1] North Korea has repudiated the armistice and is breathing out nuclear and conventional war threats. But, we are being soothingly told that it is just a matter of an internal power transition. (But, if threatening nuclear war in Asia and across the Pacific is how the North Korean elites think 'internal" power transitions should be made, what does that tell us about the danger posed by that oppressive regime? And, what does it imply about the valid point in Mr Bush's remarks so many years ago now when he warned about the danger posed by North Korea and other oppressive regimes that sought nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Should we therefore simply accept the disregard for solemn international non-Proliferation agreements by signatories -- and BTW, Israel has never been a signatory -- now openly tied to saber-rattling?)

2] Mr Obama made a widely praised speech in Egypt, at the invitation of two leading Islamic universities. However, while it will be unpopular to raise quesitons on Mr Obama, and while the speech strongly reflects the more or less "standard" media trumpeted conventional wisdom of progressivist post colonial narrative in which Western powers bear a partticular burden of having been oppressors, the speech seems to be lacking on a few key points of note, e.g. somehow Mr Obama forgot that the past decade's face of US foreign policy did in fact "look like" him: Mr Powell, and Ms Rice. Similarly, while it was important to say that the holocaust was a real horror, it would have been a key departure to point out, however gently and eloquently, that a founding father of palestinian Arab militancy [mufti Hussein] was (a) implicated in and indicted for crimes connected to that holocaust as a collaborator with the Nazis, and (b) was shielded from having to stand before a bar of justice by Egypt. Similarly, Hamas has enshrined in its charter in clause 7, a hadith that calls for the wholesale end of days massacre of Jews, and Iran's regime has indulged itself in both Holocaust denial and a blatant attempt to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of its international commitments, and openly declared intent to wipe Israel off the face of the map. In that context, a call to the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank to walk away from the history of war to destroy not just Israel but its Jews, and instead go back to the principles of the UN mandate of 1947 and the post six-day war resolution 242 -- mutual recognition and peace -- would have been a much more just start point than the agenda-laced Saudi proposal. So, it would have been an important point to call the Middle East to a general recognition of the rights of all historic Middle Easern peoples, including Jews, Kurds and the Copts of Egypt; as a first step to real regional peace. Then, a call for reform of the regimes to better balance liberty and justice for all, backed up by a call to re-examine the various theologies in Islam that have spawned the sort of hostility, violence, terrorism and oppression that we have seen across that region and now spreading to the wider world in recent decades, would have been a key premise for addressing the role of religiously motivated ideology in that region's problems. (And if such a speech could not have been made from that platform, Mr Obama had no business being on the platform. For instance, the UN would have been a very suitable venue for a true "new beginnings" speech, if such a platform was needed.)

3] After Iran's blatantly stolen election, many Iranians have taken to the street in protest, calling for a real election. Only, to be met with beatings and oppression, multiplied by a deafening global silence on the part of leading democratic nations. In short, notwithstanding that the other candidate was also vetted by the mullahs [but has now found himself as the symbol of rejection of Mullah-ocracy, which ironically echoes the role Mr Gorbachev found himself in in the years from 1984 on . . . ] we have strong evidence tha the people of Iran want democratic liberation, but are being oppressed. (So, is it that the voices of liberation in our region and in the wider West are concerned for liberation, or is our concern confined to just western oppressors and potential oppressors? [It would be wise to note that none of Britain, France and the USA were lily-pure in 1939 - 1945; but a sober estimate of the circumstances would have shown that Hitler and co. were infinitely more dangerous and destructive. In that light, France's half-hearted-ness in the war cost it dear, and cost the world dear.])


4] In Pakistan, the Taliban and allies have made a major power grab in the Swat valley, only sixty miles from the capital of that dangerously unstable Islamic nuclear power. This provoked fighting, which for the moment has pushed back the threat, but the overall situation simply underscores the dangers posed by radical Islamism. (And, we should note that in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, it is clear that Mr Bush sent Mr Musharraf a message: either be the first regional ally in the war on terrorism, or its first target in the axis of evil. An axis that in significant part, is clearly still in business.)

