Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dean_saor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 164
2
Tusk was a rather dodgy politician back in his days in Poland, and he's just seemed to get more arrogant since he's been a senior EU bureaucrat.

The problem with Brexit is that it wasn't supposed to happen.

The idea seems to have been that Cameron (the then UK prime minister) called a Referendum as a cosmetic device to enable him to override dissidence within his ruling coaltion of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats by being able to hold up the result as showing that "the British people" were overwhelmingly behind 'more Europe'.

Unfortunately for him and his cohorts, 17.4 million Britons voted to Leave - the largest single democratic result ever in British politics. So Cameron resigned.

Theresa May (Cameron's replacement) seems to have been dragging her feet and making leaving the EU as difficult and agonising as possible. Two years (the required interval after delivering the Article 50 ultimatum) would be quite long enough to arrange all the necessary deals. The "No Deal" option actually simply means that the UK will trade with the 27 countries of the European Union using the World Trade Organisation (formerly known as GATT) rules that it uses to trade with the rest of the world.

In fact, the UK doesn't actually do much business with most of those 27 - most UK European Trade is with France and Germany, and real business leaders (such as German car manufacturers, and French wine makers) have indicated that they'll be quite happy to trade with the UK on WTO terms.

It also seems that the British civil service has been beavering away quietly to set up the various mechansisms necessary. The problems in Ireland are mostly smoke and mirrors, as there has been a soft border between the UK and the Republic since 1922 and there's no reason for that to change.

Tusk is simply stirring, just like his colleagues Verhofstadt and Barnier.

3
The World Below / - British protesters call on Cameron to resign
« on: April 29, 2016, 02:44:38 PM »
More objective opinion polls put the Get Out of EU camp at around 70%

4
And what on earth were they doing being 50 miles off the Russian coast and from a Russian naval base at that. I'm sure there'd be hysterics in Washington were a Russian destroyer to be 50 miles off San Diego.

5
The World Below / - US troops in Syria to topple govt.: FM Lavrov
« on: April 29, 2016, 02:39:01 PM »
This is all too likely to be true, and very worrying. Of course the Oded Yinon Plan has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

6
[I've linked to The Truthseeker site, as its link to SOTT takes one to the article in the Polish version]

Former Israeli Intel Operatives Run Security at Brussels Airport

SOTT — March 23, 2016

The aviation and general security services firm ICTS handles security operations at Brussels airport, the scene of a bomb attack yesterday morning.

ICTS was established in 1982 by former members of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency and El Al airline security agents, and has a major presence around the world in airport security including operations in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Japan and Russia. ICTS uses the security system employed in Israel, whereby passengers are profiled to assess the degree to which they pose a potential threat on the basis of a number of indicators, including age, name, origin and behavior during questioning.

Chairman of the Supervisory Board at ICTS is Menachem J. Atzmon. Atzmon is a former Likud party member who was indicted and convicted in 1996 in a fraud and embezzlement case relating to the misappropriation of funds raised by charities. Atzmon is also the CEO of the port authority of Rostock in Germany.

This will not, however, be the first time that ICTS has come under scrutiny for possible security lapses leading to a ‘Muslim terror attack’.

As the provider of security services to Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport and United Airlines and US Airways, the firm’s security system was criticized for somehow allowing erstwhile ‘underwear bomber’, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to “slip through” and board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit with explosive materials on Christmas day 2009.

[pic - So-called ‘knicker bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Click to enlarge]

The Christmas knicker bomber, as he came to be known, was not your usual disgruntled Arab or lowly Muslim acolyte. He was the son of Nigerian banking mogul and former Nigerian government minister Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, one of the richest men in Africa. We’re talking one of the African colonial elite here, an African version of the British ‘old boy’s network‘ While in London, his son, the knicker bomber lived in a ₤4 million apartment in Mansfield Street, in the city’s West End. He also enjoyed access to visas for several different countries, including the US.

Unlike most alleged Muslim terrorists who usually bring their passports to the scene of their ‘suicide attacks’ (and often leave them there for police to find) Abdulmutallab apparently arrived at Schipol airport to board his flight to the US with a one way ticket, no luggage and without a passport.

