blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Loving DEATH as a MARTYR for the Sake of Allah!

A CULTURE of DEATH and a glorification of Martyrs

Taught from Birth to Grave by ISLAMIC Propaganda

One who does not participate in or prepare for Jihad

Dies as a Hypocrite According to Instructions in Hadith

A MARTYR’S Death in battle is itself an act of Purification!

November 28, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

My first tour in the Middle East began in 1952 and my last was in 2009, with many trips, visits, and tours in between. I knew nothing about the Islamic culture on my first extended tour of duty in the Middle East, but over the years I have learned much about it by constant exposure to it, learning by contact experience, direct conversation, and reading.

This is the best article I have read covering their general belief on the subject of a martyr’s death for the sake of Allah.

Begin Excerpt from Middle East Media Review Institute

Special Dispatch Nr. 2663

November 19, 2009

Reformist Writer Mansour Al-Hadj: In My Youth, I Was Taught to Love Death

In an article in the liberal e-magazine Aafaq (www.aafaqmagazine.com ), reformist writer Mansour Al-Hadj, one of the magazine’s senior reporters, described the Islamist education he received as a youth in Saudi Arabia, which stressed the culture of death and the glorification of martyrs. The same messages, he said, were conveyed by the Islamist propaganda to which he was exposed as a university student in Sudan.

Following are excerpts from his article: [1]

“Growing Up in Saudi Arabia, I Did Not Learn to Love Life… [But] to Love Death as a Martyr for the Sake of Allah”

“After the suicide bombings in two hotels in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, a friend of mine said to me: ‘I think something’s wrong with the world. Why would a person blow himself up when love of life is a natural human instinct?’ I answered: ‘Love of life is a natural instinct, but love of death for the sake of Allah is a creed [in Islam], by which the believer brings himself close to the Creator of Life.

“Growing up in Saudi Arabia, I did not learn to love life. On the contrary, I learned to love death as a martyr for the sake of Allah. I was taught that love of life is a characteristic of the hypocrites [i.e. insincere Muslims], and that the ones who protect their lives most keenly are the infidels, as stated in the Koran. I also learned that one who does not participate in Jihad or prepare himself for Jihad dies a hypocrite, as stated in the hadith.

“I learned that, had Allah thought this world worth as much as the wing of a mosquito, [He] would not have permitted the infidels to drink even a sip of water in it, as stated in the hadith. And I was taught that this world, which will [one day] cease to exist, is a prison for the believer, who wishes to escape it, and a paradise for the infidel, who wishes to enjoy all that is in it.

“I learned about the exalted rank that Allah bestows upon the martyr, [a rank so exalted] that his body is not washed [after death] and you do not say the prayer [for the dead] over him – for the purpose of washing is to purify the corpse, and a martyr’s death in battle is itself an act of purification.

“Sheikh Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan, member of the [Saudi] Fatwa Committee and the Supreme Judiciary Council, has said: ‘A shahid who dies in a battle with the infidels to promote the word of Allah should not be washed, or wrapped in any shroud other than the clothes in which was killed, because the blood that covers him is a sign of his martyrdom, and should remain on his body and not be removed by washing.

When he arises on the Day of Resurrection, the blood dripping [from his body] will have the fragrance of musk. This blood is the result of obedience to Allah, and it must stay on [his body] because it is [a sign of] Allah’s grace. [For the same reason,] the prayer [for the dead] must not be said over him, because Allah has honored him with martyrdom, and this [immediately] puts him on an exalted level, for Allah has said that the martyrs are [not dead, but are] “alive [and] are provided sustenance from their Lord [Koran, 3:169].””

“[In Saudi Arabia], we were also taught that every martyr has six privileges.

[First of all], from the very first blow, he is absolved and can see his place in Paradise.

[Second,] he is spared the torments of the grave. [Third], he is spared the great fear [of Judgment Day]. [Fourth], the crown of honor is placed on his head, each of the precious stones in it worth more than this entire world. [Fifth], he marries 72 wives from among the Virgins of Paradise. [And sixth], he can intercede on behalf of 70 of his relatives, [ensuring that they join him in Paradise after their death].

