Friday, 25 September 2009

The Need for Nuclear Proliferation

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”
- Margaret Thatcher

There can be no peace without justice, and justice demands equality. If all nations are equal, then nuclear deterrence is the right of all or none. Accordingly, preventing nuclear proliferation should be applicable to all nations. If the West is eager to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, then they should lead by setting an example!

Peace and stability is more likely to prevail, when all the countries are brought to level footing by total disarmament of nuclear weapons: alternatively, all the nations have the right to use nuclear deterrence. Any other position is likely to result in instability and war; nations armed with nuclear weapons and will be seeking to prevent other nations from acquiring such weapons, which is bound to ignite conflict that can escalate into a full-scale war. Accordingly, Iran is once again selectively targeted, even though at this stage it is only developing nuclear energy capabilities and not nuclear weapons. So when the US and its allies say Iran is a threat to international security what they mean is: Iran is a threat to the US-led hegemony in the region, known as building democracy!

Some of the Western hawkish commentators have argued that nuclear weapons are the right of the ‘civilised’ world only. Such nasty and racist views run through the veins of the establishment. However, it is difficult for the governments to express such views openly, so they use their non-affiliated political henchmen to the dirty work. Those political thugs forget – it was the ‘civilised’ world used such weapons against civilians. The same ‘civilised’ world have just murdered 30,000-100,000 Iraqi civilians, in the name of eradicating WMDs; enough blood to paint the entire White House red.

Even before the advent of nuclear weapons, mass murdering was a key feature of US history. Almost every decade the US commits mass murder in some distant land. Like the devils child, the nation’s birth was marked by the systematic elimination of 70 million peaceful Native Americans.

At present, a significant section of the US masses have no reservation for mass murdering civilians, while simultaneously they have the audacity to label others as terrorist, violent, extremists etc. In a recent street survey, some ordinary Americans were asked1 about using nuclear weapons, the vast majority of them had no qualms and very enthusiastic about it. One person said: “We should nuke them to hell like we did the Japanese". One woman said she could not understand what is holding the US back from nuking Baghdad, so imagine what the cowboys are thinking. Astonishingly, another woman said nuclear weapons should be used against Iraq, because: “they did the same thing to us”. Really, so it seems that some Americans do not just believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs but he actually used them against the US.

When asked2 who the US should invade next, in terms of the war against terror. The answers ranged from Iran, somebody in the Middle East, Cuba, North Korea, France to even their allies like Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka? Yes, even Sri Lanka. I guess someone must have told those folks that Tamil Tigers are Al-Qaeda in disguise! Some could not even locate countries like Iran and North Korea on the world map. But does it matter, since they are going to be blown to pieces with American nukes. The Americans will see the entire operation with running commentary from the FOX-TV crew, and they will never know if it was fact or fiction!

Such level of ignorance and idiocy is very frightening, considering that it is coming from a nation, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Furthermore, its population does not have any conscience in using it against its enemies. As long as their way of life is intact, they have cheap oil, burgers, fries, shakes, porn, baseball, popcorns and plastic surgery, they have no problem, no matter what level of suffering and carnage is inflicted on other nations.

Astonishingly, while these Americans show little reservation in using such destructive weapons, they demonstrate plenty of moral indignation against the tiny bombs of human bombers, who act in retaliation. There is not a single country in the world, where the public would show such lax attitude towards using nuclear weapons. Even in places like Iraq and Palestine, such types of opinions would not be expressed by the public, even though they have plenty of good reasons to do so!

In any case, weapons do not kill, but that the hand that wields it; the hand in turn is controlled by the mind, which makes the decision to kill – the root cause. Therefore, the approach should be largely based on the traditional Keynesian approach of reducing the demand, by eradicating the criminal mindset that is so eager to use such destructive weapons, instead of focusing solely on the supply side of reducing the availability of such weapons.

However, altering this criminal mindset, and to disarm its nuclear capabilities is not possible at this moment. That only leaves, one other alternative for peace and security: that is for everyone to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Then all you are likely to get is the odd verbal threats as North Korea got, but not disarmed Iraq. Nuclear weapons guarantees peace and security from the marauding Americans, hence the US avoided war with nuclear states like North Korea, Russia and China. This is why “democracies do not fight each other” as many of the pro-war pundits constantly yell, because many of those democracies have nuclear deterrence.

