Thursday, January 29, 2009
Ahmadinejad demands US apology for 'crimes' against Iran
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Leader’s View of Unity Between the Shia and the Sunni
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Saudis’ relentless drive to destroy the historic sites of Islam
Muslims are under attack on almost every front, from the military to the cultural and areas in between. Not only are tens of thousands of Muslims being slaughtered by foreign forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya, but in many Muslim countries (Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, for instance) their own armies are attacking them as well. The military assaults are compounded by cultural attacks from the West. But perhaps even this grim reality pales into insignificance when compared to what the Saudis are doing in the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, jointly known to the Muslims as the Haramayn. A toxic mixture of greed and Wahhabi zealotry has led to the destruction of Islamic monuments, which, in a few years, will have completely wiped out the rich historical heritage of early Islam forever.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
இஸ்லாத்தின் வரலாற்றுத் தலங்களை அழிக்கும் சவூதி நடவடிக்கை
The Saudis’ relentless drive to destroy the historic sites of Islam (Tamil)
Jumada' al-Akhirah 27, 1429
Monday, November 26, 2007
Money behind JFK hit
In 1963, shortly before his death, Kennedy had decided to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam because military experts had convinced him that the war was unwinnable.
Obviously, the major shareholders of the corporations of the military-industrial complex were not pleased with this move.
After Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded Kennedy as president, he gave orders to escalate the war.
U.S. troops remained in Vietnam for about 10 more years, and the military-industrial complex earned billions upon billions of dollars, which was the major shareholders’ goal in the first place. They didn’t care who won the military conflict. They were only interested in winning the economic side of the Vietnam War.
Three future U.S. presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush, were in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the day Kennedy was assassinated.
It is said that this strange coincidence was actually arranged to give the future presidents a stark warning of what would happen to them if they disobeyed orders.
Johnson was sworn in as president shortly after the assassination.
Nixon said he was in Dallas on November 22, 1963 but left town shortly before the assassination. However, according to other accounts, Nixon was attending a meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company at the time the shots were fired, representing the Pepsi Cola Company’s law firm Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al.
George H.W. Bush said he couldn’t remember where he was on the day of the assassination and that he was not a member of the CIA in 1963. However, in an FBI phone memo dated November 22, 1963, he said he was proceeding to Dallas and would stay there until November 23.
When another FBI document surfaced, dated November 29, 1963, which mentioned a certain “George Bush of the CIA”, George H.W. Bush said that another “George Bush of the CIA” was the person the document was referring to. When the other “George Bush of the CIA” was located, he said the document was actually referring to George H.W. Bush.
Kennedy also gave the order to issue new United States Notes, which angered the dark forces that control the Federal Reserve System, which controls the Federal Reserve Note currency.
In addition, Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110, which enabled the U.S. Treasury Department to print silver certificates, bypassing the Federal Reserve System.
It should come as no surprise that the people who own the Federal Reserve System are the same people who own the military-industrial complex.
According to Wikipedia:
“A United States Note is a fiat paper currency that was issued directly into circulation by the United States Department of the Treasury.”
“The primary difference between the United States Note and the Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note is created by the government directly as a bill of credit, and thus there is no interest for the government to pay for the creation of that dollar. A Federal Reserve Note, on the other hand, is bank currency, and the U.S. has to pay interest on the treasury bonds that it gives the Federal Reserve System in exchange for the right to produce a like quantity of Federal Reserve Notes. This, in turn, increases the tax burden on the people. Abraham Lincoln advocated the use of United States Notes because they avoid the usury and debt multiplication aspects of debt-based currencies, and thus save the government immense sums of interest. Thomas Jefferson also believed that the issuing power of money should rest with the U.S. Treasury, and not the private banks. He noted in the debate over The Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809) that, ‘…the issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.’”
A limited number of United States Notes were still issued until 1971, but none have been placed into circulation since.
Since U.S. citizens are paying taxes to the U.S. government to pay for their own national currency, it can be said that the United States is a colony of the cabal of bankers who own the private banks that own the branch banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Although Kennedy was seeking power for himself, his decision to issue United States Notes and silver certificates was a step toward independence from the Federal Reserve System.
After all this, the secret government could no longer tolerate Kennedy’s power plays and the decision was made to assassinate him.
The CIA was tasked with carrying out the deed, and Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as the fall guy.
After the assassination, Oswald said, “I’m a patsy.”
Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963, two days after the Kennedy assassination, and Ruby died in prison in 1967.
