--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Ah, so many of life's little problems can be solved by head
vaporisation. -- Zixia in ARK
> test
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
dr...@sbcglobal.net
Noticeably missing from the list of over 80 sponsors Nawash rounded up was any
of the Muslim groups that claim to be moderates, such as the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
Though these groups pay lip service to opposing terrorism, they couldn’t put
their money where their mouth is and bring themselves to stand side-by-side
with the Free Muslim Coalition.
The reasons for the absence of the major national Muslim groups are obvious.
The empirical evidence has clearly demonstrated where the true loyalties of
organizations such as CAIR and MPAC lie. In this particular case, it is
anathema for many Muslim groups to identify themselves with the unambiguous
message of the rally. Nawash is among the few Muslim leaders—and certainly one
of the very few leaders of the overtly political Muslim groups—to explicitly
confront the real threat, the real root cause of terrorism: radical Islam.
Where most prominent Muslim leaders prefer ambiguity and moral equivalence,
Nawash stakes out an unmistakable position, not only opposing just violent
jihad, but the doctrines of Wahhabism and political Islam, as well. Nawash is,
without exception, against the creation of Islamic states—anywhere. The other
major Islamic organizations simply can’t take this position. Their refusal to
back even Nawash’s message exposes their true sympathies.
See No Evil
If other Muslim groups could even go as far as condemning specific acts of
Islamic terror, that would be a step in Nawash’s direction. But organizations
such as CAIR, for instance, have pointedly refused to condemn Islamic
terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, or even specific Islamic
terrorist attacks. The best example of the latter occurred after the murder,
burning, stoning, and mutilation of four American contractors in Fallujah,
Iraq. CAIR only condemned the mutilation as contrary to Islam, but did not
specifically condemn the murder, burning, or stoning of the men—a position
that was also taken by a leading Fallujah cleric.
MPAC’s terror apologist agenda has also become transparent. In a June 1999
publication, MPAC argued that Hezbollah’s 1983 attack killing 241 Americans in
Lebanon was not a terrorist attack. From its “Position Paper on U.S.
Counterterrorism Policy”: “Yet this attack, for all the pain it caused, was
not in a strict sense, a terrorist operation. It was a military operation,
producing no civilian casualties—exactly the kind of attack that Americans
might have lauded had it been directed against Washington’s enemies.”
Another of the major Islamic organizations, Muslim American Society (MAS),
actively promotes the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has served as
the theological inspiration for many leading terrorists. At a conference last
month, a consultant to the group passed out an MAS paper called, “An American
perspective on why the U.S. must engage the Muslim Brotherhood.”
A Deafening Silence
It is clear why Nawash poses such a great threat to groups like CAIR, MPAC,
and MAS: he is a genuine moderate Muslim leader who emphatically condemns not
just Islamic terror, but also any efforts to create “Islamic” states. His
unflinching stances make it much more difficult for these groups to engage in
verbal acrobatics by issuing vague condemnations of “terrorism” while
simultaneously refusing to admit the “Islamic” influence cited by its
perpetrators.
For participation in the rally, Nawash set a very low threshold: opposing
terrorism. (Almost every speaker, though, was careful to condemn Islamic
terrorism, and not just terrorism in the abstract.) By his own account, and by
that of others, Nawash actively tried to enlist the support of other Muslim
groups—but to no avail. Nawash most likely realized that no matter how low he
set the bar, none of his counter-parts would endorse an event sponsored by a
Muslim who unequivocally denounces Islamic terrorism and just as
enthusiastically supports free societies for Muslims everywhere.
CAIR, MPAC, MAS and other Islamic leaders – shown up by the real moderate
Muslims who locked arms with Nawash – were both testy and defensive. CAIR
forwarded all calls to Hussein Ibish, the former Communications Director at
the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an avowedly secular Muslim who
nevertheless does the dirty work of Islamists and radical Muslims. MPAC did
not return calls seeking comment, and did not appear to have given comment to
any other media outlet regarding the rally.
Shooting the Messenger
Of the two Muslim leaders who shunned the rally who were willing to give
comment—Ibish and MAS Executive Director Mahdi Bray—both resorted to attacking
the messenger.