Any nation that unilaterally pursues a policy of non-proliferation of WMDs would result in increasing the relative power of its adversaries, while weakening its own position even further. An axiom of international relationship is: powers of nations are relative. It is not how much firepower you posses in absolute terms but in relation to your adversary. As an example, Britain has more firepower today in comparison to its colonial days, but her position is much weaker today, as her firepower is weaker or on par compared to other nations.

Moreover, unilateral disarmament does not guarantee a more peaceful world, but a world where the weaker nations can be brought to its knees, like slaves to serve the empire.

The West armed with huge stockpile of nuclear weapons claims to be intimidated by Iran’s decision to resume the development of nuclear energy (not nuclear weapons). How strange, is it Iran or Europe or the US that is surrounded with hostile military bases with nuclear capabilities? Why Iran is less trustworthy in this issue of nuclear technology, given that Israel has nuclear weapons and has not signed up to NPT? Even if Iran started to produce nuclear weapons, it would take sometime before it can acquire enough nuclear weapons only to deter aggressors, let alone pose any direct threat to Western countries in distant lands. The future Iranian threat, if it eventually manages to produce nuclear weapons is a possible threat to the Western hegemony in the region, and not to the security of the West.

Germany is now taking a lead in this matter by siding with the US openly, perhaps this is a U-turn in their foreign policy, after realising that they have lost considerable amount of war booty, by not fully cooperating with the US over Iraq. Germany may eventually sign up as a full member to the “war on terror”, which is a veil for allying with the US to share the spoils of war. So, the “old Europe” of Donald Rumsfeld is becoming unreliable for Iran, to use it as a bulwark against American unilateralism.

Facing threats from militant West, the need to acquire nuclear deterrence is essential to maintain sovereignty and security. First step is to withdraw from the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by citing the local thug, Zionist-Israel, who has not signed up to NPT. A nuclear Iran would bring about stability in the region as it would balance the other regional power (Israel) with nuclear weapons and an expansionist agenda to build Eretz (greater) Israel; also, it would deter the US from further aggression. Iraq and Palestine, clearly illustrates the need for the Islamic world and others, to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, to deter marauding capitalist nations from waging colonial wars on behalf of large corporations.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK



Monday, 21 September 2009

Containing the Iranian ‘Threat’

Iran is the sheep surrounded by hungry wolves, including the vulture like Zionist-hyena. A cursory examination of the region shows, the US bases surround Iran from all directions. In addition, Israel armed with nuclear weapons is constantly urging the western powers to launch a pre-emptive strike using the same old pretext of holocaust-weapon; somehow Israel are the victims or potential victims of Iranian aggression. The lying treacherous Zionists always masquerading themselves as victims, but they are the ones kill without remorse and in far greater number, the stench of blood still emanates from the women and children of Gaza testifying to this fact!

The Zionist dominated western media is filled with suggestions that Iran is on the march, it is ready to conquer the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world. A check on reality shows the US military bases in distant lands is construed as self-defence (not empire building), and Iran protecting its borders and resources is a threat! Iran has always been confined to its borders unlike the US and Israel. The claim about Iranian threat is ominous of a self-fulfilling prophecy; you claim a threat exists, so you agitate the enemy into action by applying sanctions and constantly demonising it.

It is the traits of cowards to pick a fight with weaker nations, and the vultures to feed on the dead corpses. Thus, note the contrast in response with a resolute North Korea armed with Nuclear weapons. This proves that Iran needs to possess nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty and of course, the lucrative oil from thieves and pirates.

The recent decision by Obama to shelve Bush’s plan to build the Missile Defence System in Eastern Europe to contain the Iranian missile threat has once gain raised this issue of the so-called Iranian threat. This Missile defence System was originally conceived by Ronald Reagan, during the cold war era to confront the Soviet Union. The plan waned as the cold war era ended, but it was subsequently revived by George Bush as a defence against the Iranian missile threat.

Obama says the intelligence reports show that Iran does not really have intercontinental ballistic missiles; even if it did, does it really pose a threat to the mighty US and Europe? Obama’s move may not be as benign as it looks. This move appeased Russia and ultimately, the aim is to get Russia on board to confront Iran, or at the very least persuade Russia not giving weapons or others forms of assistance to Iran. In response to shelving this plan, the US hopes that Russia will reciprocate by halting the planned delivery of sophisticated anti-aircraft systems to Iran that would enable Tehran to shoot down any US or Israeli planes seeking to attack its nuclear facilities.