5] In America, a madman has barged into the Holocaust memorial museum, and has murdered a guard there. Immediately, it was trumpeted that this -- following on the heels of the murder of a late term abortionist as he ushered in his church (of which he seems to have been a major financial backer) -- is a second sign of a trend of right wing, religiously motivated extremists and the dangers of such. Soon, it turned out -- from his own online writings -- that the latest mad man actually despised Christians and the New Testament, and saw himself as a champion of the racialist form of social darwinism [a profile that is remarkably similar to that of the murderers at Columbine High School a decade ago]. But in this year of Darwin 200 celebrations and hagiography, it is not politically correct to point out that not only did Darwin sub-title the first five editions of Origin with "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence," [with the direct implication of the extinction of "unfavoured" ones] but that this was not jut a matter of "races" of cabbages. (Believe it or not, that was put to me in a blog commentary thread some days ago. Similarly, yes, Christians, Jews, and many other individuals and movements have been implicated in racism etc; but such distractive immoral equivalency rhetoric simply blocks us from listening to the moans of over 100 million victims of social darwinist thought in the hands of powerful elites claiming to act with the culturally dominant warrant of science in the past 100 years. So, with all due regard to other historic sins and dangers, we must now frankly face then address the clear and present danger of Darwinist amorality and associated aggressive elitism. In fact, Darwin's second book, on The Descent of Man, makes it plain in Chs 5 - 7, that he saw the White Germanic European races -- observe his way of speaking of the English as "Saxons" -- as the supremely fit ones, and sees them as exterminating "inferior" ones such as Negroes and Aboriginal Australians over the next few centuries; not to mention his dismissive remarks on fringe european peoples such as the Irish,and mixed race peoples such as in brazil and the Americas more generally. And in a notorious letter of 1881, he added Turks to the list of inferiors. The insistent refusal to face and soundly address the moral hazard of aggressive elitism that leaps out of darwinian thought -- now in racist and sexist forms, now in the rise of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, etc -- should tell us that this is not merely a past historical issue, but a still present problem, one that is being covered over by powerful elites flying the flag of Science.)

6] In Iraq, terrorist bombings have again begun to creep back into our headlines, even as media coverage of the war continues to fail to give us an informed and objective analysis of the underlying strategic, ideological and Islamic apocalyptic issues that are driving the global terrorism crisis and associated military campaigns. In that context the new American regime has decided that it will now read captured terrorists the Miranda Rights (an unprecedented step for prisoners of war, much less captured illegal combatants . . . ), while moving away from recognising a global war on terror to speaking about "overseas contingency operations." indeed, I find it astonishing that by far and away most informed people do not know the term "black flag army," or the hadith about how they will come from Khorasan [E. Iran and to the east and north thereof] and under Imam Mahdi will conquer the Middle East, conquer and massacre the Jews in and around Jerusalem then subjugate the world.)

7] In the UK, on a more personal note, I have now recveived notification on the outcome of my protest on the way a BBC entertainment programme, Bonekickers, on July 8, 2008 recognisably Protestant "fundamentalist" Christians were portrayed as zealous, violent crusaders who -- in a Dan Brownesque scenario full of allusions to pieces of the "true cross" and knights templar etc -- set out on holy war and in that process seized an innocent Asian muslim man and beheaded him. This turnabout of the actual situation where for instance the South Asian islamist terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed seized Israeli -American journalist Daniel Pearl and beheaded him, to the cheers of many islamists across the world, reeks of the demonisation of Bible believing Christians that is now ever so common in the western media and among wider elites. In particfular, it seems that, under the distorting lens of the postmodern post colonialist progressivist narrartive, they seem to think that the current global situation boils down to Western crusaders setting out on unprovoked colonial aggression in Asia yet again, just as 1,000 years ago; never mind the fact that the crusades -- horribly carried out as they were, and with very bad theology turned into war propaganda as well -- were, strictly speaking limited counter-offensives after centuries of Jihad that had carried Islamist conquest and terroristic or piratical raids from Arabia to India and to France. Similarly, they claim -- even post Dan Brown -- that merely labelling and presenting such stereotypes and afrd hominem laced strawmen as fiction suffices to remove harm. So, it is no surprise to learn that my objection has been dismissed right tot he level of the Editorial Standards Committee, which in its report has not even made mention of the Associated Press Style book recommendation that since the term "fundamentalism" has become so much a term of abuse and demonisation, unless a group specifically calls itself "fundamentalist," it should not be labelled as such; indeed, when I received the proposed published report, it -- lamentably -- brimmed over with precisely the problem just pointed out. (I intend to carry the protest forward to he highest level, on a point of principle.)

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking . . . .

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica . . . .

The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it . . . [Emphases added]

Food for thought.

So, even as more and more members of the Caricom grouping rush to join Mr Chavez's ALBA, perhaps we need to0 pause and reflect on this other side of the story.

For, there may be more to this story than meets the eye indeed, END

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law . . .

He takes time to explain, having first briefed on the background history and entrenched clauses of the Honduran Constitution:

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added [by the author]], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day . . . [Emphases added]

This therefore confirms and fills out the picture from the previous newswatch article.

The Honduran Constitution is a bit drastic on the matter, but in the historical context, that is unfortunately understandable; and defiance of clauses -- much less, entrenched clauses -- of a Constitution is most plainly an action that points to lawlessness.

