China Pushing Han into Xinjiang (Uyghurstan/Eastern Turkestan) angered muslim Uighur

Uyghur protest in Munich 2008 against China policy. The "Kökbayraq" flag. This flag is used by Uyghurs as a symbol of the East Turkestan independence movement. The Government of the People's Republic of China prohibits using the flag in the country.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the USA, China voiced its support for the United States of America in the war on terror. The Chinese government has often referred to Uyghur nationalists as "terrorists" and received more global support for their own "war on terror" since 9/11. Human rights organizations have become concerned that this "war on terror" is being used by the Chinese government as a pretext to repress ethnic Uighurs. Uighur exile groups also claim that the Chinese government is suppressing Uyghur culture and their religion islam, and responding to demands for independence with human rights violations.

Last week’s riots in Urumqi, resulting in 184 deaths, recall similar protests in Tibet last year, though only 19 people were killed there. Both Uighur and Tibetan exiles demonstrated during the Chinese Olympics, to little effect. Both regions, remote from the heart of Han China, were taken over under the communists, and are important strategically and as storehouses of mineral wealth to feed the new capitalist China’s voracious appetite. They remind us that old-fashion colonialism is alive and well. Neither the Uighurs nor the Tibetans have any hope of independence, but they rightly would like the Han to be less greedy and invasive.

Like Tibet, it is the flood of Han immigrants and the wholesale destruction of the local culture that is the problem. The massive recent influx of Han Chinese, who now make up more than 50 per cent of the population (70 per cent in the major cities Urumqi and Kashgar), has reduced Uighurs to a minority in their homeland, ominously called “Xinjiang” (New Frontier) in Chinese. The use of “Eastern Turkistan”, the traditional name for this region, is outlawed, along with the blue star-crescent Uighur flag. Ethnic Han Chinese dominate nearly all big businesses in the region. All Uighurs must study Chinese, and very few Uighurs can dream of going to university.

They have no official state, only a hollow autonomous region, along with large diaspora communities in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and the West. They number 8-10 million worldwide. There are Uighur neighbourhoods in Beijing and Shanghai. Their history is the story of an obscure nomadic tribe from the Altai Mountains rising to challenge the Chinese empire, founding their own in the 8th century, which stretched from the Caspian Sea to Manchuria. Because of their strategic location on the Silk Road, they thrived on trade. They came under Han sovereignty only in the 17th century, but after numerous revolts expelled Qing officials in 1864 and founded an independent Kashgaria kingdom, recognised by the Ottoman Empire, Russia and Great Britain, which even had a mission in the capital, Kashgar. As usual British support depended on its imperial schemes and when the Chinese attacked in 1876, fearing Tsarist expansion, Great Britain supported the Manchu invasion forces. The Brits (excuse me, the Manchus) “won” and East Turkestan became Xinjiang.

Read further here.

Ahmadinejad's courageous dream of a just and equal global society

WRITTEN BY AVIGAIL ABARBANEL (artwork by Alessio Marazzi)

I read or heard somewhere that Ahmadinejad's speech was denying the Holocaust. I just read the full text. There is no Holocaust denial in this speech at all. He is also labelled racist by Israel and of course he is not. He is not talking about the character of any people. He criticises Western governments for present and historical injustices against others and against their own people, and for greed and brutality. He is also talking about the inequality in the world community that gives countries like the US the right of veto in the UN Security Council, and the ability to get away with things like the attack on Iraq etc. He is trying to say that hypocrisy rules rather than justice, equality or freedom.

I don't know why everyone attacks this guy. He needs a little bit of editing perhaps, but his speech is right and good. I think it's fashionable to dislike him and dismiss him but his only crime is that he is not complying with the rules of 'politeness' in world diplomacy that mean that everyone ignores what isn't 'pleasant' or politically profitable to talk about, while in the meantime continuing to commit crimes against humanity and injustices everywhere. Ahmadinejad does not see himself bound by Western rules of political politeness and he has the courage to say what he thinks and what needs to be said, knowing full well that this makes him unpopular among world leaders. Wouldn't hurt if more leaders were prepared to speak more plainly and say things honestly.

Ahmadinejad talks about his dream of a just and equal global society. Is this wrong? When he talks about the destruction of Israel he is talking about an end to the exclusively Jewish state, which all anti-Zionists around the world including those from within Israel, are calling for as well. Israel likes to twist this around and say that he wants to destroy Israel or kill Jews. But that's not what he is saying. Funny that Israel with 200 nuclear weapons ready to deploy, and with a rogue government ready to attack civilians at any time, accuses others of developing nuclear weapons. Funny that an apartheid state accuses others of racism… But I guess there is nothing new under the sun. It's just that we want people in the mainstream media to sift through the material and show things as they really are, not as Israel or the US or even the Australian PM Rudd, say they are.

Ahmadinejad believes in god. Surely his understanding that god would want justice for everyone in the world regardless of nationality, should be shared by Jews and by Christians everywhere. Rudd and even Obama flaunt their religious beliefs and Israel's entire project is based on a belief in god (at least on the belief that god has given them the land). Anyone who believes in god should be able to easily identify with Ahmadinejad's just god and his vision of a healthy and just world community.

Anyway, in case you haven't read the speech here it is. I encourage journalists to print the speech so that readers can make up their own minds about it. It has been published in many sites, so it is available for people to read and judge for themselves. I don't want to see the the mainstream media just participating unwittingly in the hate campaign against Ahmadinejad that is based on Israeli propaganda needs rather than anything he is actually saying.

Avigail Abarbanel was born and raised in Israel. She is a professional psychotherapist and counsellor as well as human rights activist and director of the Canberra branch of Deir Yassin Remembered. Her site is:http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/

The Arab World and Israel's Nuclear Arsenal

Today, Israel is widely believed to possess 250-300 nuclear weapons, along with their delivery systems which include the Yariho (Jericho) missiles and the long-range F-15 and F-16 fighter warplanes.

Needless to say, these nuclear missiles are not trained toward Berlin or Warsaw but toward Muslim capitals such as Cairo, Damascus and Tehran.

