized. There is a great number of Muslims who leave Islam, most of them among the intellectuals and the crème de la crème of the society. But unfortunately these dissenters are not organized and often do not wish to endanger their lives and their peace of mind by going public. In Islam the punishment of apostasy is death. Thomas Paine and Bertrand Russell would not have lived long if they were Muslims critics. Ahmad Kasravi was murdered brutally and Ali Dashti was jailed at his advance age and died in the prisons of Khomeini. So the field is left open for the Muslims to inseminate their lies about Islam being the fastest growing religion. The truth is that many Muslims are turning against Islam and their numbers is increasing. From a statistic of the Iranians in Scandinavia we learn that 50% of them call themselves atheists or agnostics. 40% say they are Muslims but do not follow Islam. Only 10% consider themselves to be practicing Muslims. This statistic did not take into account those Iranians who already belonged to other religions or those Muslims who converted to other religions after they left Iran. The anti Islamic sentiment in Iran can be detected by conversing with the Jewelers in that country. They say that only 5% of those who buy gold chain necklaces want Islamic emblems like Allah, Muhammad and Ali carved in their necklace. 95% now ask for Iranian emblems like the edict of Cyrus on human rights, the Hakhamanish soldiers, Persepolis and other Iranian national icons. 23 years ago this percentage was completely the other way round. Today the government pays people to go to the Mosques. Some go because they are in dire poverty and need the money and the food that is served there, but still the mosques are empty. The dislike of Islam among Iranians is evident from the fact that now they prefer traditional Iranian names for their newborns. Just 5% of them choose Islamic (Arab) names. In earlier generations this percentage was over 80%. Iran has traditionally played a decisive role for Islam. It provided it with its philosophy. Most of Islamic philosophers are Iranians. Sufism is an Iranian invention, and even the founders of the 4 Sunni schools of thoughts were Iranians. Without the Iranian input Islam would be a primitive cult. Islam owes its greatness, architecture philosophy and culture to Iranian luminaries. The Islamic revolution of Iran gave a boost to Islam and Islamic fundamentalism in the entire world. The Ebbing of The Tide Today, however, the fortunes of Islam are ebbing. Islam is hated in Iran, especially among the generation born and raised after Islamic Revolution. Iran is pregnant with history-making events. Ere long the Iranian younger generation is going to rebel and Islam will suffer its biggest setback ever. It is enough to visit any Iranian forum on the Internet to see the level of hate that the Iranians feel for Islam. The Iranian students inside the country feel the same way, though they are unable to vent their anger now. As soon as this atmosphere of terror is lifted all that anger will come to the surface and Islam will die in Iran with the same swiftness and perhaps violence that it was imposed 1400 years ago. As Iranians start attacking Islam openly and blame it for all that went wrong in their country it will have a domino effect in all Islamic world. The immediate outcome of the fall of Islam in Iran is that the Islamist terrorist groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and other countries will have their financial supply cut off. This in itself will hamper their activates and dampens their fervor. But the biggest blow on Islam would be psychological. Throughout the centuries, Iran has been a major player in the Middle East and it has always set the standard. After the demise of Islam in Iran, Muslims in the neighboring countries would feel disheartened and their faith will weaken. Other Fundamentalists Attack of Hindus or Christians on Islam makes Muslims defensive. I was amazed when a freethinking friend of mine who constantly writes against Islam retorted when a Christian Reverend of an evangelical church posted his criticism of Islam in our freethinkers forum. Of course this good friend of mine is himself critical of Islam but instinctively he felt that he had to respond to this other Christian fundamentalist by defending Islam. If an atheist like my own friend is moved to defend a religion that he loathes when it is attacked by another non-Muslim fundamentalist, then it is not unreasonable to believe that the opposition of the Hindu and Christian fundamentalists of Islam is counterproductive. Islam can be eradicated only from within. It seems that Muhammad was very much aware of this and that is why he was so unforgiving towards the dissenters. If the ex-Muslim freethinkers get organized and attack Islam systematically we will have much more success than if Islam is attacked from outside by other equally fallacious groups whose own curriculum vitae is marred with the same sins they accuse Islam of. These other groups lack credibility. They are guilty of the same faults that Muslims are. But we, as freethinkers do not subscribe to any ideology. We can be theists, atheists or agnostics and still disbelieve in Islam. Unlike the members of other religions we have no hidden skeletons in our closets to fear a counter attack. Islam can, and it has survived the attacks of other religions, but it cannot and will not survive the attack from its own renegades. Just as Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are waning not because of the onslaughts of other religions but because of the rebellion of their own freethinkers, Islam will not be weakened by the attacks of fundamentalist groups of other religions but by the criticism of its own freethinkers. We should also be aware that fundamentalism in one religion encourages the rise of fundamentalism in other religions. This is a vicious circle. The formation of Hindu and Christian fundamentalist groups does not only not reduce the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, but it actually throws gasoline on their fire. This will only hardens the Islamist fanatics and strengthens their resolve. It creates an atmosphere of competition among the fundamentalists of all the religions. In this mindless race the winner is the loser. This is the race of ignorance. The runners are heading towards the precipice and an Armageddon is awaiting them at the end of the lane. The best thing non-Muslims can do to stop the Islamic fundamentalism, is to stop fundamentalism in their own religions. The End Is Nigh I know many of you are pessimistic about it but I foresee the end of Islam at sight. I am not concerned of the ignorant mass of Muslims. The intellectuals of Islam are turning against it and it is the intellectuals that chart the course of the history not the ignorant mass. A billion ignorant Muslims can do nothing to stop the momentum that a few of their enlightened intellectuals who have turned against Islam can generate. They eventually will have to