And, in the end, it is better that the rule of law be preserved than that any one man -- however popular or even effective -- continue in office in defiance of plain law. (We can always change the law if it proves unsatisfactory -- in this case by calling a proper constitutional convention under its terms; which is actually one of the particular points that was being defied by what now looks like former president Manuel Zelaya. But, on a lot of painful history, to restore respect for law once a precedent of defiance of law has been set, is not so easy.)

Such confirmatory news is of course of general interest for those of us who are concerned about our region.

But, more to the point, we now see a question of a widening gap between reality and the picture being painted for us by prominent international and regional statesmen and organisations, as well as by media houses. For, we have not heard of headlined complaints that the Honduran Constitution is defective through being overly drastic (which would be understandable and debatable); instead, from seemingly every quarter, we have been hearing the repeatedly headlined outright declaration of "fact" that a coup has taken place against Senor Zelaya and that Honduras is to be subjected to sanctions against a coup.

And that brings us right up against the theme for this blog that much of the news, views, and state-level declarations that so often fill our headlines across the Caribbean plainly cannot be safely taken at face value. With very serious implications for the question of the manipulation and deceiving of the nations. For, if half of a story on one matter can so easily be turned into what now appears to be a false picture on the nation of Honduras and those who have sought to preserve the rule of law there, creating a climate of unjust contempt and even hostility; what about the possibility that the same tactics may one day be deployed against us?

(That is, I am here applying he Golden Rule of Matt 7:12 by asking us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have been -- on what now has to be viewed as credible evidence -- victimised by distorted and irresponsible reporting. How would we feel were we in their shoes? What would happen if such evidently irresponsible and unfair, imbalanced media coverage were to become routine? [This is Kant's approach: that which is immoral or unjust shows itself by the likely destructive consequences were it to spread unchecked across the community.] How, then should we pray? What, then, should we say and do?)

Not to mention, that the plainly unbalanced responses we have seen raise serious questions about the judgement, actions -- and perhaps even competence on international affairs -- of several regional and international statesmen, starting within Caricom, but extending to the OAS, the White House and even the UN.

Troubling questions in a dangerously turbulent time. END

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras -- Honduras's provisional government, while trying to persuade the international community that its overthrow of its president was democratic, is being criticized for taking control of a number of media outlets since the coup.

The country's Channel 36, run by a close associate of expelled Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, was shut down following Mr. Zelaya's ouster and remained off the air this week, with only a blank signal showing up on Honduran televisions.

Channel 8, a state-owned network that had also supported Mr. Zelaya, went off the air on Sunday and then returned with a new cast of anchors, largely delivering news friendly to the government's interim president, Roberto Micheletti.

Radio Globo, a network that spent much energy criticizing Mr. Micheletti before he took power, remains under military guard, according to its owner, Alejandro Villatoro. When it broadcast the first Honduran interview with Mr. Zelaya Wednesday from exile, in which he was addressed as "Mr. President," soldiers turned off the station's transmitter, Mr. Villatoro said.

Other outlets less closely allied with Mr. Zelaya said they had no complaints . . . .

Reporters Without Borders, an advocacy group for press freedom based in France, said Wednesday that some stations "have resumed broadcasting but their coverage of the coup is either closely controlled or nonexistent." It also said international news outlets including U.S.-based CNN and Venezuela's Telesur -- which is run by the government of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and strongly supports Mr. Zelaya -- were no longer available on TV stations and could only be seen on the Internet.

In an interview late Thursday, the country's new interim president, Mr. Micheletti, said he had "not the slightest idea," about why soldiers had disrupted Mr. Zelaya's speech. But he said certain measures were necessary to prevent Hondurans from being incited to violence. A call to the Honduran National Telecommunications Commission seeking comment was not returned.

Now, in a de facto or declared state of emergency, it is normal for media to be restrained to a more than usual extent, in the interests of the public good; on the principle that one has no proper right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

People say that all we see in Honduras are local news telling us a biased story of the situation, but the media is not saying how CNN is basing most of their news from reporters of TELESUR, a news channel loyal to Chavez. I have been watching CNN since sunday afternoon, which was when electricity and TV were restored. People in Honduras are outraged by the constant news by CNN tellin[g] the international viewers that life and business are not being carried as usual and there has been misinformation inside the country. Totally false, why don't CNN reporters como [sic] to Honduras instead of depending on Telesur or other leftist reporters. Let them go into a restaurant and film how CNN news are being displayed all around We are tired of listening to CNN and CNN in Spanich [sic] portray lies about what's going on in Honduras . . .