“When I was young, I enjoyed listening to Islamic hymns, like the rest of my generation, because in school and in Koran school they taught us that listening to secular songs is forbidden, and that those who listen to them and do not repent will be punished by Allah by having [molten] lead poured into their ears. This [threat] was accompanied by [all sorts of other] stories told by the preachers and clerics.

“[For example], they frightened us with a story about a young man who was listening to secular songs [on the radio] while driving his car at an insane speed.

[The car] flipped over, and as he was dying, and the paramedics [arrived and] prompted him to say the shahada, but instead of repeating the shahada he repeated the words of the song [he had been listening to]. This, we learned, was proof of the unfortunate end [he would suffer] for his sin of loving music.”

The Hymns We Learned Exalted the Martyrs and Urged Muslim Mothers to Welcome the Death of Their Sons

“Most Islamic hymns speak of jihad for the sake of Allah, of the Muslims’ suffering throughout the world, and of the high rank that Allah bestows upon the martyr. These are hymns full of militant zeal, which stir up the emotions and the fervor of the youth, and arouse their desire to join the ranks of jihad to defend Islam and raise its banner… [Some hymns] address the mothers, urging them to accept the death of their children and take pride in their death as martyrs for the sake of Allah.

“Here the text of one of these hymns: ‘Weep not and regret not, o mother of the shahid.

Today your sons [have joined] the generation of anticipated victory.

Tell everyone: My son gave up his life for the Lord. My son was a proud man, and for him death is life.

Lucky is the heavenly bride who shall receive such a bridegroom, whose fragrance spreads all around him. We shall make you smile again, o mother of the shahid. O mother, do not weep. I am the ransom of Islam, and today my faith has called me. Refraining [from waging jihad] is forbidden. You can ask me about the gardens of Paradise, but this world is worthless rubble. We shall make you smile again, o mother of the shahid. We are bound by a covenant with Allah that we shall never accept humiliation. We come as the army of truth. We protect the lands of Islam. Allah is protecting us, so we do not fear the tyrants. We shall make you smile again, o mother of the shahid.’

“I grew up hating life. The closer I felt to Allah, and the more my love for Allah grew, the more I hated life and despised [the sinners] – those who fight Allah and his Prophet by acts of disobedience, and those who do not worship Allah in the right way, which [1] naturally [believed] was the Sunni way.

“I was taught that I must hate the Sufis for the sake of Allah, because they are people who follow ‘forbidden innovations.’ I was taught that the Shi’ite creed is [also] corrupt because they show too much reverence for the [fourth Caliph], the Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib, and revile the Companions of the Prophet.

“As for hating the infidels and non-Muslims, [I was told that] this is fundamental to the faith, because love for Allah and love for his enemies cannot live together in the heart of a Muslim.”

“Most of the Booklets in the Library of [My] Koran School Were… about the Jihad Fighters and the Miracles They Performed”

“In my [youth], I admired two groups of jihad fighters: the Arab and Afghan fighters who were fighting the Russians [in Afghanistan], and the Sudanese fighters. [The latter] were fighting their own brethren in Sudan, yet they called it jihad and called their fallen ‘martyrs.’ Like everybody else in Saudi Arabia, I read stories about the courage of the jihad fighters in Afghanistan and about the miracles they performed – how the angels fought beside them and how their bodies did not rot [when they were killed] but gave off a fragrance of musk.

“The Saudi authorities helped these jihad fighters, and [Saudi clerics issued] fatwas in their support. These stories made a great impression on us. Most of the booklets in the library of [my] Koran school were about jihad, and about the jihad fighters and the miracles they performed. I still remember how, at the end of the prayer, the mosque imams used to call [on the worshipers] to support the jihad fighters in Afghanistan.”

When I Was a Student in Sudan, We All Watched a Sudanese TV Series about the Life of the Jihad Fighters and Their Virtues

“In late 1998 I began my university studies in Sudan. [At the time] I was deeply impressed by a [Sudanese] documentary called ‘The Fields of Sacrifice,’ which aired every Friday evening. All the students, who came from the various parts of the world to study Arabic and Islam, keenly followed this program, which showed the [daily] lives of the jihad fighters before, during, and after battle. [The show also included] enthusiastic speeches by their commanders, and hymns and poems recited by the fighters.

