Friday, September 28, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Mujahideen-e Khalq goes from "terrorist" to "freedom fighter" in perparation for war on Iran
Just as it had done with the KLA before the US/NATO war on Serbia, the USA is about to take the local terrorist group, in this case the Mujahideen-e Khalq, off its official terror list. That makes sense politically and it is legally necessary to make it easier to fund, train and otherwise assist it: US assistance to various terrorist groups worldwide is usually provided only covertly which, of course, complicates its delivery.
Besides, the overnight re-branding of the local terrorist groups into "freedom fighters" is the normal procedure before any overt military aggression against another country. Hence the following statement by Dana Rohrabacher:
The Saker
PS: a fitting tribute to the US regime
Besides, the overnight re-branding of the local terrorist groups into "freedom fighters" is the normal procedure before any overt military aggression against another country. Hence the following statement by Dana Rohrabacher:
"The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government."Yet another "indicator and warning" that an attack on Iran is in the making. The Imperial propaganda machine ("Innocence of Muslims", re-branding of Mujahideen-e Khalq) is now in full swing and the public opinion carefully "massaged" in preparation for a US assault on Iran.
The Saker
PS: a fitting tribute to the US regime
Thursday, September 20, 2012
And now, a word from an enlightened secularist
I hesitated for a while before posting this, but ugly as this guy is, he does deserve to be better known. For one thing, Pat Condell makes no secret of his rabid hatred for Islam, Christianity and any other religion or, for that matter, anybody religious. He is an iconic example of what I would call the "degenerate Crusader": he is still filled with the condescending arrogance of his Frankish civilizational progenitors but he expresses it in a very modern, "grinning homo" kind of style.
Listening to this man is definitely a rather most unpleasant, sickening, experience but, I would argue, a useful one. That is the true face of militant secularism and religious people should always remember that.
The Saker
Listening to this man is definitely a rather most unpleasant, sickening, experience but, I would argue, a useful one. That is the true face of militant secularism and religious people should always remember that.
The Saker
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
French magazing to publish "shocking caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed"
Amazing. According to Ha'aretz,
Excellent, the "gene pool" of the French "caviar-Left" badly needs some cleaning :-)
The Saker
A French satirical weekly magazine announced Tuesday it would publish caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed, a move that could spark further protests by Muslims already enraged at an internet video insulting Islam. Stephane Charbonnier, editor of the weekly Charlie Hebdo, told broadcaster iTele that the caricatures to appear Wednesday "would shock those who wanted to be shocked." He said the decision was aimed at defending freedom of the pressWorthy of the Darwin Awards, if you ask me.
Excellent, the "gene pool" of the French "caviar-Left" badly needs some cleaning :-)
The Saker
Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Sunday, September 16, 2012.
In The Name of Allah, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be upon our Master and Prophet – the Seal of prophets – Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household, his chosen companions and on all prophets and messengers. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
My word today will primary tackle what we have witnessed during the past few days – namely publishing sections from the movie insulting the Prophet of Allah, Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) and the protests which started taking place in the Arab and Islamic world. I want to pose before this great and serious incident – first in comprehending it, then in confronting its targets and third in the way which we must deal with it as we must all be responsible.
First we tackle what took place. It's the few minutes which were published on the various websites and I believe were watched by millions of people around the world. We do not know if they are tens of millions or hundreds of millions as this is available for all. It's also the insult to the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad (peace be upon him and his Household), to his own person, to his honor, to his wives, to the Holy Koran as a divine book, and to Islam as a religion. This is the truth. The few minutes which we watched manifest insults in all of these directions.
I believe that this extent of insult is very great and very dangerous. Perhaps I may also claim that it is unprecedented so far. Even if we wanted to compare that to the Book (Devilish Verses) for the apostate Salman Rushdi or the sketches insulting the Prophet of Allah, Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) which were published in some European newspapers or the blazing of some copies of the Koran in the USA, we find that though all of these incidents are great and serious, our case today is even greater and more serious.
After all, as far as the (Devilish Verses) is concerned, it did not reach the hands of many. Whoever wants to know the content of the book must buy the book and read it or search for it if it is found on the internet. As for the sketches, they are insulting on a definite direction. As for burning the Koran, the motives are well known. However, in this case we are before scenes which are comprehended by the young and the old. Even you don't need to know the language. It is also available through the internet which is accessible worldwide.
So, in content, form and accessibility, what took place and is taking place is very great and serious. What is even worse is the insistence of the websites on publishing these scenes and on carrying on broadcasting them and on not stopping doing so.
This is a very serious incident on the track of the war and insult against Islam and the Great Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household). This requires a great stance from the great Islamic nation that stands the danger and aggression. That's because our Great Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) is the greatest, the holiest, the most honorable and dignified man we belong to after Allah Al Mighty. I even believe that what took place is more serious than burning Al Aqsa Mosque in 1969. In 1969, when a section of Al Aqsa Mosque was burnt, the Arab and Islamic states met and a summit on the level of presidents, kings, princes and rules was held and through this summit, the Organization of Islamic Conference (which is now known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) was founded. Silence on this extent and magnitude of insult to the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him and his Household) is more serious.
I will tell you what is even more serious. The nation which remains silent on this level, this extent and this magnitude of insult to its Prophet is conveying a wrong message to the Israelis to the effect that you can demolish Al Aqsa Mosque because you are before a dormant impotent nation which is unable to do anything.
Today, defending the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household) is defending all the sanctities, is defending Al Aqsa Mosque, is defending all prophets – Abrams, Moses, and Jesus Christ, and is defending all divine religions and all divine books. Thus comprehending the magnitude of the cause puts us before obligations. Thus we must not deal with the case as incidental which we may overcome or as the other casual incidents which take place around us in the world.
The second point is how to deal with this incident and how to confront it. On the level of sound reflection, in confronting any incident on a people or a nation – whether it was a military, political, intellectual, cultural or economic aggression - we must usually work on two levels:
The first level is knowing the targets of the aggressions and working at crippling them or frustrating them – meaning preventing the aggression from achieving its goals.
The second level is working at preventing the recurrence of this aggression in the future. That means shutting the door tight before such aggressions and letting the aggressor understand that he is not allowed to return to this aggression or sin or crime. People usually work on these two levels.
First, I will talk about the first level. There are goals for this repetitive insult to Islam, the Prophet of Allah, and the Holy Book of Allah. We must set a group of supposed goals. We do not have enough time to tackle them all. However, I would like to pose before one of these serious targets which is causing sedition between Muslims and Christians, and dragging Muslims and Christians to a religious, sectarian, bloody struggle worldwide. This is one of the fixed targets for this form of aggression which is practiced from time to time. What stresses this concept is the groups that stand behind this kind of aggressions. We may talk about the Zionism. We may talk about some Jewish groups. We may talk about Israel. However who must be in the front? It must be a Muslim apostate such as Salman Rushdi or a Christian. In the incident of burning copies of the Holy Koran, a Christian Clergyman –Jones – is hurled to the front to do that before the eyes and in the hearing of the whole world.
This insulting movie is referred to a Copt clergyman called so and so. I don't want to mention his name because we must verify these media data. However the case is referred to a Copt clergyman and to a Copt Christian society in the USA. Why clergymen, priests and Christian societies are hurled to the front so that under their name insulting Islam, the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic nation is perpetrated?
This is intentional and deliberate. The same applies to the European newspapers and the artists who drew sketches insulting the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household). They suppose that when Muslims watch these movies or see these sketches they will grow angry for their Prophet, Koran and religion. And as the mind of revenge, reprisal, anger and agitation would act first, Christian sides would be accused and Christians would be aggressed against as well as Christian churches and Christian sanctities and Christian religious symbols. Thus we – as Muslims and Christians - would get involved in a sectarian, religious, bloody war. Consequently, Israel, the Jewish-Zionist movement and Zionist Christianity would mount the ivory tower to see mosques and churches being set to fire and the disjointed limbs of men, women and children whether Muslims or Christians scattered here and there. Thus their far-fetched aspirations would be achieved.
Praise be to Allah, spiritual and political leaders whether Muslims or Christians, scored high in the way they dealt with such incidents in the past.
Facing this new incident, the wrath of the Arab and Islamic peoples was directed towards the policies of the USA and Israel instead of towards Christians. This is an excellent and a positive indicator because it manifests a great extent of awareness among Muslims and Christians alike. All were worried on Egypt above all because the insulting movie was referred to Egyptian Copts as was reported in the media. It is clear that some are pushing things towards fighting between Muslims and Copts in Egypt.
Anyway, today also Christian religious and political leaders on top of whom are the senior patriarchs of the Christian sects in the East made haste and condemned the insulting movie. This also had a decisive effect in crippling this goal as it is expected that this aggression carries on in various forms in the future as it is not over yet because the scenes are still broadcasted on the internet. Even more the producers and the concerned in this movie are still threatening of publishing the whole movie. They talk about a two-hour-movie. If twelve minutes were not bore by human heart and tolerated by a human being, how can man bear two hours?
Before the continuing aggression which is expected to be renewed in other forms, this awareness among Muslims and Christians must be asserted as well as not allowing moving towards ordeal in any country or square or place in this world. The persons who are directly concerned in this film and those who back them, support them and protect them – on top of whom is the USA - must be held responsible, tried, punished and boycotted. By the way, the same applies to the cases in which aggressions are staged against Christian churches, Christian civilians, or Christian sanctities by groups referred to Islam in some countries. Christians also are supposed to limit the conflict to the aggressors and their supporters and protectors so as to evade any form of sedition. That's because we decisively say that some of these groups which are referred to Islam are manipulated by foreign intelligence apparatuses which work for the same goal I tackled a while ago.
This is as far as the first level is concerned – i.e. working at frustrating the goals of this insult and this aggression on the dignity of the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic Nation. Indeed there are other goals which we may tackle in other occasions such as insulting Islam, deforming the Islamic intellect, deforming the Islamic line of conduct and the events of the first era in Islam. This also must be confronted in addition to other goals.
I will talk about the second level which is preventing such an aggression in a while in the framework of the following point.
Third, this movie was produced in the USA. Let's specify things in a realistic way. The movie was produced in the USA. There are persons concerned in producing this movie, achieving it as well as promoting it.
Good! Muslims are telling the American government: The movie was produced in the USA. You are saying – as they tried in the past few days to say – that you are not concerned in the production of the movie. Even some in the Arab and Islamic world tried to defend the US administration in this framework saying the US administration is not concerned. I do not want to argue this point and who stands behind the movie and who funds it…. We will leave this to time.
However, the Islamic world whose Great Prophet and his dignity, honor and Koran were insulted demands the following from the US government:
First, stop publishing the scenes referred to the insulting movie. However, the US government does not do anything. They said that they contacted the concerned site and the latter said they will not stop broadcasting the scenes. Here the story ends.
The Islamic world calls on the US government to prevent publishing the entire movie later on.
The Islamic world calls on the USA to try and punish those who aggressed against the dignity, religion and the honor of a billion and 400 million people in this world. It is an entire nation. In fact, it is one of the greatest nations in the Globe. However, the US administration does not take any action. On the contrary, it is saying that it will not do anything whether now or in the future. The pretext is well known. It is the very symphony of freedoms, freedom of expression and the US principles and the like.
Brothers and sisters! The USA is offering new additional evidence on its hypocrisy, delusion and double standards in dealing with causes which have to do with entire nations at times. We heard as you did – and I do not want to reiterate much of the information – in the past few days on satellite TV channels, many dialogues and statements which tackled this case and evidences were mentioned that the case is not as such whether in the USA or Europe. They gave many evidences on trying and punishing intellectual, political and media personalities, societies, institutions, satellite channels, websites and employees in the public and private sectors as well as states and conferences because of their intellectual track and because of what they express their viewpoints in only. They gave examples that such sides would be sanctioned because they do not take a stance from the Zionist cause or because they talk about Israel's massacres in Occupied Palestine or are skeptic about the Holocaust or the like. They named some personalities starting by Roger Garaudy to journalists, intellectuals and states. They even said that the USA links much of its aids to many of the states in the world not only to the level of their official performance, but also to the performance of the private sector in that state with respect to Anti-Semitism. Doesn't this come under the freedom of expression?
On 16/10/2004, President George Bush endorsed an act pursuing Anti-Semitism worldwide. Some sides said that this act targets any conduct, statement, or allusion in word, action, images, caricature, sketches or writing that harms Jews, Zionists or Israel in a direct or in an indirect way as a discrimination against Jews – and it noticeably equates between Jews, Israel and Zionism. Even more, they set procedural mechanisms. They formed a special chamber in the State Department concerned in implementing this act on the level of the USA and the world as well as on the level of the performance of governments around the world besides the private and nongovernmental organizations in the world. The US State Department presents its report yearly to the US Administration and the Senate. On light of this report, measures and sanctions are taken against governments, states, institutions and persons. Isn't that so? This is not on the level of the USA only but also on the level of the world as a whole.
This has been put to action and is still taking place since 2004 up till today. TV channels were sanctions. For example because Al Manar TV Channel broadcasted (The Exodus) series, it was tried and fought in France and in the world. The same applies to other TV channels.
Don't Muslims – the nation of a billion and 400 million Muslims and the followers of a great divine religion and the followers of a Great Prophet and who have this status and presence in the world – deserve that a similar act be issued, or is it rather that here freedom of expression must be confronted while in that case it must be open wide?