On May 24, 2007, Zelaya ordered ten two-hour cadenas (mandatory government broadcasts) on all television and radio stations, "to counteract the misinformation of the news media."[17] The move, while legal, was fiercely criticized by the country's main journalists' union, and Zelaya was dubbed "authoritarian" by his opposition.[18] Ultimately, the broadcasts were scaled back to a one-hour program on the government's plans to expand telephone service, a half hour on new electrical power plants and a half-hour about government revenues. According to the University of New Mexico's electronic bulletin NotiCen, "Zelaya's contention that the media distort his efforts is not without merit," citing reports which gave the public the impression that murder rates were rising, when they actually fell by 3% in 2006.[17] Journalists who have criticized Zelaya's rule have been murdered and harassed.[19] Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and the United Nations criticized murders of journalists during Zelaya rule.[20] In 2008, The Organization of American States (OAS) accused Zelaya of imposing "subtle censorship" in Honduras. A study, "Censura sutil en Honduras: abuso de publicidad oficial y otras formas de censura indirecta", was released in September 2008.[21]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Newly re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his next government "would bring down the global arrogance," signaling a tougher approach by Tehran toward the West after last month's disputed election.

Ahmadinejad, in his first provincial trip after the June 12 presidential vote, said Iran's enemies had tried to interfere and foment aggression in the country, referring to mass opposition protests against the official election result.

The hardline president, who often rails against the West, said the Islamic Republic wanted "logic and negotiations" but that Western powers had insulted the Iranian nation and should apologize.

Iranian leaders often refer to the United States and its allies as the "global arrogance."

"As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance," he told a big crowd in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

"They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep," Ahmadinejad said, according to state broadcaster IRIB . . . .

He also voiced continued defiance in a row over Iran's disputed nuclear ambitions, saying major powers "will not be able to take away the smallest amount of Iran's rights."

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful power purposes. Western countries suspect it is aimed at making bombs.

In a related development, a Ha'aretz report summarises a German intelligence assessment on Iran and nuclear weapons:

Iran is capable of assembling an atomic bomb within six months, German intelligence analysts told the German weekly newsmagazine Stern.

"If they want to, they will be able to set off a uranium bomb within six months," an analyst with Germany's intelligence service, Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), told the magazine.

German intelligence officials told Stern believe Iran has "mastered" every stage of uranium enrichment and that they have activated enough centrifuges to produce sufficient quantities of weapons-grade uranium for at least one atomic bomb.

"Nobody would have thought this possible some years ago," an intelligence official told Stern.

Israel's own Intelligence agencies are world class and have prioritised Iran as perhaps the most dangerous threat to Israel in the Middle East [no mean achievement in that neighbourhood!]. So, it is thus no surprise to see that in recent weeks, recently elected Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's administration has sent a Dolphin class submarine from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea (and back again) through Egypt's Suez Canal, and ten days later has now sent two of Israel's Saar class Missile Gunboats (which range up to Corvette -- small Destroyer -- size) through the same canal to the Red Sea.

When Mr Netanyahu's spokesman, Mark Regev, was asked about these developments, he responded: "It is not our policy to comment on such reports."

However, another Israeli official has been extensively quoted in the international media as saying:

"This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These maneuvers are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats."

The original report in the London Times, continues:

It is believed that Israel’s missile-equipped submarines, and its fleet of advanced aircraft, could be used to strike at in excess of a dozen nuclear-related targets more than 800 miles from Israel . . . .

Two Israeli Saar class missile boats and a Dolphin class submarine have passed through Suez. Israel has six Dolphin-class submarines, three of which are widely believed to carry nuclear missiles.

Israel will also soon test an Arrow interceptor missile on a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean. The system is designed to defend Israel from ballistic missile attacks by Iran and Syria. Lieutenant-General Patrick O’Reilly, the director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency, said that Israel would test against a target with a range of more than 630 miles (1,000km) — too long for previous Arrow test sites in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Israeli air force, meanwhile, will send F16C fighter jets to participate in exercises at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada this month. Israeli C130 Hercules transport aircraft will also compete in the Rodeo 2009 competition at McChord Air Force base in Washington.

“It is not by chance that Israel is drilling long-range manoeuvres in a public way. This is not a secret operation. This is something that has been published and which will showcase Israel’s abilities,� said an Israeli defence official.

He added that in the past, Israel had run a number of covert long-range drills. A year ago, Israeli jets flew over Greece in one such drill, while in May, reports surfaced that Israeli air force aircraft were staging exercises over Gibraltar. An Israeli attack on a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip earlier this year was also seen as a rehearsal for hitting moving convoys.

The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.

If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year� said one British official.

Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.

Thus, with an Iranian existential threat hanging over it, Israel is being pressured to make concessions that on the history of events since the Oslo process began in 1993 are unlikely to give it peace with its Palestinian Arab neighbours.

And, on the subject of "concessions," one has to ask:

1] What more concession could Israel reasonably offer than was put on the table in 2000 -- half of Jerusalem, all of Temple Mount, 100% of Gaza, 97% of the W Bank (as a contiguous territory) with compensating territories elsewhere, a causeway linking the two zones, and US% 15 billion in aid -- and which was rejected outright by Arafat leading to the current cycle of war?

2] What does that imply about the likely nature of further "compromises" that now seem to be on the table?

Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily adds that:

According to Israeli defense officials speaking to WND, the Dolphin was carrying out test drills. The officials said the submarine passed through the canal with permission from Egypt, even though the Egyptian government denied any permission was granted.

The Times today quoted an Israeli diplomat explaining the Jewish state has been bolstering its ties with certain Arab nations that are also threatened by Iran. The diplomat cited a "shared mutual distrust of Iran" between Israel and Egypt.

In a report denied by Netanyahu's office, the Times of London two weeks ago claimed Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli warplanes flying over the kingdom in any raid on Iran's nuclear sites.

The Times said Mossad director Meir Dagan had held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia," the newspaper quoted a diplomatic source as saying.

Adding these up, it is clear that the Middle East is on the brink of a nuclear arms crisis, with an Israeli Missile and aircraft attack on the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure very likely within the year. (And in that context, given that Israel has been close to Georgia, which is just across the Caspian Sea from Iran, the recent Russian sabre-rattling about Georgia, following up from its recent invasion is probably not coincidental. For, in 1976, when Israel launched a hostage rescue mission against the terrorists holding a British Airways passenger aircraft in Entebbe Uganda, it did so in cooperation with then friendly Kenya.)

Asked about his own role in the brutal crackdowns on the protesters, whether he had been beaten demonstrators and whether he regretted his actions, he answered evasively.

"I did not attack any of the rioters - and even if I had, it is my duty to follow orders," he began. "I don't have any regrets," he went on, "except for when I worked as a prison guard during my adolescence."

Explaining how he had come to join the volunteer Basiji forces, he said his mother had taken him to them.

When he was 16, "my mother took me to a Basiji station and begged them to take me under their wing because I had no one and nothing foreseeable in my future. My father was martyred during the war in Iraq and she did not want me to get hooked on drugs and become a street thug. I had no choice," he said.

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so "impressed my superiors" that, at 18, "I was given the 'honor' to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death."

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

"I regret that, even though the marriages were legal," he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were "legal?"

"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

"I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over," he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her."

In short, we must stretch our minds to understand a legal mentality that rationalises and "solves" a "legal" problem under sacralised law through in effect legalising rape under the "temporary marriage" provision of Islamic law; even "rewarding" zealous job performance by the privilege of being the designated rapist. Such a mentality will -- as events have shown us -- easily justify stealing an election and suppressing protest, punishing those who cannot find it in them to destroy the lives of children. The cold blooded sniping of a young girl simply standing on the streetside when a protest was underway suddenly makes a lot of sense.

And worse, much worse.

In short, we are in a far more dangerous world situation than we are wont to think as the Iranian regime clearly nears end-game in its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons.

It is time to face some very unwelcome facts, think and pray about even more unwelcome implications, and act decisively and determinedly in the face of growing danger. Before it is too late. END

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection . . . . the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry . . . . Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God . . . .

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'". . .

"a well-informed, readable report on a noticeable and significant current event; presented in an accurate, fair, balanced, factually based fashion, and with enough background context to give the viewer a basis to make up his or her own mind."

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

2 Tim 3: 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

2 Peter 1: 16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit . . . .

3: 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. 14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Clement, 95: Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised was sent from God. He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

Ignatius, 110 – 115: Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was born of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him . . .

Polycarp, 110+: . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him . . . . For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us . . . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.

Rom 9:2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel . . . .

11: 17If some of the branches [of God's Olive Tree of blessing] have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Under Shariah law, the penalty for apostasy often is death. According to reports about the punishment system within Iran, for women the execution often is preceded by rape. [Cf previous KF blog post on this here.]

Reports have revealed that both women have been subjected to solitary confinement as well as extended interrogations already, with health problems resulting.

. . . [the women] explained that God had convicted them [to become and remain Christians] through the Holy Spirit.

"It is impossible for God to speak with humans," Hadded stated.

"Are you questioning whether God is Almighty?" Amirizadeh asked him.

To which Haddad then replied. "You are not worthy for God to speak to you."

"It is God, and not you, who determines if I am worthy," she said.

Haddad instructed that the women were "to go back to their prison cells and think about their options, and to return to court when they are ready to comply."

The response: "We have already done our thinking."

The Elam report adds that "the fact that no verdict was given in the case indicates the court is focusing solely on the women's Christian faith and no other "offense." "

We may also see that:

Haddad earlier had asked if the women were Christian.

"We love Jesus," they replied.

"You were Muslims and now you have become Christians," Haddad stated.

"We were born in Muslim families, but we were not Muslims," the women said.

The deputy prosecutor asked about their regrets, and they said, "We have no regrets."

"You should renounce your faith verbally and in written form," he warned.

They refused.

At the end of the session, Mr. Haddad told them that a judge will give them his verdict, though it is not clear who will be the judge in their case now. He also allowed Maryam and Marzieh to have a lawyer represent them in the case for the first time since their arrest.