Israel had consistently denied possessing nuclear weapons and for many years repeated ad nauseam the vague abracadabra that “ Israel won’t be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.”

In recent years, however, Israeli officials began to admit, although tacitly, that Israel is indeed a well-established nuclear state.

On 12 December, 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Germany's Sat.1 channel that “Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"

Israeli strategists claim that the Jewish state needs the nuclear deterrent as a “doomsday” or “weapon of last resort” to prevent the possible destruction of the “Third Temple.”

However, this claim seems to be as mendacious and hypocritical as the stale lie that Israel won’t be the first state to introduce nukes to the region.

Hence, one can safely argue that Israel’s nuclear arsenal is intended not merely for “self-protection” or “self-preservation” but also for strategic-aggrandizement and spreading military supremacy all over the Middle East, from Iran to Morocco.

When translating this into simple political language, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that Israel’s ultimate goal is to enslave hundreds of millions of Muslims and Christians from Tehran to Mauritania and from Istanbul to Khartoum.

This is not a phobic assessment of the Israeli strategic doctrine and intentions. This is rather an accurate and realistic reading into Israel’s collective thinking.

From the Nile to the Euphrates

According to the late Yisrael Shahak, author of “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years,” some rabbinic authorities see the borders of Israel as the following: In the south, all of Sinai and parts of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates, in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria and a huge part of Turkey!! (up to the Lake Van) and in the West, Cyprus.

According to Shahak, these are not, as one would think, anecdotal views among an eccentric rabbinic class. On the contrary, an enormous body of research and learned discussion based on these borders, embodied in atlases, books, articles and more popular forms of propaganda was published in Israel, often with state subsidies, or other forms of support.

Shahak adds that there are influential Jewish religious figures in Israel who believe that Israel will have to conquer these countries sooner or later on the grounds that doing so is a divinely commanded act.

This is why Muslims should be vigilant and constantly on the watch as to Israel’s real intentions. Muslim states should also pay more attention to what Israel does and less to what Israel says.

We Muslims don’t lack the resources to be powerful and deter our enemies. What we do lack is the will to be free, united, sovereign and truly independent.

So, what are we waiting for? Are we waiting for Israel to strike at Mecca and Medina, a possibility that should never be ruled out, given the nefarious nature of the Zionist entity?

Indeed, who would deter, let alone repulse Israel from embarking on the unthinkable? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps the hedonistic, illiterate and ignorant Sheikhs and Emirs and kings who think that erecting high buildings is the ultimate sign of progress and civilization?

The answer is clear. And unfortunately, only one country in the region, apart from the aggressor Israel, is serious about protecting its people from an external aggression of genocidal proportions.

This country ought to be lauded and praised for its dignified determination to be free, not castigated by impotent Arab states that continue to cede their respective sovereignty to the United States.

Read further this article by Khalid Amayreh here.

Read also Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.

The 21st Arab League Summit - A Summit of Egos.

The 21st Arab League summit held this week in Doha, Qatar ended up being little more than a summit of egos.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – just indicted for war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – arrived to a red-carpet and hero’s welcome; Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak boycotted the entire gathering; Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi walked out during the opening session; King Abdullah II of Jordan left early, apparently for not having been greeted by the Emir of Qatar but by another member of the royal family; and Hamas was not even invited. Having accomplished little, the summit adjourned one day early.

Overshadowing the gathering of Arab leaders and the League’s stated agenda of ‘reconciliation’ between the decidedly pro-American, anti-Iranian camp of nations (represented by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and those more willing to recognize Iran as an important regional power (namely Syria and Qatar), was the presence of al-Bashir.

In embracing al-Bashir and “rejecting” his indictment, the Arab League thumbed their noses at the West and the ICC, who called for his arrest but ignored the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. It may have been an understandable move by the League (which no doubt involved a bit of collective self-preservation), but certainly was not good public relations.

Next, attention was focused on the volatile and unpredictable Libyan leader. In the morning session, he railed against Saudi King Abdullah who he said was “made by Britain and protected by the United States.” The truth in those words were quickly lost however, when he went on to declare, “I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level.” He then stormed out of the hall.

Hosni Mubarak of Egypt chose not to attend the summit altogether, the second year in a row he has snubbed it. His reasons were juvenile and partially borne out of jealousy for Qatar upstaging Egypt’s traditional role as powerbroker in the Arab world and mediator of its internal disputes. It was after all the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Ibn Khalifa al-Thani, who brokered the agreement last year between Lebanon’s March 8 Coalition (Hezbollah, Amal, and the Free Patriotic Movement) and the ruling March 14 Alliance, resulting in an equitable allocation of cabinet seats, eventual election of President Michel Suleiman and an end to the long standoff.

The Emir also convened an emergency Arab summit in Doha during Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier this year, and helped with reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah (and between King Abdullah and Qaddafi during the summit). His backing of Hamas in the Gaza war was another reason Mubarak kept well clear of Doha.

It was Sheikh Ibn Khalifa al-Thani who appeared to have made the most cogent and germane remarks, warning of the potential catastrophic effects the global economic crisis may have on the Middle East, stating, “… the Arab world is in the direction of the wind and the eye of the storm.”

With looming economic concerns, the brouhaha over al-Bashir’s presence, and some notable absences (the kings of Morocco and Bahrain also did not attend); little if any time was spent on the fallout from Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza. Other than to reiterate the League’s endorsement of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan calling for full recognition of Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, the League’s position appeared stagnant at a dynamic time.

After an inhumane embargo which had deprived Gaza of basic humanitarian supplies and necessities, the use of white phosphorus against civilians by the Israel Defense Forces, and countless reports of the deliberate targeting of innocent men, women and children (first by Palestinian eyewitnesses, then verified by humanitarian agencies and now confirmed by Israeli soldiers), the Arab League was mute.

To prevent other leaders from boycotting the summit, the remarkable decision of not extending an invitation to Hamas – the democratically-elected Palestinian government –was made. In the meantime, Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory and demolition of homes continues unabated under the new leadership of a right-wing prime minister, a fascist foreign minister and a coalition of extremist religious parties.