“I remember scenes describing the lives of [the fallen] – men in the prime of their youth who were killed in that war.

I clearly remember the voice of the narrator describing the virtues of these martyrs, their words and deeds, and [I remember] how I longed to be in their place. That program made a great impression on the students. It was a dose of jihad propaganda at the end of every week. I don’t know what became of it and of those who directed it after 2005, when the Islamists in Sudan signed peace treaty with those who had been called ‘enemies of Allah,’ but who now had become partners in the Sudanese government.

“The Islamic regime in the Sudan used to hold ‘wedding celebrations’ for martyrs killed in the war, in which they celebrated the martyr’s marriage to the heavenly brides. These functions were attended by government representatives, who would give the family a sum of money, and the most important part of the wedding was a speech by some high-ranking official, and [also] the singing of hymns that would fire up the people who came to offer their condolences.

“The best of the Sudanese youth died victims of this Sudanese jihadist propaganda. The Islamists in Sudan exploited religion to recruit young men who were eager to die for Allah. [Sudanese] youths competed to join the jihad battalions known as ‘tank killers,’ seeking martyrdom and ready to blow themselves up to destroy the enemy tanks. The Sudanese politicians took pride in these fighters, saying ‘the enemy has tanks but we have tank killers.'”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107

of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Will Israel continue to let Iran practice taqiyya concerning nuke Sites

?

Iran’s Friend IAEA Head Mohamed ElBaradei Rides Into the Sunset,

Leaving the Artful Dodger Iran Knowing Exactly What It Is Doing,

And free world nations in a state of frustration of what’s Next,

In the saga of letting Iran do what it takes to make a Nuke!

This is the first IAEA Resolution in more than three Years!

Iran has successfully practiced Taqiyya for many Years,

And will continue to do so unless Israel hits its Sites!

A 25-3 margin with six abstentions is a good Time

For Israel to Hit Sites if Sanctions do not Work!

November 27, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from BBC News via World News

Iran rebuked by UN nuclear body

November 27, 2009

The UN nuclear watchdog’ s governing body ha

s passed a resolution condemning Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately.

The resolution, the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions.

But Iran’s envoy to the watchdog denounced the move, calling it intimidation.

Iran says its nuclear programme

is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US says it is seeking nuclear weapons.

In September, it emerged that as well as its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran had a second such facility near the town of Qom.

“ I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote ” – Gordon Brown

The revelation deepened Western fears about the country’s nuclear ambitions.

The IAEA resolution was passed with rare Russian and Chinese backing.

Only Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted against it.

It called on Iran to reveal the purpose of the second plant and confirm that it is not building any other undeclared nuclear facilities.

Speaking at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said

that the vote sent

the clearest possible signal to Iran.

“I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote,” he said.

ANALYSIS

Jon Leyne, BBC Tehran correspondent This resolution is a sign of Iran’s growing isolation.

It is the first at the IAEA since 2006.

Crucially it secured the support of Russia and China. That makes it more likely they will vote for new sanctions on Iran when debate is stepped up in the new year, though there are still some tough negotiations ahead.

It seems that Iran’s hesitation over a new fuel deal for its Tehran research reactor and its reluctance to engage in more constructive talks has infuriated even those countries which have protected it in the past.

On Thursday IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has always pressed for a compromise solution, expressed his frustration in dealing with Iran.

In response, Iran has threatened to reduce its co-operation with the UN nuclear watchdog, but not to break off ties completely. The real trouble for Tehran is that the Iranian government now seems to be in too much internal turmoil to make clear decisions and follow them through.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry urged Iran to react “with full seriousness” to the resolution, while the US ambassador to the IAEA, Glyn Davies, said it showed that “patience is running out”.

“We can’t have round after round of fruitless negotiations… that don’t get us where we want to get,” the US envoy said.

But Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said the resolution was a “hasty and undue” step that would jeopardise the chances of success of the talks on the proposal.

“The great nation of Iran will never bow to pressure and intimidation vis-a-vis its inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” he said.

The resolution came a day after the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, expressed frustration at Iran’s refusal to accept an international proposal to end the dispute over it s nuclear programme.