Now usually this would have spelled a premature end to his planned attack, but according to Detroit attorney and eyewitness to events at Schipol, Kurt Haskell, Abdulmutallab benefited from the help of a sharply dressed Indian man who was able to escort the youngster to the boarding gate where he told the attendant that Abdulmutallab had no passport but should be allowed on the flight anyway. When the sharply dressed man was told that he would have to speak to the security manager, he did so and successfully planted the knicker bomber on the plane.

Now this requires some serious string pulling, and all the hoopla in the press at the time about whether or not the security system worked was just hubris, because if the knicker bomber appeared at the gate without a passport, it is unlikely that he went through the normal process up to that point, including check-in which requires passengers to show their passports.

In all probability, Abdulmutallab was escorted as a ‘VIP’ to the gate by the sharply dressed man. So how do two suspicious looking dudes, at least one of them without a passport and carrying bomb materials, get to the gate in an airport and then onto the flight? The answer is they don’t, unless they have some friends among the people running the security controls at the airport. In this case, ICTS.

Within a few months of the underwear attack, the US State Department admitted that it had known about Mutallab’s intentions for some time and had not revoked his entry visa to the USA because they, effectively, wanted to see what he would do.

“Revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, “rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort.”

[pic - ‘Shoe-bomber’ Richard Reid. Click to enlarge]

But ICTS’ security faux pas’ don’t end there. In December 2001, they somehow managed to let deranged shoe bomber Richard Reid, onto his Miami-bound flight in Paris, and this was after ICTS had cleared Reid through security at Amsterdam airport on a flight to Tel Aviv in July 2001 for what was apparently an all-expenses paid week-long trip to the Israeli city. What precisely he did there remains a mystery. Reid later said that ICTS/El Al had failed to detect that he had explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv, an amazing revelation considering the Israeli airline’s tight security and the fact that, six months later, they were responsible for letting him board the Miami-bound flight with the very same type of ‘shoe bomb’. Israel had not informed British, American, or any other security agency of their concerns about Reid. Reid’s aunt, Claudette Lewis who raised Reid in south London, was quoted as saying she believed her nephew had been “brainwashed”.

[pic- 7/7 bus wreck. Click to enlarge]

ICTS also somehow missed several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers who allegedly flew out of Boston’s Logan airport on September 11th 2001. ICTS also handled security for London’s bus network during the July 7, 2005, ‘suicide’ bomb attacks. In fact, two of its subsidiaries, ICTS UK and ICTS Europe Systems, are based at Tavistock House, Tavistock Square in London, scene of the London Stagecoach bus bombing that day.

That’s quite a record, all in all. And we have to wonder how many terror attacks could have been prevented, how many innocent lives saved, how much further we might be today from a burgeoning police state, if outfits like ICTS and those that support them had not allowed so many unlikely and hapless ‘Muslim terrorists’ to “slip through”.

Of all the authoritarian ‘leaders’ that benefit from the insecurity created by ‘Muslim terrorism’, the political elite of the state of Israel benefit the most. And of all the people who suffer from terrorist attacks, people of Muslim faith suffer by far the most. Israel, a country created on stolen Palestinian land and surrounded by Muslims, requires the continued threat of ‘Islamic terrorism’ to justify its existence. In pushing this insane agenda so far, by encouraging Europe and the ‘West’ to adopt Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians, it seems that the conditions are being created whereby the events of Nazi Germany may well repeat, only this time with Muslims in the position of the Jews.

7
Money & Markets / - Trudeau carries on the agenda Harper also followed
« on: March 25, 2016, 09:21:18 AM »
Canada, and the UK, need to adopt the Iceland Solution to dodgy trading by banksters - throw them in prison and then prosecute them for fraudulent trading.

8
The author, in attributing the post cited in The Atlantic to Professor Carl Ernst, "The Phony Islam of ISIS", has actually got the wrong bloke and the wrong by-line. The article was in refutation of one by Graeme Wood last year (2015) and was written by Professor Caner K. Daǧlı [http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/].