The people who carried out this operation don’t like loose ends.
The Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy endorsed the Lone Gunman Theory, which is largely dependent on the Magic Bullet Theory.
The Magic Bullet Theory postulates that a single bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through Kennedy’s neck, the chest and wrist of Texas Governor John Connally, who was sitting in the limousine with Kennedy, and then embedded itself in Connally’s thigh, causing all of the non-fatal wounds to Kennedy and Connally.
The Warren Commission Report said the fatal head wound that killed Kennedy was caused by another bullet.
Connally’s wife Nellie Connally, who was sitting beside her husband when the shots that hit Kennedy and Connally were fired, never believed the Magic Bullet Theory.
In January 1979, a special U.S. House of Representatives Assassinations Committee reported that a second assassin may also have fired a shot and that there may have been a conspiracy.
There is evidence that the shot that killed Kennedy was fired from in front of him, whereas Oswald was in the Texas School Book Depository, which was behind the presidential limousine.
Dr. Robert McClelland, a physician working at the Parkland Memorial Hospital emergency room, described a massive wound in the back of Kennedy’s head. Some experts have said the size of the wound indicates it was an exit wound, and thus the true assassin would have been positioned in front of the presidential limousine.
Evidence of CIA involvement is provided by a photo of three bums on the grassy knoll near Dealey Plaza, the site of the assassination. It turns out that two of the three bums have an uncanny resemblance to CIA agents E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, who later gained notoriety for their role in the Watergate scandal.
So, it seems that Kennedy was assassinated for challenging the power of the people who own the Federal Reserve System and the military-industrial complex, and specifically for challenging their control of the currency and monetary policy.
This might seem like an outlandish theory, but it’s not more outlandish than the Magic Bullet Theory.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Islamic movements and the struggle against authoritarianism
Crescent International
The fact that virtually every regime in the Muslim world, except the Islamic state of Iran, is a dictatorship of some kind or other is widely recognized. In the last month, we have seen high-profile protests against the authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Pakistan. Similar protests, usually on a smaller scale, are commonplace in both countries and in many other Muslim countries. Other countries are even more repressive, so that even such ineffective protests are impossible. Confronting this authoritarianism is inevitably the starting point for virtually all political activism in such countries. Unfortunately, experience suggests that such activism is currently largely ineffective; Mubarak, for example, has been in power since 1981, when he succeeded Anwar Sadat after the latter’s execution, and no-one expects him to surrender power any time soon. If this activism is to be more effective, therefore, some key points need to be understood.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
President Saleh’s re-election is bad news for struggling Yemen
M.S. Ahmed
That Yemen is in the grip of poverty, drought, political mismanagement and corruption is not in doubt. Nor is there any doubt that Yemen is steeped in tribal and regional tension and, at times, confrontation that might again split the country into South Yemen (a former British colony) and North Yemen.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in office for 28 years, is mainly responsible for the persistence of these problems. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) evenblames his regime (in a report issued on October 13) for exacerbating the drought by its failure to finance anti-drought projects. That Saleh has now been re-elected for another seven-year term can only bode ill for a country with such serious problems. But opposition parties and politicians must share some of the responsibility, not only because of their failure to stage an effective challenge to Saleh but also for their cooperation with the corrupt system, mostly behind the scenes but sometimes publicly. Their ready acceptance of his re-election – to the extent that some of those in exile returned almost immediately – is only one result of their capitulation to him.
One of the opposition leaders returning him after a bitter 12-year opposition to Saleh in exile is Abdulrahman al-Jaffari and his party colleagues. He returned to Sana, the capital, in mid-September after a telephone conversation with the president, who sent them his presidential aeroplane to return home in. In an interview with al-Sharq al-Awsat on October 10, he said that what persuaded him to return to Yemen after a 12-year absence “is the president’s determination to carry out extensive reforms in all areas of political, economic and social life, given the fact that he is the most capable person to carry them out and lead Yemen.”