give in and follow their intellectuals or they will be annihilated under the pressure of poverty like Afghanistan and Iran. Many Muslim intellectuals feel that they have hit the bottom and even though they still are unable to cut their umbilical cord from Islam, they admit that Islam cannot bring prosperity, democracy and peace and they openly call for the separation of Mosque from State. This admission that Islam has failed, at least in political front, is a great step forward. Whether these people are aware or not, they are tacitly acknowledging that Islam is a failed paradigm; because Islam unlike Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism is a religion that seeks power and pretends to be the religion of the state. Islam becomes meaningless once it is reduced into a mere set of moral codes. Islam has very few moral codes. The essence of Islam is to fight and promote the religion of Allah until it becomes the sole religion of mankind. (Q.3: 85), (Q.2: 193) Without this expansionist drive, Islam will wither and die. The whole message of Islam is not: to do good, be kind, loving and honest, but to “believe” and make others believe in Allah and his messenger. In Islam the words “righteousness” and “virtue” do not mean the same as defined in dictionaries. They mean belief in Allah and obedience to his prophet. Unlike other religions, Islam is not a religion of individual salvation but of the state domination. Secularism in Islamic countries does not work. Turkey became a secular country in 1912 but now the fundamentalists are fighting hard to regain the power and convert that country once again into an Islamic state. Reza shah in Iran imposed secularism and tried to modernize that country. 50 years later the fundamentalists came back with revenge and reversed the cloak 1400 years. Muhammad Ali Jinah aspired a secular Pakistan but that country is now caught in the claws of the fundamentalists digging deeper and deeper in ignorance. Islam cannot survive without power. The separation of the state and religion in Islam does not work. If Islamic countries desire secularism, freedom and democracy, they have to get rid of Islam altogether. They have to decide between democracy and Islam. Just as you cannot house the sheep and the wolves in the same fold, you cannot have democracy and Islam in the same country. Today, we can make history. For the first time the dissenters of Islam are reuniting and are getting organized. Our number is growing rapidly. There is not a day that I do not receive an email from someone who claims having left Islam. Many of them are Iranians. This is despite the fact that I don’t know much about search engines and my sites (www.humanists.net/alisina) does not show in many of them. I notice that there is a great anti-Islamic momentum building up especially among the ex-Muslims. Christianity vs. Islam There is a fundamental difference between Muslims leaving Islam and the Christians leaving their religion. Most born and raised Christians when leave Christianity, become critical of the Church and the Bible but still respect Christ. In fact Christ as described in the New Testament is a loving person. Many Christians also cannot get rid of Christianity because their god is the god of love. At least this is what they are being told and this is the idea they have of their god. Muslims on the other hand believe in Allah through fear. The god of Muhammad is not a loving god but a dreadful and an unforgiving god of vengeance (Q.4:48). When Muslims learn the fallacies of Islam and discover the real face of Muhammad, they hate that religion and despise its founder. Therefore although the Christianity in the West, in the last two centuries, has been in demise it has managed to survive and perhaps it will survive for another two or three centuries. Christianity still has spiritual lessons to give. It can still be a source of guidance and inspiration to its followers. Christianity as taught and lived by Christ is a moral religion. Christianity may be logically wrong but ethically it is not. A few letters written by Paul are discriminatory towards women. But that can be easily overlooked when one pays attention to the overall message of love and tolerance taught by Jesus. None of that can be said about Islam. Quran is replete with intolerance, violence, discrimination and hate. We could have overlooked the logical absurdity of Islam’s holy book but how can we fail to see its intolerance and its message of hate? Moreover the person of Jesus as is reported in the Bible, is sanctified from any blemish. Muhammad on the other hand was a violent man. He was a lustful, pervert, ruthless, arrogant and a maniac mass murder. A man who wishes to emulate Muhammad in this day and age is a man that should be locked in jail. Those who follow truly the example of the Prophet of Islam are terrorists. They are dangers to society. One can be a good Christian and still be a good person. But one CANNOT be a good Muslim, follow all those hate mongering teachings of Muhammad, and be a good human being at the same time. To compare Islam with Christianity and assume that since Christianity has survived the attacks from its dissenters and enlightened freethinkers, Islam would do the same is a mistake. This is like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing that Islam and Christianity have in common is that both are called religion. But the similarity ends there. To understand the difference between Muhammad and Jesus is enough to compare how they reacted to two very similar incidents. John 8:3-7 ”The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had been caught committing adultery, and they made her stand before them all, “Teacher.” They said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death, Now what do you say?” They said this to trap Jesus, so that they could accuse him. But he bent over and wrote on the ground with his finger. As they stood there asking him questions, he strengthened himself up and said to them, “Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone at her.” Then he bent over again and wrote on the ground. When they heard this, they all left, one by one, the older ones first. Jesus was left alone with the woman standing there. He straightened himself up and said to her, “Where are they? Is there no one left to condemn you?” “No Sir” she answered. “Well, then.” Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go but do not sin again.” Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.” Now let us compare the teachings of Christ with those of Muhammad: Luke 5:27 “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who ill-treat you. Q. 9: 23 “O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong”. Q. 3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah Luke 5:37 “Do not judge others, and God will not judge you; do not condemn others and God will not condemn you; forgive others, and God will forgive you. Give to others and God will give to you Q. 9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. It is clear why Muslim dissidents hate intensely Muhammad and his fictitious Allah. It is because the essence of the massage of Jesus is love, but the essence of Islam is hate. That is why the Christianity, despite its illogicality has survived the age of enlightenment and has been able to adapt itself, somehow, to the changing world. But Islam would not survive the light of reason and will die a quick death. Christianity is illogical but it elevates the human spirit. Islam is hodgepodge of gibberish too, but provokes terror, advocates strife, calls for blood and foments hate. it sinks the human spirit and brings out the worst of the animal instinct of its followers. Once Islam is proven false, there is nothing else left for its followers to cling to. The only thing that keeps Muslims clinging to it is fear. Once the light of knowledge dissipate the darkness of ignorance and the fear of this revengeful monster called Allah is vanished. Islam will die a quick death. I can give this assurance that Islam will not see the next century and even go as far as to say we may see its death in our own lifetime. You may call this a wishful thinking, but I call it a guts feeling. The Oil Factor It is in fact more than just a guts feeling. In 25 years the oil reserve of the Islamic countries will finish. The world may also find an alternative source of energy This research is already on the way and indeed this alternative source is in operation. Many busses in Canada are powered by Fuel Cell Power Generators. It is absolutely feasible to have our cars, our houses, our cities and our factories powered by this new technology, which is much more cleaner and environmentally friendlier than carbon based fuels within a decade or two. The implication of this new technology for oil dependent Muslim countries are disastrous. Islamic countries are not productive. They lack technology and they suffer from brain drain. Today a lot of Islamic terrorism and expansionism are financed by oil rich countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. When the oil wells dry out or another source of energy make them superfluous, the life blood of Islamic expansionism/terrorism will also come to an end. The Mighty Internet Another important factor is the Internet. The internet has been a great tool of communication in the West, but for Islamic countries it is revolutionary. People in the West could easily communicate among each other and exchange ideas freely even before the advent of the Internet. But for Muslims especially in Islamic countries the Internet provides for the first time, a medium to exchange thoughts candidly and without the fear of the consequences. Islam is a religion that is founded on ignorance and fear. When people can openly exchange thoughts, the ignorance will be dissipated. The safety of the Internet also shelters them against fear. when Muslims start talking to each other, they will learn about the real Islam, the Islam that was taught in Quran and lived by Muhammad. This would shock them. Up until now they blamed the Mullahs for misinterpreting and misrepresenting the “pure” teachings of Islam and not being the legitimate representatives of the “real Islam”. They had created a romantic idea of Islam in their minds that was not real. But Internet will demolish that romantic idea and the true Islam will be know to everyone. It is true that faith blinds and many Muslims would not be shaken even if it is proven to them that Muhammad was an assassin, a rapist, a thief, a ruthless mass murderer, a pedophile or a highway robber. The light will startle those who have eyes. No amount of light will ever affect those who have no eyes to see. I have had many debates with Muslims who after having received the irrefutable proof that Muhammad was all the above and more, have said that they don’t care who Muhammad was and his person is absolutely unimportant to them. They claim what really matters is the Quran and not the messenger. Of course this response would have been a legitimate response had Allah written his book with his own hand, signed and sealed it and Muhammad was nothing but a mailman. In this case the Prophet’s character would have been insubstantial. But as it is, no one can vouch for Muhammad. Therefore his character is very important. What if he lied? Can we really trust a man who is deprived of human qualities? Can we trust the words of a man who has demonstrated lack of moral values, who has not been able to control his sexual and animalistic instincts? How can we believe a person who has acted like a mafia godfather sending his gangsters to terror his enemies? How can we believe in one who has broken all moral and ethical codes by initiating war in holy months, desecrating holy places, murdering cold bloodedly this prisoners of war, raping his war captives, enslaving free people and trading them, and sleeping with a 9 year old child at the age of 54? Could really God choose a man of such low moral fiber to be his messenger among the people? All these questions were never discussed among the Muslims. How could they? Muhammad created such an atmosphere of terror that any whisper of doubt was dealt with mercilessly. But now Muslims can talk about these issues. They can question what was taboo. They can even criticize and reject Islam and live to see the next day. This is new! The Internet has provided a unique opportunity for the Muslims that was unthinkable since the inception of Islam and that is to question it. But Islam has no answers. Islam’s answers to criticism has been imprisonment, and execution. In Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan you can even lose your life if you are found with a Bible, let alone books that are critical of Islam. How Muslims could have found the truth is such an atmosphere of mind control and terror? The Internet is going to make a revolution. This would be the revolution of minds. Muslim countries cannot prevent their subjects from using the Internet. As the Internet make its way in the homes of the Muslims, Islam will be weakened and eventually will die out. That is why I am confident that many of us, would see the end of Islam in our own life time. This is not a dream nor wishful thinking. No matter how dark is the night, it cannot stand the light of the day. No matter how dense the ignorance, it cannot survive the shattering impact of knowledge. For 1400 years ignorance was safeguarded by Mullahs. Today the Mullahs are powerless. They no more can control the minds. One enlightened mind is more powerful than a billion ignorant ones. Aug. 2001 TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs KEYWORDS: islam Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-77 next last This is quite an amazing website. There are many articles, letters, and debates. Go check it out and send thanks to this very brave person. I’d like to thank the Freeper who provided a link to this site a few days ago. I apologize if someone has posted this before. I don’t have a good record when it comes to posting unseen articles.