So as far as this point is concerned, I will only say: We are anew before deception and hypocrisy. This is new evidence on the deception, hypocrisy and double standards of the USA in dealing with causes which do not have to do with politics or economy or security or wars only but also with dignities, sanctities and what harms nations as a whole.
This must be deep-rooted in the awareness of the Arab and Islamic peoples as well as in the awareness of all peace, coexistence and tolerance loving peoples in the world whether they are Christians or followers of other religions, ideas or ideologies.
Fourth comes working on preventing the renewal of such an aggression in the future. This is what is most important. That means that we do not become satisfied in protesting, demonstrating and expressing our anger today and then go back home. Well, such protests took place in the past and they did not prevent the repetition of the aggression on our Prophet, sanctities and Koran. They will not prevent that now or in the future.
In the past and in confronting (Devilish Verses), protests took place and they were more massive than the current protests. Imam Khomeini (May Allah glorify his secret) issued his well-known fatwa, and he was backed by senior Muslim religious men in the world. This had a very effective influence and such an aggression was prevented for years. In fact, the book and the author were besieged as well as the concerned bookshops, publication houses…. That led to excellent results in this domain. However, lately, we came back to the same old story: insulting sketches in European newspapers, burning copies of the Koran and now the case is even more dangerous and greater as I said at the beginning of my word.
What does that mean? We must move towards closing this door decisively tight. Now this is the historic responsibility which is shouldered by the entire Islamic Nation as well as every honorable Christian who cares and believes in coexistence and religious tolerance. This is the occasion to put a decisive end to this cause and to close the door tight forever.
Is that possible? Yes, that is possible through several things. Let's give some examples. I am not bringing anything new. I am rather organizing the idea.
First: Working on issuing an international act in various senior international institutions which criminalizes insulting divine religions at least or at least the great prophets especially Abrams, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (Peace be on them all). This is possible and within reach when an international act or resolution is issued on condition of being bound in all nations and governments around the world and even applicable over national laws in any state around the world. This closes the door tight because everyone would know that whoever writes or draws or produces a movie or publishes…would be punished in any place around the world and will not find any defender or protector.
This is possible and within reach and later we will talk about its mechanism.
Second: This is possible not only on the international level but also in the USA and Europe themselves.
Well, in the United States, didn't the Congress issue an act which criminalizes Anti-Semitism?
The Congress may issue a similar act which criminalizes insulting the great prophets of Allah. What does forbid that? The legal reasons are similar. The same legal reasons in Anti-Semitism exist here. Why do they criminalize here and they don't criminalize there?
In this perspective, the Islamic communities in the USA assume a great historic religious responsibility. Are they able to press to this effect? Zionists or Jews or the Jewish societies are not more in number. They may be more influential. Still the Islamic societies and communities in the USA may practice pressure in this perspective.
The case here is not linked to one of the Muslim sects or one of the Muslim personalities. It is linked to the Prophet of Muslims and the Koran of Muslims. Now as the US presidential elections are approaching, Islamic communities in the United States can play a forceful pressing role to the effect of issuing such acts or gaining commitments from this or that competing parties to the effect of issuing such an act.
The so called friends of America in the Islamic and Arab world can also practice pressure in this direction. I will tackle the mechanism for this step in a while. The entire free world must pressure in this direction.
The case is not anymore that of aggressing on the dignity of a person. The case started harming and will in the future harm regional, national and international peace and security. We do not know how things may move, and we do not know if the wrath of hundreds of millions among the followers of this prophet or that prophet who are insulted may be reigned.
The same applies to the European parliaments and the European Parliament. Well, now in the European parliaments similar acts are being issued. Whoever denies the so and so massacre would be criminalized. Whoever denies the Holocaust would be criminalized. Didn't Garaudy face this calamity? So let them issue acts to this effect: whoever insults the divine religions will be criminalized. As such, this door will be shut close forever.
As for follow up mechanisms, the issue requires a call for an emergency summit for the Organization of Islamic Conference. Well an attempt to burn or burning a section of Al Aqsa Mosque led to the establishment of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Few weeks ago, an Islamic Summit was held in Holy Mecca even under the pretext of what is taking place in Burma or in Syria or in Palestine. However, what is taking place today is greater and more serious.
This is your Prophet! O rulers, kings, princes and presidents! This is your Prophet. This is your Koran! This is your Islam! This is your religion! This is your nation which dignity is being insulted today. It is weird that many among you are not taking any action. I swear that if this movie tackled one of the Arab and Muslims' kings, princes, or presidents as it tackled Mohammad, the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him and his Household), you would have noticed the wrath of this king, prince or president and his family, party, government and country in a way different from what we are witnessing now. This is really sorrowful.
So as for the follow up mechanism, an emergency summit for the Organization of Islamic Conference must be held. If we are very feeble in the Arab and Islamic world, at least an emergency session for the Foreign Ministers in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation may be held, and a draft resolution or a draft law would be set. Thus all Arab and Islamic states may head to the UN, the USA, and Europe and call for this law to become an international law, an American law and a European law. We are a nation which owns marvelous capabilities on the political, economic, materialistic, media, cultural and intellectual levels. Are we to this extent unable to defend our prophet, Koran and sanctities?
The responsibility of the Islamic peoples today is to demand that from its rulers and governments. This is the least we may do as Islamic peoples to this effect. It is not enough to express our wrath towards the US Embassy here and there. We must tell our rulers in the Arab and Islamic world that this is your responsibility above all. As you represent officially the Arab and Islamic governments and states, you are able to impose on the USA and Europe and on the whole world to respect our Prophet, Koran, sanctities and the honor of our Prophet.
This is the public stance, and this is the sound conduct. If we want to confront the aggression, and if we want to prevent an aggression on the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), the Koran, the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), the honor of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), Islam, and religion in the future, we must move in this direction and we must let the whole world understand that this cause has a sequel and that the nation can't remain silent on continual harm and insult in this appalling and serious way.
As for Lebanon, indeed and praise be to Allah in the past three days – today and the past couple of days – Lebanon expressed a high level of immunity in confronting the target of the aggression I tackled in the previous point – the religious struggle between Muslims and Christians. On the contrary, Lebanon presented a new model and evidence on coexistence between Muslims and Christians and on their living in unity and mutual respect for each others' religious symbols, sanctities, and personalities. This is what we have witnessed in the past three days through the visit of the Head of the Catholic Church in the world to Lebanon, and the meetings that comprised Muslim and Christian religious leaderships, Muslim and Christian political leaderships and symbols, and Muslim and Christian people and youths. The visit was wrapped up peacefully and to the national and public interest God willing.
Lebanon, the country of coexistence, can play a special and distinctive role because it is a country of Islamic-Christian coexistence and because what took place and what is taking place now is targeting the Prophet of Islam and the sanctities of Muslims by persons who are referred to Christianity. Lebanon has a special post in this confrontation. Hereof, I address His Eminence the President of the Republic, the Speaker, the Parliament, the Premier, the Lebanese Government, religious leaderships, Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, and the various political movements (March 8 and March 14 Blocs) because this issue is above political divisions and internal conflicts. I address them saying: In this stage, Lebanon may play the role of a message on the international level. How is that so? Lebanon now is a member in the Arab League. It chairs the Arab Foreign Ministers Council. It is a member in the OIC. It is a member in the UN General Assembly. In the coming few weeks, the UN General Assembly will convene. Lebanon may call for an emergency session for the Arab League at the level of foreign ministers at least. Still Lebanon may call on Iraq – and I call on the Iraqi government to take such a step. Official Lebanon may make a call upon a national, popular, official and political consensus, for an Islamic summit for the OIC to adopt such ideas: criminalizing insulting the great prophets of Allah, the divine religions and the divine books.
Lebanon may do that. Religious leaders through their meetings and through their relations with the Arab and Islamic world and the world, especially Europe, may also play a distinctive role in this perspective.
The Lebanese government must take a decisive stance. The Lebanese parliament must take a decisive stance. Speaker brethren Nabih Berri has a long and vast experience in dealing with Arab, Islamic and international parliaments. He also can play a role in the Lebanese Parliament, and can as well have a distinctive role on the parliamentary level worldwide to the effect of endorsing acts of this kind in world parliaments.
Yes! Lebanon can play a role much larger than its size as Lebanon has always been larger than its size in causes that have to do with culture, values, civilization, intellect, living in unity, and divine religions. Today Lebanon is called on to play a great role of this kind.
On the popular level, popular demands must carry on. As concerning the first level, first people must call for stopping publishing these scenes on the internet. Second, they must call for preventing publishing the whole movie later on. Third, they must call for trying and punishing those concerned in the insulting movie so that they be taken as an example for anyone who might think of aggressing against our prophet and Koran. This is possible through popular movements on the level of the Islamic world and the whole world. Demonstration is one form of popular movements as well as protests, sit-ins, statements, meetings, articles…. The media plays a very great role here besides political forces, elite movements, and popular movements. Cadres may be formed in every country – a committee or a pursuing chamber – to pursue such persons and to follow up the primary cause and to work for introducing laws that criminalize insulting divine religions in law institutions in the world. So, all of these actions must carry on.
Here also I must call the attention of the Arab and Islamic peoples and of Muslims in general to the fact that America's friends in the world and in the Arab and Islamic world specially will work at cooling things down so that people forget. Events and causes will be fabricated, and the media and Arab satellites will be made to focus on them upon the call of the US Administration so that this cause would faint. Thus we must be cautious. Today the Muslims living in this age and generation assume a very great historic, moral, religious, and faithful responsibility. If we do not fully assume the responsibility, they will again insult our Prophet as well as all the former prophets and our Holy Book as well as all holy books and all religions and the dignity of the entire nation.
Also on the Lebanese level, indeed we must have taken the initiative to call for demonstrations earlier. However, as I have said, in the past few days, we had a special situation and we feared any popular movement may be exploited in any of the Lebanese regions for wrong ends which may serve the goal of the enemy. Thus we chose Monday to be the beginning of the movement though we were among the first to issue statements and to announce their condemnation for the insult and their willingness to confront.
Our call for demonstration tomorrow in Dahiyeh at five pm is part of a movement which must carry on and integrate in Lebanon as well as in the Arab and Islamic world. I tell the peoples in the Arab and Islamic world and in every country and state: We must not be content that in the so and so capital they demonstrated saying that is enough. No! In every city – I am not saying in every village – Muslims must hit the street and express their wrath and anger.
The entire world, world governments and world parliaments must see this as it is very influential. All of these governments and parliaments must understand that their interests with our Arab and Islamic world are linked to their respect to the sanctities of the Arab and Islamic world.
In Lebanon, tomorrow, Inshallah we will have a rally in Dahiyeh. I am not telling people to bother themselves and come from the various regions. This rally is for Great Beirut – meaning Beirut and its suburbs and its southern suburb (Dahiyeh) as movements in the other regions will take place as well. I am calling for demonstration in the city of Tyr on Wednesday afternoon, in the city of Baalbeck on Friday after prayers, in the city of Bint Jbeil on Saturday afternoon and in the city of Hermel on Sunday afternoon. We may work at least at the level of these dates. We call on the residents of the neighboring towns and districts to participate in the rallies in these cities. Thus let the district be the center for these movements all through the coming days to express this stance.
Wrapping up my word, I would like also to make a call for those whom I am calling to assume the responsibility and to demonstrate. I tell them all those we are calling on to demonstrate in the coming few days and especially those whom we expect and wait for their attendance tomorrow Monday at five in the afternoon in front of Sayyed Ashuhada (Peace be upon him) Compound in Dahiyeh:
O honorable people! You were always present in the squares of defense of dignity, honor, pride, sovereignty, the nation and sanctities. When blood was supposed to be shed, you offered your blood. When souls were to be offered, you offered your souls. When offering the dear one was demanded, you offered your dear ones as sacrifices. When money was to be offered, you were not reluctant to give your money and homes. You bore great risks and pains. You never failed to partake in the procession of obligation fulfillment.
O honorable ones! Every year on the tenth of Muharam you flood squares and fields whether men, women, young, or elderly for long hours to answer the call of Al Hussein (Peace be upon him) – the grandson of the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him): Who is there to offer me support? On every tenth of Muharram of every year, you tell him with your hearts, voices and upraised fists: At your service, O Hussein!
O honorable people! He who is calling on you today is the grandfather of Al Hussein (Peace be upon him). He is Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) who was insulted as well as his dignity and morals though he is the greatest moral man in existence and in history. His Koran, honor, wives, religion, Islam, history and biography were insulted. So answer the call of your Great Prophet and Messenger.
O Honorable people! The whole world must see you tomorrow and in the coming few days in Dahiyeh, Tyr, Baalbeck, Bint Jbeil, Hermel and in every city you are responsible in as well as in every place you are present in the Arab and Islamic world and in the world as Lebanese communities. The whole world must see the wrath in your faces, fists and shouts. The whole world must know that this Great Prophet has followers who will not remain silent on insult or humiliation no matter how precious sacrifices were. Let the shouts be strong, resonant and reverberating tomorrow with the call: At your service, O Prophet of Allah! Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
My word today will primary tackle what we have witnessed during the past few days – namely publishing sections from the movie insulting the Prophet of Allah, Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) and the protests which started taking place in the Arab and Islamic world. I want to pose before this great and serious incident – first in comprehending it, then in confronting its targets and third in the way which we must deal with it as we must all be responsible.