Jaffari and his colleagues must have guessed that Saleh would win; they returned home a few days before the presidential election, which was held on September 20. They must also have agreed to vote for him, as their return was brought forward by the despatch of the presidential aircraft. Moreover, Saleh was expected to win, although his opponent, Faisal bin Shamlan of the Islah party (seen generally as Islamic in Yemen), was expected to do well and lose only by a small margin. But the final results, published on September 23, claimed that Saleh won 77.2 percent and Shalman 21.8 percent of the votes cast by six million people. At first the opposition parties protested loudly, accusing Saleh of rigging the poll and therefore rejecting the results altogether. They also promised their supporters that they would organise the expression of popular opposition by means of nationwide marches. But on September 26 they announced their acceptance of the election’s official results and their recognition of Saleh as the country’s president. In fact, Shamlan told journalists that the “announced results are accurate and that the opposition alliance will abide by them”. The reason for this change of heart was explained in a statement published by the alliance, which argued that there was “a strong need to avoid any confrontation or clashes with the authorities.”
But this did not diminish the discussion of public affairs and criticism of the president or the regime – partly because of the presence of a large number of foreign journalists in the country to cover the election. In particular, the discussion centred on Saleh’s plan to pass power to his son when he leaves in seven years, as the constitution requires. His son, 35-year-old Ahmed, already holds the post of commander of the Republican Guard and of the special forces, and plays a prominent role in Yemen’s political life. Saleh has also appointed several other members of his own family to senior public posts, thereby giving the impression that his rule is somewhat hereditary.
For instance, Saleh appointed his brother, Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar, as military commander of two provinces, while appointing another brother, Muhammad Saleh al-Ahmar, as commander of the air force, and his nephew Yahya Muhammad Abdullahi as commander of the security forces. Saleh, himself a lieutenant-general who seized power in 1978, must know the high value of military and security commanders to the ruler of a country that is not prone to military coups. He must also know the protection that succession by a relative can offer to a corrupt ruler who has been in office for a long time. The son or other close relative of an outgoing despot will be unlikely to order an investigation into his kinsman’s rule, let alone put him on trial, after succeeding him. Saleh is also aware that many Yemenis consider the appointment of a son as successor normal practice in Arab countries. After all, Hafez al-Asad of Syria not long ago arranged to be succeeded by his son Bashshar, and Egypt’s president, Husni Mubarak, is openly setting the stage for his son Gamal to succeed him.
Most Yemenis are certainly aware of Saleh’s resort to corrupt economic and political practices to stay in power, but many of them also know that it is difficult to govern a country that is divided into tribal and political groups that are hostile to each other. As a Yemeni proverb famously says, ruling Yemen is like trying to dance on the head of a snake. He is given credit by many for holding together North Yemen and Southern Yemen, a former British colony, which united in 1990. Since then, the south has not only tried to secede but frequent clashes between the tribal groups of both regions have taken place. Moreover, the fact that the potential for violence is never far from the surface is underlined by the prevalence of firearms in the country, whose 20 million citizens are estimated to own some 60 million firearms between them.
In fact, last year the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace placed Yemen eighth in its index of countries most likely to disintegrate, following such countries as Somalia andAfghanistan. The fear of violence breaking out may explain the sudden decision of the five-party opposition alliance, led by the leader of Islah, Faisal bin Shalman, who is from South Yemen, to accept the election results and recognise Saleh, who is from the north, as president. Earlier, the alliance had promised to stage a strong campaign against the re-election of the president and to expose the methods he had used to rig the poll.
The ruling General People’s Congress (GPC), which had collected huge sums of money from businessmen and companies to finance its campaign, put up millions of posters across the country that praised the president and maligned his opponents. The GPC also unleashed a “whispering campaign”, as media reports described it, which hinted that Shalman was “a Trojan horse for an Islamist coup, or southern secession”. But even more outrageously “a conservative Sheikh” appeared on state television, saying that “to vote against the president was forbidden in Islam”. Clearly Saleh also uses corrupt “Islamic leaders”, although he is widely known to be completely secular and very hostile to Islamic movements.
The president’s hostility towards Islam and Islamic movements obviously disqualifies him to rule a Muslim country. But his transparent failure to solve Yemen’s economic problems and reduce the widespread poverty that is blighting the lives of many Yemenis is another good reason why he should quit now. The World Bank estimates that 42 percent of Yemenis live below the poverty line, while economic growth in recent years has not matched population growth. Moreover oil-exports, which at present supply 70 percent of state revenues, are set to decline as reserves dwindle, and may in fact run out altogether by 2012.
But as state revenues continue to dwindle, Saleh will be forced to apply public funds to protect his family, friends and principal supporters against the escalating poverty, leaving most Yemenis to face it unaided. This may lead in the end to overwhelming public resentment and anger that might rid Yemen of a corrupt and anti-Islamic despot who should not have been able to seize power in the first place.







