There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

By Elias Davidsson

10 January 2008

Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Note, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded as a lie.

FULL ARTICLE AT: http://newdemocracyworld.org/Noevidence.pdf

See also: 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566567165/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Free speech cannot be an excuse for hate

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Free speech cannot be an excuse for hate

Jun 15, 2008 04:30 AM

Haroon Siddiqui

One staple of anti-Semitism has been that Jews have taken over the world, or are about to. Now Muslims are being accused of the same.

That Muslims pose a dire demographic and ideological threat to the West was the hypothesis of a 4,800-word article, The Future Belongs to Islam, in Maclean’s magazine in October 2006. Its reverberations are still being felt.

Last month, the Ontario Human Rights Commission called it “Islamophobic.” This month, the British Columbia commission held a week-long hearing. And the federal commission is weighing a report from its investigators.

The commissions are responding to petitions filed by a Muslim group that argued the article constituted hate and that Maclean’s refused an adequate counter-response.

The issue has triggered a heated debate.

Many commentators vilified the complainants – or Muslims in general. Joining the latter was CBC-TV’s Rex Murphy. He sneered at the idea that Canadian Muslims would have the temerity to go to human rights commissions when “real human rights violations” were rampant across the Muslim world, especially in Saudi Arabia.

The parallel was similar to ones heard by Quebec’s Bouchard-Taylor commission, which has since dismissed them as “deceitful.”

Murphy is entitled to his sulphurous opinions. But why doesn’t the publicly funded CBC offer counterbalancing points of view?

Other commentators have invoked the free-speech argument, in its various formulations – free speech is so precious that even hate speech should not be censored. Or hate speech may be curbed but only through the Criminal Code. Or hate speech is best dealt with under human rights statutes, which should be tightened to allow only “vexatious” cases, not “frivolous” ones.

But freedom of speech is not absolute. “Except for the U.S., virtually every Western democracy has laws against hate,” notes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. “Our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused.”

The Supreme Court has upheld those laws. Jewish, gay and other groups have long advocated their use. Few Canadians complained. But now that Muslims are, many are.

“That’s really what it’s about,” Farber told me. “When non-Muslims were using it, nobody really cared.

“People need scapegoats. It used to be Jews. Now it’s Muslims, to a great extent. Tomorrow, it may be Bahais or somebody else …

“People should focus on the law, not on those using it. If the complaint is frivolous, the system will deal with it.”

Barbara Hall, chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has offered a similarly clear-headed view.

Even while refusing to hear the Maclean’s case – because her commission, unlike the one in B.C., does not have the jurisdiction to hear cases against the media – she used her “broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights” to speak out:

“Islamophobia is a form of racism … Since September 2001, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance …

“The Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to `the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.”

Her statement, posted on the commission’s website, is worth reading. So is a blog by John Miller, professor of journalism at Ryerson University: thejournalismdoctor.ca/.

He calls the Maclean’s article “xenophobic,” and says it’s riddled with errors. He ridicules the Canadian Association of Journalists for its knee-jerk defence, given that the article may have violated the association’s own guidelines for fairness, accuracy, access and anti-discrimination.

People will always differ on what constitutes hate or where to draw the line on free speech. But most people would agree that free speech is not a licence to target vulnerable groups, let alone risk rupturing the common good in Canada.

source : http://www.thestar.com/article/443340

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Racism is bad for you

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

by Mohamed Elmasry
(Tuesday, June 10, 2008)

---

“The proposed play’s plot thesis is that racism is a moral crime for which all of society eventually pays. The author hopes that some directors will realize its potential on stage to be an effective educational presentation for schools or universities.”

The plot of this play is reality-based.

The beginning of the play is now, the year 2008, but moves back to Canada in the 1910s and then forward into a we-all-hope-not Canada of 2030.

The characters are all Canadian. They are identified here by gender, age, religion, ethnic origin, or job for the purposes of character-building within the demands of the plot.

The proposed play’s plot thesis is that racism is a moral crime for which all of society eventually pays. The author hopes that some directors will realize its potential on stage to be an effective educational presentation for schools or universities.

While coming to their opinions in different ways, the core characters all believe that Canada should restrict the number of immigrants it accepts from non-European countries, especially the Muslim ones.

Each character argues that non-whites — especially Muslims — do not integrate well into Canadian society and therefore pose a significant problem to “our way of life.” To those who are skeptical about their opinions, all three main characters advance a supporting argument that “small is beautiful” and besides, immigrants do not add much to Canada’s economy anyway (a lie that surfaces later in the plot).

After the three key characters lead an intensive lobbying campaign to the federal government to get their restrictive immigration viewpoint across, the Canadian government responds in their favour (this is already happening in real-life): the minister of immigration is given wide-ranging powers to select immigrants based on who the minister thinks should be admitted at the time. There would be no recourse for applicants who had met immigration requirements, but happened not to fit what the immigration minister wanted.

Let us call the characters A, B and C. All are males, although the director of this play can easily find real life Canadian female characters by doing a web search using key words like “Islamophobia,” “anti-immigrants,” “anti-multiculturalism,” etc.