Maryam and Marzieh were originally arrested on March 5, 2009 and have suffered greatly while in prison, suffering ill health, solitary confinement and interrogations for many hours while blindfolded. . . . . Marzieh is in pain due to an on-going problem with her spine, as well as an infected tooth and intense headaches. She desperately needs medical attention . . . . Two months ago the prison officials told her the prison had proper medical equipment and that they will attend to her, but so far no proper treatment has been given . . . .

Despite the concentrated effort of officials to pressure them into recanting their faith, Maryam and Marzieh love Jesus and they are determined to stand firm to the very end no matter whatever happens. They have demonstrated their love for Jesus and would offer their lives for Him if they were called to do so. After today’s court session they said, “If we come out of prison we want to do so with honor."

Let us thank [God]:

• For preserving, sustaining and strengthening them in prison.
• For giving them the grace to be steadfast in their faith.
• For the witness they have been in prison.
• For the love, concern and prayer of many believers around the world.

Pray for their court hearing:

• Pray that the court will set them free.
• Pray that the presence and the anointing of the Holy Spirit will be with them.
• That they will receive healing from all illness
• That the peace of God will cover their minds and their hearts, and will keep them safe in Jesus and refresh them tonight.
• That in all this the Lord will be greatly glorified and His perfect will be done.

Thank you so much for praying.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom� to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests . . . .

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included . . . .

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].�

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.�

No wonder, then, that the article goes on to cite a victim's father:

Bob Monetti of New Jersey, whose son Rick was among the victims of the 1988 bombing, said: “It’s always been about business.�

And, worse, AP reports, datelined August 29, 2009, that:

[US] Attorney General Eric Holder warned his Scottish counterpart in June that the man convicted of blowing U.S.-bound Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky could get a hero's welcome if allowed to return to Libya, according to the head of a group representing the families of victims.

Holder's warning to Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill came nearly two months before the bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, was released from a Scottish prison and greeted by a cheering crowd on his arrival in Libya last week.

In short, we have here craven surrender to mass murder fro political purposes, in the interests of a sweetheart oil deal.

Let us see if those who so vehemently protested the military interventions in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, chanting "no blood for oil" will again march to protest this demonstrated case of a blood for oil deal.

But, don't wait with bated breath for it.

In short, we here have a little window on our times . . . END

An al-Qaida video just released on YouTube titled "The Mahdi Army" reveals for the first time the deep degree to which al-Qaida views itself to be the prophesied apocalyptic Mahdi army. While this is something I and other observers of Islamic apocalyptic movements have been very suspicious of for years, this video offers the first solid proof that al-Qaida is guided by the end-time apocalyptic prophecies of Islam.

The video is a typical al-Qaida recruitment video released under the al-Sahab label, replete with ninja-esque Islamic mujahedeen soldiers flaunting their military skills. What is new, however, is the multiple references to the Islamic end-time prophecies with al-Qaida featured as the frontline soldiers of the Mahdi.

The video begins with a subtitle of several Islamic sacred traditions called "hadith." One of the first hadiths states that in the last days an army of Islamic soldiers will come from the area of "Khorasan" and will march forth to Jerusalem to conquer the land of Israel for the Islamic Mahdi. Khorasan straddles the border of Iran and Afghanistan where al-Qaida is presently still very active.

Featured prominently throughout the film is the imagery and motif of black flags . . . .

According to Islamic sacred tradition, when any Muslim sees the Islamic armies carrying the black flags from Khorasan toward Israel, they are religiously obligated to pledge their allegiance to the army and its leader. This pledge is called the bay'ah. Then the words appear: "That army has already arisen and answered the call to defend Islam."

A Muslim preacher named Imran Hussein Nazir appears giving a sermon in which he states the following:

The Messiah will destroy the false Messiah. And when that happens, then a Muslim army will liberate the Holy Land. The prophet said, "When you see the black flags coming from the direction of Khorasan, go join their army. That army has already started to be established. They know it. And that is why they demonize as a terrorist anyone who supports Allah. That army will liberate every single territory in a straight line, until it reaches Jerusalem. And the heart of Khorasan is Afghanistan. That is why we have occupied Afghanistan. When this army liberates every territory on its way to Jerusalem, there will be in that army, Imam Mahdi. And so the liberation of the Holy Land is not going to come about through any negotiations. …" . . . .

The revelation that al-Qaida is so strikingly apocalyptic in their worldview is a powerfully relevant factor, whether one is a believer in the Bible or not. As Dr. David Cook of Rice University once rightly stated, "There is power in apocalyptic." Much attention has been paid to the apocalyptic vision of the Iranians, but now it is clear that the problem is far more endemic than we had previously known. Believer or unbeliever, skeptical or not, none can deny that we live in desperate and very interesting times.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has, since its founding in 1994, served as the Islamist movement in North America's most high-profile, belligerent, manipulative, and aggressive agency. From its headquarters in Washington, D.C., CAIR also sets the agenda and tone for the entire Wahhabi lobby.