First we tackle what took place. It's the few minutes which were published on the various websites and I believe were watched by millions of people around the world. We do not know if they are tens of millions or hundreds of millions as this is available for all. It's also the insult to the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad (peace be upon him and his Household), to his own person, to his honor, to his wives, to the Holy Koran as a divine book, and to Islam as a religion. This is the truth. The few minutes which we watched manifest insults in all of these directions.
I believe that this extent of insult is very great and very dangerous. Perhaps I may also claim that it is unprecedented so far. Even if we wanted to compare that to the Book (Devilish Verses) for the apostate Salman Rushdi or the sketches insulting the Prophet of Allah, Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) which were published in some European newspapers or the blazing of some copies of the Koran in the USA, we find that though all of these incidents are great and serious, our case today is even greater and more serious.
After all, as far as the (Devilish Verses) is concerned, it did not reach the hands of many. Whoever wants to know the content of the book must buy the book and read it or search for it if it is found on the internet. As for the sketches, they are insulting on a definite direction. As for burning the Koran, the motives are well known. However, in this case we are before scenes which are comprehended by the young and the old. Even you don't need to know the language. It is also available through the internet which is accessible worldwide.
So, in content, form and accessibility, what took place and is taking place is very great and serious. What is even worse is the insistence of the websites on publishing these scenes and on carrying on broadcasting them and on not stopping doing so.
This is a very serious incident on the track of the war and insult against Islam and the Great Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household). This requires a great stance from the great Islamic nation that stands the danger and aggression. That's because our Great Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) is the greatest, the holiest, the most honorable and dignified man we belong to after Allah Al Mighty. I even believe that what took place is more serious than burning Al Aqsa Mosque in 1969. In 1969, when a section of Al Aqsa Mosque was burnt, the Arab and Islamic states met and a summit on the level of presidents, kings, princes and rules was held and through this summit, the Organization of Islamic Conference (which is now known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) was founded. Silence on this extent and magnitude of insult to the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him and his Household) is more serious.
I will tell you what is even more serious. The nation which remains silent on this level, this extent and this magnitude of insult to its Prophet is conveying a wrong message to the Israelis to the effect that you can demolish Al Aqsa Mosque because you are before a dormant impotent nation which is unable to do anything.
Today, defending the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household) is defending all the sanctities, is defending Al Aqsa Mosque, is defending all prophets – Abrams, Moses, and Jesus Christ, and is defending all divine religions and all divine books. Thus comprehending the magnitude of the cause puts us before obligations. Thus we must not deal with the case as incidental which we may overcome or as the other casual incidents which take place around us in the world.
The second point is how to deal with this incident and how to confront it. On the level of sound reflection, in confronting any incident on a people or a nation – whether it was a military, political, intellectual, cultural or economic aggression - we must usually work on two levels:
The first level is knowing the targets of the aggressions and working at crippling them or frustrating them – meaning preventing the aggression from achieving its goals.
The second level is working at preventing the recurrence of this aggression in the future. That means shutting the door tight before such aggressions and letting the aggressor understand that he is not allowed to return to this aggression or sin or crime. People usually work on these two levels.
First, I will talk about the first level. There are goals for this repetitive insult to Islam, the Prophet of Allah, and the Holy Book of Allah. We must set a group of supposed goals. We do not have enough time to tackle them all. However, I would like to pose before one of these serious targets which is causing sedition between Muslims and Christians, and dragging Muslims and Christians to a religious, sectarian, bloody struggle worldwide. This is one of the fixed targets for this form of aggression which is practiced from time to time. What stresses this concept is the groups that stand behind this kind of aggressions. We may talk about the Zionism. We may talk about some Jewish groups. We may talk about Israel. However who must be in the front? It must be a Muslim apostate such as Salman Rushdi or a Christian. In the incident of burning copies of the Holy Koran, a Christian Clergyman –Jones – is hurled to the front to do that before the eyes and in the hearing of the whole world.
This insulting movie is referred to a Copt clergyman called so and so. I don't want to mention his name because we must verify these media data. However the case is referred to a Copt clergyman and to a Copt Christian society in the USA. Why clergymen, priests and Christian societies are hurled to the front so that under their name insulting Islam, the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic nation is perpetrated?
This is intentional and deliberate. The same applies to the European newspapers and the artists who drew sketches insulting the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household). They suppose that when Muslims watch these movies or see these sketches they will grow angry for their Prophet, Koran and religion. And as the mind of revenge, reprisal, anger and agitation would act first, Christian sides would be accused and Christians would be aggressed against as well as Christian churches and Christian sanctities and Christian religious symbols. Thus we – as Muslims and Christians - would get involved in a sectarian, religious, bloody war. Consequently, Israel, the Jewish-Zionist movement and Zionist Christianity would mount the ivory tower to see mosques and churches being set to fire and the disjointed limbs of men, women and children whether Muslims or Christians scattered here and there. Thus their far-fetched aspirations would be achieved.
Praise be to Allah, spiritual and political leaders whether Muslims or Christians, scored high in the way they dealt with such incidents in the past.
Facing this new incident, the wrath of the Arab and Islamic peoples was directed towards the policies of the USA and Israel instead of towards Christians. This is an excellent and a positive indicator because it manifests a great extent of awareness among Muslims and Christians alike. All were worried on Egypt above all because the insulting movie was referred to Egyptian Copts as was reported in the media. It is clear that some are pushing things towards fighting between Muslims and Copts in Egypt.
Anyway, today also Christian religious and political leaders on top of whom are the senior patriarchs of the Christian sects in the East made haste and condemned the insulting movie. This also had a decisive effect in crippling this goal as it is expected that this aggression carries on in various forms in the future as it is not over yet because the scenes are still broadcasted on the internet. Even more the producers and the concerned in this movie are still threatening of publishing the whole movie. They talk about a two-hour-movie. If twelve minutes were not bore by human heart and tolerated by a human being, how can man bear two hours?
Before the continuing aggression which is expected to be renewed in other forms, this awareness among Muslims and Christians must be asserted as well as not allowing moving towards ordeal in any country or square or place in this world. The persons who are directly concerned in this film and those who back them, support them and protect them – on top of whom is the USA - must be held responsible, tried, punished and boycotted. By the way, the same applies to the cases in which aggressions are staged against Christian churches, Christian civilians, or Christian sanctities by groups referred to Islam in some countries. Christians also are supposed to limit the conflict to the aggressors and their supporters and protectors so as to evade any form of sedition. That's because we decisively say that some of these groups which are referred to Islam are manipulated by foreign intelligence apparatuses which work for the same goal I tackled a while ago.
This is as far as the first level is concerned – i.e. working at frustrating the goals of this insult and this aggression on the dignity of the Prophet of Islam and the Islamic Nation. Indeed there are other goals which we may tackle in other occasions such as insulting Islam, deforming the Islamic intellect, deforming the Islamic line of conduct and the events of the first era in Islam. This also must be confronted in addition to other goals.
I will talk about the second level which is preventing such an aggression in a while in the framework of the following point.
Third, this movie was produced in the USA. Let's specify things in a realistic way. The movie was produced in the USA. There are persons concerned in producing this movie, achieving it as well as promoting it.
Good! Muslims are telling the American government: The movie was produced in the USA. You are saying – as they tried in the past few days to say – that you are not concerned in the production of the movie. Even some in the Arab and Islamic world tried to defend the US administration in this framework saying the US administration is not concerned. I do not want to argue this point and who stands behind the movie and who funds it…. We will leave this to time.
However, the Islamic world whose Great Prophet and his dignity, honor and Koran were insulted demands the following from the US government:
First, stop publishing the scenes referred to the insulting movie. However, the US government does not do anything. They said that they contacted the concerned site and the latter said they will not stop broadcasting the scenes. Here the story ends.
The Islamic world calls on the US government to prevent publishing the entire movie later on.
The Islamic world calls on the USA to try and punish those who aggressed against the dignity, religion and the honor of a billion and 400 million people in this world. It is an entire nation. In fact, it is one of the greatest nations in the Globe. However, the US administration does not take any action. On the contrary, it is saying that it will not do anything whether now or in the future. The pretext is well known. It is the very symphony of freedoms, freedom of expression and the US principles and the like.
Brothers and sisters! The USA is offering new additional evidence on its hypocrisy, delusion and double standards in dealing with causes which have to do with entire nations at times. We heard as you did – and I do not want to reiterate much of the information – in the past few days on satellite TV channels, many dialogues and statements which tackled this case and evidences were mentioned that the case is not as such whether in the USA or Europe. They gave many evidences on trying and punishing intellectual, political and media personalities, societies, institutions, satellite channels, websites and employees in the public and private sectors as well as states and conferences because of their intellectual track and because of what they express their viewpoints in only. They gave examples that such sides would be sanctioned because they do not take a stance from the Zionist cause or because they talk about Israel's massacres in Occupied Palestine or are skeptic about the Holocaust or the like. They named some personalities starting by Roger Garaudy to journalists, intellectuals and states. They even said that the USA links much of its aids to many of the states in the world not only to the level of their official performance, but also to the performance of the private sector in that state with respect to Anti-Semitism. Doesn't this come under the freedom of expression?
On 16/10/2004, President George Bush endorsed an act pursuing Anti-Semitism worldwide. Some sides said that this act targets any conduct, statement, or allusion in word, action, images, caricature, sketches or writing that harms Jews, Zionists or Israel in a direct or in an indirect way as a discrimination against Jews – and it noticeably equates between Jews, Israel and Zionism. Even more, they set procedural mechanisms. They formed a special chamber in the State Department concerned in implementing this act on the level of the USA and the world as well as on the level of the performance of governments around the world besides the private and nongovernmental organizations in the world. The US State Department presents its report yearly to the US Administration and the Senate. On light of this report, measures and sanctions are taken against governments, states, institutions and persons. Isn't that so? This is not on the level of the USA only but also on the level of the world as a whole.
This has been put to action and is still taking place since 2004 up till today. TV channels were sanctions. For example because Al Manar TV Channel broadcasted (The Exodus) series, it was tried and fought in France and in the world. The same applies to other TV channels.
Don't Muslims – the nation of a billion and 400 million Muslims and the followers of a great divine religion and the followers of a Great Prophet and who have this status and presence in the world – deserve that a similar act be issued, or is it rather that here freedom of expression must be confronted while in that case it must be open wide?
So as far as this point is concerned, I will only say: We are anew before deception and hypocrisy. This is new evidence on the deception, hypocrisy and double standards of the USA in dealing with causes which do not have to do with politics or economy or security or wars only but also with dignities, sanctities and what harms nations as a whole.
This must be deep-rooted in the awareness of the Arab and Islamic peoples as well as in the awareness of all peace, coexistence and tolerance loving peoples in the world whether they are Christians or followers of other religions, ideas or ideologies.
Fourth comes working on preventing the renewal of such an aggression in the future. This is what is most important. That means that we do not become satisfied in protesting, demonstrating and expressing our anger today and then go back home. Well, such protests took place in the past and they did not prevent the repetition of the aggression on our Prophet, sanctities and Koran. They will not prevent that now or in the future.
In the past and in confronting (Devilish Verses), protests took place and they were more massive than the current protests. Imam Khomeini (May Allah glorify his secret) issued his well-known fatwa, and he was backed by senior Muslim religious men in the world. This had a very effective influence and such an aggression was prevented for years. In fact, the book and the author were besieged as well as the concerned bookshops, publication houses…. That led to excellent results in this domain. However, lately, we came back to the same old story: insulting sketches in European newspapers, burning copies of the Koran and now the case is even more dangerous and greater as I said at the beginning of my word.
What does that mean? We must move towards closing this door decisively tight. Now this is the historic responsibility which is shouldered by the entire Islamic Nation as well as every honorable Christian who cares and believes in coexistence and religious tolerance. This is the occasion to put a decisive end to this cause and to close the door tight forever.
Is that possible? Yes, that is possible through several things. Let's give some examples. I am not bringing anything new. I am rather organizing the idea.
First: Working on issuing an international act in various senior international institutions which criminalizes insulting divine religions at least or at least the great prophets especially Abrams, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (Peace be on them all). This is possible and within reach when an international act or resolution is issued on condition of being bound in all nations and governments around the world and even applicable over national laws in any state around the world. This closes the door tight because everyone would know that whoever writes or draws or produces a movie or publishes…would be punished in any place around the world and will not find any defender or protector.
This is possible and within reach and later we will talk about its mechanism.
Second: This is possible not only on the international level but also in the USA and Europe themselves.
Well, in the United States, didn't the Congress issue an act which criminalizes Anti-Semitism?
The Congress may issue a similar act which criminalizes insulting the great prophets of Allah. What does forbid that? The legal reasons are similar. The same legal reasons in Anti-Semitism exist here. Why do they criminalize here and they don't criminalize there?
In this perspective, the Islamic communities in the USA assume a great historic religious responsibility. Are they able to press to this effect? Zionists or Jews or the Jewish societies are not more in number. They may be more influential. Still the Islamic societies and communities in the USA may practice pressure in this perspective.
The case here is not linked to one of the Muslim sects or one of the Muslim personalities. It is linked to the Prophet of Muslims and the Koran of Muslims. Now as the US presidential elections are approaching, Islamic communities in the United States can play a forceful pressing role to the effect of issuing such acts or gaining commitments from this or that competing parties to the effect of issuing such an act.
The so called friends of America in the Islamic and Arab world can also practice pressure in this direction. I will tackle the mechanism for this step in a while. The entire free world must pressure in this direction.