Sanctions has not worked against Iran, and history shows it is unlikely to work, as every nation is resilient to foreign pressure, especially when that pressure has no justification. The US made it no secret that they had role in agitating the demonstrators to destabilise the country, weaken its resolve. That too has failed. Obama has stated he wishes to engage Iran rather than confront it militarily, which is frustrating the Zionists. This might be one of the reasons behind the recent Israeli decision to build more settlement. The Times reported on a quid pro quo deal where Israel would give concession on its illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territories in return with a green light from the western powers for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “Israel has chosen to place Iranian threat over its settlements,” a senior EU diplomat told The Times on July 16.

Obama should be truthful with the Islamic world is he really wants to uphold the bold declarations made at the Cairo speech. For example, he stated recently that he wishes with conviction to see a nuclear free world, but it seems that he is only seeking a nuclear free Iran, as he is silent about Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Similarly, Obama stated earlier that the US would extend a hand if Iran would be willing to unclench their fist. The Iranian response is simple, if you are truthful Obama, then you should recognise that it is your fists that extends across the Atlantic Ocean to our borders. If you remove your bases, sanctions, and keep the ugly hyena on your leash, you will find that Iran has the magical carpet rolled out for you to fly into Tehran.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Friday, 18 September 2009

Jihad versus State Terrorism

One of the defining and a peculiar characteristic of a secular society is the absolute denunciation of any form of relationship between the use of force and religion, no matter how tenuous the link. Yet, organised violence inflicted by secular states, the West in particular is tolerated, justified and often encouraged. A potent example is the needless bombing of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. General Curtis LeMay, then commander of the US Strategic Air Commander, commented: “If we’d lost the war I would have been indicted for war crimes”.

Two of the largest wars in history, centuries of colonisation, slavery and genocide, the use of the lethal nuclear bombs, not to mention the recent fabricated war on Iraq are all products of secular (Western) nations. Simultaneously, these nations are preaching the immorality of associating religion with the use of force! What is the underlying criterion that makes the distinction between religious and secular states using force as a means to achieve their respective objectives?

The negative attitude towards associating religion with the use of force or violence can be attributed to European history where secularism originated. Religious institutions in the pre-secular era inflicted repression and violence, from the medieval crusades, sectarian wars, and suppression of knowledge, witch burnings to the barbaric inquisitions. This is odd considering that the central message of Christianity is one of ‘love’, as the preachers extol ‘love you enemies’ and ‘turn the other cheek’. The traumatic experience, which Christian Europe has suffered, is reflected in its attitude towards religion in general. Islam has had to bear the full brunt of this reactionary emotional response. In sum, ‘religion’ today is judged according to Europe’s trauma at the hands of Popes and Priests.

Consequently, the West redefined religion (Christianity) as being benign, passive and a matter for the individual to accept or reject. Therefore, the use of state apparatus to enforce religion has been portrayed as a contradiction of ‘religion’ itself. This concept is now being used against the tide of rising of Islam.

As for the secular West remaining indifferent towards the violence inflicted, which increased in quantity and qualitative terms, this can be primarily ascribed to the increase in material prosperity and comfort arising from the colonisation and the pillaging of other distant lands. The scramble for Africa and the genocide inflicted upon Latin America by the conquistadors are the most vivid examples. Furthermore, in the absence of electronic mass media, the news of the violence and suffering inflicted never reached the ordinary masses, touching their conscience.

Whilst pursuing colonisation they found the obstacle of the Islamic state. The colonialist nations (West) embarked upon a programme of propaganda to dismantle the association of military force (Jihad) with religion (Islam). Such propaganda was extended to other areas like polygamy; all constructed based on its own historical experiences, their definitions of ethics and inherent prejudices. This eventually developed into a subject of research and study called ‘orientalism’.

The sole purpose was and is to undermine political Islam and Jihad, thus facilitating the process of imperialism. To aid this objective the British even spawned the heretical sect, known as the Qadianis. Not surprisingly, one of its (Qadianism) main pillars is to abrogate Jihad. All the Islamic conquests under the Prophet Mohammed’s (SAW) personal guidance reinterpreted to purely ‘defensive’ operations.

Even a cursory examination of the expansion of Islam from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) rule in Medina until the first thirty years after his demise, shows the unquestionable expansion of the Islamic state to Morocco, Syria, southern Russia and India. If the expansion is to be explained as the result of a series of ‘defensive’ wars, this is not only the apex of intellectual dishonesty but demonstrates utter stupidity, and lacking in common sense. In any case, the distinction between defensive and offensive can also be vague.