9
This is an informative blog post, and topically relevant. The layout could do with some work, but the content is interesting:

https://scholarlyislam.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/answering-jihad-with-deception-a-response-to-nabeel-qureshi/

 Posted on March 23, 2016 by scholarlyislam   

    “Diagnosing terrorism as a symptom and Islam as the problem, though popular in some circles, is flawed and has serious risks with dangerous repercussions.”
    – John Esposito, (Who Speaks for Islam, 97)

Nabeel Qureshi is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and is now a full time Christian apologist with a Ministry. But if you read his USA Today Opinion piece, headlined The Qur’an’s deadly role in inspiring Belgian slaughter this critical fact would not come to your attention – as the author begins the article by describing himself as “a Muslim growing up in the United States.”  Anyone may easily read this entire piece and conclude – as numerous comments on the article show – that Qureshi is a practicing Muslim who finally “confirms” that the Qur’an is an inherently violent text. His actual allegiances are only mentioned at the end of the article. This sort of deceptive writing by someone who claims to be promoting “love” toward Muslims represents the height of dishonesty. It is only eclipsed by the sort of dubious and factually problematic arguments Qureshi advances. One should note that Nabeel Qureshi possesses no credentials in the academic study of Muslim law, history, thought or Qur’anic studies. He is a self-admitted Christian apologist (except in the body of the article under question) and his arguments must be viewed in light of his evangelical agenda.

Qureshi’s problematic thesis is that the Qur’an as a whole is violent, that its literal interpretation enables and inspires ISIS, and that its Surah (Chapter) 9 commands Muslims to commit unconditional violence against all non-Muslims and “subjugate Jews and Christians.” Qureshi is quick to say that “My point is not to question the faith of such Muslims nor to imply that radical Muslims are the true Muslims.” But once sentence later, he goes on to say that ISIS “radicalizes” people “by primarily by urging them to follow the literal teachings of the Quran and the hadith, interpreted consistently and in light of the violent trajectory of early Islam.” By declaring that the Qur’an itself inspires and commands violence, Qureshi is trying to brand “real Islam” as inherently violent.  He even concludes that “As long as the Islamic world focuses on its foundational texts, we will continue to see violent jihadi movements.”

Not only is Qureshi’s analysis historically and textually inaccurate, his entire article is nothing more than a Christian apologist’s attempt to attack Islam and convert Muslims. While Qureshi is entitled to his opinion, dressing up his Op-Ed as the honest views of a Muslim is simply not in keeping with either Christian or Muslim values of honesty and integrity.

Does the Qur’an command unconditional violence?

Firstly, the Qur’an does not contain a doctrine of “jihad” and the word “jihad” in the Qur’an does not simply mean “warfare”. The word jihad means struggle and striving and its usage in the Qur’an encompasses all kinds of strivings- moral, religious, spiritual, and physical. Muslim jurists developed the concept of jihad in legal discourse in which jihad is not much different than the Christian concept of the “just war.”

Qureshi refers to Surah 9, but fails to even consider this Qur’anic chapter as a whole. Instead, like many other Islamophobic writers, Qureshi reads the Qur’an in a way unknown to the vast majority of Muslims who believe in it. He only refers allusively (without quoting any verses, giving their historical context, or providing comments of traditional Muslim exegetes) to a handful of verses. Qureshi’s conclusion is that “it is fair to wonder whether any non-Muslims in the world are immune from being attacked, subdued or assimilated under this command.” Qureshi then makes the bogus claim that “Muslim thought leaders agree that the Quran promotes such violence” but is only able to cite one individual, Maajid Nawaz, whose reputation among Muslim scholars and intellectuals is questionable at best. Even then, Nawaz as quoted by Qureshi is not even speaking to Qureshi’s own claims. Meanwhile Qureshi ignores the hundreds of leading Muslim scholars who openly condemned ISIS understanding of the Qur’an (read it here). So what does Surah 9 of the Qur’an say about violence?

As adopted directly from Kabir Helminski’s article at HuffPost,  Surah 9 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely. They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight. The verses 9:4 states, “Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack.” It further states, “Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious.” This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the “sacred months are past,” (The “sacred months” are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred.  9:6 even says “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety.”