Character A is a white Christian immigrant from a European country who is a university professor. Character B is a second-generation Jewish white male from an immigrant family, a reporter-turned-writer. Character C is a Muslim immigrant from India, also a university teacher.

None of the three feel that the “racist” label fits them at all, but they do tend to seek out and keep friends who think as they do. The three have done a number of writing projects together and meet regularly to work on their biggest undertaking so far – promoting immigration restrictions. Their shared viewpoint has in fact become their obsession.

They form a small advocacy organization, create a web page, give public lectures, and publish books, papers and articles.

They are adamant in their mission: they do not want Canada to change.

They do not want to see their country become a socially chaotic nation that allows citizens (this is not a fabrication) to eat dogs as food, or chew Qat leaves for stimulation in place of good old “I am Canadian” beer. One of the three will say, “Canadians don’t care what immigrants eat, until someone decides to barbecue man’s best friend.” The other two characters think this is a brilliantly clever point.

The three see themselves as mainstream Canadians and do not feel that recent-arrival minorities should have the right to vote or lobby the government for social change “like white folks do.”

Another of the characters is heard to comment; “I like your argument when you say that the recent threat of jihadist terror has brought to the fore the dangerous nexus between large-scale immigration and limited levels of integration among Muslims in Canada.”

Because no Muslim has ever been convicted in a Canadian court of law on terrorism charges, however, the three are prepared to look at what all the “experts” say, but still declare “Muslims are a danger anyway.”

The three characters in fact believe themselves to be sufficiently expert on the subject of immigration and express their opinions freely and often. But one day a young university student takes offense and confronts them with some hard facts during a public lecture: they are no experts on immigration.

Undeterred in their position, the three state publicly that: “We have been victimized by those who accuse us of being anti-immigrant, xenophobic, or alarmist. This is not true: we all love to eat shawarma and sweet-and-sour chicken.”

The play would include a flashback to the year 1910, when the Canadian government gave itself the right to exclude “any immigrant who belonged to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada” – this is a factual historical quote – as well as the right to deport anyone found to be politically or morally unfit. The legislation of 1910 was specifically enacted to exclude non-Europeans, Jews, Blacks and Asians.

During this historical flashback, actors from Canadian visible minorities may articulate on stage the human suffering that resulted from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923; the Order in Council prohibiting the immigration of members of the “Negro race” of 1911; the 1930 legislation excluding “any immigrant of any Asiatic race”; and the “None is too many” policy applied to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War.

The play would then fast-forward to the year 2030, in which we encounter a Canada whose society has been profoundly re-shaped by the “successful” efforts of the three original characters. Very few – far too few — immigrants have been admitted during the intervening 22 years. All three characters (A, B and C) now face old age in situations they’d never imagined.

The Muslim professor from India discovers that there is no specialized surgeon available in Canada to operate on his brain tumor. Then he flies back to his almost-forgotten homeland to seek treatment from a world-renowned brain surgeon. She tells her patient that a decade earlier her application to immigrate to Canada was refused; a woman wearing a hijab was not on the minister’s preferred list.

The Jewish writer ends his days in an understaffed old age home, where he commits suicide out of sheer despair and loneliness.

The Christian university teacher is shown the door long before his planned retirement. He is denied the job he loves most, teaching young students; but with the nation’s stagnant birth-rate there are none to teach. He ends up in a mental institution.

source : http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/52207

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Video : Indict Bush for Murder

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Video : Indict Bush for Murder

US media refuses to publish or report this story

Vincent Bugliosi has written three New York Times #1 best sellers.

He has also had twenty-one successful murder prosecutions.

He believes beyond any shadow of a doubt that George W. Bush can be, and should be, indicted for the crime of murder for the death of over 4,000 US servicemen.

In spite of his sterling reputation and his undeniable success as an author no US publisher would issue his book and he has been largely ignored by the US news media.

A fascinating interview with Alex Jones.

source : http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/340.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Israel’s Influence on US Foreign Policy

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Israel’s Influence on US Foreign Policy

In whose interest?

Former U.S. Marine Corps officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter talks about the unique influence that the Israel war lobby has on the U.S. news media and U.S. foreign policy.

Can anything be done to turn this around?

Ritter has written an important new book “Waging Peace” which answers this question realistically and comprehensively.

It’s the peace manual for our times.

By they way, please note that the is a HUGE difference between the Israeli War Lobby (an alliance of the Israeli war party and corrupt politicians in the US) and Israelis, Jews, and even Zionists.

Many Israelis oppose the behavior of their government as do many Jews in the United States and elsewhere. Also, many “Zionists” are naive people whose idealism has been co-opted by corrupt elements.

To talk of “Israel”, “Jews” and even “Zionists” as the problem is ignorant and counterproductive. It is the Israeli war party and their supporters in the US that is the problem.

At public meetings, I insist that this distinction is made and I am surprised by how many professional critics of the war party dismiss its importance. It’s a VERY important distinction.

source : http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/113.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

WATCH Videos: Many Somali Warlords Have British or EU passports

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

WATCH Videos: Many Somali Warlords Have British or EU passports

Dispatches reveals how key politicians at the heart of the vicious fighting in Somalia – described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis – enjoy incredibly close links to Britain. They have British or EU passports, their families live here and they commute between Somalia and homes in English cities. British taxpayers are financing them in the name of democracy – yet in Somalia they are linked to allegations of mass murder, torture, extortion and corruption.