Post 9/11, Jihad has once again come under scrutiny. The term has been historically demonised by the Hollywood film industry, the mass media including the filthy gutter tabloid press. It is usually depicted as ‘wild irrational fanatics’ (Mujahideen) firing their Kalashnikovs, killing anyone considered to be an infidel. Note, the usage of the term ‘Jihad’ and ‘Mujahideen’ had favourable exposure during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. This is no surprise, since it suited the interests of the West. Thus, the usage of the term is not devoid of ulterior political motives.

Similarly, the Afghans battling against the Taliban were described as Mujahideen. This is absurd, considering that, Jihad by definition means battling against the forces of non-Islam (Kufr) rather than against practicing Muslims. It has to be noted, is the Northern Alliances ‘Mujahideen’ are composed of criminals, rapists, homosexuals, and of course drug dealers - the very antithesis of Mujahideen.

The broadcast of the message of Usamah Bin Laden disappointed many of the anti-Islamic fanatics, in their zeal to project an irrational fanatic waving his Kalashnikov and threatening to kill all in site. Coming back to reality from Hollywood fiction, Usamah neither showed anger, nor made stupid and ignorant (unlike President Bush and his cohorts) statements, but appeared calm, humble and serene. The message was clearly understood by the ordinary masses in the Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. In particular, those who have been the victim of American aggression and hence in places like Latin America he is popular. This is something that CNN, FOX or the BBC dare not broadcast.

People have conveniently forgotten hypocrites like Bush who talk of fighting for ‘freedom’, avoided all military service during the Vietnam War. Prescott Bush, his grandfather made a good deal of money dealing with the Nazis, when young American and British soldiers were dying in Europe. In contrast, Usamah Bin Laden personally engaged in the battlefield and sacrificed his vast wealth, instead of squandering it by building opulent palaces.

Jihad can be both defensive and offensive, preferably by the Islamic state. At times, the distinction between the two modes of operation is blurred, depending on the political and military situation. At present, it may be academic to discuss offensive Jihad, as the Islamic state does not exist in the world today. In addition, the Muslims are facing an onslaught in their own lands, but it is worth examining it briefly to clarify some of the misconceptions.

Offensive Jihad

The Islamic state reserves the right to use military force against foreign states that engage in persecuting Muslims or, preventing the spread of Islam within their lands. Note, in principle there is no concept of forceful conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Even today, there are non-Muslims in most of the majority Muslim countries after centuries.

There is an enormous amount of scare mongering in the Western media and from the secular Muslim-intelligentsia depicting Jihad as a means to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force. However, one has to consider the fact that Christian Church was involved in forceful conversion e.g. Spanish Inquisition, and centuries of false propaganda has contributed towards some level of knee jerk reaction from the West. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the fact that the advanced ‘scientific’ West is still medieval in its attitude when it comes to assessing Islam.

There is a very significant and sharp distinction between offensive Jihad and colonialist occupational aggression. The sole purpose of Islamic conquests is to implement Islam, not to engage in empire building where the end justifies the means. The motive is not profit, subjugation or any other form of material benefit. This is why conquered nations often took the flag of Islam and continued with the expansion of the Islamic state e.g. Berbers and Mongols.

The above principles, coupled with other textual evidences, confirm that ‘first strike’ using ANY type of weapon upon civilians or non-combatants is prohibited according to Islamic law. Furthermore, it actually defeats the whole purpose of Jihad. Which is to convey (not to convert by force) Islam to non-Muslims, and annihilating them would defeat that central objective.

In contrast the war waged by the US, Europe and the Zionist entity are primarily against defenceless civilian populations. Palestinians have no state or an army. Economic sanctions and the needless massacre of a retreating army and civilians on the road to Basra, during the first Gulf war are clear war crimes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as the apex of state terrorism, as is the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. The populations were burnt alive by incendiary bombs.

Further evidence of the war mongering nature of Capitalist West is the recent announcement by Bush to acquire mini-nukes and deploy ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bear in mind, only when these weapons are in non US/US-sponsored hands, do they become WMD! We find the US proclaiming peace and attempting to disarm other nations selectively. In addition, US bases are dotted all over the globe, which is projected as ‘defensive’ measures. This is clearly indicative of American Terrorism will continue and increase in the future.

Defensive Jihad

As for defensive wars, this is the case in places like Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq. This is a right recognised universally, as well as in Islamic law. Even under such circumstances, the Muslims are not automatically allowed to retaliate against non-combatants (civilians) except in just retribution. If the US is bombing our cities, than the Islamic state or the Muslims reserve the right to hit US cities in just retaliation. The non-combatants (civilians) within the US must move to halt the crimes of its government. Otherwise, they become complicit by their silence and inaction.