The plan envisages Iran’s low-enriched uranium being shipped overseas for processing into fuel. This is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it wants, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.

Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna on Thursday, Mr ElBaradei said his inspectors had made no progress in their attempts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

“It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues,” he said. “We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Afghanistan will become a part of Antichrist’s Caliphate

After the fall of Jerusalem to the Islamic Antichrist Forces!

LITTLE “Buckey Beavers” of the Turkish, Syrian, and Iranian

Axis are scurrying across Middle East to strengthen for a War,

That I Think Will begin at some Point in time twixt 2010 & 2015!

November 27, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Being a believer, and believing Middle East war is inevitable, my opinion as

to what we should do is heavily biased, since I do not believe the war is a far distant event. I don’t care how many troops we send over there, the topography, Islamic religion, the number of tribes and dislike for each other, the Afghanistan lands being a historical graveyard of powerful nations, and with the President and Congress we have, I don’t believe it will make any difference how many troops we send because when we do finally pull them out, the outcome

will be the same. It would not bother me if we pulled all our troops out, and let the tribes fight it out among themselves. The longer we stay the more dangerous it will be during the withdrawal.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Demographics of Afghanistan are a mix of ethnic and linguistic groups. The population of Afghanistan is 28,396,000, according to the “significantly revised” October 30, 2009 CIA Factbook.

This reflects its location astride historic trade and invasion routes leading from Central Asia into South Asia and Southwest Asia. The majority of Afghanistan’s population are Iranian peoples, notably the Pashtuns and the Tajiks. The Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group followed by Tajiks. The Hazaras are the third largest ethnic group, then the Uzbeks, Aimak, Turkmen, Baluch, Nuristani and other small groups. Pashto and Persian (Dari) are the two official languages of

the country. Persian is spoken by at le ast half of the population and serves

as a lingua franca for most. Pashto is spoken widely in the south, east and south west as well as in western Pakistan. Uzbek and Turkmen are spoken in the north.

Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.

The term Afghan, though (historically) synonymous with Pashtun, is promoted as a national identity. It is, however, hard to combine the varying groups. Often the Pashtun are referred to as Afghans while some of the other groups hold on to their ethnic names such as Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and so on. The citizens of Afghanistan are in many ways some what distinct from the notion of ethnic Afghans as a result of this understanding.

In order to solve the problem, in recent years, the term Afghanistani (meaning of or from Afghanistan and analogous to Uzbekistani, Pakistani or Tajikistani has been suggested for the citizens of Afghanistan in contrast to ethnic Afghans who would be the Pashtuns. The idea is supported by some politicians in Afghanistan, such as Latif Pedram. However, in a research poll that was conducted in Afghanistan in 2009, 72% of the population put their identity as Afghan first, before ethnicity.

99% of Afghanistan’s population adheres to Islam. An estimated 80% of the population is Sunni, following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence; 19% is Shi’a. Despite attempts during the years of communist rule to secularize Afghan society, Islamic practices pervade all aspects of life. In fact, Islam served as the principal basis for expressing opposition to communist rule and the Soviet invasion. Likewise, Islamic religious tradition and codes, together with traditional practices, provide the principal means of controlling personal conduct and settling legal disputes. Excluding urban populations in the principal cities, most Afghans are divided into tribal and other kinship-based groups, which follow traditional customs and religious practices.

TWO EXCERPTS FOLLOW:

Begin Excerpt 1 from New York Times via World News

Taliban Reopen Northern Front in Afghanistan

By CARLOTTA GALL

November 27, 2009

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan — Far from the heartland of the Taliban insurgency in the south, this once peaceful northern province was one place American and Afghan officials thought they did not have to worry about.

Afghan officials cut the police force here by a third two years ago and again earlier this year. Security was left to a few thousand German peacekeepers. Only one Afghan logistics battalion was stationed here.

But over the last two years the Taliban have steadily staged a resurgence in Kunduz, where they now threaten a vital NATO supply line and employ more sophisticated tactics. In November, residents listened to air raids by NATO forces for five consecutive nights, the first heavy fighting since the Taliban were overthrown eight years ago.