Advertisements

Afghanistan: Slave Nation

They believe in a religion that is grounded in the 13th century.
If someone insults the pope, he doesn’t send people out to kill you.
If you insult a Rabbi he doesn’t send people out to blow you up.
These people do.
Their beliefs haven’t evolved like Christianity and Judaism.
Those two are thousands of years old.
Islam is 700 years old.
A guy, usually a minority, gets drawn into or is a member of the community of Islam and typically is doing okay in America, then he has marital problems, and financial problems.
He gets depressed and wants to die, and rather than die a loser, he can die as a hero.
They convince themselves that they are acting as weapons of Islam.
We kill some Muslims in Afghanistan and they try to kill some of us.
Sometimes they use this as an excuse for their own failures .
Sometimes their frame of mind is, “They killed a hundred of us, in this or that village so we are going to kill a hundred of them.”
We need to fight these Jihadi with power and vigor.
We have to be honest with each other, Islam, or at least a significant portion of it, has declared those who don’t follow their religion to be the enemy.
They don’t wish to be brought into the 21st Century, they think the 13th century was better.
They see influence with their atavistic religion as blasphemy.
Their beliefs codify oppression of Jews and Christians, and returning woman to the “good old days”, when one could beat and rape his wife, and she was a slave.
That’s the bottom line.
As you can plainly see in Afghanistan and Gaza, when this portion of Islam gains power they are brutal to the extreme.
To me, however, the most obvious crimes of these Islamic  Republican Governments or regimes is their treatment of women.
The religion is primitive
We have to fight them, but I do think one idea might help a little.
We should change our role in Afghanistan to where we are bombing less and causing less casualties.
We should, the civilized world, tell the Muslim countries that are brutalizing and enslaving women, that this is a crime, and we are not  going to tolerate it.
The burka is not a fashion statement, it is a sign if inferiority, a sign of submission.
In Afghanistan women are forced to wear burkas that cover them head to foot, with a small gauze outlet, so that a man can’t get a good look at her eyes and be tempted to rape her.
Their have been women in Islamic countries that have been sentenced to be publicly whipped, after reporting a rape.
Because Islamic judges determined that the women in question seduced the rapist by, perhaps a glimpse of hair, or not having the gauze over her eyes, or dancing.
Some people have said to me, “Well, that’s their custom, it’s not up to us to make them change their customs.”
If their customs allow them to brutalize woman and girls, and basically prevent a female from having any opportunities in life other than having babies on demand, and their customs allow men to beat women for whatever reason,
We have every right in the world to interfere.
We have the duty to interfere.
Women’s groups in Afghanistan have ask for protection, what the military calls security.
There are stories of barbarians overpowering civilizations because the civilized countries didn’t realize the nature of the threat from the barbarians.
They attack us in Gaza and from Gaza, and the world hears about the  “quaint Arab chieftains” of Hamas suffering under our oppression.
One important factor in our thinking should be a consideration of what the impact of casualties will be over time.
A certain amount of innocent people will be killed in any type of warfare, what is the impact of that going to be?
Imagine you are sitting at home, you haven’t done anything harmful, and suddenly a missile crashes through your roof and wipes out half your family.
Then you walk up and down the street, and your neighbors homes have been bombed too.
People are killed and crippled all around you.
Then imagine the military shows up and says, “Well, we were after so and so, and to get to him we had to soften up this area. Sorry. It’s for a good cause.”
Or, “We shelled your house by mistake.”
I’m just wondering, will we be creating as many terrorists as we kill?
I’m just wondering what the ratio would be, 10 terrorists for every innocent person we shell?
Less or more?
Afghanistan is asymmetrical warfare, we are not going to conquer the Radical Islamicists in the usual sense of the word.
What we may need to do in Afghanistan is change the focus of the mission from killing Taliban members to protecting the people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan women’s groups have asked for security, for protection of the schools where girls are learning, for the first time in their lives, many of them.
They have been told that we can’t afford it, or in the words of one Congressman, “We expect you to take care of that yourselves.”
If we were dealing directly with women’s rights, at least the women of Afghanistan would support us.
Slavery is wrong, whether the slave is black or white or male or female.
The literal enslavement of women in Afghanistan  is a horror that goes unremarked upon for the most part.
I saw an interview with an Afghanistani woman recently, she had 8 kids, she didn’t want anymore, but her husband did.
She was asked, “Who will make the decision?”
She pointed to her husband and said, “He does. We have no choice.”
The  reporter, a woman, asked, “Do you know what rape is?”
The woman’s eyes grew large, and she looked uncomprehending, “No.” she answered, quietly.
This abuse of human beings should be stopped.
That should be the focus of our efforts in Afghanistan.