If Iraq, ruled by an unelected dictator could be punished collectively then by greater reasoning, any democratic states can also be punished collectively for the crimes of their government.

The Western intelligentsia must move on from its infantile moaning about 9/11. Its claim of being an innocent victim is far from the truth. The eminent journalist, John Pilger referred to this point the day after 9/11. The casualties are insignificant in comparison to those inflicted upon the Islamic world prior and post 9/11. The inherent racist nature of the West and in particular the US causes them exclusively to focus on white American lives. Therefore, the civilian casualties in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being totally ignored.

9/11 was clearly a retaliatory response to the crimes committed by the US regimes during the last fifty years. Even at individual levels, soldiers are committing all sorts of brutality and oppression. Only recently, a CNN video showed cheering US soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi man. So much for the bravado of the ‘all American hero’, more like obese cowards prefer to shoot and bomb defenceless people from a distance.

An ongoing war would only harm both parties (Islam and the West). The West has the resources and the ability to examine the current conflict objectively but that can only be achieved by removing the wall of prejudice that it has built up over centuries. In addition, all the racist and moneymaking warmongers posing as neo-cons or hawks should be removed.

The West cannot continue to pretend waging defensive wars whilst its military bases are in the Islamic world. If the US truly seeks an understanding with the Islamic world, surely the removal and closure of these bases should be a start. This is not rocket science, as even a schoolchild knows instinctively not to pick a fight with the strongest boy in the class, unless he is compelled to do so for sheer survival.

Common sense dictates you cannot expect adulterers like Clinton and Major to teach others about morality. Nor can you expect chicken hawks like Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to demonstrate bravery and courage. In the same light peace cannot be expected from mass murderers like Kissinger, Hitler, and Bush. Will Obama bring about a real change?

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 10 September 2009

The World According to the Neo-Con Sympathisers

Almost everyday I get email responses to my essays, usually containing lots of two word expletives, e.g. “sand nigger”, “rag head”, “towel head”, “eat shit”, “sheep lover”, “camel lover”; almost all the emails originate from within the US, yes the land of the ‘tolerant’ free speech lovers. Apart from intellectual bankruptcy, the replies also indicate a deep-seated hatred, shaped by a fanatical mindset. Since stereotyping is wrong, I did ask myself the question, are those Americans, exceptional or typical.

Perhaps this is the result of ‘educating’ Americans at one level by people like Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer and Daniel Pipes. At a more basic level, it is the result of getting informed by Hollywood movies, Jerry Springer, Fox TV and the likes. Fox TV is where you get to see analytical ‘debates’ between an extreme neo-con and a moderate neo-con! I came to this conclusion after encountering claims like, Afghans are Arabs, Muslims are a race, Muslims are idol or moon worshippers, and Muslims are engaging in forced conversion in the Darfur region, being all Muslims, maybe they are forcing each other to convert from Islam to Islam! O’Reilly and his ilk will never fail to impress you.

Anyway, I began to think about those two word responses, and thought of the possibility of my being both, wrong and a “sand nigger”. There after, I renounced all my previous writings, written whilst I was clearly misguided and brainwashed by the Arabs and Muslim terrorists. What the neo-cons are saying makes perfect sense, indeed Bush is guided by the Divine. Listed below is my new view of history and the world. Without further ado, let us proceed with the issues, fasten your seat belts, sit tight and I will show you the world according to the neo-cons, Zionists, right-wing Republicans, fundamentalist Christians and the KKK.

Muslims are Violent and Terrorists

Throughout history, the Muslims have been the most violent people in the world. They built cruel empires that committed numerous genocides by virtually annihilating races like the Aztecs, Incas, and the Aboriginal populations. Imams (Muslim preachers) deliberately sent blankets infected with chicken pox, against which the natives had no defence. This was their practice when the missionaries failed to convert them into Islam. The natives were uprooted and placed in concentration camps, herded like animals; millions perished.

In Africa, the Muslim fanatics gave the Quran to the natives while they stole their lands and committed grand theft, by mining and shipping abundant resources like Gold, Titanium and Diamond back to Mecca. The Africans were also forced into slavery, millions transported back to Arabia, some were made to work in the plantations and this is how the Arab-Muslims became wealthy, and not through the rich oil reserves as they claim.