The case is not anymore that of aggressing on the dignity of a person. The case started harming and will in the future harm regional, national and international peace and security. We do not know how things may move, and we do not know if the wrath of hundreds of millions among the followers of this prophet or that prophet who are insulted may be reigned.
The same applies to the European parliaments and the European Parliament. Well, now in the European parliaments similar acts are being issued. Whoever denies the so and so massacre would be criminalized. Whoever denies the Holocaust would be criminalized. Didn't Garaudy face this calamity? So let them issue acts to this effect: whoever insults the divine religions will be criminalized. As such, this door will be shut close forever.
As for follow up mechanisms, the issue requires a call for an emergency summit for the Organization of Islamic Conference. Well an attempt to burn or burning a section of Al Aqsa Mosque led to the establishment of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Few weeks ago, an Islamic Summit was held in Holy Mecca even under the pretext of what is taking place in Burma or in Syria or in Palestine. However, what is taking place today is greater and more serious.
This is your Prophet! O rulers, kings, princes and presidents! This is your Prophet. This is your Koran! This is your Islam! This is your religion! This is your nation which dignity is being insulted today. It is weird that many among you are not taking any action. I swear that if this movie tackled one of the Arab and Muslims' kings, princes, or presidents as it tackled Mohammad, the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him and his Household), you would have noticed the wrath of this king, prince or president and his family, party, government and country in a way different from what we are witnessing now. This is really sorrowful.
So as for the follow up mechanism, an emergency summit for the Organization of Islamic Conference must be held. If we are very feeble in the Arab and Islamic world, at least an emergency session for the Foreign Ministers in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation may be held, and a draft resolution or a draft law would be set. Thus all Arab and Islamic states may head to the UN, the USA, and Europe and call for this law to become an international law, an American law and a European law. We are a nation which owns marvelous capabilities on the political, economic, materialistic, media, cultural and intellectual levels. Are we to this extent unable to defend our prophet, Koran and sanctities?
The responsibility of the Islamic peoples today is to demand that from its rulers and governments. This is the least we may do as Islamic peoples to this effect. It is not enough to express our wrath towards the US Embassy here and there. We must tell our rulers in the Arab and Islamic world that this is your responsibility above all. As you represent officially the Arab and Islamic governments and states, you are able to impose on the USA and Europe and on the whole world to respect our Prophet, Koran, sanctities and the honor of our Prophet.
This is the public stance, and this is the sound conduct. If we want to confront the aggression, and if we want to prevent an aggression on the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), the Koran, the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), the honor of the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his Household), Islam, and religion in the future, we must move in this direction and we must let the whole world understand that this cause has a sequel and that the nation can't remain silent on continual harm and insult in this appalling and serious way.
As for Lebanon, indeed and praise be to Allah in the past three days – today and the past couple of days – Lebanon expressed a high level of immunity in confronting the target of the aggression I tackled in the previous point – the religious struggle between Muslims and Christians. On the contrary, Lebanon presented a new model and evidence on coexistence between Muslims and Christians and on their living in unity and mutual respect for each others' religious symbols, sanctities, and personalities. This is what we have witnessed in the past three days through the visit of the Head of the Catholic Church in the world to Lebanon, and the meetings that comprised Muslim and Christian religious leaderships, Muslim and Christian political leaderships and symbols, and Muslim and Christian people and youths. The visit was wrapped up peacefully and to the national and public interest God willing.
Lebanon, the country of coexistence, can play a special and distinctive role because it is a country of Islamic-Christian coexistence and because what took place and what is taking place now is targeting the Prophet of Islam and the sanctities of Muslims by persons who are referred to Christianity. Lebanon has a special post in this confrontation. Hereof, I address His Eminence the President of the Republic, the Speaker, the Parliament, the Premier, the Lebanese Government, religious leaderships, Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, and the various political movements (March 8 and March 14 Blocs) because this issue is above political divisions and internal conflicts. I address them saying: In this stage, Lebanon may play the role of a message on the international level. How is that so? Lebanon now is a member in the Arab League. It chairs the Arab Foreign Ministers Council. It is a member in the OIC. It is a member in the UN General Assembly. In the coming few weeks, the UN General Assembly will convene. Lebanon may call for an emergency session for the Arab League at the level of foreign ministers at least. Still Lebanon may call on Iraq – and I call on the Iraqi government to take such a step. Official Lebanon may make a call upon a national, popular, official and political consensus, for an Islamic summit for the OIC to adopt such ideas: criminalizing insulting the great prophets of Allah, the divine religions and the divine books.
Lebanon may do that. Religious leaders through their meetings and through their relations with the Arab and Islamic world and the world, especially Europe, may also play a distinctive role in this perspective.
The Lebanese government must take a decisive stance. The Lebanese parliament must take a decisive stance. Speaker brethren Nabih Berri has a long and vast experience in dealing with Arab, Islamic and international parliaments. He also can play a role in the Lebanese Parliament, and can as well have a distinctive role on the parliamentary level worldwide to the effect of endorsing acts of this kind in world parliaments.
Yes! Lebanon can play a role much larger than its size as Lebanon has always been larger than its size in causes that have to do with culture, values, civilization, intellect, living in unity, and divine religions. Today Lebanon is called on to play a great role of this kind.
On the popular level, popular demands must carry on. As concerning the first level, first people must call for stopping publishing these scenes on the internet. Second, they must call for preventing publishing the whole movie later on. Third, they must call for trying and punishing those concerned in the insulting movie so that they be taken as an example for anyone who might think of aggressing against our prophet and Koran. This is possible through popular movements on the level of the Islamic world and the whole world. Demonstration is one form of popular movements as well as protests, sit-ins, statements, meetings, articles…. The media plays a very great role here besides political forces, elite movements, and popular movements. Cadres may be formed in every country – a committee or a pursuing chamber – to pursue such persons and to follow up the primary cause and to work for introducing laws that criminalize insulting divine religions in law institutions in the world. So, all of these actions must carry on.
Here also I must call the attention of the Arab and Islamic peoples and of Muslims in general to the fact that America's friends in the world and in the Arab and Islamic world specially will work at cooling things down so that people forget. Events and causes will be fabricated, and the media and Arab satellites will be made to focus on them upon the call of the US Administration so that this cause would faint. Thus we must be cautious. Today the Muslims living in this age and generation assume a very great historic, moral, religious, and faithful responsibility. If we do not fully assume the responsibility, they will again insult our Prophet as well as all the former prophets and our Holy Book as well as all holy books and all religions and the dignity of the entire nation.
Also on the Lebanese level, indeed we must have taken the initiative to call for demonstrations earlier. However, as I have said, in the past few days, we had a special situation and we feared any popular movement may be exploited in any of the Lebanese regions for wrong ends which may serve the goal of the enemy. Thus we chose Monday to be the beginning of the movement though we were among the first to issue statements and to announce their condemnation for the insult and their willingness to confront.
Our call for demonstration tomorrow in Dahiyeh at five pm is part of a movement which must carry on and integrate in Lebanon as well as in the Arab and Islamic world. I tell the peoples in the Arab and Islamic world and in every country and state: We must not be content that in the so and so capital they demonstrated saying that is enough. No! In every city – I am not saying in every village – Muslims must hit the street and express their wrath and anger.
The entire world, world governments and world parliaments must see this as it is very influential. All of these governments and parliaments must understand that their interests with our Arab and Islamic world are linked to their respect to the sanctities of the Arab and Islamic world.
In Lebanon, tomorrow, Inshallah we will have a rally in Dahiyeh. I am not telling people to bother themselves and come from the various regions. This rally is for Great Beirut – meaning Beirut and its suburbs and its southern suburb (Dahiyeh) as movements in the other regions will take place as well. I am calling for demonstration in the city of Tyr on Wednesday afternoon, in the city of Baalbeck on Friday after prayers, in the city of Bint Jbeil on Saturday afternoon and in the city of Hermel on Sunday afternoon. We may work at least at the level of these dates. We call on the residents of the neighboring towns and districts to participate in the rallies in these cities. Thus let the district be the center for these movements all through the coming days to express this stance.
Wrapping up my word, I would like also to make a call for those whom I am calling to assume the responsibility and to demonstrate. I tell them all those we are calling on to demonstrate in the coming few days and especially those whom we expect and wait for their attendance tomorrow Monday at five in the afternoon in front of Sayyed Ashuhada (Peace be upon him) Compound in Dahiyeh:
O honorable people! You were always present in the squares of defense of dignity, honor, pride, sovereignty, the nation and sanctities. When blood was supposed to be shed, you offered your blood. When souls were to be offered, you offered your souls. When offering the dear one was demanded, you offered your dear ones as sacrifices. When money was to be offered, you were not reluctant to give your money and homes. You bore great risks and pains. You never failed to partake in the procession of obligation fulfillment.
O honorable ones! Every year on the tenth of Muharam you flood squares and fields whether men, women, young, or elderly for long hours to answer the call of Al Hussein (Peace be upon him) – the grandson of the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him): Who is there to offer me support? On every tenth of Muharram of every year, you tell him with your hearts, voices and upraised fists: At your service, O Hussein!
O honorable people! He who is calling on you today is the grandfather of Al Hussein (Peace be upon him). He is Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him and his Household) who was insulted as well as his dignity and morals though he is the greatest moral man in existence and in history. His Koran, honor, wives, religion, Islam, history and biography were insulted. So answer the call of your Great Prophet and Messenger.
O Honorable people! The whole world must see you tomorrow and in the coming few days in Dahiyeh, Tyr, Baalbeck, Bint Jbeil, Hermel and in every city you are responsible in as well as in every place you are present in the Arab and Islamic world and in the world as Lebanese communities. The whole world must see the wrath in your faces, fists and shouts. The whole world must know that this Great Prophet has followers who will not remain silent on insult or humiliation no matter how precious sacrifices were. Let the shouts be strong, resonant and reverberating tomorrow with the call: At your service, O Prophet of Allah! Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
Mitt Romney - the man who makes even Dubya look educated, articulate and smart
Priceless no?
Though that cretin pretty much gets everything wrong, I fundamentally agree with at least one of his key points: a two-state solution is neither possible nor morally acceptable. The only solution is ONE state, called Palestine. As for the "Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem" must, of course, "vanish from the page of time" as Ayatollah Khomeini so accurately put it.
God willing, soon.
The Saker
The Moslem World’s Rage; Justified or Misplaced?
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Media outlets are abuzz with news of the Moslem world’s rage over the release of the provocative film “Innocence of Moslems”. Pundits are quick to condemn the protests across 20 nations, and the gullible and callous citizens of the “West”, mimicking pundits who are paid to mislead and misinform, are placing the blame on the aggrieved Moslem community – they simply don’t understand how “free speech” works in America. But those who are not intellectually blind see a different reality – the fallacy of free speech.
There is a precedent to curbing free speech when deemed harmful. In a landmark Supreme Court hearing -- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the actions of Schenck, an anti-war individual who had printed and distributed leaflets in order to discourage enlisting servicemen, was not afforded protection under the First Amendment. The issue before the court was whether Schenck's actions (words, expression) were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” Holmes argued that “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Since the events of 9/11, the whole Moslem community has been engulfed in panic, death, and destruction through such provocative expressions of “free speech”. The United States government, in defiance of this precedent has decided not to prevent such “substantive evils”.
The desecration of the Koran in 2002 by Guantanamo prison guards revealed in 2005, caused riots globally and took the lives of 15 people. The lack of inaction by the authorities may have given Florida pastor Terry Jones reason to be encouraged and to burn a Koran on March 20, 2011. Pictures which were posted on his church’s website. Shortly thereafter, protests broke out in Afghanistan where a U.N. building was attacked and 12 people killed. The government inaction continued. As such, it did not come as a surprise that in February 2012, US forces in Afghanistan burnt copies of Korans at U.S. bases. Angry protests ensued resulting in 30 deaths. There were no criminal charges against the troops, only unspecified administrative punishment.
While the First Amendment enabled insults to be hurled at Moslems, Moslems living in the United States were deprived of “free speech”. Moslem students at California State University in Irvine (UCI) were suspended for a year for interrupting the speech of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren. The same state allowed the censorship of professors who spoke out against the bombing of Gaza and slaughtering of the Palestinians (see link).
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby's bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism world wide. (It is noteworthy that 4 years later, Republican candidates ran on a platform of promoting hatred of Islam - -see HERE). In line with policies of selective “free speech”, and in the same month that no criminal charges were brought against troops in Afghanistan for burning Korans and urinating on Afghan corpses, August 2012, California passed a resolution (House Resolution 35) against criticism of Israel. What is perhaps more revealing than the Resolution itself, is the desire and the power to curb “free speech” (read Resolution).
In light of the recent examples, is the Moslem world’s anger at the United States misplaced when clearly the United States government has the power to curb speech (the most recent case in point being the State of Georgia’s denial of KKK group's application to “Adopt a Highway”)? Perhaps for the protestors, it is hard to understand that the President’s kill list allows the assassination of American individuals ‘based merely on patterns of behavior” yet he is not able to exercise power to curb speech denigrating Islam.