SEE: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20092.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

U.S. pastor apologizes to Jews for ‘God sent Hitler’ comment

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

U.S. pastor apologizes to Jews for ‘God sent Hitler’ comments

By Haaretz Service

John Hagee. (AP)

Last update – 07:34 14/06/2008

A prominent American televangelist and outspoken supporter of Israel publicly apologized Friday for remarking that the Holocaust was the work of divine providence, and that “God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land.”

“In a sermon in 1999, I grappled with the vexing question of why a loving God would allow the evil of the Holocaust to occur,” John Hagee, the Texas-based preacher wrote in a letter to Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman. “I know how sensitive the issue of the Holocaust is and should be to the Jewish community and I regret if my Jewish friends felt any pain as a result.”

Last month, audio of Hagee’s remarks surfaced on the internet, prompting Republican presidential hopeful John McCain to disavow the pastor’s prior endorsement of his candidacy.
Advertisement
Foxman issued a statement welcoming the pastor’s apology. “Pastor Hagee has devoted his life to combating anti-Semitism and supporting the State of Israel,” Foxman said. “We are grateful for his efforts to eradicate anti-Semitism and to rally so many in the Christian community to stand with Israel.”

Labor Party MK Colette Avital, a former consul general in Israel’s mission in New York, penned an op-ed piece for Haaretz earlier this month in which she called on the Israeli government to follow McCain’s example and disassociate itself from Hagee.

“As someone familiar with the evangelicals’ views and beliefs on the second coming of Jesus, there is nothing surprising to me about his statements,” Avital wrote. “It only causes me to sigh in relief because the truth is coming out.”

source : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992624.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

10 Shocking Facts About Global Slavery in 2008

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Written by Caroline Nye

Photo by camera_rwanda

2008 witnesses the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade in America. Amidst the celebrations, what many people fail to realize is that slavery persists today in the modern world on an enormous scale.

In spite of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 stating that “slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms,” the figures accompanying the modern slave trade seem inconceivable in a global society that prides itself upon its modern-day values and emphasis on human rights.

1. There are more people in slavery now than at any other time in human history.

According to research carried out by the organization Free the Slaves, more people are enslaved worldwide than ever before.

In its 400 years, the transatlantic slave trade is estimated to have shipped up to 12 million Africans to various colonies in the West. Free the Slaves estimates that the number of people in slavery today is at least 27 million.

The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center suggests that three out of four slavery victims are women and that half of all modern-day slaves are children. ‘Countless other’ people are in other forms of servitude which are not legally classified as slavery, according to the Anti-Slavery Society, described ambiguously by some as ‘unfree labour’.

2. The value of slaves has decreased.

A slave in 1850 in American South cost the equivalent of approximately $40,000. According to figures published by FST, the cost of a slave today averages around $90, depending on the work they are forced to carry out.

Photo by saibotregeel

A young adult male laborer in Mali might only fetch $40, whereas an HIV-free female might attract a price of up to $1000.

Expert Kevin Bales says that because modern slavery is so cheap, it is worse than that of the Atlantic slave trade.

People have become disposable and their living conditions are worse than ever before as a result of their value.

3. Slavery still exists in the US.

Estimates by the US State Department suggest up to 17,500 slaves are brought into the US every year, with 50,000 of those working as prostitutes, farm workers or domestic servants.

According to the CIA, more than 1,000,000 people are enslaved in the US today. Thousands of cases go undetected each year and many are difficult to take to court as it can be difficult to prove force or legal coercion.

4.Slavery is hidden behind many other names, thus disguising it from society.

These names are chattel slavery (the traditional meaning of slavery), bonded labor, trafficking, forced labor, and forced marriage, amongst others.

Photo by saibotregeel

5. The least known method of slavery is the most widely used.

Bonded Labor occurs when labor is demanded in order to repay a debt or loan and the cyclical nature of debt and work can enslave the person for the rest of their life. Some conditions are so controlled that slaves are surrounded by armed guards while they work, many of whom are slaves themselves. This has been found in Brazil. It is estimated that there are 20 million bonded labourers in the world.

6. Human trafficking has recently been described as “the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world.”

This shocking claim was made by former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. The UN estimates trafficked human cargo generates around $7 billion dollars a year.

Photo by gigawebs

7. To buy all bonded laborers out of slavery could cost as little as $40 per family.

The $40 figure was provided by the Center for Global Education, New York. Kevin Bales compares the total cost of ending all slavery with one’s week’s cost of the war on Iraq.

8. Free the Slaves believe it is possible to end all slavery within 25 years.

Ending slavery won’t be easy, but humanity is up to the challenge.

9. Many slave-produced goods might reach your home without you realizing their origin.

Industries where slave labor is often highly suspected include cocoa, cotton, steel, oriental rugs, diamonds and silk. Currently the only way to ensure the products you buy are slave-free is to buy Fair Trade certified goods.

Photo by saibotregeel

10. Your actions affect global slavery.

By buying fair trade, learning more about modern slavery, spreading the word, and joining a movement such as Free the Slaves, Anti-Slavery International, or the American Anti-slavery group, you as an individual can help abolish slavery completely.