During the medieval period, the Muslim fanatics launched a major crusade to liberate the holy lands in Europe. Salahuddin took 6,000 Christian prisoners at Acre, including men, women and children, they were slaughtered, each one beheaded. The blood ran knee-high in European cities, however, when Richard I conquered some of the territories back, the Muslim prisoners were released unharmed, given a safe passage out and they could not look at Richard, due to the shame that they felt for the difference in conduct. The extremist Muslims also launched the vicious inquisition in Spain, killing millions of Christians and Jews, forcing them to convert or executing them en masse. Eventually many of these Christians and Jews sought refuge in tolerant Europe, running away from the evil Muslim fundamentalists, where they were free to practise their faith and prosper.

In the twentieth century, the war-mongering Muslims caused the largest wars in history that culminated in the nuking of cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were on the verge of nuking Korea and China. Of course, they argued such killings saved many lives, especially the Muslim ones! Through these wars, the first time in human history, civilians were deliberately targeted as policy to break the will of their enemies, in air raids using incendiary bombs. Cities like Dresden, Cologne and Tokyo suffered so greatly under Muslim barbarity that the bombings caused human fat to flow knee high in some places, adults and children were boiled alive.

It was that the Muslims invented terrorism en masse; - state terrorism! Chemical weapons another fantastic invention that was used in Vietnam, little girls were burnt alive, and the flesh slowly melted from their delicate bodies and even jumping into the water did not help. Since, the Muslims were scientifically advanced; this culminated in perhaps the sickest of all their inventions, the Neutron Bomb. The Muslims rejoiced at their ingenuity, now they could exterminate all life in cities and preserve that which Muslim Capitalists desired most, the wealth, the buildings, and the real estate. Therefore, when Peace was eventually won by exterminating their enemies into dust, they would be wealthier.

As a result, Islamic history is full of monsters like Adolf Hitler who as an Arab-Muslim from Turkey! Pol Pot a Malay-Muslim, Stalin an Uzbek-Muslim, Mussolini who was of Libyan extraction, Gengiz Khan secretly converted to Islam and then went on to turn rivers red with human blood, as per the ‘instruction’ in the Quran.

Muslims are Anti-Semitic

Muslims annihilated the Jews in history by establishing the inquisition, countless pogroms and retribution for the Jews Killing the prophet Jesus. Many Jews escaped to tolerant Europe fleeing the nasty Ottoman Sultans and the fanatical Khalifs, who used to wear a large turban, peaked with a feather and a ruby (stolen of course).

The Caliphate then attempted to annihilate the Jews; they called it the final solution, so they built gas chambers, killing millions of them. Eventually, the Jews were saved by the tolerant and peaceful European powers; they waged many wars of liberation, sacrificing millions of Christians, for such altruistic reasons.

The Muslims were influenced by the Darwinian theory of evolution, which placed the Arabs at the top, while the white Anglo-Saxons were placed near the bottom, the Jews occupying the lowest position; hence, their life was not worth the same as the Muslims. The theory encouraged Muslims to engage in racial purity, like eugenics, and removing the undesirable elements by force.

Usurping Israel

The Muslims recaptured Israel in 1948 after 2000-year exile and called it Palestine. They argued that they are God’s chosen people as He personally promised the land to them in their holy book. The Jews could not dispute the Arab claim as the Arabs were there 2,000 years ago, even though it was for a very short period with lots of other empires in between. Then, the Arabs accused the Jews of being religious fanatics for referring to their holy book (Old Testament). Many of the Jews were expelled, the UN resolutions were ignored which demanded justice for the Jews, to have their lands back, and this was the example of the Muslim’s injustice and hatred for law, unless it benefited them of course.

Today the Arabs are terrorising the Jews to the point of extinction, as they continue to launch helicopter gunship attacks, shooting schoolchildren in the back whilst old people are bulldozed alive in their houses. Recently a 13 year old girl was executed by a Muslim Soldier who walked up to her limp body and proceeded to empty a whole pistol magazine into her, then changed a fresh magazine and continued firing into the blood thirsty 13 year old school girl. Even an execution of a 13-year-old boy with his father trying to protect him was broadcast live on TV to the world. As usual, the Arabs are very good with their media spin, so they attributed the killing to the Jews and later said, due to a technical fault, they could not see the child and the father.

Belligerent Iraq launches unprovoked aggression against the US

The US was attacked for invading Mexico and ousting the oppressive monarch by the grand alliance of the Muslim armies coming from across the Atlantic Ocean in 1991. Many parts of Mexico coincidentally happened to be rich in oil reserves. Then the defeated US troops & civilians retreated from Mexico inside the US, while they were moving along the Texas Road, they were annihilated by the Allied Muslim Air Force; the Muslim pilots even fought each other to drop bombs and obliterate man and machine, while shouting with joy “Allah Akbar”. There was no mercy and it came to be known as the “highway of death”. Muslim fanatics claimed to have liberated Mexico and then reinstalled the monarch in the name of ‘democracy’.