The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war. If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: “But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful” (2:192). Also read: “Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing” (8:61). Even then, Muhammad had very clear rules for warfare – attacks on noncombatants, women and children, destruction of property, torture, etc. – were all OFF LIMITS.

Are “Literal Readings” of the Qur’an the Real Problem?

The entirety of Surah 9 of the Qur’an must be read in light of the WHOLE Surah and the rest of the Qur’an. And this leads to a second point. Are violent groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. reading the Qur’an literally? Actually, they are not doing so at all. A literal reading of the Qur’an would still affirm ALL of the Qur’an – including all the verses cited above that place limits on violence.

For example, John Esposito, a Professor of Islamic Studies writes and summarizes what the Qur’an as a whole says about violence:

    Although atrocities and acts of terrorism have connected Islam with terrorism, the Islamic tradition places limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijacking, and hostage taking. As happens in other faiths, mainstream and normative doctrines and laws are ignored, distorted, or co-opted and misinterpreted by a radical fringe. Islamic law, drawing on the Quran, sets out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and rejects acts of terrorism… The Quran provides detailed guidelines and regulations regarding war: who should fight (48:17, 9:91), when fighting should end (21:92), and how to treat prisoners (47:4). It emphasizes proportionality in warfare: “Whoever transgresses against you, respond in kind” (2:194). Other verses provide a strong mandate for making peace: “If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God” (8:61) and “Had Allah wished, He would have made them dominate you, and so if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them” (4:90).
    (John Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, 140)

A literal reading of the Qur’an does not ignore all of the above. Groups like ISIS do not read the Qur’an literally. They ignore more than 95% of the Qur’an, and most of the Islamic tradition as a whole. Instead, they simply pick and choose verses, ignore all the verses around them, ignore the historical context, and ignore 1,400 years of Muslim exegesis on the Qur’an. For example, if ISIS and other violent groups were literalists, then they would properly follow this flowchart here:

[ graphic - Quran flow chart ]

Carl Ernst, another Professor of Islamic Studies, concludes that ISIS’ Islam is not a literal Islam but a PHONY Islam:

    Their so-called “prophetic methodology” is nothing more than cherry-picking what they like and ignoring what they do not. Furthermore, it is past time to dispense with the idea that organizations like ISIS are “literalist” in their reading of texts. Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not. Nor would they interpret literally, “God is the light of the heavens and the earth,” or any number of other passages from the Quran that the so-called “literalists” are compelled to either ignore or read as some kind of metaphor or allegory…there is a wide chasm between someone who “laces” his conversations with religious imagery (very easy) and someone who has actually studied and understood the difficulties and nuances of an immense textual tradition (very hard). I personally know enough Shakespeare to “lace” my conversations with quotations from Hamlet and the sonnets. Does that make me a serious Shakespeare scholar?
    (Ernst, The Phony Islam of ISIS, The Atlantic)

What does the Qur’an actually say about other faiths?

“For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.” (Qur’an 5:48)

“Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:62)

“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)

Global Muslims by the Numbers:

Anyone can cherry-pick any text – the Qur’an, the Bible, the Vedas – and use specific snippets de-contextualized from their original place and history to justify violence. The question is – when this happens, is the text itself responsible? Motivation and justification are two very different things. As much peer reviewed research has shown, the primary motivation for violent extremists is social isolation, criminal history, political grievances, and mental problems. If the Qur’an as a whole inspires violence – then why don’t we see this everyday among the global Muslim population?

A. Fact: there are only about 100,000 estimated total militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.5 billion people. See: http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html?sr=sharebar_google

B. Fact: the biggest victims of ISIS and Al-Qaeda ARE Muslims; and not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of Muslims hate ISIS and al-Qaeda. To say otherwise – to claim that substantial numbers of Muslims support ISIS and other terror groups is like saying that most murder victims support their murderers, or that most rape victims support their rapists and in fact want to emulate them. See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

C. Fact: The overwhelming majority of U.S. Muslims (78%) stated that it is never morally justifiable to target and kill civilians, compared to only 38% of Protestants, 39% of Catholics, 43% of Jews, 33% of Mormons, and 56% of people with no religion/atheists/agnostics.

See:  http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/surveys-show-muslims-in-every-country-less-likely-to-justify-killing-civilians-than-americans-and-israelis/

D. Fact: Muslims worldwide are least likely among other religious groups to support violence against innocent people:

See: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/surveys-show-muslims-in-every-country-less-likely-to-justify-killing-civilians-than-americans-and-israelis/

E. Fact:  According to the 2005 Gallup Poll and other studies discussed by John Esposito in his book, “Who Speaks for Islam”:
— Only 46% of Americans believe that ‘bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians’ are “never justified” while 24% believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified”. This means that the majority of Americans believe that bombing and other attacks aimed at civilians can be justified. Compare this to Muslim majority countries where the same Poll found that 74% of respondents in Indonesia, 86% in Bangladesh, 86% in Pakistan, and 80% in Iran – in other words, the majority of these Muslims believe that attacks on civilians are “never justified.”

— 6% of the American public thinks that attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified”; Compare this to 2% of those in Lebanon and Iran and 4% in Saudi Arabia who think that attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified.

F. Fact: In wars and violent conflicts during the last 30 years, Harvard Professor Stephen Walt concluded that Muslims have killed about 10,325 Americans, whereas the U.S. has killed 288,000 Muslims. See: http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/10/09/islam-and-mother-lode-bad-ideas-bill-maher-sam-harris-and-ben-affleck-debate
For all these reasons, Islamic studies Professor John Esposito concluded that:

    “Muslims hold no monopoly on extremist views and are, in fact, on average more likely than American public to unequivocally condemn attacks on civilians.”
    (John Esposito, Who Speaks of Islam, 94)

Qureshi is free to claim whatever he wants about the Qur’an, but the fact of the matter is that the Qur’an as read, practiced, and lived everday by 99.9% of the 1.5 billion Muslims does not promote violence. So either 99.9% of the global Muslim population have been misinterpreting its own scripture for centuries…or Nabeel Qureshi has a not-so-hidden agenda.

10
Any moment now, as it is the same Israeli security company handling security at the airport as was working on 11 Sep 2001 and in London on 7 July 2005.

11
As with the other atrocities going back to 11 Sep 2001, the Official Narrative begins to unpick almost at once.

12
Many of us have been touring the rest of the internet, Efendi - taking a holiday, I suppose, from the Real Source. Got to reform, there's not much knowledge out there.

13
Well, the only *real* job Cameron had before becoming a professional politician and Murdoch's placeman was as a PR-man for some dodgy characters, so lying through his teeth comes naturally to him.

14
Good comment, Rudi.

15
I wonder how Washington would react were a Jewish assistant secretary for the Chinese to organise a coup d'état in Mexico and then push its placeman into a vicious war in Nuevo Leon?

Then there's the EU's problem that it is paying the economic price for the USA's adventurism in the counter-embargo by Russia so it is not only losing a market it is more problematically losing the source of supply of gas, petroleum, and crucial foodstuffs. Evidently EU toadying to Obama begins to stop when the supermarket shelves lose fruit and vegetables, and the pump price of petroleum starts to rise.

16
Media Watch / - Minds dot com
« on: September 01, 2015, 12:30:09 AM »
I think I might simply dip in and out to see what's happening, then. It might improve - though Google Plus didn't (a missed opportunity there, I think).

17
Media Watch / Minds dot com
« on: August 31, 2015, 12:27:51 PM »
Does anyone have any experience of this new(-ish) social media site? Will it go the way of Google Plus, do you think?

18
I suppose this comes about by having the Israelis train so many US police forces.

19
This is being very stupid. Holding a naval exercise so close to the Crimea is extremely provocative... it's a bit like China (or Russia) holding a massive joint naval exercise a couple of hundred miles off the San Diego naval base in California.

20
General / - Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?
« on: August 30, 2015, 10:56:12 AM »
I recently did a "back of a cigarette packet" calculation pricing that convoy that was on the media of all those white, top of the range, crew-cab Toyota Hiluxes of ISIS/Daesh - at show-room prices that was £20Million worth of hardware. No guerrilla group or people's army commands that sort of cash.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 164