Not only did the Arab heads of state fail to heal their deep rifts, they did not tackle the thorny issue of relations with Iran or even begin to address the ramifications an increasingly likely Israeli attack will have on the region. Instead, egos, petty disputes, red-carpet welcomes and diplomatic snubs held sway.

Once again, ordinary citizens of the Middle East this week were reminded why the Arab League has become an utterly irrelevant, feckless institution.

Article taken from here.

Mubarak Regime - the US and Israel helpless pawn.

It’s true that Egypt has fought different wars with Israel that took a huge human toll on the population for 30 years, and it’s also true that the question of Palestine played a key role in the dynamic of why and how these wars were fought.

But in fighting these wars, Egypt was motivated, first and foremost, by its desire to assert itself as the main political and military power in the Arab world, not solidarity with the Palestinians. This was the case with all the different regimes that ruled the country — from the Arab nationalist regime of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-1970) as well as the more pro-Western ones of Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) and Mubarak.

This time, though, Mubarak didn’t even make a pretense at a military response to Israeli aggression. In the first couple of days into the Israeli bombing campaign, Mubarak and Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu Al-Gheit blamed Hamas for “provoking” Israel — glossing over the fact that they knew better than anybody else that Israel was preparing such an assault six months ago.

But since the demonstrations against him began to spread in late December, Mubarak has had to tone down his open disdain for Hamas (which, by the way, was democratically elected). As the regime began to feel the heat from mass, non-stop protests, it shifted its rhetoric somewhat and began to criticize Israel. And, perhaps for the first time since he came to power in 1981, the Egyptian dictator has had to respond to his critics.

Angry protesters in Egypt converge on a Cairo mosque. © AFP

Mubarak unleashed his paid pundits in the government media to churn out article after article defending him as a “champion of Palestinians” who has done all he can to help them under the terms of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. For example, Mubarak’s apologists argue that according to the terms of that treaty, Egypt cannot unilaterally open any border crossing with Gaza if the Israelis say no.

Simultaneously, the same pundits have been pushing an Egyptian chauvinist line of argument to dampen public solidarity with Gaza. They claim, for example, that the Palestinians want to cross into Egypt so they can take food from the mouths of hungry Egyptians (which, by the way, are the same hungry people these hacks didn’t mind impoverishing as a result of Mubarak’s free-market policies).

The regime also tried to deflect popular anger towards Shiite Muslims, by denouncing Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah — the Lebanese Shia organization that gained popularity in Egypt and the Arab world in 2006 by militarily defeating Israel. Mubarak’s officials claimed that Nasrallah insulted all Egyptians when he argued that the Egyptian army generals aren’t worth a penny and called on Egyptians soldiers to defy their officers and open the border crossings to Gaza.

In reaction to Iranian demonstrations against the closing of the Rafah border crossing, the Egyptian foreign minister publicly accused Iran of wanting to spread its Shia ideology and control the Middle East in another attempt to flare up anti-Shia sentiment.

The government’s propaganda campaign has been partly effective, at least among some conservative layers in the middle classes. But, the campaign has so far failed to make huge inroads among the vast majority of the population, and therefore has failed to slow down the protest movement.

One reason for the ineffectiveness of this pro-Mubarak campaign is that the regime had little credibility to begin with. The 80-year-old dictator has been running the country with an iron fist for 28 years and even plans to get his son appointed as the next president. So far, he has refused to cede to any of the protesters’ demands, including the mildest one of expelling the Israeli ambassador.

The other reason this campaign isn’t working is that Egyptian public opinion on the need to maintain any diplomatic or economic relations with Israel has shifted in the last 20 years.

Many people were in favor of the 1979 peace treaty and cooperation with the U.S., in the hope that it would usher into a period of prosperity. They now realize that it actually brought about more poverty and misery. These shifting sentiments are only compounded by the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and American mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims.

But while Mubarak is a close ally of Washington, his regime is anything but a helpless pawn. He runs the largest Arab country, with 75 million people, and heads the largest and most advanced army in the region — other than Israel, of course.

In reality, the Egyptian ruling class represented by Mubarak (and Anwar Sadat before him) willingly and consciously cooperates with both the United States and Israel. This class made that strategic decision in the mid-1970s because it concluded that its political and economic interests lay in joining the Pax Americana camp.

Thus on the domestic front, Egypt has followed the American neoliberal economic policies of privatization, deregulation, a rollback of land reform and attacks on workers’ living standards. On a regional level, Egypt has more or less supported the main outlines of American interests in the region, and even took part in the first Gulf War against Iraq in 1991.

When it comes to the current Israeli offensive in Gaza, Mubarak’s regime actually has a material interest in some sort of an Israeli victory in Gaza, despite his more recent public statements to the contrary.

Mubarak, like Israel, would like to see a weakened Hamas. He has always feared that the existence of a strong and defiant Hamas (as well as a strong Hezbollah in Lebanon) could strengthen his own main foes at home, the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the regime is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, Mubarak worries that a strong Hamas in Gaza which continues to fight Israel could strengthen the position of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has historic ties to Hamas.

More importantly, Mubarak fears that a Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, serves as a model to emulate for oppressed workers and peasants in Egypt suffering under his dictatorship. Mubarak is right about that. There is no question that the rise in class and social struggles in Egypt in recent years was inspired by the example of the Second Palestinian Intifada of 2000-2003.

This possibility of radical or revolutionary change in Egypt drives Mubarak more and more into the arms of the U.S. and Israel when it comes to practical considerations such as their common goal of isolating Hamas. But, on the other hand, the erupting volcano of public anger around him leaves him losing sleep and issuing angry, yet hollow, statements against Israel.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Mubarak regime is seriously shaken by the breadth and depth of the anger in the streets in a way that has never happened before.

But while the regime’s days are not by any means numbered, the earth it is standing on is beginning to crack, and could give way in the near future. The country has the largest working class in the region — one that began to flex its muscles in mass strikes and display its latent social powers in recent months with strikes and protests. As the Arab writer Atwan pointed out to Al-Jazeera: “Egypt is on the edge of transforming, and the regime there could be toppled as a result of this.”