Why has there been no will to put a stop to these insults and the ensuing violence? One may never know the answer. What is clear is that although the Moslem countries have been grossly violated, their cities bombed, their men, women, and children killed, their spirit has not been crushed. As was brilliantly depicted in a different kind of movie -- Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1965 production of “The Battle of Algiers”, bombs and guns can crush a man’s frail body but not his resistant spirit; ideology will always prevail over bullets.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
Media outlets are abuzz with news of the Moslem world’s rage over the release of the provocative film “Innocence of Moslems”. Pundits are quick to condemn the protests across 20 nations, and the gullible and callous citizens of the “West”, mimicking pundits who are paid to mislead and misinform, are placing the blame on the aggrieved Moslem community – they simply don’t understand how “free speech” works in America. But those who are not intellectually blind see a different reality – the fallacy of free speech.
There is a precedent to curbing free speech when deemed harmful. In a landmark Supreme Court hearing -- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the actions of Schenck, an anti-war individual who had printed and distributed leaflets in order to discourage enlisting servicemen, was not afforded protection under the First Amendment. The issue before the court was whether Schenck's actions (words, expression) were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” Holmes argued that “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Since the events of 9/11, the whole Moslem community has been engulfed in panic, death, and destruction through such provocative expressions of “free speech”. The United States government, in defiance of this precedent has decided not to prevent such “substantive evils”.
The desecration of the Koran in 2002 by Guantanamo prison guards revealed in 2005, caused riots globally and took the lives of 15 people. The lack of inaction by the authorities may have given Florida pastor Terry Jones reason to be encouraged and to burn a Koran on March 20, 2011. Pictures which were posted on his church’s website. Shortly thereafter, protests broke out in Afghanistan where a U.N. building was attacked and 12 people killed. The government inaction continued. As such, it did not come as a surprise that in February 2012, US forces in Afghanistan burnt copies of Korans at U.S. bases. Angry protests ensued resulting in 30 deaths. There were no criminal charges against the troops, only unspecified administrative punishment.
While the First Amendment enabled insults to be hurled at Moslems, Moslems living in the United States were deprived of “free speech”. Moslem students at California State University in Irvine (UCI) were suspended for a year for interrupting the speech of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren. The same state allowed the censorship of professors who spoke out against the bombing of Gaza and slaughtering of the Palestinians (see link).
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby's bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism world wide. (It is noteworthy that 4 years later, Republican candidates ran on a platform of promoting hatred of Islam - -see HERE). In line with policies of selective “free speech”, and in the same month that no criminal charges were brought against troops in Afghanistan for burning Korans and urinating on Afghan corpses, August 2012, California passed a resolution (House Resolution 35) against criticism of Israel. What is perhaps more revealing than the Resolution itself, is the desire and the power to curb “free speech” (read Resolution).
In light of the recent examples, is the Moslem world’s anger at the United States misplaced when clearly the United States government has the power to curb speech (the most recent case in point being the State of Georgia’s denial of KKK group's application to “Adopt a Highway”)? Perhaps for the protestors, it is hard to understand that the President’s kill list allows the assassination of American individuals ‘based merely on patterns of behavior” yet he is not able to exercise power to curb speech denigrating Islam.
Why has there been no will to put a stop to these insults and the ensuing violence? One may never know the answer. What is clear is that although the Moslem countries have been grossly violated, their cities bombed, their men, women, and children killed, their spirit has not been crushed. As was brilliantly depicted in a different kind of movie -- Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1965 production of “The Battle of Algiers”, bombs and guns can crush a man’s frail body but not his resistant spirit; ideology will always prevail over bullets.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
Russia is considering shutting down YouTube
According to the very official Rossiiskaia Gazeta quoting the Russian Minister of Communications the Kremlin is seriously considering shutting down YouTube. They could do that under a new law called "On the defense of children against information which can damage their health or development". Furthermore, the Russian agency in charge of communications has already demanded that Internet service providers block the streaming of "Innocence of Muslims" on the grounds that it is "extremist" and "similar to child pornography".
This makes sense. Russia is clearly siding with the Islamic world here, not only in its capacity as a nation with a strong Muslim minority, but also as a country which has as a policy to defend Russia's "historical religions".
I can imagine the outrage this will cause in the Anglosphere: the anti-Putin hysteria will now reach a new height, no doubt.
The Saker
This makes sense. Russia is clearly siding with the Islamic world here, not only in its capacity as a nation with a strong Muslim minority, but also as a country which has as a policy to defend Russia's "historical religions".
I can imagine the outrage this will cause in the Anglosphere: the anti-Putin hysteria will now reach a new height, no doubt.
The Saker
Monday, September 17, 2012
First impressions - and misgivings - in reaction to Hassan Nasrallah's speech today
I have been studying Hezbollah since 1995 and I don't recall Hassan Nasrallah ever delivering such a strongly worded warning as what he did today at the "Prophet Loyalty Rally". I might be mistaken, but I see several unprecedented elements in his speech today:
1. First, he clearly and unambiguously threated the USA and its Empire by stating that the consequences for releasing the full movie "Innocence of Muslims" would be extremely severe. The Americans seem to be so afraid that they began burning classified materials in the US Embassy in Beirut.
2. Second, he demanded that all the websites which would be showing the movie be shut down by national governments.
3. Third, he demanded nothing short of a worldwide legal ban on blasphemous attacks against the major figures of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
4. Fourth, he warned any nominally "Muslim" leader who would not do their utmost to support these steps that they would be considered inadequate.
5. Fifth, he indicated that all of these demands were non-negotiable and that the Islamic world would have to choose between humiliation and martyrdom, in other words, that the price to pay for insisting on these terms did not matter.
This is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing and even somewhat disturbing.
One one hand, in a world ruled by an Empire with no other morals than hedonism and greed, with no sense at all of right and wrong and whose arrogance and hubris has exploded beyond anything imaginable, it is deeply moving and exhilarating to see that somebody has finally dared to say that "enough is enough" and that there will be a real price to pay for such infinite arrogance. On the other hand, I am disturbed when I see a political and religious figure like Hassan Nasrallah (whom I immensely admire) take it upon himself to set demands about what should be done not only inside the Islamic world, but globally, world-wide.
For all my numerous and recent articles condemning what I call "modern blasphemies as a quintessential hate crime", it is unclear to me by what authority Hassan Nasrallah would have the right to decree that, say, Papua New Guinea or Paraguay would have to ban a movie or shutdown a website. I would have felt more comfortable if Sayyed Hassan had invited all the countries of the world to ban insults to the religious figures central to any major faith, but what I heard today sounded less as an invitation than as an ultimatum and that is problematic to say the least.
Finally, I profoundly believe in the right to freely choose between right and wrong. That right, as far as I am concerned, was granted to mankind by God in the Garden of Eden already, and I am therefore fundamentally opposed to censorship. I find any attempts at censoring the Internet as particularly dangerous because if/when the technological tools to do so are developed with the express purpose of fighting that which is fundamentally bad, the very same tools can then be used to suppress what which is fundamentally good.
I have to stress here that I am basing all of the above on the on-the-fly interpretation of Nasrallah's speech by Press TV, which one can hardly consider an official position of Hezbollah. I also am not sure as to whether Hassan Nasrallah has the rank and authority to make such global statement in the name of his followers or whether he should have waited for an official position on this matter by his spiritual guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Whatever may be the case, it sure looks like there is going to be hell to pay for the US Empire for is systematic lack of even minimal respect for that which other nations or religious hold for sacred. In that sense, what is happening today is a much needed wake-up call for the rest of the planet indeed.
What I see here is what I would call a "return of the sacred" and I welcome it with all my heart. That sense of sacred is, I strongly believe, a central characteristic of the truly civilized human being (as opposed to the only technologically advanced one but with the conscience and morals of an amoeba) and while the Western world, terminally brainwashed by secularism and Masonic propaganda, thinks that it can "de-sacralize" the rest of humanity it appears that these attempts are resulting into some rather nasty blowback.
If the translation by Press TV is correct and if, indeed, Nasrallah's reaction is a bit over the top and raises all sorts of delicate issues with its "planetary scope", I still can't say that I feel very sorry for those who, by design or by crass ignorance, never bothered to contemplate the potential consequences of their actions or their allegiance.
The issue of freedom of thought versus blasphemy is an important and complex one and, at least so far, the utter lack of anything worthy of being called "thought" in the imbecile movie which triggered it all does not quite call for a discussion of it. However, Hassan Nasrallah's speech might provide an excellent opportunity to ask the right questions about how to deal with true thought which might still be perceived as blasphemous by some.
Your thoughts?
The Saker
1. First, he clearly and unambiguously threated the USA and its Empire by stating that the consequences for releasing the full movie "Innocence of Muslims" would be extremely severe. The Americans seem to be so afraid that they began burning classified materials in the US Embassy in Beirut.
2. Second, he demanded that all the websites which would be showing the movie be shut down by national governments.
3. Third, he demanded nothing short of a worldwide legal ban on blasphemous attacks against the major figures of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
4. Fourth, he warned any nominally "Muslim" leader who would not do their utmost to support these steps that they would be considered inadequate.
5. Fifth, he indicated that all of these demands were non-negotiable and that the Islamic world would have to choose between humiliation and martyrdom, in other words, that the price to pay for insisting on these terms did not matter.
This is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing and even somewhat disturbing.
One one hand, in a world ruled by an Empire with no other morals than hedonism and greed, with no sense at all of right and wrong and whose arrogance and hubris has exploded beyond anything imaginable, it is deeply moving and exhilarating to see that somebody has finally dared to say that "enough is enough" and that there will be a real price to pay for such infinite arrogance. On the other hand, I am disturbed when I see a political and religious figure like Hassan Nasrallah (whom I immensely admire) take it upon himself to set demands about what should be done not only inside the Islamic world, but globally, world-wide.
For all my numerous and recent articles condemning what I call "modern blasphemies as a quintessential hate crime", it is unclear to me by what authority Hassan Nasrallah would have the right to decree that, say, Papua New Guinea or Paraguay would have to ban a movie or shutdown a website. I would have felt more comfortable if Sayyed Hassan had invited all the countries of the world to ban insults to the religious figures central to any major faith, but what I heard today sounded less as an invitation than as an ultimatum and that is problematic to say the least.Finally, I profoundly believe in the right to freely choose between right and wrong. That right, as far as I am concerned, was granted to mankind by God in the Garden of Eden already, and I am therefore fundamentally opposed to censorship. I find any attempts at censoring the Internet as particularly dangerous because if/when the technological tools to do so are developed with the express purpose of fighting that which is fundamentally bad, the very same tools can then be used to suppress what which is fundamentally good.
I have to stress here that I am basing all of the above on the on-the-fly interpretation of Nasrallah's speech by Press TV, which one can hardly consider an official position of Hezbollah. I also am not sure as to whether Hassan Nasrallah has the rank and authority to make such global statement in the name of his followers or whether he should have waited for an official position on this matter by his spiritual guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Whatever may be the case, it sure looks like there is going to be hell to pay for the US Empire for is systematic lack of even minimal respect for that which other nations or religious hold for sacred. In that sense, what is happening today is a much needed wake-up call for the rest of the planet indeed.
What I see here is what I would call a "return of the sacred" and I welcome it with all my heart. That sense of sacred is, I strongly believe, a central characteristic of the truly civilized human being (as opposed to the only technologically advanced one but with the conscience and morals of an amoeba) and while the Western world, terminally brainwashed by secularism and Masonic propaganda, thinks that it can "de-sacralize" the rest of humanity it appears that these attempts are resulting into some rather nasty blowback.
If the translation by Press TV is correct and if, indeed, Nasrallah's reaction is a bit over the top and raises all sorts of delicate issues with its "planetary scope", I still can't say that I feel very sorry for those who, by design or by crass ignorance, never bothered to contemplate the potential consequences of their actions or their allegiance.
The issue of freedom of thought versus blasphemy is an important and complex one and, at least so far, the utter lack of anything worthy of being called "thought" in the imbecile movie which triggered it all does not quite call for a discussion of it. However, Hassan Nasrallah's speech might provide an excellent opportunity to ask the right questions about how to deal with true thought which might still be perceived as blasphemous by some.
Your thoughts?
The Saker
Extremely strong words by Hassan Nasrallah at the "Prophet Loyalty Rally "
These are uncharacteristically strong words form the Hezbollah leader and I wonder if that is not also a way of preparing the Middle-East for a US attack on Iran.
In the meantime, one of the most pathetic US puppets in Lebanon, Amin Gemayel, actually took the risk of condemning Hassan Nasrallah and, once again, that just makes me marvel at systematic way the Lebanese Phalangists always end up on the wrong side of both morality and history.
In the meanwhile, the USN has moved three aircraft carriers into the proximity of the Strait of Hormuz for huge naval maneuvers with the participation of 25 nations.
The Iranians are also rehearsing for a US strike on Iran.
As for the Israelis, they are still stirring up the anti-Iranian hysteria.
Is there still anybody out there doubting that this is all a lead up to a US attack on Iran?
The Saker
Friday, September 14, 2012
Musings on Pussy Riot , "Sam Bacile" and modern "blasphemers"
Having forced myself to watch the full "performance" of Pussy Riot's "punk prayer" and "Sam Bacile"'s short movie "Innocence of Muslims" I want to share with you some thoughts I had on issue of blasphemy.
Wikipedia defines blasphemy as "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things". Dictionary.com offers this definition: "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things". Merriam-Webster online offers this definition: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God". To be honest, I find all three of these definition very unsatisfactory.
Think of it: did the Rioting Pussies or Mr "Bacile" really intend to "insult God" or show irreverence or contempt for something holy? I submit that this was not at all their intention. First, for all their denials about that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Rioting Pussies are not religious at all. And since they are clearly not really religious, they can hardly have wanted to insult a God they don't even believe in. As for Mr Bacile, he was not trying to produce a critique, however harsh, of the Prophet Mohamed or Islam.