A substantial body of criticism about CAIR exists, some of by me, but until now, the group's smash-mouths and extremists have managed to survive all revelations about its record. The publication today of Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books) may, however, change the equation.

Written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, the investigation is based largely on the undercover work of Gaubatz's son Chris who spent six months as an intern at CAIR's D.C. headquarters in 2008. In that capacity, he acquired 12,000 pages of documentation and took 300 hours of video.

Chris Gaubatz's information reveals much that the secretive CAIR wants hidden, including its strategy, finances, membership, and internal disputes, thereby exposing its shady and possibly illegal methods . . . [More]

Where things get interesting for us in the Caribbean region is that on Wednesday, October 14, Barbados Underground published a post on the WND announcement of the book and the underlying findings of the investigation. That post begins with the 9/11 attacks in New York:

It is no secret to BU the 911 event which occurred in New York on the 11 September 2001 has added to tensions between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The reported terrorist acts which resulted in the demolition of the Twin Towers, damaged to the Pentagon and tragically resulted in the loss of many lifes has scared world history. The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and predictably the fallout has reverberated across the world. During the last US Presidential Election Campaign the foreign policy the candidates would adopt if elected was placed under heavy scrutiny especially concerning the current conflicts in Muslim Iraq, Afghanistan and for other reasons Iran. To President Barack Obama’s credit he fulfilled a campaign promise when he delivered a speech targeting his message at the Muslim world back in May designed to ease tension. He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.

Eight years later BU is not sure there has been any deflation of tensions even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.

It must concern President Obama now that he carries the weight of being a Nobel Laureate; the unravelling revelation in a book just released that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been fingered - in a memo obtained through Paul Sperry’s newest book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, CAIR lays out plans to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security for the purpose of influencing policy . . .

The tone of a significant number of comments is highly revealing:

Green Monkey // October 15, 2009 at 12:03 AM

When you realize that 9/11 was one big false-flag black-op (a la Operation Northwoods), you tend to be somewhat sceptical of these hysterical warnings of the dangers of the Muslim mafia.

If there is a Muslim mafia, you can almost bet your bottom dollar
the CIA and/or their buddies in the Mossad probably had something to do with setting it up.

[ . . . . ]

BAFBFP // October 15, 2009 at 1:09 AM

“The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and �

Wha’ you talkin’ ’bout man…? After all the discussion that has taken place on this blog over the last few years you could still say something like that David?

[ . . . . ]

Crusoe // October 15, 2009 at 5:51 AM

Structural engineering aside, one basic and simple fact glares.

Why were the planes not intercepted?

2001 and no jets even did a fly past, with all of these planes off course???

Doubtful!

Smells.

The next question one must ask is.

WHO is the enemy of the average man?

One poster above comes close.

Various black ops even oppose the ‘official agency’ lines.

Do not vouch for a soul, except yourself.

[ . . . . ]

Carson C. Cadogan // October 15, 2009 at 6:55 AM

DAVID

Don’t tell me that you are joining the anti Muslim crew just like BFP.

Don’t let the Jews fool you.

[ . . . . ]

BAFBFP // October 15, 2009 at 7:14 AM

I do not like Muslims. There I admit it. They hide their women and they smell.

But I do not like Jews either.. for every reason available and those not yet discovered.

But the Christians …hah.. I take particular pleasure in despising them (other than Georgey of course). I don’t even need a reason!

It is disgusting that the media would have people blame a whole religious grouping of billions people by highlighting the acts of a few of its members, and not even take the time to prove that most of what is being said is in fact true.

[ . . . . ]

Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM

“He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.� Really?

“……..even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.� Really?

Seems like a case of Stockholm Syndrome where you are in love with the real terrorists…those who have always robbed and pillaged you.

Don’t you remember when “we� were the underdogs. But somehow with the selection of BaRat as figure head you are under the illusion that something has changed? Deception! Deception!

It is beyond gullible to actually side with those pointing a finger at the muslims. If the muslims are actually criminals it is because they are working with the real judeo-christian criminals. And it is still dumbfounding that those who for the last 2500 years have suffered mercilessly at the hand of this oppressor, still lap up every drop of its drivel.

Who controls the money supply in this world to the point where they can yank it from circulation and wreak havoc on economies whose countries are run by weak-minded leaders?

Cui Bono? Follow the money!

And day by day BaRat Obama is proving himself to be nothing but a marionette and a LIAR!

Don’t forget that there is that Goldstone report out there, so they must keep re-directing your focus.

And don’t forget that all this is leading up to the attack on Iran. Hillary is globe-trekking in an effort to get others to form yet another coalition against Iran.

Who owns and control what you see in the media…the “jews� and obviously the local media are nothing but lapdogs.

And one of the the biggest threats to this planet is coming directly from the christian armageddonists and the zionists.

[ . . . . ]

Technician // October 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM

@ Zoe…..please dont start with your crap !!!
The Bible also has many verses similar to the Qur’an,in terms of dealing with non believers.

Yet still you ‘chose’ this book as your salvation.
Christians will always hate Muslims and vice versa….it is the nature of man to hate what you don’t understand.

I bet you celebrated Columbus Day too and we all know he was a d___ blasted LIAR (Burning Spear).
For years we were made to believe that he ‘discovered’ the world, when there is proof that the Khemetians were making this trip 5000 years before him in boats built from papyrus.

[ . . . . ]

Technician // October 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM

@ Valletta…

…When the twin towers were attacked and it was discovered that muslims were behind it , muslims celebrated it in the streets and in the mosques while america mourned in shock. THAT IS A FACT.

Please dont come here and lie!!
The footage that was shown immediately after the strike on the WTC on the CNN networks and Fox has BEEN PROVEN to be old footage from celebrations in the Arab world taken years before.
The same Networks had to apologize but it was all done to create the necessary reaction to get the masses in agreement for what was to come next.

[ . . . . ]

Natasha // October 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM

It is so unfortunate to read some of the comments regarding Muslims on this blog. Just taking quotes from the Qu’ran, totally out of context is uneducated. The same can be done with parts of the Bible and for sure from the Torah.
How odd it is, that some would stereotype ALL Muslims based on the actions of some….recalling few past horrible, yet independent instances. Very similar to the stereotypes many put onto black people…because of the actions of a few.
There are bad Muslims, good Muslims and everything in between. Sadly, what you all see and hear about is the 1% of VERY HORRIBLE people who under the guise of Islam execute their hidden political agendas through violence. In fact, my Islam, and the Islam of the rest of the 99% of Muslims, is a peace loving one with love for everyone regardless of creed, race and religions.
God/Allah in the Quran says
“O mankind! We have created you as male and female, and made you nations and tribes, so that you may know one another� (49:13)

[ . . . . ]

We could go on, and thankfully there were some significant counter-balancing comments. but the above documents a very worrying pattern.

To such, I responded as follows:

October 16, 2009 at 6:02 AM

Folks:

Jus a pass tru . . . shakin’ my head.

Take a quiet breath, please, count to 10, then go back to Mr Blackett’s posts above and READ.

Especially Q 9:5 — the sword verse, and 9:29 — the verse of tribute (Jizya as a discriminatory mark of humiliation and permanent subjugation).

THEN go read the history of Islam from the 600’s on, including the subjugation and slaughter of Jewish tribes at Medina by Mohammed, what happened to Mecca, and to Arabia at large. Then, what the first four “rightly guided� Caliphs did, and how that led to Islam’s spread by conquest from India to Spain and France by the early 700’s.

Q 9:5 and 29 are not that hard to understand against that backdrop. Nor the admitted actions of Al Qaeda on Sept 11, 2001. (Cf even so humble a source as this, as a beginning point . . . )

(And while you are at it, it was the Englishman who owned the merchant ships and bought the slaves that came to this part of the world, but who were the pirates who rob I and sold I? Who continue to do same to this day in Sudan, Mauritania etc. . . . [remember, right up into C19, Europeans had big problems surviving in Africa in the face of the diseases there. Worse than in the Caribbean: look at the regimental records of deaths on postings to the Caribbean in St Michael's Cathedral, including when things began to taper off.]] )

And, in fact the hadith on the Black Flag armies and that infamous Al Qaeda recruitment video [cf here] make it plain that from Khorasan (look it up on Wikipedia . . . Iran, Afghanistan [and neighbourhood] ) the end times armies of the Mahdi will on hadithic eschatology rise up and conquer the ME — slaughtering the Jews [cf Hamas Charter article 7 which quotes the relevant hadith verbatim as its final words] — then subjugate the whole world to the E and the W. (Hadiths are the handed on traditions of M, and are the basis for interpreting the Q, making hem the effective no 2 holy book of Islam.)

So, while we are for good reason fearful of the frying pan of Western Imperial domain on grounds of history [and we should remember that this can also come to us in the form of internationalist or liberationist movements or "reform"/ "protest" movements that claim to help us . . . don't ever forget that Nazism was an explicitly SOCIALIST movement, one that cut a deal with the industrialists in the interests of the "nation" instead of shooting them outright; it also pointed to British and French imperialism and American slaughter of Amerindians to distract attention from its intentions . . . ], we have not learned the history of the other major imperial tradition of our time.

And, above, it shows.

So, let us not jump from frying pan into fire.

[ . . . . ]