The potential is definitely there to achieve such a much-needed democratic change in the region. Democracy in Egypt will be the New Year’s gift that Egyptians could finally deliver to every child in Palestine who grew up in poverty and terror, and to every Palestinian man and woman in and out of Palestine who taught us how to fight when they fought Israel and Zionism in the past 60 years.

Read further When Pharaoh Embraces Goliath by Mostafa Omar.

Gaza : The Hypocrites Arab Collaborators

The muslim stands united in their direction to Kaabah during prayers, but the collaborators disintegrate them.

The often asked question, when it comes to the Palestinians, is about the role of Arab countries in the Palestinian struggle for freedom. The people not familiar with the political landscape of the area often see the Middle East as two camps, Arab countries on one side and Israel on the other. The reality is totally different. Israel has seldom been alone. Beside its usual American, French, British and other staunch allies, she has had the hidden backing of several Arab countries.

For close to 30 years now, many Arab countries have been collaborating with Israel; some like Egypt (gained independence: 1922) and Jordan (gained independence: 1946) openly, while others like Saudi Arabia (founded: 1932), UAE (founded: 1972) and Kuwait (founded: 1961) from behind the scenes. The reasons for this collaboration vary from country to country but they all have one thing in common: the rulers of these countries are all dictators and need foreign protection from their own people. Some such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE were put in power by the British. The founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz bin Saud (the kingdom is name after him) was put in power by the British. The same goes for the others, except Egypt which experienced a coup by the army officers in 1952, resulting in the ousting of the monarchy and the accompanying British influence. But the Western influence returned with Anwar Sadat. All these countries are dictatorships and all are under pressure from their people. What they cannot accept is any democratically elected form of government in their mist. They fear that if an Arab government becomes democratic they may have to become one themselves, hence losing power. One of the things that they love about Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is that he won the election not by popular vote but by popular method of rigging the election; something that these Arab leaders understand and respect.

In contrast, Hamas really represented the aspiration of the people. As soon as Mahmood Abbas’ term as president is over and he had to stand for re-election, he would surely lose. In contrast, Hamas really won the municipal elections in 2005 and the Parliamentary election in 2006. The elections were supervised by international observers, many from Europe, and US.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confers with Arab foreign ministers and Amre Moussa, the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, at the UN prior to a Security Council meeting on the situation in Gaza.

Palestinians were fed-up with the corrupt regime of Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. They wanted to clean house. But as soon as Hamas took over, the US and the Europeans put an embargo on Hamas, calling it a terrorist organisation and not a peace partner. Israel closed the borders and refused to let anything into Gaza. Egypt also did the same.

What is not mentioned much in the media is that this was done with the complete approval of the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. After all, Egypt could have opened its border for transfer of food and fuel. The reasons behind this hostility were and are that Hamas is a truly elected government and worst of all, Hamas is a branch or an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Muslim Brotherhood has a branch or related organisation in Jordan as well. Egypt and Jordan are worried that should Hamas survive and show its resistance, their people may get the idea that they can also resist the tyrannical rule of these despots. One must not forget that Muslim Brotherhood represents the only serious challenge to the Mubarak’s rule in Egypt.

Egypt

The 81 year old Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has been “president” since 1981 (28 years). He has won every election with a comfortable majority. He is much loved by his secret services. Prior to every election he arrests and imprisons all the opposition, ensuring a “clean” election. Torture is so widely used and accepted in Egypt that US outsources torturing of some its prisoners to Egypt. This alone should tell you volumes about the nature of Mubarak’s rule. He is now trying hard to crown his playboy son as his successor. But the Americans are not so sure if the son is capable of keeping the 80 million Egyptians in line and are therefore looking for alternative candidates. The head of the feared main secret service is one of the prime candidates along with some of the top generals. Challenging him is the Muslim Brotherhood organisation, enjoying grass root support from all sections of the Egyptian society including Lawyers, doctors, judges and student associations. Not surprisingly, US and Israel call Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation.

By all accounts, the Muslim Brotherhood be it in Jordan, Egypt or the occupied territories such as Gaza runs a clean operation, running many charity organisations and providing services to the poor and the needy. As such wherever they are, they pose a threat to the corrupt regimes, since they provide an alternative to the people of that area.

Jordan

King Abdullah II of Jordan, born of a British mother, educated in the West, including the Jesuit Center of Georgetown University, was brought to power by the CIA. His Uncle was a long time crown price, yet after his father died in a US hospital, Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of Estate flew to Jordan to inform the Jordanians that the King on his death bed had changed his will and named his son Abdullah as his successor. The new king Abdullah II is married to the Queen Rania, a Palestinian.

The majority of this Kingdom of 5 million people are Palestinians who are not very friendly to this King. In 1967 there was a Palestinian uprising (led by the PLO) against King Hussein (ruled: 1952-1999, the father of the current king), which resulted in heavy casualties among Palestinians. In addition, the Kingdom is currently full of Iraqi refugees who resent the King’s help to the Americans in invasion of their country. On top of all this, we have the Muslim Brotherhood which tries hard to abolish the monarchy. King Abdullah relies heavily on the US support and backing for staying in power. King Abdullah also sees a natural ally in Israel, a country that can come to its aid in case of another uprising.

Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)

I don’t have to tell you much about Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is run by the 84 year old, ailing Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. His personal wealth is estimated at $21 billion USD. He rules a clan of 8000 princes who in turn rule the country. Saudi Arabia is the centre of corruption in the Arab world. The Saudi rulers corrupt everything with their money. Lacking the necessary mental power or physical courage, they try to stay in power by subterfuge, lies, and deception. They fund the real extremists on the one hand while portraying themselves as the protectors of the Western interest on the other. They preach intolerance and xenophobia to their people decrying the Western decadence, while spending a lot of time enjoying the life in the West. They pay the West for protection against their own people and they pay the extremists to do their fighting elsewhere. Saudi rulers are indeed the worst of them all.