Frankly, if we just look at the form of the message of the "punk prayer" and the movie "Innocence of Muslims" it is absolutely clear that to the extend there is a message conveyed by these performances, it is the form of the message itself. And since it is rather obvious that the "message" is not addressed to any God or Prophet, whom is it addressed to?
Here, again, we need to look at the message conveyed, in this case, by the form and ask ourselves a simple question: what type of person would be most impacted by it? Put differently, not only is the real message of these performances to be found in the form, the real "addressee" of this message is also to be found in the form. It is rather obvious to me that the form of these performances was chosen to primarily to elicit a reaction from Orthodox Christians in the first instance and Muslims in the second one. A secondary audience to whom the message might have been targeted was what I would describe as "agnostics/atheists with a poor sense of music, movies or humor". I will immediately set aside this latter group because as far as I am concerned there is no issue here at all: if they like it, let them enjoy it. I personally don't care about it, nor do I think that anybody else does.
So now we can turn to the core of it all. We have a message whose contents are conveyed by the form which is aimed at religious people. The purpose of the message is hardly to convince these religious people of anything, if only because of the lack of objective content of the form chosen here: all that matters is the form.
Now, by definition, the interpretation of a message contained in the form of a performance is a rather subjective thing and not something which can be logically demonstrated. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is any message who is not expressed in words but in the form of a message to be interpreted. There could therefore be many possible interpretations of these messages, but I think that it would be really fair and very appropriate to summarize the message conveyed by the Rioting Pussies and Mr Bacile in the following short phrase: "Fuck you Christians!" and "Fuck you Muslims!".
I did not choose "fuck you" for the profanity or because it is so common, but because it is really very similar to the "messages" conveyed by the Rioting Pussies and Mr. "Bacile". When somebody says "fuck you" he/she does not really suggest an attempt at having sexual intercourse with oneself any more than "motherfucker" suggests that the target of the expression has been observed having sexual intercourse with his/her mother. Here again, the message is in the form and, as is the case with any insult, the real message is very simple "I hate you".
So this is the real and true core of the Rioting Pussies' "punk prayer" and Mr "Bacile"'s short movie: its a message of pure seething hatred of, and contempt for, Orthodox Christians in the first instance, and Muslims in the second one.
Now let's look at the reaction. In the first case, Russian prosecutors charged the Rioting Pussies for "hate-motivated hooliganism". I cannot imagine a more appropriate designation.
In the second instance, Muslim crowds assaulted US diplomatic facilities. In the first case we have a state acting, the in the second case we have a spontaneous act of violence of a crowd. Superficially, one could argue that the Russian response was much more sophisticated and "proper", but that would overlook some fundamental differences: the Russians had the guilty party rapidly arrested whereas in the second case even the identity the guilty party was not established. Furthermore, in the first case the committed action was a criminal offense committed inside the jurisdiction of Russian courts whereas in the second instance, the action was committed in the virtual world of the Internet, far away from any legal context.
I am not defending the Muslim rioters who ended up killing a number of people which had nothing to do with the production of this movie - what they did was stupid and immoral - but I do want to point out that the Russians had a good way of responding whereas these rioting Muslims did not. Besides, crowds cannot be held to the same standards as states anyway. While the latter is ruled by laws and policies, the former acts spontaneously and, usually, without much discernment. This does, however, raise a fascinating question: how should states and individuals respond when subjected to type of psychological/spiritual assault we have witnessed in the "punk prayer" and "Innocence of Muslims"?
I think that first and foremost a very simple and undeniable fact needs to be established here: modern "blasphemies" which are clearly not aimed at deities or sacred figures, are in reality aimed at specific social groups and they therefore constitute the quintessential psychological hate crime.
And "psychological" does not mean unreal or somehow easily dismissible. Not at all. A psychological hate crime is to a physical hate crime what psychological torture is to physical torture: definitely not a lesser form of assault and arguably a worse one.
Furthermore, a psychological hate crime differs from a regular insult in that it is aimed at a specific social group of people and not at an individual. And since this hate crime is clearly aimed at inflicting the maximal possible psychological or spiritual distress upon its victim, it is a hate crime of the highest order of magnitude.
Finally, and this is absolutely essential to understand, that none of the above is in any way related to a free speech issue.
Let's take Christianity and Islam for example. Educated Christians and educated Muslims are perfectly aware of the undeniable fact that these two religions have highly critical views of each other. The main and irreconcilable difference between the two faiths is their mutually exclusive view of Christ: according to Christians, Christ was a God-Man (theantropos) whereas Islam sees Him as (only) a (revered but still human) Prophet (even the Prophet Mohamed is considered by Islam as human and fallible!).
That is usually the "nice" way of putting things. The "not so nice" way would be to say that Christians consider Muslims to be heretics while Muslims consider Christians to be idolaters. Now, while concepts such as "heretic" and "idolater" can be hurled at a person as an insult, they are primarily perfectly proper terms terms which convey a specific religious category. So in a theological discussion between educated Christians and educated Muslims such terms could be used without conveying any sense of insult at all simply because they are faithful renditions of a religious belief, not in any way an expression of personal hostility, dislike or, much less so, hatred.
The reality is that the vast majority of Christians and the vast majority of Muslims are aware, to some degree or another, that their respective religions have deep disagreements. Likewise educated Muslims and educated Christians are fully aware of the fact that their religions have many fundamental and irreconcilable differences. And yet, the history of the Middle-East clearly proves that these two religions can, and have, lived in peace as neighbors. Yes, at times, both religions have committed appalling acts of violence against each other, but these were the exception, not the rule, and such actions where typically the actions of rather vicious rulers inclined to violence against any opponents, not just one religious group (Ivan the Terrible and his massacre of Muslims in Kazan is a good example of that). What is certain is that the reality of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity did not result in an endless cycle of war, hatred, violence or even outrage. If Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive - they are - this does not mean that Christians and Muslims cannot live together - they can and the have.
This just proves that if Christians and Muslims can accept even intense polemical challenges from each other, they sure can accept any kind of rational polemical challenge from atheists, agnostics or any other group or persons. If the Rioting Pussies really wanted to convey some kind of message to the Russian Orthodox Church about Putin or if Mr Bacile really wanted to convey some kind of message to Muslims about his negative view of the Prophet's personality or life, they could have done so without triggering much of a reaction, if only because the vast majority of Orthodox Christians and Muslim don't care one bit about what the Pussies or Mr Bacile think.
But that is the problem, is it not?
These modern blasphemers wanted the maximum of attention, the maximal "shock effect", the maximum of visibility. And their way to get it was to deliberately aim at designing and executing the maximal possible insult conceivable. This is exactly why their actions were, by design, the quintessential hate crime. Causing offense, expressing hatred, is not the means here, it is sole and only end sought.
Now, as a Orthodox Christian I don't believe in a religious codification of punishment for blasphemers. I know that Christ, when He was alive, was spat on, insulted, derided and tortured to death. There is no need for me, as a Christian, to "defend" Him from anything, including insults. Furthermore, my religion tells me that not only does a blasphemy fail to ever reach its intended target, it spiritually "boomerangs" right back upon the person who uttered it. So as far as I am concerned, to protect social groups from hate crimes is Cesar's business, not the Church's (whose business it should be to educate Christians about the type of spiritual pathology which breeds hate in all its forms). I am quite happy that the Russian state stuck the Rioting Pussies in jail, but I am equally happy that the Orthodox Church, as such, had no role in this process.
Islam takes a different view on this matter and its not my business at this point to express a value judgment on the Islamic position on blasphemy. What I will say is that Mr Bacile, Mr Rushdie and all the other folks who put all their skills and energy in a deliberate and determined attempt to maximally insult Muslims were perfectly aware of the fact that the people whom they were insulting would be absolutely incensed by these actions and that their religion prescribed specific penalties (including death) for such actions. I therefore feel just as sorry for them and their predicament as I would for somebody setting up a tent on rail tracks: yes, I am "sorta kinda" feel sorry for them but, frankly, not much, simply because they did it to themselves. If somebody inadvertently insulted Islam or the Prophet Mohamed and then suffered the consequences of doing so, I would really feel sorry for that person. But when somebody deliberately insults Islam or the Prophet Mohamed to express his/her hatred of Muslims as a group, I cannot feel very sorry for that person at all. I would feel the same way if somebody expressed hatred for any other social group either. Fundamentally, I simply don't find hatred a legitimate form of speech which would need to be protected.
And before we get sidetracked into a sterile discussion "what is hate speech what is opinion" let me say this: while some opinions can offend, it is not their main purpose; while polemics can be very virulent, they are aimed at ideas, not people. So to say that "your hate speech is my opinion" is totally dishonest. Any person with a minimum of intelligence and honesty will immediately concede that telling the two apart is really easy.
As a Christian, it would never occur to me to censor any opinion (as, I hope, this blog and my comments moderation prove). And I would vehemently oppose any attempt by any group or individuals, including Muslims, to censor my own free speech. But I do not claim the right to deliberately spew hatred against any other group or person, nor do I support anybody else's right to do so.
I hope that I have convincingly deconstructed the canard about Pussy Riot's "punk prayer" or Sam "Bacile"'s "Innocence of Muslims" being expressions of free speech. Likewise, I hope that I have shown that those who are now repackaging the authors of these "performances" as heroic martyrs for free speech are, in reality, themselves guilty of apology of hate crimes. Frankly, this is exactly what I would expect from the plutocracy ruling the West and its prostitute corporate media. However, I do want to believe that most people in the West can be convinced of the fact that this is not a religious issue, nor a free speech issue, and that the only really evil party to be condemned in these cases is one spewing its hatred.
The Saker
Wikipedia defines blasphemy as "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things". Dictionary.com offers this definition: "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things". Merriam-Webster online offers this definition: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God". To be honest, I find all three of these definition very unsatisfactory.
Think of it: did the Rioting Pussies or Mr "Bacile" really intend to "insult God" or show irreverence or contempt for something holy? I submit that this was not at all their intention. First, for all their denials about that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Rioting Pussies are not religious at all. And since they are clearly not really religious, they can hardly have wanted to insult a God they don't even believe in. As for Mr Bacile, he was not trying to produce a critique, however harsh, of the Prophet Mohamed or Islam.
Frankly, if we just look at the form of the message of the "punk prayer" and the movie "Innocence of Muslims" it is absolutely clear that to the extend there is a message conveyed by these performances, it is the form of the message itself. And since it is rather obvious that the "message" is not addressed to any God or Prophet, whom is it addressed to?
Here, again, we need to look at the message conveyed, in this case, by the form and ask ourselves a simple question: what type of person would be most impacted by it? Put differently, not only is the real message of these performances to be found in the form, the real "addressee" of this message is also to be found in the form. It is rather obvious to me that the form of these performances was chosen to primarily to elicit a reaction from Orthodox Christians in the first instance and Muslims in the second one. A secondary audience to whom the message might have been targeted was what I would describe as "agnostics/atheists with a poor sense of music, movies or humor". I will immediately set aside this latter group because as far as I am concerned there is no issue here at all: if they like it, let them enjoy it. I personally don't care about it, nor do I think that anybody else does.
So now we can turn to the core of it all. We have a message whose contents are conveyed by the form which is aimed at religious people. The purpose of the message is hardly to convince these religious people of anything, if only because of the lack of objective content of the form chosen here: all that matters is the form.
Now, by definition, the interpretation of a message contained in the form of a performance is a rather subjective thing and not something which can be logically demonstrated. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is any message who is not expressed in words but in the form of a message to be interpreted. There could therefore be many possible interpretations of these messages, but I think that it would be really fair and very appropriate to summarize the message conveyed by the Rioting Pussies and Mr Bacile in the following short phrase: "Fuck you Christians!" and "Fuck you Muslims!".
I did not choose "fuck you" for the profanity or because it is so common, but because it is really very similar to the "messages" conveyed by the Rioting Pussies and Mr. "Bacile". When somebody says "fuck you" he/she does not really suggest an attempt at having sexual intercourse with oneself any more than "motherfucker" suggests that the target of the expression has been observed having sexual intercourse with his/her mother. Here again, the message is in the form and, as is the case with any insult, the real message is very simple "I hate you".
So this is the real and true core of the Rioting Pussies' "punk prayer" and Mr "Bacile"'s short movie: its a message of pure seething hatred of, and contempt for, Orthodox Christians in the first instance, and Muslims in the second one.
Now let's look at the reaction. In the first case, Russian prosecutors charged the Rioting Pussies for "hate-motivated hooliganism". I cannot imagine a more appropriate designation.
In the second instance, Muslim crowds assaulted US diplomatic facilities. In the first case we have a state acting, the in the second case we have a spontaneous act of violence of a crowd. Superficially, one could argue that the Russian response was much more sophisticated and "proper", but that would overlook some fundamental differences: the Russians had the guilty party rapidly arrested whereas in the second case even the identity the guilty party was not established. Furthermore, in the first case the committed action was a criminal offense committed inside the jurisdiction of Russian courts whereas in the second instance, the action was committed in the virtual world of the Internet, far away from any legal context.