Are feminists in love with the surge?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban nailed a 70-year-old woman to a tree for allegedly talking with the enemy.

Human rights violations widespread across Afghanistan
Human rights violations are widespread across Afghanistan

The struggle for women’s rights in Afghanistan is a struggle for Human Rights.
Please check out this site for further information and videos on Afghan Women who are heroically waging this battle.   Michael
Earlier this week, Dana Goldstein, writing for the Daily Beast, explored “the left’s latest divide,” pitting feminists and nation-builders against antiwar sentiment. But where does this leave Afghan women?
Goldstein bases a large portion of her piece around the argument of women’s rights activists who explain that leaving Afghan women is not part of the deal. Using Obama’s Afghanistan strategy speech as a springboard, organizations like the Feminist Majority Foundation are raising their voices in support for continued engagement in the country for the benefit of women. Not everyone is an enthusiastic about our prospects. Goldstein explains:
Other progressives, though, say the women’s rights activists are naïve, and have failed to grapple with the fact that feminism was never more than a rhetorical ploy in debates about the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, whose real goal has always been to root out al Qaeda. They also point to the occupation’s high cost in dollar terms, as well as the American public’s limited tolerance for foreign wars. A recent Pew poll found that isolationist sentiment is at a four-decade high.
Even if the administration was willing to commit to a nation-building project in Afghanistan, it would be with an Afghan partner whose own record on women’s issues is mixed at best. Though President Hamid Karzai recently signed the new Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women-which ups the penalties for rape, domestic violence, and child marriage-he also supported, earlier this year, the Shia Family Law, which subjected women in the Shia minority group to a number of discriminatory laws, including rules regarding when they can and cannot leave home unaccompanied by a man. Karzai has also made political alliances with warlords who hold regressive opinions on women’s rights.
There is good reason to be worried about women. According to the Human Rights Watch:
Eight years after the Taliban were ousted from power, rapists are often protected from prosecution, women can still be arrested for running away from home, and girls have far less access to schools than boys, the report says.
With the insurgency strengthening in the south and making inroads into the north, the few gains made for women’s rights since the US-led invasion of 2001 could be further eroded if Hamid Karzai’s government and the international community push for peace talks with factions of the fundamentalist movement.
Elenor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Helen Cho, a board member for the Feminist Majority foundation, co-penned a piece in the Huffington Post, arguing that securing women’s rights would call for a lot more investment in the region.
[M]ake no mistake. Afghanistan is in terrible shape. The Taliban have gradually returned. Nothing is as it should be, which is why we are asking for no less than a Marshall Plan to rebuild Afghanistan, the same way we did for Germany and Japan after World War II. Afghanistan’s water, sewage, electrical, and their once proud hospital systems have been all but destroyed by 30 years of war. We bombed it. We have an obligation to rebuild it.
Though we’d prefer that all U.S. funding be spent on development aid, we cannot in good conscience advocate the immediate military pullout that some are suggesting. The 2009 UN Humanitarian Action Plan noted that in 2008, “Approximately 40% of the country, including much of the South, remains inaccessible for most humanitarian organizations.” Last year, 92 aid workers were abducted and 36 were killed, double the number from 2007. In recent public opinion polls, Afghans put security in their top three concerns right after food. Without stabilizing the country, there can be no significant redevelopment effort.
In March, President Obama announced a significant change in the Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy. He shifted the focus from Iraq to this troubled region not a moment too soon. The Taliban had taken over the Swat Valley in Pakistan and were within 100 miles of its capital. In case anyone was wondering if the Taliban had changed its ways, they promptly closed girls’ schools, began flogging young women publicly, and committed other atrocities. In Afghanistan, the Taliban nailed a 70-year-old woman to a tree for allegedly talking with the enemy.
The new administration’s strategy recognizes the need for development and reconstruction. The military appears to be changing its priorities, announcing that protection of civilians is their first priority. Virtually everyone knows that a military solution alone won’t work. Yet, we cannot ignore that security and the Taliban are among Afghans’ top concerns.
Linda Bereystein, investigative journalist, points to a different perspective on her blog.
Westerners usually frame the debate over U.S./NATO policy in Afghanistan is usually framed as a choice between handing the country back to the Taliban or propping up the Karzai regime. The latter is assumed to be a dramatically better option for women’s rights.
Karzai pays lip service to women’s rights, but jettisons them whenever they need to make a compromise to stay in power. It should be noted that the Karzai government was responsible for the infamous Shia Family Law which legalized marital rape within Shia marriages.
Last month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, told Michelle Goldberg of the Daily Beast that the situation for Afghan women is every bit as bad under Karzai as it was under the Taliban. Joya is also concerned that civilian casualties are fueling popular support for the Taliban.
RAWA and its grassroots allies think that pro-democracy forces could transform the country on their own without U.S. military occupation. That’s a point of view we seldom hear in U.S. media.
I don’t know how realistic it is to think that pro-democracy forces could prevail against warlords and the Taliban, but the question hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention as the issue of whether the U.S. could force reform at gunpoint. Maybe RAWA and its allies would have a better shot at power if the occupation wasn’t shoveling billions of dollars to the most reactionary elements in society.
Over on GritTV, a woman known as Zoya, representing RAWA, outlines many of the issues with our current strategy in Afghanistan. After 30 years of war, Zoya discusses how the US occupation is still undermining Afghanistan, by propping up some terrorist groups to pursue others. After regretfully admitting the most realistic options for many women if Afghanistan were either leaving the country or suicide, Zoya explains why she was motivated to join RAWA and describes how Afghanistan needs a resolution.
Zoya:
These videos that your are showing about the rape and domestic violence against women, [is happening] under the domination of the United States. It’s a time when thousands of troops are present. It’s a time that [troops and groups from] more than 40 foreign countries are inside the country. […]These things are [still] happening daily. This is the proof that America cannot do anything. The only solution – that RAWA was always saying – is that domestic violence [always depends] on political situations. It very much depends and relates to that. So as long as we don’t have a democratic government, who cares for women’s rights, how can we expect rights and the liberation of women?
Zoya explains that there are other alternatives to occupation, like helping to disarm the various factions that are fighting for dominance. She challenges Americans to rise up and tell the government to stop supporting warlords and criminals. She believes this is the best way to help, saying:
If you cannot to help us, leave us. But if you want to help us, the first help is to remove all these fundamentalist, these viruses that the United States government created for Afghanistan.
Send an email to Latoya, the author of this post, at latoya@racialicious.com.