House of Saud is also the financier of the so called Arab Moderates and the extremism that they cause. House of Saud financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. They later financed the Taliban. They also paid Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. Then they paid the Americans and Egyptians to fight Saddam Hussein. They are the financiers of death and misery. They finance anything, anywhere, as long as this reduces the threat to their illegitimate rule. They are currently financing the civil war in Somalia, bandits in Baluchistan (Pakistan and Iran) and god knows what else. They are detested by their own people and neighbours yet loved by Bush, Cheney and the oil companies. As long as they provide the money and oil the US is willing to tolerate them. And guess what? The Muslim Brotherhood hates the House of Saud too. This makes them a threat and hence they have to be dealt with.

The Hypocrites

By this time, the three Arab countries along with Kuwait and UAE began singing the old song: international community is not doing anything about the catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza. It seems that these Arab tyrants have no shame at all. This reminds me of a quote from Marquis De Sade (1740-1814): “One is never so dangerous when one has no shame, than when one has grown too old to blush.”

These Arab leaders (many are indeed too old to blush) are complicit in the murder of so many civilians, especially young children. According to Agence France-Presse, quoting the medics on the ground, fully one third of all people killed have been children.7 How can these Arab leaders justify this to their people?

The answer is that they cannot. Israel knows this and for the second time can show the Arab street that their leaders are nothing but a bunch of old hypocrites. These Arab leaders are now exposed and can do nothing but to cooperate fully with Israel and US. What stand between them and their people’s rage is their army and secret services; which in turn are supported by US.

Israel has cleverly exposed these leaders for what they are: collaborators of the worst kind. These Arab leaders have brought an unimaginable shame to their people. To quote Lucien Bouchard: I have never known a more vulgar expression of betrayal and deceit. Our hope is now with the people of these countries to clean this stain from their honour.

Text taken from the article The Sources of Arabs’ Shame: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

The Palestinian Story: Remember us

... remember us .... la ila ha ila Allah muhammad ur rasul ul Allah

When the passage of time finally brings the men of many lands to the tables of judgment, politicians from countries that have emboldened Israel with their silence will gaze into the eyes of delegations from around the world only to see the same eyes gazing back. Remember us for we may not be at that table.

There are reasons for this.

We were once free to roam the lands of our fathers, to feel happiness and to cry when in despair. From the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River was our realm, but how were we to know what they intended to do to our nation.

They provoked wars and committed the most terrible of sins against the Jewish population, but when it was time to compensate, they put the burden of their own wrongdoings on our shoulders. One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.

Everyone had a say, the then president of the United States Thomas Woodrow Wilson, the leaders of the Zionist movement and even the representatives of Anglo-Jewry opposed to Zionism. There was no need to canvass Arab opinion. They sat at round tables, signed agreements, sent the text to other powers for approval but no one consulted us. Remember us the native people of the ancient land of Canaan, Palestine it was called.

We protested, signed petitions, held rallies but to no avail; the process of nullification had already begun. They had decided to create a 100% Jewish state for the Jews of the West who had suffered under anti-Semitism in Europe. Nobody asked whether we were even responsible for the anti-Jewish propaganda in Germany. Remember us who sought your helping hand when they threatened us with annihilation.

Why were we for decades the main victims of the horrific massacre of the Jews by the Germans, Rumanians and Hungarians?

United under the Zionist slogan of 'A land without a people for a people without a land', certain powers opened the floodgates by telling Jews that our land is one that lacks inhabitants and must belong to a nation with no land.

They helped the 1948 creation of Israel based on the 'Judenstaat'- the jewsih state- which had been envisaged in 1896 by the founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl.

Then the flood suddenly hit us. We were no longer welcome in our own homes, our own towns and villages and on our own lands. They tried to bribe us into leaving the land of our ancestors. They promised to pay for all our expenses for us to leave Palestine and settle in neighboring Arab states.

But how could we leave? How could we leave our homes, our lands, the graves of our fathers and the hopes of our children? How were we supposed to forget and make our children forget that we had roots in Palestine? We objected.

We knew our resistance would cost us dearly, but we were ready to save our lands from the foreign invaders. Those oppressed in the Holocaust were transformed into the tormenter of the Arab population in Palestine.

Remember us in 1948 in the unarmed village Deir Yassin where 254 of us men, women and children were awakened from our sleep with the sound of bombs ripping through neighboring houses. Irgun and Lehi terrorist groups had received orders to uproot us, the Arab population of the village.

They threw bombs into our houses and slaughtered all of us they could find. About twenty-five of us were brought out of our houses on a 'victory tour' and then to a stone quarry where they shot us in cold blood.

The Red Cross came to understand our fate when they looked into our lifeless eyes and at nearly 150 of our maimed bodies abandoned in a well.

Several of us survived to tell the story of this indelible blemish carved in the pages of Zionist history.

"I saw a soldier grabbing my sister, Saliha al-Halabi, who was nine months pregnant. He pointed a machine gun at her neck, then emptied its contents into her body. Then he turned into a butcher, and grabbed a knife and ripped open her stomach to take out the slaughtered child with his iniquitous Nazi knife," Halima Id, a survivor of the attack, told her sister later.

They failed to plant fear in our hearts for what is home if it is not to be cherished?

Remember us in 1953 in Qibya when our women were preparing meals for the men and children and nearly 600 Israeli soldiers moved toward our village. We heard explosions, screaming and artillery fire, but the collapse of our roofs and the following darkness was the last we saw. The then commander of the "101" unit, Ariel Sharon, later said that his leaders' orders had been clear on how to deal with the village. "The orders were utterly clear: Qibya was to be an example to everyone."

Original documents of the time showed that Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve "maximal killing and damage to property".

UN observers say they saw our bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways and multiple bullet hits on the doors of our demolished houses and that we had been forced to remain inside until our homes were blown up over us.

They then wished to deny us presence in neighboring Lebanon, which had allowed us refuge from the anti-Semitism victims turned against us.

Aftermath of massacre of Palestinians by Christian Phalangists in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Remember us in 1982 in Sabra and Shatila. The Israeli army watched as the murderers they had provoked against us entered our two Palestinian refugee camps in the southern outskirts of West Beirut.