The turnabout vividly demonstrates how security has broken down even in unexpected parts of Afghanistan. It also points to the hard choices facing American, NATO and Afghan officials even if President Obama decides to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, as he is expected to announce next week.

Even under the most generous deployments now under consideration, relatively few additional troops are expected in the north; most will be directed to the heartland of the Taliban resistance in the south and east.

Afghan and international officials say security never had to deteriorate so badly here. The Taliban were a scattered and defeated force in northern Afghanistan, long home to the strongest anti-Taliban resistance, the Northern Alliance.

But the government, and American military trainers, failed to remain vigilant to signs of Taliban encroachment, and reduced deployments in the northern provinces in order to bolster other, more volatile regions.

The decisions created vulnerabilities as Kunduz became a target with the opening of a new logistics route here for NATO supplies from Russia and Central Asia, over an American-financed bridge that opened in 2007. The route is supposed to serve as a strategic alternative to the treacherous passage through Pakistan, which is regularly attacked by Taliban militants.

Now, the Taliban have re-emerged with such force that during the presidential election in August, police officers were fending off attacks on the outskirts of the city of Kunduz, and militants were poised to overrun the center, officials said.

“The Taliban were at the door of the city; the people thought the government was at an end,” said a senior security official, who asked not to be named

because of the nature of his work.

Since then, the threat has been somewhat contained after an operation by NATO and Afghan forces, but the province remains at risk.

Residents of Kunduz said they noticed that the Taliban reappeared in numbers in the region in the spring of last year.

At just that time, under pressure from the American military in charge of training the Afghan security forces, the government of President Hamid Karzai reduced the number of police officers in Kunduz to just 1,000 from 1,500, officials said. Then, earlier this year, the Interior Ministry ordered 200 police officers from every northern province to help secure the capital, Kabul, which was suffering increasingly serious attacks from insurgents.

A district like Khanabad, with a population of 350,000, has just 80 police officers now, the governor of Kunduz, Muhammad Omar, said in an interview. In the district of Chahardara, where hundreds of insurgents are at large, there are only 56 police officers, enough only to guard the

district center and the main road.

“It deteriorated suddenly,” the governor said. “The first reason is that we have very few police in Kunduz considering the strategic position of our region, and our police are not able to cover the whole region.”

In fact, after their defeat in 2001, the Taliban never left the region. The insurgents lay low but remained a menace to be constantly watched, according to the former governor of Kunduz, Gen. Muhammad Daoud, now a deputy interior minister.

The Taliban, who are mostly Pashtun, draw natural support through tribal ties with Pashtuns, who make up nearly half of Kunduz’s population. Many of the fighters are local men who fled to Pakistan after 2001 and have returned in the last two years.

Central Asian fighters from a group linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, who also took refuge in Pakistan have reappeared, Afghan security officials said.

Local journalists have seen some of them. The officials, who have captured some of the insurgents, accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Al Qaeda and even Iran of supporting the resurgence. Pakistan and Iran routinely deny supporting the insurgency.

Whether it is the influence of foreign fighters, or the growing capability of the Taliban and another regional militant group, Hezb-e-Islami, Western officials say the insurgency in Kunduz has grown more sophisticated, mounting coordinated suicide car bombings and ambushes.

“Clearly this year we have seen much better fighters, capable of complex attacks,” said one Western official.

Kunduz, a fertile farming region interspersed with desert, has had a trajectory similar to that of many other provinces, as the insurgents extended their hold through calculated intimidation and exploitation of tribal ties.
By the spring of 2008, militants started appearing in groups of as many as 100, with some foreign fighters among them, local residents and officials said.

They assassinated local leaders, including a Pashtun Koran reader who was beheaded, and quickly took control of several Pashtun areas, forcing ethnic Uzbeks from their homes in some districts, said Wakil Qara Qushlik, a local leader who had to flee his village last year.

The Taliban were at first more subtle with their fellow Pashtuns. A group of them came last spring without guns to introduce themselves to one prominent Pashtun family in Chahardara, and asked for support. They were worried about their own safety then, one family member said, asking not to be named. “They were behaving very well with the people,” he said. “They stopped thieves, and brought law and order to the area.”

But as elsewhere, that changed as the Taliban gained power and confidence, he said. This year the Taliban arrived with “lots of cash, new dollars and guns,” and began collecting ushr, an Islamic tax, from farmers.