Clinton: Tough Talk, Few Results

 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tense exchanges with Pakistani civilians and Arab diplomats over a harrowing week of foreign stops exposed the confining limits of her office.

On her most ambitious and contentious overseas trip as secretary of state, Clinton had to resort to damage control after she appeared to mangle the Obama administration’s message on frozen Mideast peace talks.

And while she scored points back home by standing up to angry Pakistanis who confronted her about drone-launched U.S. missile strikes, her blunt questioning of the resolve of Pakistan’s government exposed American impatience with the country’s incremental steps against terrorists.

In each case her extraordinarily public approach to diplomacy – for better or worse – reflected not only her personal style but also President Barack Obama’s promise to reach out openly to friend as well as foe.

What remains less clear is whether Clinton’s hot-button politician’s persona works any better at producing international results – let alone clarity – than a more classic diplomat’s cooler tact.

There were no breakthroughs, and it’s too early to know how her public and behind-the-scenes performances in Pakistan, Abu Dhabi, Israel, Morocco and Egypt will play out. But Clinton emphatically followed through on a pledge she made last month when she said the time had come for the U.S. government to communicate more aggressively abroad and challenge U.S. critics on their own turf.

From here on, she said then, “we’re going to be in the mix and we’re going to be in the mix every day.”

It is a boldly political take on taking on the world, and Clinton is relying on some of her old campaign trail tricks and moxie to press America’s case.

In Pakistan, she aggressively sold the administration’s stance against al-Qaida during several crowded “town hall” public forums that had been her stock-in-trade during the 2008 presidential primary run against Obama.

But despite finding some success in Africa and Asia earlier this year communicating Clintonian warmth with foreign audiences, Lahore was not Portsmouth, N.H.

And a brash in-your-face style that won voters’ hearts and minds in the U.S. may have come off as confrontational to skeptical Pakistan civilians who responded in kind.

In Lahore, Clinton certainly won domestic consumption brownie points by saying what many Americans have complained about for years – that Pakistan’s government had done little to root out al-Qaida’s upper echelon.

“Al-Qaida has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002,” she said bluntly. “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to. And maybe that’s the case. Maybe they’re not getable. I don’t know.”

Pakistan’s leaders were not pleased – waiting until Clinton departed to slap back. But even when she had a second chance to scale back her remarks, Clinton softened them only by a hair.

She also dinged Pakistan’s leaders for diminishing their standing in Washington by complaining about tough new conditions set by Congress for providing billions in new aid.

“For the United States Congress to pass a bill unanimously, saying that we want to give $7.5 billion to Pakistan in a time of global recession when we have a 10 percent unemployment rate, and then for Pakistani press and others to say, ‘We don’t want that,’ that’s insulting,” she said.

That wasn’t what the Pakistani government wanted to hear, but it seemed to reflect Clinton’s determination to show the Pakistanis that they can complain about U.S. counterterrorism tactics and about strings attached to U.S. aid – but not without hearing the administration’s own concerns.

Clinton’s toughened public stance was less in evidence, though, when she turned to the stymied Mideast peace process. Instead of bluntness, she struggled repeatedly to cater to both Israeli and Arab concerns, making no headway in getting either side to move closer.

In Jerusalem, trying to mollify Israeli reluctance to agree to halt all future settlements as a pretext to renewed peace talks with Palestinians, Clinton floated an Israeli proposal that would restrain – but not stop – more West Bank housing.