Us women were lying in houses with our skirts torn up to our waists, our children with cut throats, rows of us young men were shot in the back after being lined up at an execution wall. Our babies were lying like discarded dolls on the streets, blackened because they had been slaughtered more than 24 hours earlier and their small bodies were already in a state of decomposition. We were tossed into rubbish heaps alongside discarded US army ration tins, Israeli army equipment and empty bottles of whiskey. 3,500 of us were slaughtered; some of us men as young as 12 or 13 were killed with our arms and legs wrapped around each other, picturing the agony of our death. All of us had been shot at point-blank range through the cheek, the bullet tearing away a line of flesh up to our ears and entering our brains.

Award-winning Middle East correspondent Robert Frisk recalls that "On one blackened wrist a Swiss watch recorded the correct time, the second hand still ticking round uselessly, expending the last energies of its dead owner."

Remember us in 2002 in the West Bank refugee camp of Jenin where hundreds of us were buried alive in our homes. Our bodies were crushed and smoldered by buildings when the heavily-armored Caterpillar D-9 tore down our homes, our shelters and all of our belongings. The IDF was fulfilling the orders of the then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon who in 1956 vowed to "burn every Palestinian Child that will be born" in Palestine. "I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him". They struggled for a fortnight to bury our bodies and the evidence of the atrocity. They piled us in houses and when the pile was complete, they bulldozed the building to bring its ruins down on our corpses. Then they flattened the area with a tank.

Remember us in 2008 in the Gaza Strip where the bombs of hatred rained down on us to prove that world New Year celebrations have no meaning. They called into action F16 bombers and apache helicopters to put fear into the very hearts of our nation even though we had long been left with no real method of defense.

Over 800 of us were killed and 2500 of us were wounded. Remember us!

Let world leaders hold imprecise debates about what constitutes a massacre. Let Israel and its allies cover up their crimes. You can even call the state built upon the ruins of our homeland 'the de facto democracy of the Middle East'.

But as our bodies lie in mass graves in our backyards, know that we are the children of Palestine -- a nation of people who as our last words utter the Muslim declaration of faith (Shahadatain) and pass on our mantle of resistance to the next forgotten person.

Remember us...

Text taken from here.

The feebleness of Muslim World to save Gaza

...the pro-western muslim leaders are part of the problem, not part of the solution

When people feel there is no justice in the world and no legitimate outlet for their justified frustration, things tend to boil over. And that's what happened at a huge anti-Israel, pro-Hamas demonstration in many parts of the world.

Ordinary people are tired of the Muslim world's disunity and feebleness in the face of American and Israeli dominance. The disconnect between a humiliated and suffering muslim and their elite, pro-Western rulers was easy for all to see. They know that the Muslim world has become a laughing stock to many in the West -- a byword for poverty, backwardness and weakness. A region whose plentiful resources the West can exploit precisely because of that disunity and lack of strong leadership.

As the war in Gaza burned, Arab governments have felt their legitimacy challenged with an uncommon virulence. With each passing day, and each Palestinian death, the popularity of Hamas and other islamic movements has ratcheted higher on the Arab street, while the standing of Arab leaders has suffered.

Ordinary people have had enough of the humiliation, enough of the impunity that the West and Israel seem to enjoy. They want all that to stop, they want their pride and self-respect back. And they know that their pro-western leaders are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The slogans and chants should turn toward the Arab leaders who should be blamed, almost as much as Israel, for the plight of the people of Gaza. Top of the list is Egypt, which many feel gave Israel the green light to attack Hamas. More anger should be reserved for Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the secular Palestinian Fatah faction, who has made it clear that he would like to wrest control of Gaza from the elected Hamas government. Those Arab governments like Jordan and Mauritania, who are on friendly diplomatic terms with Israel, should be in for yet more criticism. And last but not least, anger should be directed toward the wealthy Arab governments, like Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf littoral countries, which could potentially do so much to resolve the Palestinian issue, but do little or nothing.

The Betrayal and Submissive to US by the Arabs Nation

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel’s actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas’ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas’ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.

Muslim Arrested Over Head Scarf In Courtroom

A head scarf landed a Muslim woman in jail Tuesday after she refused to remove it during a hearing at the Douglasville Municipal Court.

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested for 'violating a court policy of no headgear', Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville Police Department said on Wednesday.

Valentine was in court with a nephew who was facing a traffic citation. She was wearing a hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.

When she refused to remove it she was handcuffed and taken to Judge Keith Rollins' chambers. He cited her for contempt and ordered her held in jail for 10 days.

Omar Hall, Valentine's husband, said she had been released late Tuesday.

"I can't believe someone would do this in America," Hall said, adding the couple plans to file a lawsuit.

Many Muslim women cover their heads, following an Islamic custom. The practice has created conflict and headlines in courtrooms and schools across the country.

Reported here.

Does Al Qaeda Exist??

Watch the clip.

EU parliamentarian: "Hamas is fighting an occupation"

Chris Davies. (IPS)

RAMALLAH (IPS) - The assault on Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat party spokesman for the environment for the north west of Britain and a member of the European Union's parliamentary delegation to the Palestinian Legislative Council, has delivered a firm political message to the European parliament.

Davies was assaulted when he was taking part, together with several Israelis, Palestinians and people from other countries, in a protest rally against Israel's barrier that divides Palestinian farmers from their land in the central West Bank village of Bilin.

Davies slammed the United States bias towards Israel, and questioned the EU policy on Hamas.

Read further here the article by Cherrie Heywood.

Encouraging for the World, Embarrassing for the U.S.

This week, 58 Catholic and Muslim scholars met at the Vatican for talks aimed at bridging divisions between the world’s two largest religions. The gathering, hosted by Pope Benedict XVI, ended with a joint declaration “renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.”

The Pope’s guests included Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born, Oxford-based scholar who, while eminent enough to merit a place at the papal conference table, continues to be persona non grata in the United States. In 2004, Ramadan was preparing to assume a teaching position at Notre Dame when he was told that his visa had been cancelled. At the time, a State Department spokesman said Ramadan was unwelcome in the U.S. under a Patriot Act provision barring those who use a ‘position of prominence’ to ‘endorse or espouse terrorism.’ It was an untenable explanation — Ramadan has consistently denounced terrorism throughout his career — but the U.S. has continued to exclude him from the U.S. through a series of strategic stalls and shifting explanations.