In two rambling smear jobs at MuslimWakeUp.com, Ibish labeled Nawash’s FMC as
“the ugly” among leading Muslim groups, and called Nawash’s invitation for
other Muslim leaders to denounce radicalism a “crude ploy.” Ibish went so far
as to say that Nawash’s contention that other Muslim leaders don’t denounce
radical Islam is an “odious lie.” While Ibish find Nawash’s message “odious,”
it’s flat-out wrong to say it is a “lie”—especially when applied to Ibish
himself.
Appearing on CNN in August 2002, Mr. Ibish was asked about a 1991 fund-raising
letter from suspected (and now indicted) terrorist Sami al-Arian that read, in
part, “Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel and victory to
Islam! Revolution, revolution until victory! Rolling, rolling to Jerusalem!”
Rather than criticize those plainly radical—and violent—words, Ibish played
defense. “‘Death to Israel’ does not necessarily mean violence. Jihad can mean
a lot of things,” he explained. Ibish then abruptly switched the topic. “I’ll
tell you who is advocating violence. It is Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz,
who advocated torturing people.”
Ibish, of course, was not alone among Muslim leaders defending
al-Arian—despite a substantial body of evidence that had already been in the
public record since the mid-90's. MPAC, which had nothing to say regarding
Nawash and the rally, said after al-Arian’s arrest, “Dr. Al-Arian is being
punished for the non-crime of sparking dissent.”
After al-Arian was suspended in 2002 from his job as a University of South
Florida professor—but before his February 2003 arrest—CAIR expressed outrage
because he was “a respected leader in the community and a committed civil
rights advocate.” Even after the 50-count indictment laid out a comprehensive
case that included as evidence documents and wiretaps, CAIR wasted no time
reflexively defending the alleged Islamic terrorist, calling the arrest “a
fishing expedition by federal authorities using McCarthy-like tactics in a
search for evidence of wrongdoing that does not exist.”
Perhaps the biggest defenders of al-Arian, though, were the folks at MAS.
Immediately following the arrest, MAS official Shaker Elsayed bellowed, “This
is becoming a war on Muslim institutions.” Perhaps to stress that Elsayed’s
comment was no isolated outburst, MAS sent out a press release that
proclaimed: “The arrest of Professor Sami Al-Arian today conforms to a pattern
of political intimidation by an attorney general who seems to be targeting the
American Muslim community's leaders and institutions in a drive to erode
Americans' civil liberties.”
Doublespeak
When asked about Nawash and his rally, MAS leader Bray said, “It is absolutely
the right message, but Kamal is just the wrong messenger.” But if it’s
“absolutely the right message,” why isn't MAS congratulating the government
for prosecuting the likes of al-Arian instead of castigating it?
The game of claiming to have condemned Islamic terrorism or even radical Islam
without actually doing so is one that has been mastered by many Muslim
leaders. Ibish mocks the idea that Nawash is the first leader of a Muslim
political organization to condemn Islamic terrorism and radical Islam, but
when he was given the chance to do just that on CNN regarding al-Arian’s call
to jihad, Ibish actually defended the accused terrorist. To date, Ibish has
devoted more ink to attacking Nawash than all radical Muslims—combined.
Nawash has clearly taken his lumps from the supposed moderate Muslim leaders,
but that’s not to say he’s without a following. But think in the mode of the
“silent majority,” although in Nawash’s case, sadly, it’s almost certainly the
“silent plurality”—for now.
Common are e-mails and phone calls to Nawash where Muslims tell him how
important his message is, and how glad they are to finally have a Muslim
leader delivering it. But most still won’t side with Nawash publicly, which
partly helps explain the rally’s modest turnout of roughly 150-200. Yet the
rally was attended by several respected Muslim leaders, who gained a much
wider audience with the rally’s repeated airings on C-SPAN.
If there’s one thing that Nawash hopes to accomplish, it is to encourage other
Muslims to speak up just as he has. Notes Nawash, “People who might want to
speak out want somebody else to go first. Nobody wants to be a lone voice.”
Though not exactly a lone voice, Nawash must feel like one some
days—especially when he looks at his colleagues at the other national Muslim
organizations.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050529.shtml
Sovereignty hangs on in Europe
George Will
May 29, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The European Union, which has a flag no one salutes and an
anthem no one knows, now seeks ratification of a constitution few have read.