I am not defending the Muslim rioters who ended up killing a number of people which had nothing to do with the production of this movie - what they did was stupid and immoral - but I do want to point out that the Russians had a good way of responding whereas these rioting Muslims did not. Besides, crowds cannot be held to the same standards as states anyway. While the latter is ruled by laws and policies, the former acts spontaneously and, usually, without much discernment. This does, however, raise a fascinating question: how should states and individuals respond when subjected to type of psychological/spiritual assault we have witnessed in the "punk prayer" and "Innocence of Muslims"?
I think that first and foremost a very simple and undeniable fact needs to be established here: modern "blasphemies" which are clearly not aimed at deities or sacred figures, are in reality aimed at specific social groups and they therefore constitute the quintessential psychological hate crime.
And "psychological" does not mean unreal or somehow easily dismissible. Not at all. A psychological hate crime is to a physical hate crime what psychological torture is to physical torture: definitely not a lesser form of assault and arguably a worse one.
Furthermore, a psychological hate crime differs from a regular insult in that it is aimed at a specific social group of people and not at an individual. And since this hate crime is clearly aimed at inflicting the maximal possible psychological or spiritual distress upon its victim, it is a hate crime of the highest order of magnitude.
Finally, and this is absolutely essential to understand, that none of the above is in any way related to a free speech issue.
Let's take Christianity and Islam for example. Educated Christians and educated Muslims are perfectly aware of the undeniable fact that these two religions have highly critical views of each other. The main and irreconcilable difference between the two faiths is their mutually exclusive view of Christ: according to Christians, Christ was a God-Man (theantropos) whereas Islam sees Him as (only) a (revered but still human) Prophet (even the Prophet Mohamed is considered by Islam as human and fallible!).
That is usually the "nice" way of putting things. The "not so nice" way would be to say that Christians consider Muslims to be heretics while Muslims consider Christians to be idolaters. Now, while concepts such as "heretic" and "idolater" can be hurled at a person as an insult, they are primarily perfectly proper terms terms which convey a specific religious category. So in a theological discussion between educated Christians and educated Muslims such terms could be used without conveying any sense of insult at all simply because they are faithful renditions of a religious belief, not in any way an expression of personal hostility, dislike or, much less so, hatred.
The reality is that the vast majority of Christians and the vast majority of Muslims are aware, to some degree or another, that their respective religions have deep disagreements. Likewise educated Muslims and educated Christians are fully aware of the fact that their religions have many fundamental and irreconcilable differences. And yet, the history of the Middle-East clearly proves that these two religions can, and have, lived in peace as neighbors. Yes, at times, both religions have committed appalling acts of violence against each other, but these were the exception, not the rule, and such actions where typically the actions of rather vicious rulers inclined to violence against any opponents, not just one religious group (Ivan the Terrible and his massacre of Muslims in Kazan is a good example of that). What is certain is that the reality of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity did not result in an endless cycle of war, hatred, violence or even outrage. If Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive - they are - this does not mean that Christians and Muslims cannot live together - they can and the have.
This just proves that if Christians and Muslims can accept even intense polemical challenges from each other, they sure can accept any kind of rational polemical challenge from atheists, agnostics or any other group or persons. If the Rioting Pussies really wanted to convey some kind of message to the Russian Orthodox Church about Putin or if Mr Bacile really wanted to convey some kind of message to Muslims about his negative view of the Prophet's personality or life, they could have done so without triggering much of a reaction, if only because the vast majority of Orthodox Christians and Muslim don't care one bit about what the Pussies or Mr Bacile think.
But that is the problem, is it not?
These modern blasphemers wanted the maximum of attention, the maximal "shock effect", the maximum of visibility. And their way to get it was to deliberately aim at designing and executing the maximal possible insult conceivable. This is exactly why their actions were, by design, the quintessential hate crime. Causing offense, expressing hatred, is not the means here, it is sole and only end sought.
Now, as a Orthodox Christian I don't believe in a religious codification of punishment for blasphemers. I know that Christ, when He was alive, was spat on, insulted, derided and tortured to death. There is no need for me, as a Christian, to "defend" Him from anything, including insults. Furthermore, my religion tells me that not only does a blasphemy fail to ever reach its intended target, it spiritually "boomerangs" right back upon the person who uttered it. So as far as I am concerned, to protect social groups from hate crimes is Cesar's business, not the Church's (whose business it should be to educate Christians about the type of spiritual pathology which breeds hate in all its forms). I am quite happy that the Russian state stuck the Rioting Pussies in jail, but I am equally happy that the Orthodox Church, as such, had no role in this process.
Islam takes a different view on this matter and its not my business at this point to express a value judgment on the Islamic position on blasphemy. What I will say is that Mr Bacile, Mr Rushdie and all the other folks who put all their skills and energy in a deliberate and determined attempt to maximally insult Muslims were perfectly aware of the fact that the people whom they were insulting would be absolutely incensed by these actions and that their religion prescribed specific penalties (including death) for such actions. I therefore feel just as sorry for them and their predicament as I would for somebody setting up a tent on rail tracks: yes, I am "sorta kinda" feel sorry for them but, frankly, not much, simply because they did it to themselves. If somebody inadvertently insulted Islam or the Prophet Mohamed and then suffered the consequences of doing so, I would really feel sorry for that person. But when somebody deliberately insults Islam or the Prophet Mohamed to express his/her hatred of Muslims as a group, I cannot feel very sorry for that person at all. I would feel the same way if somebody expressed hatred for any other social group either. Fundamentally, I simply don't find hatred a legitimate form of speech which would need to be protected.
And before we get sidetracked into a sterile discussion "what is hate speech what is opinion" let me say this: while some opinions can offend, it is not their main purpose; while polemics can be very virulent, they are aimed at ideas, not people. So to say that "your hate speech is my opinion" is totally dishonest. Any person with a minimum of intelligence and honesty will immediately concede that telling the two apart is really easy.
As a Christian, it would never occur to me to censor any opinion (as, I hope, this blog and my comments moderation prove). And I would vehemently oppose any attempt by any group or individuals, including Muslims, to censor my own free speech. But I do not claim the right to deliberately spew hatred against any other group or person, nor do I support anybody else's right to do so.
I hope that I have convincingly deconstructed the canard about Pussy Riot's "punk prayer" or Sam "Bacile"'s "Innocence of Muslims" being expressions of free speech. Likewise, I hope that I have shown that those who are now repackaging the authors of these "performances" as heroic martyrs for free speech are, in reality, themselves guilty of apology of hate crimes. Frankly, this is exactly what I would expect from the plutocracy ruling the West and its prostitute corporate media. However, I do want to believe that most people in the West can be convinced of the fact that this is not a religious issue, nor a free speech issue, and that the only really evil party to be condemned in these cases is one spewing its hatred.
The Saker
Statement of the Head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei
In the name of Allah the most Gracious, most Merciful
Allah the Dear an the Wise said: "Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest."
O Iranian people, o Islamic Ummah
The vicious hands of the enemies of Islam had once again uncovered it's malice by offending the noble prophet (PBUH); and it revealed by this crazy, repulsive act the spiteful Zionism's anger at Islam and the Quran's sparkle in the world.
The indication to this crime's publicity and great sin lies in the fact that they targeted the most sacred, luminous character in the world with their disgusting exaggerations.
The hostile policy of Zionism and America, as well as the leaders of international arrogance is behind this repulsive act. Those imagine in vain that they could damage the high position of the Islamic sanctities in the eyes of the rising generation in the Islamic world, and extinguish the roots of their religious believes.
If they hadn't supported the previous links of this chain, like Salman Rujdi, the Dutch caricaturist, and the American pastor who burned the Quran, as well as the anti-Islam movies that were produced under their demand in Zionist capitalists' centers, things wouldn't have led to this unforgivable sin.
The prime suspect in this crime is Zionism and the American government.
If the American politicians were honest in their claims of not being involved, then they have to punish those involved in this disgraceful crime and its backers, with a punishment proportionate to the crime that hurt the hearts of the Islamic people.
Brothers and sisters in various parts in the world should realize that such desperate acts by the enemies against the Islamic awakening, are an indicator to the significance of this revolt and its steady growth.
(source)
Allah the Dear an the Wise said: "Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest."
O Iranian people, o Islamic Ummah
The vicious hands of the enemies of Islam had once again uncovered it's malice by offending the noble prophet (PBUH); and it revealed by this crazy, repulsive act the spiteful Zionism's anger at Islam and the Quran's sparkle in the world.
The indication to this crime's publicity and great sin lies in the fact that they targeted the most sacred, luminous character in the world with their disgusting exaggerations.
The hostile policy of Zionism and America, as well as the leaders of international arrogance is behind this repulsive act. Those imagine in vain that they could damage the high position of the Islamic sanctities in the eyes of the rising generation in the Islamic world, and extinguish the roots of their religious believes.
If they hadn't supported the previous links of this chain, like Salman Rujdi, the Dutch caricaturist, and the American pastor who burned the Quran, as well as the anti-Islam movies that were produced under their demand in Zionist capitalists' centers, things wouldn't have led to this unforgivable sin.
The prime suspect in this crime is Zionism and the American government.
If the American politicians were honest in their claims of not being involved, then they have to punish those involved in this disgraceful crime and its backers, with a punishment proportionate to the crime that hurt the hearts of the Islamic people.
Brothers and sisters in various parts in the world should realize that such desperate acts by the enemies against the Islamic awakening, are an indicator to the significance of this revolt and its steady growth.
(source)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
A Coptic trail to a "flase flag movie"?
Today the net is full of articles expressing doubts about the fact that the person behind the latest anti-Islamic movie is a US-Israeli Jew. A Coptic/Egyptian trail is often mentioned. Various sources also doubt the 5 million dollar figure for the production of the movie.
All these rumors can be tracked to one source: a, quote, "Christian activist" named Steve Klein, I kid you not...
Does that mean that the Wall Street Journal was conned? Or that it did absolutely zero investigation before it broke the story?
If yes, lots of heads should soon be rolling at the WSJ, no?
If not, who is feedings these rumors now?
I will keep an eye on this one, sounds interesting.
The Saker
All these rumors can be tracked to one source: a, quote, "Christian activist" named Steve Klein, I kid you not...
Does that mean that the Wall Street Journal was conned? Or that it did absolutely zero investigation before it broke the story?
If yes, lots of heads should soon be rolling at the WSJ, no?
If not, who is feedings these rumors now?
I will keep an eye on this one, sounds interesting.
The Saker
Karma at work (UPDATED: with "Evil Joe" fanning the flames)
UPDATE: let's hear what the "Evil Joe" has to say about what happened:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
And in the meantime, American Jews are fueling anti-US hatred in the Muslim world.
An American-Israeli Jew, Sam Bacile, gets 100 of his pals to donate 5 million dollars to make an anti-Muslim movie which is aired on YouTube and gets 2 US embassies stormed and 4 US diplomats killed. True, some "Egyptian Coptic activist" called Morris Sadek also appears to be involved because the movie begins with a scene with Egyptian police beating Coptic Christians. No doubt, Sam Bacile and his pals really were heartbroken about the plight of Egyptian Christians when they decided to shoot that scene. As for Mr Sadek, he clearly hates Islam, as he seems to be a supporter of Rev. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who has previously sparked deadly protests around the world by burning a copy of the Quran.
This is so transparent as to be almost comical. And yet, they get away with it, over and over again because ideological blindness prevents most people from seeing things for what they are.
As for Bacile and his pals, they come out "dry out of the water" as the Russian expression goes.
Welcome to life under ZOG!
The Saker
This is so transparent as to be almost comical. And yet, they get away with it, over and over again because ideological blindness prevents most people from seeing things for what they are.
As for Bacile and his pals, they come out "dry out of the water" as the Russian expression goes.
Welcome to life under ZOG!
The Saker
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Why a US attack on Iran is inevitable
Over the past few months there appears to be a dramatic rise in the number of articles, opinions and rumors discussing the likelihood of a US and/or Israeli military attack on Iran. Even the Israeli press is now regularly reporting various opinions about the desirability, or not, of such an attack while keeping a rolling tally of those officials who favor and oppose, often in very strong terms, such an idea.
For a person like me who has been predicting a US attack on Iran ever since I began this blog (in 2007), it is rather amazing to see the degree to which this debate about "will the US/Israel strike Iran or not" is frankly disconnected from reality and my wish today is to offer a few simple reminders which then can only lead to one logical conclusion.
First and foremost, and there is no over-stressing this one, something needs to be made absolutely unequivocally clear: a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is so important and yet so much overlooked, that I will repeat that in big bold letters:
Why?
For one thing, because there is zero evidence that Iran has such a program. Yes, sure, Israeli US and other Western politicians constantly speak about it, but only because not speaking about it or, worse, expressing doubts about it, is pretty much a career-killing mistake. However, away form the media, even Israeli and US politicians know - they have been told so by their own intelligence community - that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Second, even if Iran had a nuclear weapons program or even an fully strike ready nuclear force it would threaten absolutely nobody, not even Israel.
I mean, let's get serious here. Iran being a major regional military power, it does not need nuclear weapons for its defense against a regional attack, nor would it need one if it wanted to attack somebody. What about Israel or a major international power like the USA or, say, an EU member state? Could Iran ever imagine a scenario in which Iran could strike at the USA, Israel or Europe and not immediately by wiped out by a massive retaliation which it would have no means at all from stopping? Of course not. What about the "the Mollah's are crazy, they don't mind dying, they believe in getting 72 virgins in paradise, etc". All this is just a crude Zionist canard. There is zero evidence that anybody in the Iranian regime is crazy, wants to die or, for that matter, use weapons of mass destruction to procure virgins. Last argument: the Iranian might gave nukes to terrorists. That is laughable because the Iranians are no more likely to give nukes to terrorists than any other nuclear-weapons state, if only because by giving out nukes you loose control over them. All this is, frankly, rather silly kindergarten-level nonsense which only gets some traction with the lobotomized zombies who get their news from the TV. Nobody with an IQ at or above room temperature can take that nonsense seriously.