Now, he said, they come to his home and demand to be fed, and have begun an intimidation campaign against his family for not supporting them at the beginning.

“It is dangerous for us if a guerrilla force has an income,” said General Daoud, who as deputy interior minister has responsibility for counternarcotics efforts.
Drug smugglers with an eye to Kunduz’s border with Tajikistan have jumped into an alliance with the Taliban to create instability that allows their illegal business to thrive, he said.

The former Taliban government was so harsh that many Afghans offered little resistance. “What surprises is how easily people capitulate when they come because the memories are so fresh,” the Western official said.

Shoaib, 25, a villager from the Archi District who moved to the city of Kunduz to find work, said: “We are forced to be happy with the Taliban.

They force the people in each street to prepare 10 guns and men. They say come and do jihad.”

Begin Excerpt 2 from Turkish Press via World News

F.M. Meets Ahmadinejad in Iran

Turkish Press

November 20, 2009

TABRIZ – Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian city of Tabriz on Friday.

The meeting mainly discussed Iran’s nuclear program as well as bilateral and regional economic relations, diplomats said.

Davutoglu was in Afghanistan on Thursday to attend Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s oath-taking ceremony. Davutoglu informed Ahmadinejad about developments in Afghanistan and said uncertainty in Afghanistan disappeared after Karzai elected president which he also said was an important new step for Afghanistan’s security and stability, diplomats said.

The two countries have also agreed to hold talks with third

countries to improve the railroad line from Europe to China which also passes through Turkey and Iran.

Davutoglu is expected to return to Turkey later in the day.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Jihad has Moved from Freshman 1.0 to Sophomore 2.0,

Its Graduation Day Goal is a Sharia Islamic Caliphate 4.0,

Greater in size than the vast Mongolian Empire of the Kahn,

It Will Represent the 7th & 8th Revelation Beasts of the East!

November 26, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Revelation 17:11-13 – And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. [12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. [13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem

Lion’s Den: Islamism 2.0 – an even greater threat

November 24, 2009

Daniel Pipes , THE JERUSALEM POST

To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a US congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

The 1.0 version attacks those perceived as obstructing its goal of a society ruled by a global caliphate and totally regulated by Shari’a (Islamic law). Islamism’s original tactics, from totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, encompass unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden’s search f or atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred

or even a thousand times larger.

However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works. Survivors of terrorism rarely capitulate to radical Islam – not after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombing of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the terrorist campaigns in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order. Imagine Islamists had caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 tsunami – what could these have lastingly achieved

?

NON-TERRORIST violence aimed at applying Shari’a does hardly better. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time – Iran in 1978-79.

Likewise, a coup d’état (a military overthrow) carried them to power just once – Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war – Afghanistan in 1996.

If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari’a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better.

Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, represent the main opposition force in Muslim-majority countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait.

Islamists have enjoyed electoral success in Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002, and Iraq in 2005.

Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari’a. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the wrath of Iranian street demonstrators and bin Laden cowers in a cave, Erdogan basks in public approval, remakes the Republic of Turkey, and offers an enticing model for Islamists worldwide.

Recognizing this pattern, al-Qaida’s once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat.

In 1988, he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West.

With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.

In a recent book, he condemned the use of force against Muslims (“Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers”) and even against non-Muslims (9/11 was counterproductive, for “what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?”).

Sharif’s evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a “terrible threat” to al-Qaida. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.

(What one might call Islamism 1.5 – a combination of hard and soft means, of external and internal approaches – also works. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007.

Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan. The United Kingdom might be undergoing the opposite process, whereby violence creates a political opening.)

In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0’s brutality.

The writer (DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube d

istinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by

the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site.

However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE 35 YEARS MADE IN AMERICA – PART 3

“How abou t

giving Obama the Nobel Peace-Fumbling Prize?”

November 26, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

When Adam, the historical fleshly father of all men sinned, man fell from spiritual fellowship with God, and his heart became deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Most men and women on this planet do not know it since they completely reject the Word of God. Consequently, their hearts have never been circumcised by the Spirit of the One who created them.