With the number of slaves rising due to increasing economic returns, a universal lack of awareness and anti-slavery laws not being enforced, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center believes “efforts to combat slavery will have only limited effectiveness” unless something is done on a larger scale.

The bicentennial of the abolition of the slave trade would be better commemorated by every individual taking meaningful action to help end the exploitation of human labor once and for all.

source : http://matador.org/10-shocking-facts-about-global-slavery-in-2008/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Ex-film star Bardot gets fifth racism conviction

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Tue Jun 3, 2008

PARIS (Reuters Life!) – A Paris court fined former film star Brigitte Bardot 15,000 euros ($23,400) on Tuesday for inciting racial hatred by insulting Muslims, her fifth conviction on similar charges in 11 years.

Bardot, now an animal rights campaigner, has repeatedly taken aim at the feast of Eid al-Adha during which Muslims ritually slaughter a sheep but she has also criticised other traditions and denounced immigration from Muslim countries.

Her latest conviction was over a 2006 tract on the Eid al-Adha issue in which she described the Muslim community in France as “this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts”.

Prosecutors had recommended a two-month jail sentence in addition to a fine, but the court did not follow the advice. The 73-year-old Bardot, who says she is not fit to travel, was not present when the ruling was handed down.

In addition to the fine, Bardot will have to pay symbolic damages to several anti-racism organisations. The court also said the ruling against her would have to be published in the newsletter of her animal rights foundation.

Bardot’s lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said she was unlikely to appeal because she was tired of trials.

“She gets the impression that they are trying to silence her but she will not be silenced in her defence of the cause of animals,” he said.

She had already been fined four times since 1997 for inciting racial hatred, with the amounts increasing gradually from 1,500 euros to 5,000 euros.

The blonde Bardot, a sex symbol of the 1950s and 60s, was the star of influential films “And God Created Woman” by Roger Vadim in 1956 and “Contempt” by Jean-Luc Godard in 1963.

The young Beatles said they were fans and French songwriter Serge Gainsbourg, a former lover, wrote a hit song about her.

But since her retirement from the screen, she has become an increasingly controversial figure whose animal rights campaign has been overshadowed by verbal attacks on gays, immigrants and the unemployed.

source : http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-33883520080603

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

The Hijab ‘controversy’ that isn’t

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

RTE’s Education and Science Correspondent Emma O Kelly finds that the recent ‘controversy’ over the Hajib in schools is a media creation

June 12, 2008

In the midst of all the articles, opinion pieces and polls in newspapers and elsewhere about the wearing of the Hijab by pupils in schools here, one crucial point appears to be being lost: within the schools themselves, it is currently not an issue of any real concern.

In one way that’s probably not so surprising. After all, for generations the Veil has played a central role in education here. Countless generations of Irish children have been educated in Irish schools by Irish women wearing veils. Some still are. The only difference now is that its pupils, not teachers, who are covering their heads, and they’re not Catholic, they’re Muslim.

In the schools where this is happening, it’s no big deal. Where I have discussed the matter with schools, they tell me no permission was given to a particular pupil to wear the veil, but only because permission was never sought. These schools see it as a private matter, to do with tolerance and the right to religious expression.

I’ve discussed this matter with very few schools and that’s because it’s a non-issue. I have been to lots of schools, often specifically covering integration-related issues. I’ve attended numerous education conferences including those dealing with the challenges of integration.

In all these settings, one hears the long list of concerns schools have about catering for their increasingly diverse student cohort. It’s a very long list and it usually begins with the shortage of English Language teachers. But so far, the Hijab has never, to my knowledge, featured on that list.

The latest round of media comment was sparked by a letter the principal of Gorey Community School wrote to the Department of Education. Nicholas Sweetman wrote to the Department looking for guidelines. His letter was released under Freedom of Information legislation.

The Department of Education says Mr Sweetman’s letter is one of what would appear to be just two received from schools with queries related to the Hijab. That’s just two schools out of 732 second-level schools, out of more than 4,000 schools in total.

Mr Sweetman may want guidelines, but he says the wearing of the veil is ‘not an issue’ in his school or, in his view ‘in any schools currently’. His school does not have a problem with pupils who wish to wear it. In a conversation last week, he told me: ‘the media has sought to make this an issue which it really isn’t’.

An education spokesperson from the Irish Islamic community says they are aware of no instance where a school pupil has had difficulty with her school authorities over the wearing of the Veil.

This is not to say that there may not been difficulties between schools and pupils wearing the Hijab but if there have been they must have been few and far between.

Some commentators have referred to the banning of the Hijab in schools in France. The French ban followed intense and bitter debate and controversy there. One may agree or disagree with that decision, but Ireland cannot be compared to France. The French education system is a secular one and it is on that basis that the Hijab, along with other overt religious symbols, was banned.

Our education system is of course the complete opposite – and a ramble down the corridors of many of our secondary and primary schools will testify to this.

There among the crucifixes and statues of the Virgin Mary you’re likely to see the faces of countless women, some smiling, some stern, wearing some of the most outrageous and ostentatious headgear you are ever likely to see.