So what is the real deal here?
Simple: Iran is a major regional power, a rich country sitting on top of large energy reserves, which dares to openly defy the USA, Israel and even, crime of crimes, the international financial system (more about that later).
Think of Iran has "Hezbollah, only at a nation-state level, with much more money and resources".
The other "crime" Iran is guilty of being an independent and sovereign Shia state with a very competent diplomatic and intelligence community. In other words, Iran makes controlling the Middle-East very difficult for the USA and Israel. And since the Shia have the bad taste of mostly living in oil-rich parts of the Middle-East, they are a direct threat to the US-NATO-Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance.
Considering the above, the real motives to attack Iran become immediately clear:
First, to set back Iran as much as possible in economic terms, to "bomb it back to the stone age" to use the expression so many US politicians like so much. Think of what NATO did to Serbia, what the USA did to Iraq or what Israel did to Lebanon and Gaza. None of these air operations ever had a significant military impact, but it terms of terrorism against the civilian population they were nothing short of brilliant.
Second, to punish the Iranian people for voting the wrong way, for supporting a regime loathed by the West, and for daring to defy the US and Israeli global overlords. Simply put: the Iranian experiment cannot be allowed to succeed.
Third, a military strike on Iran would give a much needed ego-boost to an otherwise despondent US and Israeli political elite and it would also deliver an equally needed ego-boost to the macho ego to large segments of the US and Israeli public opinion badly bruised by a long string of military defeats.
All of this one already true in 2007. But since then, something huge has happened: the Ponzi-scheme otherwise known as the "international financial system" pretty much collapsed in 2008 and ever since it has been going down and down and down and down. While our financial elites go out of their way to conceal this from us, and while the corporate media assiduously pretends like nothing is really going on, the truth of the matter is that both the USA and the EU could suffer from a quasi-instantaneous financial collapse at any moment. The dollar could loose its (fictitious) value, the EU could go bankrupt, the banks could run out of money, etc. And the really terrifying thing is that this final collapse could be triggered by so many different events that such a crisis has not practically become inevitable. Both French and Russian experts predict that all of the above is likely to happen next year, in early 2013.
Now ask yourself a simple question: if you were one of the plutocrats running the system, the top "1%", the type of person who would have everything to loose, including your life, in case of such a collapse, and if you were given a option of blaming it all on a war with Iran (and/or in defense of Israel, the "only democracy in the Middle-East and our eternal friend and ally!!") - would you go for it? Of course you would.
Think of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" or, on this 11th anniversary of the 911 attacks (organized, of course, by the very same "one percenters") which so conveniently overshadowed Don Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars - $2,300,000,000,000.00 - and ask yourself if having the Iranians try to block the Strait of Hormuz might not be the best way to blame the ensuing economic chaos on "the Mullahs". I think that the answer is rather obvious, is it not?
Besides a "good old war" is an excellent way to boost a stagnant or collapsing economy just as it is a simple but effective way to convince the rest of the planet to purchase US Treasury Bonds and Securities.
The next canard which needs to be debunked is the silly notion that Israel could go at it alone. Nonsense! Israel does not have the military capabilities to destroy the (civilian) nuclear research and energy program of Iran, nevermind bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. All that Israel can do is to act like a trigger to provoke a military conflict between the USA and Iran. So there really are only two options here:
Either the USA and Israel attack together from day 1 or Israel attacks on day 1 and the USA joins the war on day 2.
Anybody doubting that should simply re-watch the speech of Netanyahu to the joint session of Congress on May 24th, 2011 with its 29 standing ovations or listen to any US President's speech at the annual AIPAC dinner (makes no difference which President you pick).
This being said, it is true that a significant segment of the US 1% Establishment does not want a war with Iran. We know that most of the US military is categorically opposed to such an option, and there are good reasons to suspect that even key individuals of the US financial power structure do not want that war either, at least not yet.
The US Nomenklatura is roughly composed of two main factions: first, what I call the "Old Anglo Lobby", which we can think of as "Dollar firsters" as opposed to, second, the "New Jewish Lobby", which we can think of as "Israel firsters". Needless to say, both groups are fluid, its members often interchangeable, and they usually fully agree on most political issues. So they should not be thought of as two hostile groups locked into some kind of zero-sum game. Not at all. For one thing, both of these factions are amazingly corrupt, so personal power and wealth decides a lot, regardless of any other consideration (see Sibel Edmond's book). Tensions between these two groups only flare up when a common policy cannot be agreed upon, and this is what is now taking place with the Iranian issue. The Anglo puppeteers who run the US regime will never shy away from prostituting themselves to the Zionist propaganda and interests, but not at the cost of their own Empire. Simply put, there still is a lot of Big Money in the USA which does not feel that catering to somebody as clearly insane and obnoxiously arrogant as Netanyhu (and most Israeli politicians, really) is worth taking the risk of a war with Iran.
However, the upcoming and inevitable collapse of the US-centered financial system is going to go a long way towards getting the rest of the 1% on board for a diversionary attack on Iran. Besides, when push comes to shove, and regardless of how much money the Old Anglo Lobby still has, the Zionists firmly control Congress and the media. Once the missiles start flying around the Middle-East all they will have to do is speak of "existential threat to Israel", mention the "Holocaust" with its obligatory figure of "6 millions" always attached, and accuse anybody opposed to a US involvement of yet another war on behalf of Israel as being "anti-Semitic" and a "terrorist" and the deal will be done, regardless of any reservations somebody might have.
Bottom line: a US attack in Iran is pretty much inevitable and, barring some major and unforeseen development, its going to happen rather sooner than later.
So forget all this nonsense about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and prepare for the upcoming war.
The Saker
For a person like me who has been predicting a US attack on Iran ever since I began this blog (in 2007), it is rather amazing to see the degree to which this debate about "will the US/Israel strike Iran or not" is frankly disconnected from reality and my wish today is to offer a few simple reminders which then can only lead to one logical conclusion.
First and foremost, and there is no over-stressing this one, something needs to be made absolutely unequivocally clear: a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is so important and yet so much overlooked, that I will repeat that in big bold letters:
A US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program
Why?
For one thing, because there is zero evidence that Iran has such a program. Yes, sure, Israeli US and other Western politicians constantly speak about it, but only because not speaking about it or, worse, expressing doubts about it, is pretty much a career-killing mistake. However, away form the media, even Israeli and US politicians know - they have been told so by their own intelligence community - that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Second, even if Iran had a nuclear weapons program or even an fully strike ready nuclear force it would threaten absolutely nobody, not even Israel.
I mean, let's get serious here. Iran being a major regional military power, it does not need nuclear weapons for its defense against a regional attack, nor would it need one if it wanted to attack somebody. What about Israel or a major international power like the USA or, say, an EU member state? Could Iran ever imagine a scenario in which Iran could strike at the USA, Israel or Europe and not immediately by wiped out by a massive retaliation which it would have no means at all from stopping? Of course not. What about the "the Mollah's are crazy, they don't mind dying, they believe in getting 72 virgins in paradise, etc". All this is just a crude Zionist canard. There is zero evidence that anybody in the Iranian regime is crazy, wants to die or, for that matter, use weapons of mass destruction to procure virgins. Last argument: the Iranian might gave nukes to terrorists. That is laughable because the Iranians are no more likely to give nukes to terrorists than any other nuclear-weapons state, if only because by giving out nukes you loose control over them. All this is, frankly, rather silly kindergarten-level nonsense which only gets some traction with the lobotomized zombies who get their news from the TV. Nobody with an IQ at or above room temperature can take that nonsense seriously.
So what is the real deal here?
Simple: Iran is a major regional power, a rich country sitting on top of large energy reserves, which dares to openly defy the USA, Israel and even, crime of crimes, the international financial system (more about that later).
Think of Iran has "Hezbollah, only at a nation-state level, with much more money and resources".
The other "crime" Iran is guilty of being an independent and sovereign Shia state with a very competent diplomatic and intelligence community. In other words, Iran makes controlling the Middle-East very difficult for the USA and Israel. And since the Shia have the bad taste of mostly living in oil-rich parts of the Middle-East, they are a direct threat to the US-NATO-Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance.
Considering the above, the real motives to attack Iran become immediately clear:
First, to set back Iran as much as possible in economic terms, to "bomb it back to the stone age" to use the expression so many US politicians like so much. Think of what NATO did to Serbia, what the USA did to Iraq or what Israel did to Lebanon and Gaza. None of these air operations ever had a significant military impact, but it terms of terrorism against the civilian population they were nothing short of brilliant.
Second, to punish the Iranian people for voting the wrong way, for supporting a regime loathed by the West, and for daring to defy the US and Israeli global overlords. Simply put: the Iranian experiment cannot be allowed to succeed.
Third, a military strike on Iran would give a much needed ego-boost to an otherwise despondent US and Israeli political elite and it would also deliver an equally needed ego-boost to the macho ego to large segments of the US and Israeli public opinion badly bruised by a long string of military defeats.
All of this one already true in 2007. But since then, something huge has happened: the Ponzi-scheme otherwise known as the "international financial system" pretty much collapsed in 2008 and ever since it has been going down and down and down and down. While our financial elites go out of their way to conceal this from us, and while the corporate media assiduously pretends like nothing is really going on, the truth of the matter is that both the USA and the EU could suffer from a quasi-instantaneous financial collapse at any moment. The dollar could loose its (fictitious) value, the EU could go bankrupt, the banks could run out of money, etc. And the really terrifying thing is that this final collapse could be triggered by so many different events that such a crisis has not practically become inevitable. Both French and Russian experts predict that all of the above is likely to happen next year, in early 2013.
Now ask yourself a simple question: if you were one of the plutocrats running the system, the top "1%", the type of person who would have everything to loose, including your life, in case of such a collapse, and if you were given a option of blaming it all on a war with Iran (and/or in defense of Israel, the "only democracy in the Middle-East and our eternal friend and ally!!") - would you go for it? Of course you would.
Think of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" or, on this 11th anniversary of the 911 attacks (organized, of course, by the very same "one percenters") which so conveniently overshadowed Don Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars - $2,300,000,000,000.00 - and ask yourself if having the Iranians try to block the Strait of Hormuz might not be the best way to blame the ensuing economic chaos on "the Mullahs". I think that the answer is rather obvious, is it not?
Besides a "good old war" is an excellent way to boost a stagnant or collapsing economy just as it is a simple but effective way to convince the rest of the planet to purchase US Treasury Bonds and Securities.
The next canard which needs to be debunked is the silly notion that Israel could go at it alone. Nonsense! Israel does not have the military capabilities to destroy the (civilian) nuclear research and energy program of Iran, nevermind bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. All that Israel can do is to act like a trigger to provoke a military conflict between the USA and Iran. So there really are only two options here:
Either the USA and Israel attack together from day 1 or Israel attacks on day 1 and the USA joins the war on day 2.
Anybody doubting that should simply re-watch the speech of Netanyahu to the joint session of Congress on May 24th, 2011 with its 29 standing ovations or listen to any US President's speech at the annual AIPAC dinner (makes no difference which President you pick).
This being said, it is true that a significant segment of the US 1% Establishment does not want a war with Iran. We know that most of the US military is categorically opposed to such an option, and there are good reasons to suspect that even key individuals of the US financial power structure do not want that war either, at least not yet.
The US Nomenklatura is roughly composed of two main factions: first, what I call the "Old Anglo Lobby", which we can think of as "Dollar firsters" as opposed to, second, the "New Jewish Lobby", which we can think of as "Israel firsters". Needless to say, both groups are fluid, its members often interchangeable, and they usually fully agree on most political issues. So they should not be thought of as two hostile groups locked into some kind of zero-sum game. Not at all. For one thing, both of these factions are amazingly corrupt, so personal power and wealth decides a lot, regardless of any other consideration (see Sibel Edmond's book). Tensions between these two groups only flare up when a common policy cannot be agreed upon, and this is what is now taking place with the Iranian issue. The Anglo puppeteers who run the US regime will never shy away from prostituting themselves to the Zionist propaganda and interests, but not at the cost of their own Empire. Simply put, there still is a lot of Big Money in the USA which does not feel that catering to somebody as clearly insane and obnoxiously arrogant as Netanyhu (and most Israeli politicians, really) is worth taking the risk of a war with Iran.
However, the upcoming and inevitable collapse of the US-centered financial system is going to go a long way towards getting the rest of the 1% on board for a diversionary attack on Iran. Besides, when push comes to shove, and regardless of how much money the Old Anglo Lobby still has, the Zionists firmly control Congress and the media. Once the missiles start flying around the Middle-East all they will have to do is speak of "existential threat to Israel", mention the "Holocaust" with its obligatory figure of "6 millions" always attached, and accuse anybody opposed to a US involvement of yet another war on behalf of Israel as being "anti-Semitic" and a "terrorist" and the deal will be done, regardless of any reservations somebody might have.
Bottom line: a US attack in Iran is pretty much inevitable and, barring some major and unforeseen development, its going to happen rather sooner than later.
So forget all this nonsense about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and prepare for the upcoming war.
The Saker