Jeremiah 17:9 – The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Romans 2:28,29 – For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Colossians 2:8-11 – Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

There can be no peace on this earth until the Second Advent of Messiah occurs, but even after He comes among those still in the flesh, it will be a peace maintained by his rod of iron.

Full unforced true peace will not come until the end of Messiah’s Millennial Reign as He eternally separates uncircumcised and circumcised hearts in his Final New Heavens and New Earth.

Matthew 10:34-36 – Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [36] And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

Begin Excerpts from the Jerusalem Post

The Region: Lessons not learned

November 22, 2009

Barry Rubin , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Obama administration keeps making big mistakes that have a devastating effect on its own goals and interests.

What is most amazing is how the implications of its actions are just not understood. Already, the current US policy has destroyed any chance not only of progress on the Israel-Palestinian front but of even holding talks at all.

Let’s review the situation.

Israel announced in 1993, at the time of the Oslo Accords with the PLO, that it viewed construction on existing settlements as completely in line with the agreement. The Palestinians, during the ensuing 16 years, never made this a big issue. The US government, while it can say it opposed this, was pretty quiet about it and never did anything.

Then President Barack Obama came to office and made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy; sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy. It may look like an exaggeration but often it seems like the administration believes that if Israel only stopped building 3000 apartments, all the region’s problems would go away.

So far, the administration has wasted almost ten months pursuing this. First, it shouted at Israel – as if it were some servant – to do it fast or else. Then when Israel didn’t, the administration realized that perhaps Israel should get something in exchange for the concession. So it went to Arab states and asked – presuming, wrongly, that they are desperate for a peace agreement – for some compromise but got nothing.

IN FACT, the Obama administration had destroyed its own policy because, as a result, the Palestinian Authority (PA) refused to negotiate until there was a complete construction freeze. How could it be less hardline than the president?

But there was a solution; sort of. Israel agreed to stop all construction once the apartments currently being built are finished, except in Jerusalem.

The United States accepted the deal, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exulting about what a huge concession Israel was making. The US government knew how big a risk Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was taking with his coalition.

So what happened? The PA couldn’t stand to see Israel being praised and doesn’t want to negotiate peace anyway. So it threw a temper tantrum: riots in Jerusalem, threats by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to resign, refusal to go to negotiations with Israel, and clamor for a unilateral declaration of independence.

The hubbub about a unilateral declaration of independence was almost universally described in the media as arising from Palestinian frustration. Not at all.

It is based on their core strategy: Why make compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door is kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?

What did the administration do? It backed down on everything except the independence bid! Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him.

Now it said: Well, maybe it wasn’t such a great deal after all.

Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note: Once again, we’ve seen that a concession doesn’t lead to a concession by the other side nor does it lead to progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without giving any real credit to the last one.

THE LATEST act in the drama is that after an announcement of a plan to build apartments in the Gilo section of Jerusalem – which is quite within the US-Israel deal – the administration complained bitterly, showing not only that it wouldn’t respect agreement others made with predecessors but it wouldn’t even respect the agreements it made itself.

Obama complained that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, anti-Semitic views; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama’s express request to do so; breaking its promise on not using the Goldstone Report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

Moreover, having sabotaged negotiations by highlighting the construction-on-settlements issue, the administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand.

Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens.

And since Israel won’t stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won’t – unlike the administration – back down, Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire term in office. In fact, he’s probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place.

Here’s another problem: By blaming Israel repeatedly for every failure, the administration is not only signaling to

the PA and Arab states that they can do anything and pay no cost, it is also unintentionally encouraging them to sabotage any progress. Why? Because the worse and slower things go, the more they can blame Israel and expect the United States and Europe to do so also.

The administration is making its own failure far more likely. If the United States gets angrier with Israel every time the Arab states and Palestinians sabotage negotiations, why shouldn’t they do it?

One final point: The same loss of US credibility and reliability that affects Israel also hits the relatively moderate Arab states in the administration’s dealings with them.

No doubt we will soon be hearing that if Israel stopped building apartments in Gilo there would be Arab-Israeli peace, no terrorism, Iran would give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Obama would get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Oops, that last event has already happened. How about giving him the Nobel Peace-Fumbling Prize?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.