A real tragedy, the poor innocent Americans never did any harm to the Muslims; America’s dispute with Mexico was an internal matter for them. The Muslims then applied cruel sanctions for a decade causing the deaths of 500,000 American babies, which was “a price worth paying” according to the Arab League spokesperson, Amir Mousa. The Muslims deliberately destroyed the civilian installations to inflict maximum human misery. Then, they poisoned the water system and the lands with depleted Uranium, resulting in a huge increase in the abnormal births. Americans resisted colonisation, so some Muslim-Arabs attacked the US on 9/11 seeking vengeance and compliance to the UN resolutions.

After the sanctions failed to topple the democratically elected regime in the US, the Arabs launched a second war this time with the pretext of disarming the US of its WMD’s. This was done by the Muslims-Arabs using their own WMDs. Just prior to the war, a geological survey showed that the US has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Muslims argued they are not interested in oil, even though they were the world’s largest consumers of the product. The Muslims insisted that they were trying to liberate the Americans, and it was not a war, an altruistic mission. However, after the invasion, oil revenue worth billions of US dollars went ‘missing’; it was blamed on the local American thieves.

It was in response to this belligerent aggression the US launched the recent war against Iraq. The US acted in self-defence and to save the Iraqis from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, trained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US claimed they had no knowledge of this man. According to Fox News, Saddam Hussein was the father of Osama Bin Laden, also known amongst the Arab tribes as Osama Bin Saddam. He was toppled and captured, the entire incident was celebrated by the US Marines on behalf of the Iraqis, as the Iraqis were not used to leaving their houses.

Despite the liberation of Iraq, the Arab-Muslims are ungrateful, as they continue to attack American targets, so Bush and his allies had to sneak in and out of Iraq like oil-pirates. After the war was launched, the Iraqis caught a virus, which caused them to become very violent, they kidnapped and beheaded people and bombed Mosques, markets and Churches. Some say it was because they were seeking martyrdom and the 72 virgins in paradise, rumour has it many Iraqis resorted to this after being molested by the sexually frustrated US soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, where both men and women participated in strange acts, which the local Iraqis could not reconcile with their culture and values.

To cause maximum offence, the Muslims in some parts of Iraq, which is under their control-desecrated Churches, flushed the Bible down the toilet, and incarcerated American prisoners without due process of law, chained, gagged, and shackled.

The Arabs are now once again trying to justify another war against the US ally, Great Britain. They argued that Britain had no right possess Nuclear weapons, and the potential threat was demonstrated by a power-point presentation at the UN by the Muslim-Arab ambassador, called Colin Powell, whose reputation is now equal in stature to the legendary “cry wolf” boy.

Britain argued that it had no weapons; it was too far for its missiles to reach any Muslim country, but the Muslims argued the principle of pre-emption as a legitimate defensive military option. The theory is to punish a nation for contemplating building weapons, or if the nation is likely to build such weapons in the future, or any evidence to indicate if the leader of a nation is even thinking about it. Hence, it used covert tactic to decimate their population, especially the women, so that there would be less children and thus less terrorists in the future.

‘Saving’ Muslims in Bosnia

The benevolent Americans tried to save the Muslims in Bosnia. First thing was they armed the Serbs heavily with heavy weapons while they put an embargo on arms sales, which meant the Muslims had only light weapons. Eventually, the Serbs surrounded the Muslims, took the UN soldiers hostage, and massacred 8000 Muslims, while the UN was busy trying to figure out their procedures for launching air strikes to protect the Muslims.

For some strange reason the UN could not be mobilised as quickly as it did over Iraq. Never mind, eventually the American forces launched some nominal bombing strikes, and claimed to have saved the remaining Muslims, that is, after 200,000 were slaughtered and an estimated 30,000 women were systematically tortured in Serb rape camps. So a big thank you to the saviours, who fed us to be slaughtered, but would not allow us to defend ourselves.

The Hitler connection

Although Hitler was a Muslim, he kept his identity secret as the head of the German nation. But his affiliation to Islam and Muslims was obvious, as many joined his SS, filled the ranks in his armed forces. It was Islam that inspired Hitler to persecute the unbelieving Jews, Slavs and Gypsies; there are plenty of references to it in his book, Mein Kampf, which many Zionists and Fox News ‘experts’ claims is an exegesis of the Quran. Although many argued that, only some Arabs-Muslims sought help for seeking independence from the colonial rule of Britain and France, who had broken their earlier promise with the Muslims-Arabs in the previous world war, and formed the secret treaty of Sykes-Picot. Muslims have perfected the use of propaganda; they constantly cry “terrorism” when the cities of Bagram, Medina and Lebanon were bombed by the Americans, in retaliation for killing and invading their lands.