When PEN joined the ACLU in challenging his exclusion and the Patriot Act provision, the government retracted its claim that Ramadan endorsed terrorism, but said it needed more time to decide his fate. The judge disagreed, ordering the government either to grant him a visa or give a legitimate reason for excluding him. With the court’s deadline looming, the government then asserted Ramadan was inadmissible because he had provided ‘material support to terrorism.’ It cited donations Ramadan had made to a Palestinian charity in Switzerland in 1999 and 2000 totaling around $1,000, a charity which the U.S. added to its terror watch list in 2003 but which still operates legally in Europe. We went back to court to challenge this new pretext. This time the judge said his hands were tied — that the government had given a reason for the exclusion, and that, even though in 2000 the U.S. itself hadn’t yet concluded that the charity was involved in anything other than relief work, Ramadan hadn’t proved he didn’t know his donation was supporting terrorism. How does a person prove he didn’t know something? We’re now appealing that decision.

If it stands, tens of thousands of foreigners could find themselves barred from the United States because they made donations in good faith to organizations the U.S. later alleged have connections to terrorists. Among them there are likely to be many Tariq Ramadans, international writers and scholars who are major participants in some of the most critical conversations of our time, men and women whose exclusion from the United States violates our rights as American citizens to hear these voices face-to-face and engage directly in these conversations. These conversations are happening, whether we’re part of them or not, and this week’s gathering at the Vatican shows how valuable and hopeful they can be. The fact that one of the Pope’s guests cannot visit the U.S., meanwhile, just serves to underscore how out of step and embarrassing this administration’s practice of ideological exclusion has been.

Text taken from here.

Haniya : Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation

A TON OF HELP -- Blockade buster and British MP Clare Short, is shown here at a London press conference in August with Mohammed Qeshta, a Palestinian student from Gaza now living in London. Short was part of an 11-member delegation that sailed to Gaza with a ton of medical aid for Gazans last weekend. (Wenn Photos via Newscom)

A blockade-busting aid boat landed in Gaza, with several European lawmakers aboard, and met with Hamas leader Ismail Haniya. So Haniya vowed eternal jihad, right? Nope.

'Following intensive negotiations with Hamas, the de facto leadership of Gaza, a group of European parliamentarians has been told by the organization that it will accept a Palestinian state within the internationally recognized 1967 borders as well as offer Israel a long-term ceasefire.

The delegation of 11 from Britain, Ireland, Switzerland and Italy, managed to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza on Saturday morning after their boat, the Dignity, sailed from Cyprus to Gaza, shadowed part of the way by an Israeli naval vessel.

The group had originally tried to enter Gaza from Israel's Erez border crossing but was refused permission by the Israeli authorities to cross. Another attempt to enter the territory from Egypt's Rafah terminal was denied by the Egyptian authorities.

This was the third successful boat trip made by the Dignity into Palestinian coastal waters despite warnings by Israel that action would be taken to stop the vessel. On board was a ton of medical aid and desperately needed medical equipment.

Despite the threats of naval intervention, in the end Israel backed down after realizing it would have gained more bad publicity if it had detained and harassed a boatload of international politicians carrying humanitarian aid.

The aim of the visit was to protest Israel's economic embargo and closure of Gaza's borders, assess humanitarian conditions on the ground, and to hold talks with Ismail Haniya, the leader of Hamas.

Haniya was questioned about his organization's previous offer of a 20-year hudna or truce with Israel in exchange for the Israeli government recognizing the national rights of Palestinians.

British parliamentarian Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, asked the Hamas leadership to repeat the offer, which he did.

Haniya was also questioned by delegation leader Baron Nazir Ahmed, a Pakistani-born member of the House of Lords, about Hamas' relationship with Iran.

"Our ties with Iran are like those with other Muslim states. We are prepared to accept a Palestinian state within the internationally recognized borders of 1967. Our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation," Haniya said.'

Note that Gaza does not have an airport because the Israelis won't allow one, and that the Israelis control Gaza's borders and port, keeping out anything and anyone they like, including food and fuel.

Reported in Abnormality Besieges Palestinians

Rubin, The Lie Factory and Taqiya

AEI, Michael Rubin

To add to Yglesias’, and Justin Logan’s posts dismantling Michael Rubin’s latest argument for bombing Iran, a bit about Rubin’s invocation of taqiya as a clever way credit Iranian statements that bolster his thesis and discredit those that don’t.

This isn’t the first time Rubin has misrepresented this Islamic concept. Back in September 2006, Rubin referred to taqiya as “religiously-sanctioned lying.”

Many Islamists feel justified saying one thing to a Western audience, and quite another to fellow Islamists. Muhammad Khatami, soon to receive an honorary degree at St. Andrew’s University in celebration of his “practical work to improve relations between Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities,” is one example. No need for Khatami to explain statements justifying murder and terror. The case of Tariq Ramadan, the Islamist scholar whom Notre Dame University tried to hire, has become a cause célèbre. Many progressives are in an uproar that the State Department this week again denied Ramadan a visa. After all, doesn’t he say the right things in academic salons? Perhaps, but beyond the window dressing and the material support for terrorists, what does Ramadan stand for?

Taqiya is commonly understood as dissimulation in order to protect one’s life, family, or the faith. It developed in Shi’i jurisprudence as a defense against persecution by Sunnis or non-Muslims. It is not simply a license to lie, nor is it simply a technique to “lull an enemy,” as Rubin claims here.

The concept of taqiya has generally been looked upon with skepticism and suspicion by the vast majority of Muslims who are Sunni. Tariq Ramadan, who is Sunni, has never, as far as I know, indicated that he believes the concept is a legitimate Islamic practice, Rubin’s careless assertions notwithstanding. Ironically, sinister claims about taqiya have historically been deployed by Sunnis to stir up fear of Shias, just as Rubin deploys them here to stir up fear of Iran.