Palestinian and Arab diplomats reacted with outrage, and the Clinton who had been tough in Pakistan was forced to backpedal. Arab officials questioned whether the U.S. had tilted toward Israel and abandoned its position that continued Israel settlements are illegitimate and must be brought to a full stop.

Clinton’s comments reflected a realization within the Obama administration that conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will not accept a full-on settlement freeze and that a partial halt might be the best lesser option. Her appeal seemed designed to make the Israeli position more palatable to the Palestinians and Arab states.

Clinton had traveled to the region reluctantly, concerned her visit might be perceived as a failure without clear results, according to several U.S. officials. She agreed to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders after pressure from the White House, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration thinking.

In Marrakesh, Morocco, two days after her controversial comments in Jerusalem, Clinton issued what she called a clarification. But she was dogged by questions about the settlements issue for the rest of her time abroad.

Asked Wednesday before departing for Washington what she believed she had accomplished, Clinton focused on the depth of the challenges she faced, not on what the trip delivered – or failed to deliver.

“Every issue that we touched on during this trip is complicated and difficult,” she said. “Each requires patience, perseverance and determination to see them through. If these were easy questions with simple answers, I wouldn’t have made this trip.”

EDITOR’S NOTE – Robert Burns has been covering national security and military affairs for The Associated Press since 1990.

General Petraeus: How I see The Afghan Conflict

ARLINGTON, Va. (Oct. 7, 2009_ – As the president reassembles his national security team today as part of his ongoing review of the strategy for Afghanistan, the commander of U.S. Central Command said the decision is likely to hinge on one of three approaches to reversing the insurgency’s gains.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus yesterday cited three basic ways to “change the equation in an area where insurgents have made progress,” as he conceded they have in Afghanistan.

“One, you can turn bad guys into good guys, or at least neutral guys,” an effort referred to as “reintegration of reconcilables,” he told attendees at the annual Association of the U.S. Army conference here. “You can increase the number of host-nation security forces. Or you can increase the number of coalition forces.”

Petraeus resisted defining exactly how many U.S. forces he believes are needed to support the mission — an issue under intense discussion within the administration. About 68,000 U.S. forces will be on the ground there by the end of next month, and Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander on the ground, reportedly has asked for about 40,000 more.

The president will convene his national defense team again today, and later this week, to discuss this and other options for Afghanistan. Petraeus said he and his fellow uniformed participants have had “ample opportunity to provide our best professional military advice.”

McChrystal and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who previously served as the ground commander in Afghanistan, are participating in the sessions by video teleconference. Anne Patterson, ambassador to Pakistan, also is participating.

“So this has been a very substantial endeavor,” Petraeus said. “It is moving quite rapidly. There is a recognition of the need to move through this.”

Although views of appropriate U.S. troop numbers vary widely, Petraeus said there’s little debate about two general principles: “Afghanistan obviously requires a sustained, substantial commitment” and more Afghan national security forces are needed.

The general resisted putting a precise timeline on when the United States will be able to declare its mission in Afghanistan completed, noting that it depends largely on how quickly Afghan national security forces can become fully developed.

That’s expected to occur by 2013 or 2014, he said, when Afghan security forces will assume the lead for security responsibility. But to be prepared for that transition, the Afghan National Army likely will need to grow to about 400,000 members, he said, more than initially projected.

Building the Afghan security forces isn’t a process that can be rushed, Petraeus told the group. “No question about the need to develop the Afghan national security forces as rapidly as possible, and likely to higher numbers,” he said. “But we have to keep in mind that there are limits to how fast you can accelerate that development,” particularly of commissioned and noncommissioned officer leaders.

Whether that happens as planned depends largely on the security situation, he said, recalling problems he encountered as commander of Multinational Force Iraq. When violence spiked there in mid-2006, “the Iraqi security force effort nosedived,” he said.

Petraeus said he’s committed to preventing a replay of that situation in Afghanistan. “It is hugely important that the security situation not undermine the Afghan security force effort,” he said.

Yet security has deteriorated in several key areas, he acknowledged. Taliban, al-Qaida and other extremist elements that had been defeated and left the country, reconstituted over time and returned to Afghanistan, putting down roots and increasing insurgent activity.

Petraeus said he shares McChrystal’s assessment that the situation is “serious,” but that turning it around is “doable.” Additional troops that have arrived in Regional Command South in recent months already have made some tactical gains, he said.

“Reversing that cycle of violence, arresting the downward spiral in some of these key areas [is] very important,” Petraeus said.

Turning yesterday’s discussion to Iraq, Petraeus cited “very substantial progress,” with violence down to about 15 to 20 attacks a day, compared to a high of 180 in mid-2007.

He attributed the progress to the surge in U.S. troops that helped quell violence and laid the foundation for other progress to take place.

Women and Girls in Afghanistan


The Taliban is not just bad because of what they did on 9/11, but also for the brutal way they treated women when they were in power.

This is a document released in 1998, when the Taliban was firmly in control in much of afghanistan, their treatment of women was deplorable, as this document shows:

Great Seal logo

WOMEN AND GIRLS IN AFGHANISTAN

Fact sheet released by the Senior Coordinator for
International Women’s
Issues, March 10, 1998.