Surely only its authors have read its turgid earnestness without laughing,
which is one reason why the European project is foundering. On Sunday in
France, and Wednesday in Holland, Europe's elites -- political, commercial and
media -- may learn the limits of their ability to impose their political
fetishes on restive and rarely consulted publics.
The European project is the transformation of "Europe" from a geographic into
a political denotation. This requires the steady drainage of sovereignty from
national parliaments, and the "harmonization" of most economic and social
policies. But if any of the EU's 25 member nations rejects the proposed
constitution -- 11 have ratified it or are in the process of doing so -- it
shall not come into effect. And if French voters in Sunday's referendum reject
it, Dutch voters will be even more likely to do so in their nation's first
referendum in 200 years.
France and Holland are a third of the original six members of the EU's
precursor, the European Economic Community. The most important treaty in the
transformation of a Europe of states into a state of Europe was signed in 1992
in the Dutch city after which it is named -- Maastricht. The proposed
constitution, which is 10 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, was written
by a convention led by a former French president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
So why are these two nations being balky? Partly because, unusually, they are
allowed to be. The European project has come this far largely by bypassing
democracy.
Many French voters will use Sunday's referendum to vent grievances against
Jacques Chirac, who has been in power for 10 years, which would be excessive
even if he were not overbearing. Some French factions, their normal
obstreperousness leavened by paranoia, think the constitution is a conspiracy
to use "ultraliberalism" -- free markets -- to destroy their "social model."
That is the suffocating web of labor laws and other statism that gives France
double-digit unemployment -- a staggering 22 percent of those under age 25.
Furthermore, with a Muslim presence in France of 8 percent and rising, there
is a backlash against Chirac's championing of EU membership for Turkey, which
would be, by the time it joined, much the most populous EU country. Admission
of Turkey would further reduce -- more than did last year's admission of 10
nations, eight in Eastern Europe -- the EU's output per person, which
according to one study already ranks below that of 46 American states.
The 16 million Dutch, the largest per-capita net contributors to the EU, live
uneasily with a growing population of Muslim immigrants. The Dutch immigration
minister says "we have about 700,000 people who have been here for years but
who don't speak the language or have a clue about our most basic rules and
values." Many Dutch regard the proposed constitution as a device for sweeping
their little nation into a large, meddlesome entity of 450 million people,
with consequent dilution of self-determination.
The proposed constitution has 448 articles -- 441 more than the U.S.
Constitution. It is a jumble of pieties, giving canonical status to sentiments
such as "the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen" should
be protected. It establishes, among many other rights, a right to "social and
housing assistance" sufficient for a "decent existence." Presumably,
supranational courts and bureaucracies will define and enforce those rights,
as well as the right of children to "express their views fully." And it
stipulates that "preventive action should be taken" to protect the
environment.
The constitution says member states can "exercise their competence" only where
the EU does not exercise its. But the constitution gives EU institutions
jurisdiction over foreign affairs, defense, immigration, trade, energy,
agriculture, fishing, and much more. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is
scurrying crabwise away from his vow to hold a referendum on the constitution
even if France rejects it. But, then, how could any serious prime minister
countenance a constitution that renders his office a nullity?
T.S. Eliot, a better poet than philosopher, wrote: "The last temptation is the
greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason." Nonsense. If the
French and Dutch reject the constitution, they will do so for myriad reasons,
some of them foolish. But whatever the reasons, the result will be salutary
because the constitution would accelerate the leeching away of each nation's
sovereignty.
Sovereignty is a predicate of self-government. The deeply retrograde
constitution would reverse five centuries of struggle to give representative
national parliaments control over public finance and governance generally.
©2005 Washington Post Writers Group
--
-DarkSin-
There you go 1654518649
There you go 433011429
There you go 214889856
There you go 2974123441
There you go 144484414
There you go 1713620428
There you go 635014582
There you go 1484114939
There you go 262648113
There you go 641518515
There you go 385225881
There you go 840125964
There you go 120752735
There you go 1213911225
There you go 191714685
There you go 2615416624
There you go 157414489
--
Linux is only free if your time has no value
Path: 49.259.190.242!not-for-mail
From: <eml...@a-hua.com> (Emlynne)
Newsgroups: alt.just.testing
Subject: test
Message-ID: <81131f9d68c9fefe...@49.259.190.242>
Organization: something or another
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:32:48 +0800
testing2