The Lie Factory

The implications of Rubin’s treatment of the concept are obvious. After all, if Muslims are encouraged to lie as a matter of religious duty, then why should we believe anything they say, ever? The right-wing blogosphere is rife with this sort of ignorant nonsense, but it’s pretty disgraceful that Rubin would use his scholarly credibility, such as it is, to feed it. Given his own past work in Doug Feith’s The Lie Factory (The inside story of how the Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war), it’s also pretty ridiculous that Rubin tries to pitch taqiya as some sort of devious occult practice, as if non-Muslim leaders never dissimulate, lie, spin, or misrepresent facts and intentions in order to achieve their political goals.

Text Taken from here.

Muslim clerics endorse anti-terror fatwa

About 6,000 Muslim clerics from around India approved a fatwa against terrorism Saturday at a conference in Hyderabad, Nov.8, 2008.

The Fatwa - "Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form. Cooperation should be done for the cause of good but not for committing sin or oppression"

Read further here.

I'm A Muslim Girl But I loves Jesus and his Mother

Watch the Video

German Left Stands up to anti-Muslim Fascists

Left-wing protesters set fire to barricades in clashes with police

3,000 progressives in Cologne clashed Saturday with far rightwing protesters trying to stop the building of a mosque. There are about 3.3 million Muslims in Germany, about 4 percent of the population. The Jewish population of the US is 2%, so this would be as though American rightwingers tried to stop a synagogue from being built. The far right said they were upholding the 'Western values and Christian traditions' as the heritage of Europe.

The mosque is not due to be completed until 2009

Isn't that where we came in? That sort of blinkered thinking, whereby Europe just has one master tradition, is not only wrong, it led to genocide. Europe has been multicultural. It has been pagan and Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Muslim Spain was some 800 years of European history (more if the history of the Moriscos is taken into account). Muslims were for some time in Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy. Muslims of Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece were 600 more centuries, in the eastern reaches of the continent (There were Muslim villages even in Hungary and Poland). The Ottoman Empire was in important respects a European empire, even though it stretched deeply into the Middle East as well. If anything Istanbul was more intertwined with Europe than was Kiev and the Ukraine, or St. Petersberg & Russia. It is no accident that even today, Turkey is in NATO.

For that matter, why reify Europe? When was Egypt not a source of grain for 'Europe'? When were not her ports dominated by Europeans? Did the French in Algeria not declare it 'European soil'? Why is the Right so fickle? Either Algerians are European or they are not. Is it only when they are firmly under the jackboot that they count as such?

Text taken from here.

Veiled athletes proud to be part of Beijing Olympics

THE women in Roqaya Al Ghasara's home town in Bahrain are so proud of their pioneering Olympic sprinter that some of them got together to design and sew a set of tailor-made aerodynamic veils for her to run in.

Egyptian fencer Shaimaa El Gammal, a third-timer at the Olympics, will don Islamic headgear in Beijing for the first time. She says it is a sign she is come of age and she feels more empowered than ever.

This year's Games will see a sizable sprinkling of veiled athletes who are determined to avoid offending devout Muslims back home while showing skimpily dressed rivals there is nothing constricting about wearing "hijab".

Two of them, Bahrain's Roqaya Al Ghasara and veiled Iranian rower Homa Hosseini, won the honour of being flag bearers for their countries at the opening ceremony's parade of athletes.

"The hijab has never been a problem for me. In Bahrain you grow up with it," said Al Ghasara, wearing a white baseball cap over a black veil that covers her hair and neck. Her baggy running gear exposes only her face and hands.

"There are more women in sport all the time from countries like Qatar and Kuwait. You can choose to wear the hijab or not. For me it's liberating," added Al Ghasara, whose close-fitting running veils come in red or white, the Bahraini colours.

Since they first started appearing a few decades ago, veils at the Olympics have always drawn stares.

At this year's Beijing Olympics an unprecedented half a dozen Egyptian athletes, three Iranians, an Afghan and a Yemeni will compete with covered heads like Al Ghasara. They say they want to inspire other women in their countries to break away from Muslim stereotypes.

The Hypocrisy of US Government

The American public assumes that the U.S. being a democracy automatically translates into being right in disputes overseas. But statistics show that democracies are no less aggressive overseas than non-democracies. In fact, by far the most aggressive country in the post-World War II world – if measured in the numbers of military and covert interventions – is the United States. Iran may be indirectly supporting militias in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon, but the United States, just since 2001, has invaded and occupied two countries and changed their governments using armed force.

Iran got permanently on the wrong side of U.S. policy after its fundamentalist Islamic revolution and the taking of U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979. However, the American people have always been oblivious to what caused that burst of anti-American venom. In 1953, the CIA ousted Mohammed Mossadeq, the elected leader of Iran, because he nationalized British oil interests. The U.S. government reinstated and supported the brutal Shah, who ruled until the revolution in 1978, and grabbed 40 percent of Iran's oil for American companies.

In addition to being excessively belligerent, the Bush administration's Iran policy is loaded with hypocrisy. Despite all the saber rattling and "stringent" economic sanctions against Iran, U.S. trade with Iran has increased tenfold during the Bush administration – from $9 million in 2001 to $146 million last year. And of the $546 million in cumulative trade during that period, $169 million, or almost a third, was in cigarettes. It would be too cynical to assume the Bush administration has an insidious plan to undermine the Iranian regime and nuclear program by giving the Iranian population lung cancer; this loophole in the sanctions clearly benefits the U.S. tobacco industry, which is very tight with the Republican Party.

Further hypocrisy is the U.S. reluctance to negotiate with those who believe in fundamentalist Islam, while negotiating with and even paying hostile secular groups not to shoot at U.S. troops. The United States has been dragging its feet on negotiating with the Iranian government and protests when the Pakistani government negotiates with Islamic militants in its country. Meanwhile, the U.S. has negotiated with and essentially paid secular Sunni guerrillas in Iraq, who had killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, to switch sides in that conflict.

Text taken from here.

The following text partly taken from Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush in 2006. The full text was published by Washington Post.

Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (Peace Be Upon Him). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.