  • Since the Taliban became a military and political force in late 1994, women and girls in Afghanistan have become virtually invisible in Taliban controlled portions of the country. The impact of Taliban imposed restrictions are most acutely felt in the cities where women had enjoyed relatively greater freedoms. In 1996, the University of Kabul reportedly had several thousand women students while thousands of professional women worked in different capacities in the city. Since the Taliban takeover, women are not allowed to attend school and others have been forced to leave their jobs.
  • The Taliban have issued edicts forbidding women from working outside the home, except in limited circumstances in the medical field. Hardest hit have been over 30,000 widows in Kabul and others elsewhere in the country, who are the sole providers for their families.
  • The Taliban prohibit girls from attending school. There are a few home based schools and some schools in rural areas which quietly operate to educate girls. They fear closure.
  • Women and girls are not allowed to appear outside the home unless wearing a head to toe covering called the burqa. A three inch square opening covered with mesh provides the only means for vision. Although the burqa was worn in Kabul before the Taliban took control, it was not an enforced dress code and many women wore only scarves that cover the head. Women are also forbidden from appearing in public with a male who is not their relative.
  • Women’s and girls’ access to medical services has been drastically cut back. Women are treated primarily by female doctors and the number of female doctors has been greatly reduced. It is also dangerous for women to leave their homes. For example, one mother in the city of Farah reportedly was shot by the Taliban militia for appearing in public to take her toddler to a doctor. The child was acutely ill and needed immediate medical attention.
  • Taliban militia mete out punishment for violations of these rules on the spot. For example, women have been beaten on the street if an inch of ankle shows under their burqa. They have been beaten if they are found to move about without an explanation acceptable to the Taliban. They have been beaten if they make noise when they walk. According to one report, a women struggling with two small children and groceries in her arms was reportedly beaten by the Taliban with a car antenna because she had let her face covering slip a fraction.
  • Taliban edicts require that windows in houses that have female occupants be painted over.

United States Response

  • Secretary of State Albright characterized the Taliban’s treatment of women and girls as “despicable” during her recent visit to the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan. She said “We are opposed to their [the Taliban] approach to human rights, to their despicable treatment of women and children, and their lack of respect for human dignity, in a way more reminiscent of the past than the future.”

  • Promoting the observance of human rights, particularly the rights of women and girls, is one of our highest foreign policy priorities in Afghanistan. We will continue to press the Taliban in public and private, to extend equitable and humanitarian treatment to women and girls. We call upon the Taliban to lift its restrictions on the mobility and employment of women and the schooling of girls; we also call upon the Taliban and all factions to abide by internationally-accepted norms of human rights.

  • The United States is neutral toward the various Afghan factions fighting in that country, but our neutrality does not extend to violations of international norms of behavior. We condemn Taliban human rights violations, particularly against women and girls.

  • The United States does not plan to extend diplomatic recognition to the Taliban or the Northern Alliance. We do not plan to recognize any government unless it is broad-based, representative of all Afghans and respects international norms of behavior in human rights, including the human rights of women and girls.

  • The United States has taken a leadership role in the region and in the United Nations to promote peace in Afghanistan. We believe the United Nations is central to the peace process and support the efforts of the Secretary General’s Special Envoy, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, and the work of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan. We participate in the Group of Six Plus Two (the six countries bordering Afghanistan: Pakistan, Iran Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China, plus the U.S. and Russia) in a serious attempt to see how progress can be made toward a peaceful negotiated settlement.
  • The United States has a commitment to providing humanitarian assistance to women and girls of Afghanistan. United States officials play a key role in making the issue of assistance to women in Afghanistan a major focus of the donors’ Afghanistan Support Group. In 1997 the United States government contributed $26.4 million to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the World Food Program to run a variety of programs that directly benefit Afghan women and girls. This was nearly a quarter of the total funding for the UNHCR and ICRC programs.
  • In 1997 the United States also provided $1.7 million for non-governmental organizations such as CARE and the International Rescue Committee for health and education programs and services. These programs directly benefit women and girls in Afghanistan and in neighboring refugee camps in Pakistan.
  • The United States recently called for an UNHCR investigation of reports of violence against women and girls in refugee camps in Pakistan. Due to United States efforts, an investigation is now underway. United States funding supports UNHCR procedures to provide protection to women and girls in refugee camps.

New Initiatives

  • The United States is committing up to $2.5 million in new funds for women’s grass roots organizations in Pakistan and for training to improve the skills of women in Afghanistan.
  • In Pakistan, this funding pays for activities such as training health workers and teachers, and training women’s groups to familiarize themselves with and advocate for their legal rights, and to communicate with other organizations, locally and internationally. This training will enable women to provide services in refugee camps, as well as prepare them with skills that they can take with them when they eventually return to Afghanistan. Some of the women have been in these camps for 20 years.
  • In Afghanistan, this training focuses primarily on health such as training local women to be community health workers; training women to be traditional birth attendants; and building the capacity of the local community to deal with basic health issues, particularly diseases that affect children. Funding also supports training women to participate in the development of rural rehabilitation projects. This will allow them to have a say, for example, in determining the location of the water well since the women are the ones who carry the water.

[end of document]

Blue Bar