This is useful for everyone to get a glimpse of the “other side.” Imagine if you will, the burden of such infamy resting on your sympathisers, is it any wonder that they need to lash out and do what psychologists call “project” their own guilt, inadequacies and horrors on to the Muslim’s?

The media has always played a role in justifying genocide, Hitler’s propaganda film made the case against the Jews, the early American settlers made the case against Native Americans, for the slave trade, and the subsequent massacres, recently they did it for Iraq. The US is now on the move towards engineering another holocaust, justified and supported by those who “project” their own guilt onto others, claiming Muslim’s have blood on their hands, ignoring the fact that they are neck deep in the blood they have shed.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Sunday, 6 September 2009

Sharia Laws and Democracy

In comparing two systems, two major components need to be assessed. Firstly, the laws, and secondly is the consistent application of the laws upon the subjects.

How does one conclude that a certain law is just? Is there a trade-off between having severe punishments or serious crimes? Is it better to punish a criminal using the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ or should one ‘turn the other cheek’ and show forgiveness? Is it a choice between applying the harsh penal codes of the Old Testament or the lenient approach taken from the New Testament? The truth lies somewhere in between the two extreme approaches.

Going further back to a more fundamental point, the definition of a crime is largely subjective as it varies between nations. For example, the perverse act of homosexuality is sign of progress in western democracies, whereas it is considered a crime under Sharia laws. Another example is the business of slandering, this is often projected as entertainment and a manifestation of free speech, but under Sharia law, this sort of conduct is regarded as undignified, and clearly forbidden.

Even in areas where there is concurrence, like theft, robbery, murder, rape etc the same question arises, what is the correct level of punishment that fits the crime? There is no scientific answer for this. It is ultimately dependent on ones underlying beliefs. For example, some would argue that a thief should be whipped in public, and some would say he should be forgiven and others would say he should be imprisoned. Therefore, to scream Sharia laws are barbaric as the media often does is irrational, superstitious and fanatical like the medieval mindset that once flourished in Europe.

A legal system does not become outdated with the passage of time as laws govern human nature, which does not alter. Sharia Laws are after often ridiculed as medieval, but democracy is ancient! Indeed, bulk of the criticism of Sharia laws is based on the ‘twin-towers’ of ignorance and medieval prejudice, as the following two examples will illustrate.

• One of the issues often raised is the myth that Sharia laws oppress the non-Muslim minorities. The rights of non-Muslim minorities are fixed and permanent. The majority Muslims could not alter these rights without contradicting Islamic law. Rather, the rights of minorities are insecure and subjected to be altered anytime in any system where man is the legislator. This is what has surfaced post 9/11, and the various pieces of information continue to unfold regarding the liberal-fascists that arbitrarily imprison people, and subject them to inhumane torture.

• Democracy is projected as the rule of the masses but in reality, the masses are rather subjected to rule of the powerful elites. In theory, anyone can stand for power but in reality, only those with financial backing can qualify to compete. Power in democracy is heavily skewed, which is really represented through democracy. Under Sharia laws, the masses are far better represented and heard, where the power is more distributed evenly. The ruling elites are not the product of large businesses or some aristocratic class. It is Sharia laws that can really represent the interests of the masses that the people are always demanding in a capitalist-democracy.

As for the consistent application of the laws, abuse or misapplication can take place in any system. However, in a divine system, that scope is severely limited as the major principles and laws have already been legislated and cannot be altered. Whereas contradicting basic principles of democracy is often visible, and increasingly seen through the conduct of the US and other Western powers post 9/11.

At times, the contradiction is at a fundamental level. Israel is projected as the only democracy in the Middle East, yet it endorses a religious identity that contradicts the secular notion of democracy, which treats all the citizens as equals regardless of their religious identity. Arabs, be they Muslim, Christian, Agnostics, Atheists are expelled daily, whereas any Jew from any part of the world has the key to the houses of disposed people, is this still a democracy?

In a democracy, your rights can be given and taken away instantly. An innocent citizen can be incarcerated for years, and subjected to torture. Under Sharia laws, Muslims and non-Muslims alike can argue for their rights under the divine laws, which cannot be modified or abolished.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK