Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 9:29 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ISRAELI FALSE FLAG TERRORISM
if (window['tickAboveFold']) {window['tickAboveFold'](document.getElementById("latency-7709193875034585484")); } Wednesday, October 28, 2009
BNP, MI5 and the Zionist Agenda : Griffin is a british intelligence officer speaking on behalf his zionist racist jewish master Jack Straw
Griffin is a british intelligence officer, he's been working for MI5 since 20 years now. One of Griffin's task was to clean up his party from all nationalists anti-zionist, the majority in the UK, and like zionist jew Geert Wilders, or other french 'Front National' puppets, to turn their parties as mouth-pieces of the zionist jews agenda of clash of civilisation in Europe, targeting specifically Muslims for the sake of Israel. All the far-extreme right wing parties in Europe are financed and backed by Zionist jews, from Sarkosy to Berlusconi, to Merkel, Brown and Cameron. Behind the scene Griffin is the mouthpiece of the war criminals and racists Jack Straw, and Netanyahu, their agenda is cristal clear, silence the Muslims in Europe by any mean. The same agenda the Zionists implemented during WWI and WWII...
Humiliation of Nick Griffin
Appearance of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on the BBC Program, Question Time1, has caused a furore and raised questions on the limitations of freedom of speech. Should an individual be permitted to express views that cause offence to a certain section of society? Even if the views are technically permitted by law, should the mass media encourage this by giving racist bigots like Nick Griffin a platform on a primetime TV? A more fundamental point in this debate is - should freedom of speech have a limit in the first place.
With the exception of Nick Griffin, there was consensus amongst all the panellists on the limitations of freedom of speech. Those limits specify that it is unacceptable to express views that are deemed racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. Most pertinently, you should not deny the holocaust; even to question this sacred subject is taboo. However, you can express anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim views, no matter how much offence it causes; in fact the more the better, because it is often used by sections of western societies as a barometer for freedom of expression. After struggling against the censorship for centuries, suddenly their freedom of expression rests on their ability to insult Islam and Muslims.
The political lightweight Nick Griffin was convincingly knocked out in the first round, and humiliated on all the issues, except when it came to the subject of Islam and Muslims. All the panellists failed to respond to the baseless anti-Islamic rants of Nick Griffin, except the ‘mufti’ ‘Syeda Warsi, whose answer was inadequate and superficial, not really worth dwelling upon.
It is not surprising for Nick Griffin to express anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim views, as a racist bigot naturally dislikes foreign people and their culture. Although, I am sure, many members of his party enjoy the Indian curry or the Turkish/Arabic kebab! I still remember the racists thugs would end up eating curry in the Indian/Pakistani restaurants in the evening, after taunting the Asian kids for smelling of curry during the day. Although these bigots were in the minority, but couple of drops of urine is sufficient to spoil a bowl of milk. The British society has progressed considerably since those times, but not the primitive members of the BNP.
When specifically asked by a member of the audience why Nick Griffin considers Islam a wicked and an evil religion, his response was on two points a) it oppresses women b) allegedly the Quran 'ordains as a religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims'.
Let us examine each of these points.
On the issue of women, it is perplexing as to why Nick Griffin would be concerned for Muslim women. After all, majority of the Muslims in the UK are from Asia and the Middle East, therefore clearly visible to eyes of the British National Party members, unlike the recent East European migrants!
If Islamic Laws were oppressive to women, they would naturally abandon Islamic values and exchange their modest clothing for the mini-skirt and the bikini. Nobody is forcing the Muslim women to remain as practising Muslims in secular West or in secular East. However, according to the mainstream media and major parties in the UK for some strange reasons they like to remain oppressed. What is even more puzzling, majority of the converts to Islam are in fact women, but these small details are always overlooked! How is it that such an evil religion continues to attract these women from all sections of a free society? Why do they choose to oppress themselves by embracing Islam?