I began this article by saying that the wearing of the Veil or Hijab is ‘currently’ not an issue of concern in Irish schools. It would be deeply regrettable if a media-driven debate, that’s taking place outside the reality of student and school experience, were to make it one.

source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0612/hijab.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

A world in which the US is no longer No. 1

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Journalist Fareed Zakaria writes of the rise of new global powers.

By Jonathan Rosenberg | June 13, 2008 edition

While the United States remains the world’s most powerful country – militarily and economically – its place on the international stage is changing. The wealthiest person on earth is Mexican, the tallest building is in Taipei (soon to be surpassed by one in Dubai), and the biggest factories are in China. India’s film industry, Bollywood, is now the world’s largest, producing more movies and selling more tickets than Hollywood. And when experts identify the multinational companies that will become leaders in the future, they point to firms in Latin America, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia.

The US has even surrendered its supremacy in shopping malls. Only one of the world’s Top 10 malls is in the United States. And who’d have guessed that an American shopaholic with an urge to visit the biggest mall on earth would have to fly to Beijing?

These developments illustrate the central point of Fareed Zakaria’s illuminating and timely new book The Post-American World. Over the past couple of decades, a global transformation has seen countless countries experience remarkable economic growth. While the US will remain an economic power, the days of American economic preeminence, which characterized the 20th century, are over. According to Zakaria, this points not to the decline of the US, but to “the rise of the rest.”

Zakaria writes that the global economic explosion is a consequence of political change (the fall of the Soviet state discredited central planning); the free movement of capital around the world (the daily flow of trillions of dollars lubricates the global economy); and the communications revolution (the Internet and cellphones have transformed business by driving down costs and increasing efficiency).

The rise of India and China

In presenting this story, Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and an astute analyst of US foreign policy, looks closely at economic developments in China and India, and assesses how the spread of global wealth will affect the US.

With annual economic growth averaging 9 percent for the past 30 years, China has emerged as a global economic powerhouse. In 1978, the country made 200 air conditioners; in 2005, it made 48 million. It produces two-thirds of the world’s photocopiers, microwave ovens, and shoes, and now exports as much each day as it did in all of 1978.

The average income for a Chinese person has increased sevenfold during that time, allowing 400 million people to escape poverty. While the country faces enormous challenges (how, for example, will the government reconcile its policy of economic liberalization with its refusal to democratize the political system?), China will prove a formidable competitor for the United States and a key concern for US policymakers.

Zakaria’s discussion of India is particularly incisive. Born and raised there (he left to attend Yale University and later Harvard University), he details the changes washing over the country, which, like China, is developing at warp speed. While there are key differences between them (India is a democracy), India’s remarkable growth, like China’s, has drastically reduced poverty. More Indians have risen from poverty in the past 10 years than in the previous 50.

Though the Indian economy is far smaller than China’s, experts predict that by 2020, its gross domestic product will equal Britain’s. Driven by a high rate of personal consumption, India’s economy, based mainly on services and industry, is unlike any in the developing world. To be sure, hundreds of millions of Indians remain unspeakably poor, but Zakaria claims that the economic expansion can be felt everywhere, “even in the slums.” And US policymakers and business leaders will be glad to know that the Indians are overwhelmingly pro-American.

What role will America play?

Zakaria concludes with an assessment of America’s place in this new era. The US should not be alarmed, he writes, for it will not be an anti-American age. Indeed, the American political and economic model is admired across the globe.

America can maintain its considerable economic power, Zakaria argues. Immigration and American higher education will help the economy remain vibrant and innovative. And America’s existing strength in nanotechnology and biotechnology, two cutting-edge industries, will catalyze American economic growth well into the 21st century.

Nevertheless, the US confronts real challenges. Zakaria sees the American political system – captured by “money, special interests, a sensationalist media, and ideological attack groups” – as the country’s “core weakness.” It serves partisan battles, he writes, but solves no real problems.

Zakaria is also concerned that in recent years American leaders have seemed “clueless about the world.” While the Middle East is important, it is time to stop worrying mainly about the ancient conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. Instead, US policymakers should start thinking seriously about the 21st century. Forging constructive relationships with China, India, Russia, and Brazil will be essential, for it is there that the “future is being made.”

source :
http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2008/06/13/a-world-in-which-the-us-is-no-longer-no-1/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

The rule of law prevails

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

From Friday’s Globe and Mail

June 13, 2008 at 7:55 AM EDT

The United States’ prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been fatally undermined. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president and Congress cannot deny a prisoner at Guantanamo the right to cry out to an independent judge in civilian courts that he is being wrongly detained. With that, it is time for President George W. Bush to ensure that the walls of Guantanamo come tumbling down.

This is a constitutional ruling for the ages. The issue was whether the Constitution could be switched on and off at will, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, put it. Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that Americans would die as a result of the ruling. But Justice Kennedy wisely said security exists “in fidelity to freedom’s first principles.”

Detainee hearings at Guantanamo have been rigged by the state. The men who brought yesterday’s case are Bosnians who were suspected of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo; Bosnian police turned them over six years ago to U.S. authorities. When a U.S. military tribunal declared them enemy combatants, they had no lawyers to represent them; they were not allowed to know the most important allegations against them; they had limited means to find or present evidence in their defence; and there were no limits on the state’s use of hearsay, making it impossible for them to challenge witnesses. And because the Supreme Court had ruled it acceptable to hold prisoners for the duration of a war – and the war on terror could last a generation or more – these men faced a virtual life sentence.