The same kind of secular-prophecy was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan; the Anglo-American forces would liberate the Afghan women from their veil. It failed. Today in certain European countries, the attitude is, if the Muslim women do not want to be liberated from their modest clothing, we will force them to do so! This is a blatant contradiction with the notion of freedom, and reflects the mindset of medieval Europe on the verge of launching a liberal-inquisition.
With regards to the second point of killing Jews and non-Muslims, Nick Griffin did not elaborate with any reference from the Quran, of substantiate it by citing scholarly works and historical examples. There is no verse in the Quran orders the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. On the contrary, a section of Islamic law deals with how the non-Muslim population should be protected, hence they are known as the Dhimmis, which means the protected people. It is fact that non-Muslims flourished within the Islamic Societies, Jews and Christians lived peacefully under the Muslim rule in Spain for centuries, as they did in places like India, Syria, Turkey and Palestine. In fact, facing religious persecution in Christian Europe, the Jews sought sanctuary within the Ottoman Empire, and prospered there for centuries.
The rise of BNP (British National Party) can be partially attributed to the demonisation of Muslims and Islam fanned by sections of the mainstream media. The nasty propaganda machine has often reversed the roles of victim and aggressor. The cowboys were always the virtuous people chasing the terrorists of the time, the Native Americans, often depicted as irrational wild savages; of course nothing to do with the new colonisers taking over their lands and resources. Today the impression created in the minds of the masses is that the Muslims are the anti-Semitic, illustrated by reversing the role of victim (Palestinians) and aggressor (Zionist State) in the region.
It is easy to blame others for your problem, this is the politics of the far-right according to the likes of Jack Straw and others, however, the reality is the mainstream media and the major parties have a majority share of this blame game, along with sections of the Muslim community.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
----------
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 2:54 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Grande Bretagne occupee
if (window['tickAboveFold']) {window['tickAboveFold'](document.getElementById("latency-2021183733582674239")); } Tuesday, October 27, 2009
End of US-Israel empire : Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, the lost wars
Come on !Join the US-British-NATO armies, die for Israel !
CNN: 24 U.S. invaders killed in Afghanistan
October 27, 2009
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — The U.S. military suffered another day of heavy losses in Afghanistan on Tuesday as roadside bombs killed eight U.S. service members, the U.S. military said.
An Afghan civilian working with NATO troops also was killed in the attacks in southern Afghanistan, the military said.
The military gave no further details about the bombings, which it said also wounded several other service members.
The attacks happened a day after 14 Americans were killed in a pair of helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. It was the largest number of Americans killed in Afghanistan in a single day in more than four years.
With the deaths of two troops on Sunday, a total of 24 Americans — most of them military — have been killed in a 48-hour period. That makes October 2009, with 58 fatalities, the deadliest month for the U.S. military since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001.
Enemy action was not thought to be the cause of either of Monday's helicopter crashes. Three Drug Enforcement Administration special agents and seven U.S. troops were killed in one crash in western Afghanistan as they returned from a raid on a compound believed to be harboring insurgents tied to drug trafficking.
The other crash, in which two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan, killed four Marines.
But it is roadside bombs — commonly referred to as IEDs, short for improvised explosive devices — that have caused the majority of U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan in recent months.
Such attacks have been on a steady rise since February, and account for 70 percent of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan this year, according to U.S. military statistics.
"That's the number one threat," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in July about IEDs in Afghanistan. Eighty-two deadly attacks occurred in June — almost double the number from May — and 105 in July, according to the latest U.S. military statistics.
Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan, said he has noticed an "increasing sophistication" in the types of IEDs used.
"We're seeing some of the tactics, techniques and procedures that were used in Iraq, and were common there, migrate, obviously, here," Scaparrotti said in a recent briefing on operations in his area of command.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html?er…
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 10:33 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Afghanistan
if (window['tickAboveFold']) {window['tickAboveFold'](document.getElementById("latency-3637805062133004658")); }
La Chine serait en mesure de détruire les porte-avions US
Plusieurs pays musulmans, sud americains, seraient en possession de missiles supersonics, volant a pres de mach 2.5 (2500 km/heure), voir plus pour les versions les plus evoluees detenues par la Russie ou la Chine capables de frapper et detruire les flottes americaines, israeliennes, britanniques et francaises !
La Chine procède aux derniers tests de mise au point de son missile sol-mer Dong Feng 21. Disposant d’une technologie de pointe sans équivalent dans le monde, cet engin vole à Mach 10 dans un rayon d’action de 2 000 km.
En quelques années, la Chine est devenue le maître absolu des missiles sol-mer. Des engins à courte portée ont été testés victorieusement sur le champ de bataille, lors de la guerre israelo-libanaise de 2006. Des ingénieurs chinois, conseillers du Hezbollah, avaient gravement endommagé des bâtiments de guerre israéliens. La flotte de Tsahal n’avait dû son salut qu’à l’activation de puissants systèmes de brouillage qui avaient rendu impossibles les tirs suivants. Depuis, la Chine aurait sophistiqué ses systèmes de guidage pour qu’ils restent opérationnels malgré ce type de brouillage.
Si le Dong Feng 21 est effectivement opérationnel, il représente un bond technologique considérable et met fin pour plusieurs années à la suprématie navale des anglo-saxons. Ce missile pourrait atteindre les porte-avions US malgré leur complexe système de défense.
[Additif : Attention à l’homonymie. Le missile sol-mer actuel a été développé sous le nom Dong Feng 21 pour leurrer les observateurs étrangers. Cette dénomination est générique. Elle signifie littéralement « Vent d’Est » et était déjà utilisée dès les années 60 pour des engins assez primitifs. ]
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162315.html
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 6:02 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: China
if (window['tickAboveFold']) {window['tickAboveFold'](document.getElementById("latency-7316151480390954934")); } Could there be a motive for Israel to destabilize Iraq right now?
Look at the map!
In spite of the deal Iran has made with Russia and France about it´s nuclear enrichment program, Israel is still threatening an attack.
If Israel wants to attack Iran from it´s own territory it has to fly over Iraq. There is no other way.
We know that many Shiites in Iraq sympathize with Iran. We know, that no truly sovereign Iraqi government would give Israel permission to use Iraqi airspace for attacks on Iran, no matter who would win the upcoming elections.
And now after the reduction of American troops some areas of Iraq are now under full the control of Iran-friendly Shiites, who might possibly assist Iran in monitoring any missiles flying overhead and so increase Iran´s defensive capability.
Another factor might be, that with fewer US troops in Iraq, fewer can be used by Israel as human shields for their own attacks.
When Iran responds to an Israeli attack with attacking Israel, it´s Israel´s business. If Iran would attack American troops in Iraq, America would have to get involved.
In a speech at the Center for Security Policy last week Dick Cheney, one of the main Neocons and, without being Jewish still an Israel-firster, lambasted the Obama government for many things, including withdrawing partly from Iraq and planning further withdrawals:
Quote:
Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years.
Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.
Former President Bush’s bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.
Think about it, Obama promises Maliki to end American occupation in Iraq in the future (a promise he might or might not keep), an event all Iraqis have been waiting for for years, and Cheney spins it as a betrayal of “this young democracy”.
And then, yesterday, we had those devastating car-bomb attacks. And right away the media is talking about the Iraqi security forces being unable to provide security in their own country.
Today´s online edition of the New York Times declares:
Quote:
BAGHDAD — Two synchronized suicide car bombings struck at the heart of the Iraqi government here on Sunday, severely damaging the Justice Ministry and provincial council complexes, leaving a scene of carnage that raised new questions about the government’s ability to secure its most vital operations.
So in other words, the American troops need “to save” the Iraqis from themselves or from AlQaida or from the Syrian sponsored terrorists or whoever….
In case of an Israeli attack on Iran more American troops would, of course, either provide better chances for American involvement in Israel´s war or, at least, they would secure the air-space for Israel to have a better shooting range.
Note: 1 Evaluate: More - Less
Ven 6 Nov - 20:15