No wonder a British jurist called Guantanamo Bay a legal black hole. And no wonder all Western countries, except Canada, insisted that the U.S. send their nationals home. Only Canada has allowed its citizen, Omar Khadr, arrested at 15 in Afghanistan (he’ll be 22 in September) to disappear into that black hole. Let the process work, the Harper government says. But the very foundation of the process, as the U.S. Supreme Court says, is unlawful.

Whatever value Guantanamo Bay had in extracting intelligence from its prisoners has surely been exhausted by now, for almost all the detainees.

Serious terrorist suspects should receive fair hearings in U.S. civilian courts. Mr. Khadr should be handed to Canadian authorities, who can decide, in accordance with Canadian and international law, how to deal with him.

Guantanamo is a blight on a proud democracy. The Supreme Court’s stirring decision is a triumphant moment for the rule of law in the United States.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wesupreme13/BNStory/specialComment/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080613.wesupreme13

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

‘Special Weapons’ Have a Fallout on Babies in Fallujah

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

‘Special Weapons’ Have a Fallout on Babies in Fallujah

by Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail – June 13, 2008

FALLUJAH – Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say.

The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after “special weaponry” was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004.

After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah.

In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far.

Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among US veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation.

“We saw all the colors of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles,” Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two US sieges of 2004 told IPS. “I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus.

“The most worrying is that many of our women have suffered loss of their babies, and some had babies born with deformations.”

“I had two children who had brain damage from birth,” 28-year-old Hayfa’ Shukur told IPS. “My husband has been detained by the Americans since November 2004 and so I had to take the children around by myself to hospitals and private clinics. They died. I spent all our savings and borrowed a considerable amount of money.”

Shukur said doctors told her that it was use of the restricted weapons that caused her children’s brain damage and subsequent deaths, “but none of them had the courage to give me a written report.”

“Many babies were born with major congenital malformations,” a pediatric doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. “These infants include many with heart defects, cleft lip or palate, Down’s syndrome, and limb defects.”

The doctor added, “I can say all kinds of problems related to toxic pollution took place in Fallujah after the November 2004 massacre.”

Many doctors speak of similar cases and a similar pattern. The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records.

The Fallujah General Hospital administration was unwilling to give any statistics on deformed babies, but one doctor volunteered to speak on condition of anonymity — for fear of reprisals if seen to be critical of the administration.

“Maternal exposure to toxins and radioactive material can lead to miscarriage and frequent abortions, still birth, and congenital malformation,” the doctor told IPS. There have been many such cases, and the government “did not move to contain the damage, or present any assistance to the hospital whatsoever.

“These cases need intensive international efforts that provide the highest and most recent technologies that we will not have here in a hundred years,” he added.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed concern Mar. 31 about the lack of medical supplies in hospitals in Baghdad and Basra.

“Hospitals have used up stocks of vital medical items, and require further supplies to cope with the influx of wounded patients. Access to water remains a matter of concern in certain areas,” the ICRC said in a statement.

A senior Iraqi health ministry official was quoted as saying Feb. 26 that the health sector is under “great pressure”, with scores of doctors killed, an exodus of medical personnel, poor medical infrastructure, and shortage of medicines.

“We are experiencing a big shortage of everything,” said the official, “We don’t have enough specialist doctors and medicines, and most of the medical equipment is outdated.

“We used to get many spinal and head injures, but were unable to do anything as we didn’t have enough specialists and medicines,” he added. “Intravenous fluid, which is a simple thing, is not available all the time.” He said no new hospitals had been built since 1986.

Iraqi Health Minister Salih al-Hassnawi highlighted the shortage of medicines at a press conference in Arbil in the Kurdistan region in the north Feb. 22. “The Iraqi Health Ministry is suffering from an acute shortage of medicines…We have decided to import medicines immediately to meet the needs.”

He said the 2008 health budget meant that total expenditure on medicines, medical equipment and ambulances would amount to an average of 22 dollars per citizen.

But this is too late for the unknown number of babies and their families who bore the consequences of the earlier devastation. And it is too little to cover the special needs of babies who survived with deformations.

source : http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fadhily.php?articleid=12984

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

A Failed Project for the New American Century?

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

A Failed Project for the New American Century?

The question now is – how did The Project for the New American Century go?

By Tim Buchholz

It was early morning (for me) when my roommate got a call from his mother in Wisconsin telling him to turn on the TV. That’s when we saw the first building on fire. We ran to our roof in Brooklyn that overlooked Manhattan and saw the plumes of smoke filling the air, and that’s when we saw the second plane hit. We were in shock; we couldn’t believe what we just saw. We thought the world was ending.

As soon as the trains were running again, my friend and I went in to the city and got off at Union Square/14th Street, where anything below 14th was blocked off. Makeshift hospitals lined the streets as gurney’s rushed past us with bleeding bodies through the smoke clouded air.

“How could this have happened?” we asked ourselves as a soldier motioned with his machine gun that we could not go any further.

I’m sure we all have stories of where we were on 9/11; even those numbers will never be the same to us again. And there are just as many theories as to why it happened, and who is to blame. I’m not going to try to answer those questions, but 9/11 did set into motion a military plan that seemed to have been waiting for it to happen.

In 1997, many of the names we have seen so often since the War in Iraq began were listed as members of a neoconservative think tank called “Project for a New American Century,” or PNAC. Founded by William Kristol (not the comedian) and Robert Kagan, its stated goal according to Wikipedia was “to promote American global leadership. Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that American leadership is both good for America and good for the world and support for a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” And their Statement of Principle ends with, “While such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today, it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.” They felt that America was the most powerful country in the world and it was their duty to keep it that way, protecting the world while serving the interests of the United States. PNAC called for an increase in military spending, and a redeployment of our troops oversees to meet modern needs.

In January 1998, in a letter to Bill Clinton, written in part by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, PNAC called for the US Military to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and later criticized the December 1998 bombing attempts the Clinton Administration had made in Iraq, calling them ineffective.

George W. Bush was elected in 2000, and his Vice President (Dick Cheney), the VP’s Chief of Staff (I. Lewis Scootter Libby), Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), Deputy Secretary of Defense (Paul Wolfowitz), Deputy Secretary of State (Richard Armitage), and his appointed Ambassador to the UN (John R. Bolton) were all members of PNAC, as well as many members of his cabinet and his brother Jeb, who was Governor of Florida during the recount that made him president. PNAC published a 90 page report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century” which explains exactly how they planned to implement their program, and also states, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” They knew the American people wouldn’t go for the plan without a major catastrophe, and they were about to get it. But let’s backtrack just a bit.

Dick Cheney had been Secretary of Defense under George Bush Sr., and as we all know moved on to Halliburton after Bush Sr.’s presidency. During the Clinton Administration, the stock value for Halliburton dropped significantly, and they were rumored to be doing business through their subsidiary businesses with Iran, even though sanctions forbid such dealings. George Jr. asked Cheney to help him pick a VP for his presidential run, and Cheney suggested … Cheney.

Once elected, Bush put Cheney in charge of a national energy policy team called “National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).” According to www.halliburtonwatch.org, Cheney’s group “met secretly with lobbyists and representatives of the petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industries. Many of these individuals work for energy companies which gave large campaign contributions to Bush/Cheney 2000. Environmental groups were mostly excluded from the task force.”

Congress asked Cheney to release the information from these meetings, and he declined. Judicial Watch sued under “The Freedom of Information Act” to make these reports public, and finally managed to get some released in July 2003. According to www.halliburtonwatch.org, “Those documents include maps of Iraqi and other mid-east oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” They also sate that, “In January 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Halliburton, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron-Texaco Corp. and Conoco-Phillips, among others, had met with Vice President Cheney’s staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq’s oil industry. However, both Cheney and the companies deny the meeting took place.” The War didn’t begin until March 2003, but we already had maps showing who would get Iraq’s Oil Fields when the war was over, drawn up in meetings held between January and May, 2001.

According to “Crossing the Rubicon – Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney” by
Michael Kane, “On May 8, 2001 – four months prior to 9/11 – the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies… This included all training and planning which needed to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive in order to maximize effectiveness. This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney.”

Michael Kane goes on to say that Cheney and the Secret Service were running War Games on 9/11, “that placed ‘false blips’ on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks – who had trained their entire lives for this moment – would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney’s management.”

As the planes hit, Dick Cheney was rushed to a secret bunker/command center, while George W. Bush read to school children. Who was really in charge that day? And was this the new “Pearl Harbor” that PNAC had said it would take to implement their plans?

After 9/11, we started to hear links between Al Qaeda and Hussein, mainly from Members of PNAC who happened to be in Bush’s administration, like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Then we heard the reports of the WMD’s and the PNAC plan to invade Iraq was set into motion.

The question now is – how did The Project for the New American Century go? PNAC had stated that removing Hussein from power would be good for American interests. Well, our economy is in a recession, we are spending 275 million dollars a day in the war, the dollar is hitting record lows, and there are rumors of oil reaching $150.00 a barrel in just a few weeks time. Bush’s approval rating has gone from close to 70% at the start of the war to 67% disapproval. Donald Rumsfeld was forced to resign. Scooter Libby was implicated in the Valerie Plame scandal, which some say was an attack on her husband for his views about the US’s desires to go to war. Paul Wolfowitz went on to lead The World Bank, till he was forced to resign amidst scandal. Republicans are distancing themselves from the Bush Administration, and a new report was just issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee stating the administration “led the nation to war on false premises,” and, “statements that Iraq had a partnership with Al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence.”
So far, not so good.

But, according to www.halliburtonwatch.org, Halliburton’s stock price tripled since the Iraq invasion from $20 to $63 as of 2005. They have since leveled off to around $50.00 today. Cheney still has stock options from Halliburton, but he gives the profits to charity. Then in March of 2007, amidst scandals for no-bid contracts and overcharging our troops, they moved their headquarters out of the United States and to the United Arab Emirates, which means they are no longer an American based company or pay American taxes. Exxon Mobile beat its own 2006 record profit by 3%, and according to a U.S. News report from February 2008 called “Exxon’s Profits: Measuring a Record Windfall” by Marianne Lavelle, “If Exxon Mobil were a country, its 2007 profit would exceed the gross domestic product of nearly two thirds of the 183 nations in the World Bank’s economic rankings. It would be right in there behind the likes of Angola and Qatar­two oil-producing nations, incidentally, where Exxon has major operations.” She also says, “Exxon Mobil’s profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion.” It is interesting to note that their headquarters are in Bush’s home state of Texas. According to Ms. Lavelle, Exxon-Mobile was not the only oil company to profit; the major oil companies combined profits for 2007 surpassed 100 billion.

The members of The Project for the New American Century felt that America was in a prime position atop the rest of the world in 1998, and called for an increase in military spending to keep that position. According to Gordon Lubold of The Christian Science Monitor; “Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the defense budget has ballooned about 35 percent.” He goes on to say, “For the 2009 fiscal year, the Defense Department is asking for $515 billion and a separate $70 billion to cover war costs into the early months of a new administration. Those amounts combined would represent the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II (adjusted for inflation).” He says that we are currently spending 4% of our GDP on Defense, (as much as the rest of the world put together) which The Pentagon wants to keep as the new “floor” for Defense spending. But Mr. Lubold goes on to say that this trend is coming to an end. He quotes Steven Kosiak, a senior budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, another think tank in Washington as saying “Under this plan, between fiscal year 2010 and 2013, The Defense Department’s base budget would be cut by 1.5 percent. Thus, the administration is proposing that the buildup, begun in earnest after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, should come to an end in fiscal 2010.”

So the war in Iraq led to an increase in the short term, but looks like it will lead to a decrease in the future. The dollar is reaching new lows and people are starting to invest in Euros and Yen instead. Our housing market has crashed. Our deficit continues to grow. China and India’s economies are growing and threatening to overtake our prime spot on top. It has been suggested by our own Senate in a Bipartisan report that we went to war under false pretense. An article in today’s Los Angeles Times states that “Monthly growth in unemployment rate is biggest in over 20 years,” and the Dow Jones dropped sharply after this report and another rise in oil prices. And even PNAC’s website, www.newamericancentury.org, has been taken down, saying only “This account has been suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.”

Do not forget, PNAC also said that their, “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity” was good for the world too. Noam Chomsky, interviewed by Gabriel Mathew Schivone in May 2008’s “Monthly Review” states, “There was a recent study by two leading terrorism experts (using RAND Corporation government data) which concluded that what they called the “Iraq effect”­meaning, the effect of the Iraq invasion on incidents of terror in the world­was huge. In fact, they found that terror increased about seven-fold after the invasion of Iraq.” The rise in oil prices has led to a food crisis all over the world. According to “2008: The Year of Global Food Crisis” by Kate Smith and Rob Edwards, “Millions more of the world’s most vulnerable people are facing starvation as food shortages loom and crop prices spiral ever upwards. And for the first time in history, say experts, the impact is spreading from the developing to the developed world.”

How did it go? I guess it all depends on whose interests you’re interested in.

source: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13878

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

ONE OF THE GREATEST CRIMES

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity) #383 June 13, 2008

“ONE OF THE GREATEST CRIMES”

Jimmy Carter calls the Israeli blockade of Gaza an atrocity

At a news conference in Wales, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter called Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip “one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth”. Rejecting Israel’s rationale for the blockade, he stated that, “There is no reason to treat these people this way.”

Carter has spoken out on Gaza before. The 83-year-old has in the past branded Israel’s blockade of Gaza a “crime and an atrocity”. As a result, Israel’s government boycotted Carter during his recent visit to Israel.

Israeli hostility towards Carter is extraordinary, given his past accomplishments on Israel’s behalf. When he was president, Carter spared no effort to promote Mid East peace. The crucial peace deal he brokered 30 years ago between Egypt and Israel immeasurably increased Israeli security.

Israelis turned against Carter when he published a book entitled “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid”. In it Carter compared Israeli policies in the West Bank to White South Africa’s racist regime. As he demonstrated, the situation in the occupied West Bank begs this comparison to South Africa.

Carter is well versed in international affairs. He has seen first hand the Israeli system of separate roads in the West Bank for Jews and for Arabs. He has witnessed the lack of freedom of movement for Palestinians. He has seen Israel’s control and confiscation of Palestinian land and Israel’s continued settlement activity, which contravenes all the promises Israel made and signed.

In the peace agreement with Egypt that Carter brokered 30 years ago, Israel agreed to “full autonomy” for the occupied territories and promised not to settle there. These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but not by Carter.

Carter is trying to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. His methods of creating peace have been highly successful in the past and, in terms of results, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him now. And for the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life. His advice deserves to be listened to with interest by Israel now.

Adapted from “Carter says Israel has arsenal of 150 nuclear weapons”, printed on May 26, 2008 and “Our Debt to Jimmy Carter”, an editorial column printed on April 15, 2008. Both texts appeared in Israel’s leading newspaper Ha’aretz. See full texts at:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987158.html and http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html

Distributed by PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity).

WWW.PAJUMONTREAL.ORG

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW