BNP ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk



1. IRAN-ISRAEL NUCLEAR WAR FEARED

While the BNP opposed the Iraq war from the start, and continues to
press for Britain's withdrawal, Iran is a somewhat different case.
Britain itself has no business getting involved, but given that Iran has
openly threatened a nuclear attack on Israel, and is building the bombs
to make good this threat, Israel has the right to defend itself -- as
long as they don't drag us into it, of course. We may face similar
lunatics ourselves one day, and cannot afford to have a consensus
established in the so-called international community that would oblige
us to idly sit by and watch our national annihilation being prepared.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment
facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian
facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several
Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the
United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The
Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of
the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open 'tunnels'
into the targets. 'Mini-nukes' would then immediately be fired into a
plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of
radioactive fallout.

'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike
and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the
sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted
in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that
Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make
nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer
be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment
facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete
and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only
if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined
to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider
military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans
could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole
America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli
attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could
range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks
against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are
believed to be involved in Iran's nuclear programme:

Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium
enrichment

A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a
statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for
the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough
plutonium for a bomb
Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay
Iran's nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to
live in fear of a 'second Holocaust'.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow
nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, has declared that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military
action against Iran as a 'last resort', leading Israeli officials to
conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the
2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have
been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof,
south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel's tactical nuclear weapons
on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General
Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely
to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source
said Israel would have to seek approval 'after the event', as it did
when it crippled Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in
1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the
bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds
would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran's retaliation would be constrained by
fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic
missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread
protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to
the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close
the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world's oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the
nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli
defence minister, said last month: 'The time is approaching when Israel
and the international community will have to decide whether to take
military action against Iran.'





2. LONDONER IDENTIFIED AS AL QAEDA'S BANKER

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535240,00.html

The British and American governments have named a key Al-Qaeda suspect
in Britain as one of the terror group's alleged bankers.

Mohammed al-Ghabra, whose bank accounts have been frozen by the Bank of
England, last week denied any involvement in terrorism. He admitted he
had 'radical views' and said he was an active supporter of Respect, the
anti-war party led by George Galloway, the maverick former Labour MP.

The American government has issued a statement 'designating' al-Ghabra,
who lives in east London, as someone 'who provides material and
logistical support to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations'.

The Americans and British intelligence officials allege in official
documents that al-Ghabra, 26, is a key organiser in the international
'pipeline' that sends terrorists from Britain to fight coalition troops
in Iraq.

Al-Ghabra, a naturalised British citizen who was born in Syria, received
a letter from the Treasury last month telling him: 'The Treasury has
reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are, or may be, a person who
facilitates the commission of acts of terrorism.'

Speaking at his home in Forest Gate, al-Ghabra said MI5 had repeatedly
accused him in interviews with his friends of being a terrorist
'moneymaker'. He said: 'If I am the moneymaker and this is why they have
decided to put the sanctions against me, how could I have so many
financial problems myself?'

In its statement, issued after his bank accounts were frozen, the US
Treasury said: 'Al-Ghabra has organised travel to Pakistan for
individuals seeking to meet senior Al-Qaeda individuals and to undertake
jihad training.

'Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in
covert activity on behalf of Al-Qaeda. Additionally, al-Ghabra has
provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based
individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents' fight against coalition
forces.'

Last month his home, a two-storey maisonette where he lives with his
mother and sister, was raided by Scotland Yard's counterterrorist
command. According to the search warrant, detectives were looking for
'explosives, precursor chemicals, weapons, component parts of weapons or
improvised explosive devices'.

They were also looking for 'documentation, maps, plans or any other data
giving details of possible targets/venues subject to terrorist attack'.

MI5 has apparently targeted al-Ghabra while conducting an investigation
into the so-called 'pipeline' that is fuelling the terrorist insurgency
in Iraq.

The flow of young Muslim men from Europe to Iraq has increased in the
past three years. The 'pipeline' of suspected terrorists is being
fuelled by growing resentment about American and British policy and
scandals such as the maltreatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

Al-Ghabra says that MI5 is simply wrong to connect him to any of this.
'I don't have the capability of supporting anyone financially, barely
myself . . . If anyone has the evidence, please show it to me. I am not
the banker.'

He was charged with fraud and possession of a document or record that
could be useful to terrorism and spent nine months in Belmarsh
high-security prison in south London before being acquitted by a jury in
2004.

He says he is an active member of the Muslim Prisoner Support group,
which campaigns for the rights of suspected Islamic terrorists. The
group's website says he was a speaker at a demonstration it held outside
Belmarsh last October.

British intelligence officials claim al-Ghabra is associated with
several suspects who have been arrested in connection with alleged
Al-Qaeda plots against British targets.

One is Haroon Aswat, currently in a British prison awaiting extradition
to America on terrorism charges.

Al-Ghabra said he met Aswat at a religious school in the Pakistani city
of Lahore.

He said their association was entirely innocent and he was 'shocked' to
see Aswat's picture on television when he was arrested in 2005 after the
London bombings.

Al-Ghabra said he had attended several Respect meetings because he
supported its views on Iraq and other issues. He claimed to have
nominated some of its election candidates. The party said records were
no longer available to confirm this.

'I don't believe I am a member of any party, but I help people who speak
for people who are oppressed. I support their (Respect's) message. I
like some of his (Galloway's) views on the anti-war campaign, even some
of his taxation ideas.'

A spokesman for Respect said: 'He is not a member and we don't know him.
But we also understand that he has not been charged with any offence or
convicted in a court of law.'

The American Treasury claims al-Ghabra is 'in regular contact with
UK-based Islamic extremists and has been involved in the radicalisation
of individuals in the UK through the distribution of extremist media'.

But al-Ghabra denied that his views were extreme. 'My radical views are
the same as any ordinary Muslim's radical views. Yes, I disagree with
the invasion of Iraq. Yes, I disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan .
. . I don't agree with people coming here and . . . fighting here,
fighting the British public. Things like the July bombings I don't agree
with.'





3. ISLAMIST EXTREMISM AT MOSQUES IN BRITAIN

Further proof of the hopeless naivete of Tony Blair, who thinks he can
pick out 'bengin' Muslims. If even the PM can't tell who's dangerous
and who's not, how can we risk have any of them in the country?

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=346499&sid=WOR&ssid=

An undercover investigation by a leading daily has revealed disturbing
evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques
and Muslim institutions, including an organization praised by Prime
Minister Tony Blair.

According to the 'Observer', secret video footage revealed Muslim
preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not
wearing the Hijab, and to create a 'state within a state.'

Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam
practiced in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading
Islamic institutions.

A forthcoming channel 4 dispatches programme paints an alarming picture
of how preachers in some of Britain's most moderate mosques are urging
followers to reject British laws in favour of those of Islam.

Leaders of the mosques have expressed concern at the preachers
activities, saying they were unaware such views were being disseminated.


At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission (Ukim), an
organization that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair
has said 'is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and
multicultural activities,' a preacher is captured on film praising the
Taliban.

In response to the news that a British Muslim soldier was killed
fighting the Taliban, the Speaker declares: 'the hero of Islam is the
one who separated his head from his shoulders.'

Another Speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. 'You
cannot accept the rule of non-Muslim,' a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a
meeting held within the mosque. 'We have to rule ourselves and we have
to rule the others.'

The 12-month investigation also recorded a deputy headmaster of an
Islamic high school in Birmingham telling a conference at the Sparkbrook
mosque that he disagrees with using the word democracy.

'They should call it... Kuffrocracy, that's their plan. It's the hidden
cancerous aim of these people.' The Darul Uloom School said it no longer
employed the teacher and that one of the reasons he resigned 'was the
incompatibility of many of his opinions with the policies of the
school.'

Inside the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, a preacher is recorded
saying, 'Allah has created the woman deficient.' A satellite broadcast
from the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh,
beamed into the green lane mosque suggests that Muslim children should
be hit if they don't pray: 'when he is seven, tell him to go and pray,
and start hitting them when they are 10.'

Another preacher is heard saying that if a girl 'doesn't wear Hijab, we
hit her.'

In a statement to channel 4, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the
government's preventing extremism taskforce, said he was worried about
the programme's consequences. 'While I appreciate that exaggerated
opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations.'





4. ISLAMIST EXTREMISM AT UNIVERSITIES IN BRITAIN

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=7340

In 1994, the Indian High Commissioner, L. M. Singhvi, claimed that
Muslim students at British colleges and universities were being
recruited by Islamist terror groups in India. The London School of
Economics and the University of London's School of Oriental and African
Studies were claimed to be places where students were particularly
susceptible to such recruitment.

After followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir murdered Ayotunde Obanubi on Monday
February 27, 1995, at Newham College of Further Education, repercussions
ensued. The National Union of Students banned the group from its
meetings in the same year. In 1996, Omar Bakri Mohammed either resigned
or was expelled from the British Hizb ut-Tahrir group which he had
founded.

Hizb ut-Tahrir continued to campaign on campuses, intimidating Muslim
women into wearing veils, but it was not allowed to speak publicly or
hold meetings in student union buildings. With Bakri no longer an active
member, the group promoted itself as a 'non-violent' organization, even
though it remained virulently anti-Semitic and opposed to democracy.

Bakri took his most violent and extremist members from Hizb ut-Tahrir
and officially founded British Al-Muhajiroun in February 1996. Bakri
took on the role of 'Emir' or 'spiritual leader', while his deputy was
Anjem Choudary, a former lawyer.

The Institute for Counter-Terrorism last month reported on a recent
conversation (in Arabic) between Bakri and the newspaper Asharq Alawsat.
Here he said that Al Muhajiroun targeted more than 48 different
universities in Britain, including Cambridge, Oxford, Durham, the LSE,
Imperial College, Westminster University, and King's College. This
figure is twice the amount claimed by Professor Anthony Glees in his
2005 study 'When Students Turn To Terror'.

The London School of Economics, according to a 2002 report, was
certainly a locus for Islamist terror recruitment. In a report by UK
intelligence, it was claimed that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who had
became a student at the LSE in 1992, went to Bosnia in 1993 and the
following year became involved in Kashmiri terrorist groups, including
Jaish-e-Mohammed. He was arrested in 1994 after a police shoot-out
following the kidnapping of three British backpackers. He escaped from
jail in 1999, and was captured by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002.
Omar Sheikh was captured for his involvement in the kidnapping and
beheading of US journalist Daniel Pearl, and given a death sentence on
July 15, 2002.

Bizarrely, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan states in his recent
book 'In The Line Of Fire' that Omar Sheikh had been originally
recruited by Britain's international intelligence agency, MI6. Omar
Sheikh admits to meeting Osama bin Laden twice, but claims his
allegiance is more to Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Omar Sheikh is said to
have financed the 9/11 terrorist, Mohammed Atta.

The 2002 intelligence report claims that another student from the LSE
recruited for Jaish-e-Mohammed, and a third man who was arrested for
involvement in the 2001 attack upon the Indian parliament (killing
seven) actually lectured to Muslim students at the LSE in 1999.

An official at the LSE claimed: 'There was some activity in the
mid-1990s. Together with the students' union we checked that only bona
fide students were actually linked to the Islamic society.' In 2000,
members of Al-Muhajiroun were physically expelled from a freshers' fair
at the LSE after trying to recruit students.

Al-Muhajiroun declared that there was a 'covenant of security' between
British Muslims and the UK, which meant that while Muslims were allowed
to operate there would be no terrorist attacks on British soil. In 2005,
the Sunday Times stated that more than a dozen Al-Muhajiroun members had
gone on to become suicide bombers abroad. These included Asif Hanif, who
had been one of two Britains involved in the April 2003 attack upon
Mike's Bar on the Tel Aviv sea front, which killed three and wounded
sixty.

In October 2004, Omar Bakri Mohammed announced that Al-Muhajiroun would
be disbanding. In February 2005, he declared that the 'covenant of
security' had ended. Four months later, 52 people died when four
Muslims, two of whom had been university-educated, decided to enact
'jihad' in London.

Though Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded, it nonetheless continued under other
names, with exactly the same membership. It became the Saviour Sect and
Al Ghurabaa. These groups were still led by the 'Emir', Omar Bakri
Mohammed. The Saviour Sect soon changed its name to become the Saved
Sect.

Changing of names is a tactic also employed by Hizb ut-Tahrir in its
recruitment drives, where its activists hide behind groups with
innocuous titles - East London Youth Forum, the Debate Society, the
Muslim Women's Cultural Forum, the Islamic Society, the One Nation
Society, the Millennium Society, the Pakistan Society and the 1924
Committee.

After the July 7, 2005 bombings Tony Blair announced in August that he
intended to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. When Blair made this announcement, the
Islamist group which professed 'non-violence' threatened to create
riots. To this day Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been banned in Britain.

The UK home secretary, John Reid, banned the former Al-Muhajiroun groups
in July 2006. This ban has done nothing to stop Omar Bakri's followers,
as in November 2005 the same core membership of Al-Muhajiroun had
founded Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, under the leadership of Anjem Choudary.


When Bakri fled to Lebanon in August 2005, he was banned from returning.
For two decades he had controlled young Muslims, urging them to claim
welfare benefits, to refuse to work and to never vote. But he continued
to use the internet to inspire his followers.

In July 2005, it was reported by the National Union of Students that
Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir members were still trying to recruit
members from Scottish universities, using 'front' names to avoid
detection. Imran Waheed, the head spokesperson of Hizb ut-Tahrir in
Britain, said: 'We are an intellectual and political movement and we
work in Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh. Universities should be a forum
for debate and we are trying to overturn the NUS ban which we believe is
completely unjustified.'

In October 2005, it was revealed that Hizb ut-Tahrir, under another
name, was recruiting at University College London, London University's
School of Oriental Studies, Luton University and others. Capitalizing on
the leftist students' love of the term 'Islamophobia' to stifle rational
debate about Islamism, Hizb ut-Tahrir were operating under the title
'Stop Islamophobia'.

Anjem Choudary followed his 'Emir' to Lebanon, but was deported in
November 2005. Unable to speak or recruit at British universities,
Choudary was within a week addressing students at the historic Trinity
College in Dublin, Ireland. Choudary said that because Ireland supported
the US (with its planes refueling at Shannon Airport), it was a
potential target for terrorism.

On November 1, 2005 Ann Cryer, a Labour politician, MP for Keighley,
claimed that one university in West Yorkshire was being targeted by
members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who were threatening students. She did not
mention the name of the university, for fear it would affect enrollment,
but it is believed to be the University of Bradford. She said: 'When I
went to the university a few weeks ago I was told that Hizb ut-Tahrir
has taken over the Islamic society and was preparing to take over the
students union.'

On August 10, 2006, it was revealed that a massive plot, involving about
twenty British Muslims, had been halted. This plot had involved a plan
to smuggle liquid explosives onto several US-bound airlines. These were
to be reassembled into bombs on board flights, in the manner first
outlined by Ramzi Yousef in 1995, in his notorious 'Operation Bojinka'.

One of the suspects in this plot was 22-year old Waheed Zaman from
Walthamstow, north-east London, who was head of the Islamic Society at
London Metropolitan University. Zaman was later charged under Section 1
(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as he had 'conspired with other
persons to murder other persons'. In relation to this conspiracy he was
charged under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. - 'preparing to
smuggle parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and
assemble and detonate them on board.'

Zaman was a member of the extremist group Tablighi Jamaat. The Sunday
Telegraph visited the two portable cabins which served as London
Metropolitan University's Islamic Society, based on the campus at
Hornsey Road, north London. Here, they found literature and audio
cassettes from Omar Bakri Mohammed and Al-Muhajiroun. A newsletter found
in the Islamic Society called freedom of speech 'undeniably one of the
most central deviated forms of moral decline that non-believers have
developed.'

The problem of radical Islam on British university campuses is
entrenched, and any attempts to address the problem are met with whines
of 'Islamophobia' from Muslims and leftists. Professor Anthony Glees
received hostility from Muslims and others for his 2005 report. The
vice-chancellor of his university, Steven Schwartz, wrote him a letter
stating: 'I have been receiving some surprising letters from other v-cs
(vice-chancellors) complaining about your report. Some complain about
your research methods. Others seem to resent being lumped in with
universities that might be inadvertent homes to people bent on
terrorism. One v-c seems to think that I should (or could) shut you up.'


Glees runs the Brunel Center for Intelligence and Security Studies at
Brunel University. As he himself admitted in his 2005 report, Brunel was
not immune from the specter of jihadist recruitment. One individual who
became targeted for recruitment at Brunel was Jawad Syed.

In his first year, Syed knew no-one but was befriended by Muslim
students. Gradually, they encouraged him to isolate himself from other
students, including Muslims. He said: 'They were very much anti-western
with anti-western sentiments. And I clearly saw and experienced that
they would use any means to achieve their aims, including violence....
Once they've established that basis of hatred they have you. And then
you start working closely with them, under their political agenda, in
achieving their greater aim.'

Jawad Syed is the protege of an imam who tries to 'deprogram' young
Muslims who have been indoctrinated by radical Islamists. This man,
Sheikh Musa Adami, has been chaplain of London Metropolitan University
since 2002. Adami's group is called the Luqman Institute of Education
and Development. Despite his concerns about Islamic extremism, Adami
failed to recognize the extremist literature which proliferated in
Waheed Zaman's Islamic Society, at his own university.

In November 2006, Adami's charity reported that Islamist activists were
operating at Brunel University, Bedfordshire University, Sheffield
Hallam University and Manchester Metropolitan University. The Luqman
institute was deprogramming up to ten students from Brunel University.

The Sunday Times reported that at Sheffield Hallam University in 2006,
the Islamic Society hosted a lecture by Sheikh Khalid Yasin. This US
preacher is a convert from Christianity, who has said: 'There's no such
thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend.' Yasin interprets
literally the injunction in the Koran (Sura 4:34) that men should be
able to beat their wives.

The Muslim chaplain at London's Goldsmith's College is Shakeel Begg, who
is also the imam at Lewisham & Kent Mosque in Ladywell, south London. In
late 2006, he gave a lecture to Muslim students at Kingston University.
Here, he encouraged his audience to fight jihad. He said: 'You want to
make jihad? Very good... Take some money and go to Palestine and fight,
fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists.'

In October 2006, a lecture was held at Staffordshire University,
entitled 'The true word of God - the Koran or the Bible.' The lecture
was given by a former member of Al-Muhajiroun.

Access to universities is still fairly easy for those who are not
registered students. On November 7, 2006, Dhiren Barot (pictured) was
sentenced to a minimum of forty years' jail for his plots to commit
terrorist atrocities in New York, Washington, Newark and Britain. Among
his plans, the convert from Hinduism, had included a plan to create a
'dirty bomb' or 'radiological dispersion device. His plans involved the
radioactive substance Americium-241 and, as revealed by the Metropolitan
Police Press Bureau, they were not idle fantasies. They contained clear
details (which have been blacked out for security purposes) based on
scientific information. To gather data for his plans, Barot had used a
forged pass to enter Brunel University.

Imperial College is a prestigious university in west London, with a good
reputation for nuclear research. In November 2005, it introduced a ban
on Muslim face-veils, as a security procedure. However, despite its
vigilance, this university is not without risk. On December 27, 2006, it
was revealed that investigators from Scotland Yard's Counterterrorism
Command made an extensive inspection of the university's security. They
focused particularly on the nuclear research facilities.

The university has its own nuclear reactor, and with inspectors from the
Environment Agency and the Health Protection, Scotland Yard officers
checked the nuclear facilities, and took stock of radioactive isotopes.
They also did extensive inspection at Harefield Hospital, which has
combined its research facilities with Imperial College.

The reason for the inspection has resulted from intelligence which
suggests that Islamic extremists have targeted Imperial College.

Though the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir seem to involve mentally
'preparing' students for the arrival of jihadist recruiters, in 2005,
Mustafa Arif, president of Imperial College's student union, which is
not affiliated to the National Union of Students, said of the group:
'The culture here would never have been to bar them. They were very
small and died out about five years ago. They are nothing compared with
some hotheads you read about. As a Muslim I find Hizb a nonsense.
Physically they are harmless...'

With such attitudes abounding, it is perhaps no wonder that Imperial
College has now been highlighted as a security risk.

Britain's politicians and security services have not always been as
vigilant as they should be in rooting out Islamist extremism from either
communities or educational establishments. The leftists at Britain's
universities have not helped in the attempts to protect against
terrorism.

In November 2006, when the Department of Education and Skills urged
university lecturers were urged to inform police Special Branch of any
Muslim students who appeared to be extremist, Muslims, student unions
and universities condemned the suggestion.

Preachers such as Omar Bakri Mohammed are still influencing British
Muslims to engage in jihad. From his base in Lebanon, Bakri uses the
internet to preach on an almost nightly basis. He recently said about
terrorist attacks upon Dublin's Shannon Airport: 'Hit the target and hit
it very hard, that issue should be understood.'

Bakri explained his position clearly in 2004, when he said: ''We don't
make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and
non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an
unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.'

The British authorities failed to act against radical preachers such as
Bakri when they began their campaigns of indoctrination. Such negligence
has ultimately led to homegrown suicide bombings and a climate of fear
and tension.

Universities are for education. Because of Britain's complacent climate
of multicultural tolerance, universities are now rife with individuals
who do not seek to share common values of liberty and democracy. It is
ironic that in Britain's establishments of education, there are so many
politically naive activists who still need, more than anyone else, to be
educated about the dangers of Muslim extremism.






5. ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS RECRUITING FOR SOMALI WAR ON UK INTERNET SITES

http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/14481/30/

The UK website Muntadaa.net has recently issued a call to British
Muslims to travel to Somalia and fight alongside Islamist forces there,
currently under attack by Ethiopian troops and their Somali allies .

Muntadaa is part of a wide network managed by a group of British jihad
supporters known as 'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah Wal Jamma' (original
group formed by Omar Bakri) and specifically, the forum where the above
announcement has been posted on December 28th is defined as 'A forum
for those who endeavour to be like the Prophet (SAW) and his
companions(RA)'.

The message has been posted by a user of the site and it claims that
'The Ethiopians with full international support (from the Christian
crusader regimes) and directly backed by illegitimate Israel (Zionists)
have violated the blood of the Muslims in Somalia. By committing such an
act of terrorism the Muslims in Somalia and nearby lands have responded
to the divine call of Jihad.'

This 'divine call' is the reason why the support to the Jihad all over
the world is considered as Fard Ayn (an individual obligation) by
Islamic people: they are called to fulfil this duty 'financially,
physically and verbally'.

'This honourable act must be carried out according to your own
capabilities because our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) said Strike the
Mushrik with you wealth, hands and tongue. [Sunan Nisai]. Therefore no
Muslim (man or woman) has an excuse of doing nothing at all.'


The link between Muslims is maybe the most valuable strength of Islam,
that is based on the principle that ' the Muslim Ummah is one Ummah at
the exclusion of all others, their land is one, their war is one, their
peace is one and their trust is one. [Saheeh Muslim]'.

'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah Wal Jamma' has been involved in many
initiatives to support the Islamic CAUSA that have been widely spread
on the internet: last February, for instance, the network created by
Omar Bakri organized a conference and a manifestation to spread another
appeal, this time from Palestine, to support the jihad against Israel
and in particular to defend AL-AQSA mosque:

'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call upon the Ummah of Rasoul
Allah (saw) to remember that the Mosque of Al-Aqsa is linked to the
belief of each one of us.'


'The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call upon all Muslims to
expose the Jewish and Christian conspiracy to keep Muslims divided and
to steal their resources and we urge you to expose them. Verily the real
motive of the occupiers is not to please God but to destroy Al-Aqsa
Mosque in the hope of finding the lost treasure of Sulayman (as).

The Followers of Ahl Us-Sunnah wal Jamma call all Imams of Mosques and
Community leaders to motivate Muslims wherever they are to put pressure
on their brothers to rise to do their job of defending the sanctity of
Allah (SWT), his Messenger Muhammad (saw) and the Muslims in this time
of need for indeed Allah (SWT) will account each one of us for our
responsibilities.'

Just a few days before, the group published a message related to the
issue of the Danish pictures on Prophet Mohammed , that urged Muslims
to 'RISE TO DEFEND THE HONOUR OF THE MESSENGER MUHAMMAD (SAW)!', and to
join a demonstration in front of the Danish embassy to protest against
'CHRISTIAN CRUSADE AGAINST ISLAM ACROSS EUROPE' .





6. SERBIA, EUROPE'S FRONT LINE AGAINST ISLAM

Britain is lucky enough not to actually border on a Muslim country.
Serbia, on the other hand, borders on Muslim Albania, which is trying to
take over its province of Kosovo, cradle of the historic Serbian nation.
Serbia has fought for centuries against Muslim penetration into Europe,
by means of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and otherwise. Allowing the UN
to dismember Serbia would be a violation of the UN Charter and a
terrible precedent for Ulster. The so-called Kosovo Liberation Army is
a gang of Islamist narco-terrorists that have been adopted as pets by
the UN as a sledgehammer against an unsubdued European nation that
refuses to surrender to globalism.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/joksimovich/005.shtml

In March 2007 it will be eight years since the Kosovo war and the US-led
NATO intervention in gross violation of a host of international laws
including the UN Charter. The Western part of the international
community was determined to resolve the Kosovo status issue by the end
of 2006. However, the UN Kosovo mediator, former Finnish president
Martti Ahtisaari, has delayed his proposal until after the Serbian
parliamentary elections on January 21, 2007 in order to reinforce the
democratic camp within Serbia. There were other important considerations
such as sharp divisions within the Contact Group (US, UK, Germany,
France, Italy and Russia), the veto holding members of the UN Security
Council (US, UK, France, Russia and China) and the 27 member European
Union (EU).

(ON WEB SITE: Map of the Greater Albania that Muslim Albanians in charge
of Kosovo seek to establish by acquiring territory from 4 of their
neighboring countries: Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece.)

The issue can be straightforwardly resolved by staying within the bounds
of the international law and the UN charter which guarantees the
inviolability of borders of all internationally recognized states, their
sovereignty and territorial integrity. A compromise cannot be found
unless the seven-year quest by some Western powers, notably the US and
the UK, for conditional independence is not dropped. Nonetheless,
according to numerous media reports Ahtisaari proposal is likely to
advocate some kind of a conditional independence despite the threat of a
Russian veto in the UNSC. Adherence to the international law is not only
in the interest of stability in the Balkans and thus of Europe but it is
in the US interest as well as other Western powers. German chancellor,
Angela Merkel, has stated that 'Serbia is most important country in the
region. Without a stable Serbia there will be no peace there.'

Background

The Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, Kosmet in Serbian but for
brevity reduced to Kosovo in this essay, provides identity to the
Serbian nation, a cradle of the Serbian civilization. The international
media ignores the province of Metohija in order to negate 800 years old
existence of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The term Metohija derives from
the Greek word Metox, which refers to lands set aside for the use of the
Church.

The Albanians see Kosmet as a part of Greater Albania or alternatively
ethnically pure sovereign state. To Albanian mafia it is a safe haven
for their criminal operations. To Al Qaeda it is another Balkan
terrorist hub. To the Islamists it is a part of recycled Balkan
caliphate. To the U.S. and Germany it has provided an opportunity to
exploit the Serb-Albanian conflict in order to strengthen their
respective geostrategic positions in the Balkans. President Clinton
often stated that he went to war to defend 'poor Muslims.' Mike Jackson,
NATO top commander in Kosovo who recently retired as Chief of the
General Staff in the British Army, said: 'Of course when we come to
Kosovo in 1999, the West's intervention was almost entirely predicated
on the protection of a Muslim population.'

The NATO bombing campaign did not result in an unconditional surrender,
because of the determination of the Serbian people to defend its
territory, but in a negotiated settlement reflected in UN Security
Council (UNSC) Resolution #1244. The resolution established Kosovo as a
UN protectorate and created the UN Interim Administration Mission in
Kosovo (UNMIK) on an indefinite basis. Maintaining a secure environment
has been assigned to NATO's multinational force called KFOR (Kosovo
Force). Russia and China opposed rewarding the Kosovo Albanians with
independence fearing that the Western powers could use the Kosovo
precedent to weaken their own countries by various Muslim separatist
movements inside their countries. Hence, the political status was left
unresolved. In the resolution the terms 'substantial autonomy' and the
sovereignty of Yugoslavia (now Serbia) are each mentioned three times.
The terms 'self-determination' and 'independence' are not mentioned
once.

UNMIK Failure

The essence of the mission boiled down to a promise made on numerous
occasions: to transform Kosovo into a society in which all citizens
could live in security and dignity. The mission failed from the very
beginning due to rivalry for political power within Kosovo. The Albanian
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) thugs established civil authorities in 27
out of 29 municipalities before the UNMIK team arrived with only eight
people. The Kosovo Serbs and other minorities, Roma in particular, were
exposed to national, cultural and spiritual genocide. The state of
lawlessness only subsided when apartheid was achieved through
intimidation and harassment driving the Serbs and others minorities to
cluster in ethnic enclaves.

In 2002 UNMIK established eight Human Rights Standards for a behavior of
Kosovo Albanians such as sustainable returns of those ethnically
cleansed, freedom of movement, functioning of democratic institutions,
establishment of rule of law, etc. These standards represented the
essential elements of a stable society. The world was told how these
standards would have to be met before any talks on the Status could be
initiated, i.e. Standards before Status. UNMIK dismally failed in
implementing these standards as exemplified with a number of Serb and
Roma returnees. UNMIK established a Kosovo Privatization Agency which
basically confiscated all state owned property and declared that the
companies have neither ownership nor control over it despite the fact
that Serbia invested over $17 billion since 1970 through
underdevelopment fund derived from taxing ordinary Serbs. In addition,
the KLA appropriated numerous properties with UNMIK not wanting to 'rock
the boat.'

Russell Gordon, an American journalist, reported recently from Kosovo:
'Life for a Serb in Kosovo today is terrifying, expecting to be
attacked, even waiting to die. One hopes at best one will be allowed to
flee alive. Even Serbian children are not safe as the Albanian school
teachers in some villages are letting the small children out of school
to stone Serb UN bus. The Albanians indoctrinate their children from a
young age to hate.' Rada Trajkovic, member of the Serb National Council
in Kosovo, on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day,
stated: 'The only reality is kidnappings ,murders, denial of freedom of
movement, daily plantings of explosive devices on roads used by Serbs,
trading in white slaves and children....Serbs who are completely denied
their rights live in Kosovo with the hope that the civilized world will
help them but also with fear that the next International Human Rights
Day will be even worse, and that there will be much fewer of us then
there are today.'

Muslim Albanians in Kosovo burning down a car in front of the American
soldiers sent to protect lives and property. The car was rumored by the
mob to be owned by a Serb.

Iain King and Whit Mason, who served with UNMIK for years and authored
Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo, said in the book:
'International pusillanimity did not honor local mores-it benefited a
small minority of self-styled militants and outright criminals who live
by extortion.' Kosovo became the black hole of Europe as the organized
crime, drug and human trafficking center.
Looking for Way Out

Five years into the mission, the international community started looking
for a way out. The process was slow downed by the March 2004 Kosovo
pogrom in which about 60,000 strong Albanian mobs in an orchestrated
fashion attempted to implement a prearranged ethnic cleansing plan. In
33 violent incidents, aimed at ethnically cleansing Central Kosovo from
the Serbs, the mob clashed with KFOR, UN and local policemen. There were
21 deaths and some 900 injuries. 4,500 Serbs were driven from their
homes. 35 Serbian churches were burned or badly damaged and often
sprayed with KLA graffiti. KFOR/UNMIK was slammed by the human rights
organizations, but the chief instigators were not found.

A paper produced by the OSCE listed ten underlying factors that had
created the conditions for violence. One of them is the perception of
unconditional support from the U.S. While the OSCE report says 'despite
American's diplomat's best efforts to correct this delusion,' this
writer believes that the Albanian perception is essentially correct. Who
else would have allowed once declared terrorists and war criminals to
become statesmen and even the prime ministers!

Despite the pogrom and the fact that Standards were nowhere close to
being met, the UNSC on October 24, 2005 endorsed Kai Eide (Norwegian
diplomat) report and backed the proposal to open talks on the future of
Kosovo. This represents the best evidence that UNMIK was not serious
enough about implementing the standards, it amounted to nothing more
than rhetoric. Former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, was appointed
as the UN Special Envoy. As discussed below Ahtisaari was a wrong man
for the job assuming sustainable stability in the region was the
overriding top objective?

Eide acknowledged that the inter-ethnic relations remained bad, 'biggest
threat to the future of Kosovo...Little has been achieved to create
foundation of a multiethnic society...Property rights are neither
respected nor insured...Illegal construction and occupation of homes is
a widespread phenomenon.' It became obvious to an unbiased observer that
elections, institutions, laws passed during the UNMIK rule cannot secure
democracy unless the rule of Albanian thugs is seriously confronted.
However, there was no willingness in the West to do so. The risk
aversion culture dominated. The instruction from the New York
headquarters to UNMIK was 'do not rock the boat.'

Contact Group Sets Principles

The international community in the form of a Contact Group established
the set of principles: (a) No partition of Kosovo; (b) No return to the
situation before March 1999; (c) No union of Kosovo with neighboring
states; (d) Protection of minorities; (e) Decentralization.

The principles seemed to have been designed to strongly favor the
independence option, in violation of UNSC #1244, before any serious
negotiations took place. Arguments were made that harsh realities on the
ground make Kosovo independence the only viable option, that
independence is the only pragmatic solution, etc. The Contact Group made
a fundamental mistake at their January 31 meeting in London when they
declared that the final solution must be in line with the will of people
in Kosovo. What about the will of the people of Serbia, the people in
whose state Kosovo is? This would have been a legally defensible
position. Reflecting this guidance a senior British diplomat, John
Sawers, told Belgrade shortly thereafter that the West has 'decided'
Kosovo should be independent. Independence would mean that Albania would
have two states. Didn't the Albanians exercise their right of
self-determination by forming Albania in 1913? Now they are supposed to
form another Albanian state on the Serbian territory almost a century
later! This precedent would have destroyed the principles on which the
international law and the European order have been based on without even
scheduling an international conference to amend the 1975 Helsinki Final
Act which was accepted by the U.S. and the EU.

The criterion of no partition is also a strange one since Kosovo
historically has not been a distinct territorial unit with established
borders. In 1946 the Yugoslav communists arbitrarily established Kosovo
borders, as an autonomous province within Serbia. In the Kingdom of
Yugoslavia Kosovo did not exist even as an entity. Moreover, what sense
does it make to say that Kosovo, unlike Serbia proper, cannot be broken
up?

No Legal Case for Independence

A sound legal rationale for independence does not exist. The most
frequently parroted argument has been that the Albanians constitute 90%
of the Kosovo population. This argument, however, has no legal standing
as the international law does not recognize the right of
self-determination in the form of secession of an administrative unit.
In addition to the Helsinki Final Act, which prohibits secession, the
EU, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the
Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a
territory, a population, and a political authority. Obviously, the
Kosovo Albanians do not satisfy these criteria.

The Albanians are a majority in Kosovo but a minority within Serbia.
They became a majority after the Yugoslav communists in 1945, upon
conclusion of the WWII, issued a ban on return of Serbs---Resolution
#343 in preparation for Tito's ambition to establish a federation with
Albania which did not materialize due to rift with Stalin in 1948. The
Serbs in the Yugoslav Republic of Croatia were a majority in Srpska
Krajina but a minority within Croatia. The Republika Srpska Krajina
(RSK) was not internationally recognized by the Badinter Commission
because it would have violated the international borders after the
ruling on November 29, 1991 that Yugoslav republic borders become
international borders. Ruling on January 11, 1992 did not favor Kosovo
independence. It is also relevant that the Serbs in Kosovo have been
subjected to ethnic cleansing for five centuries during the Ottoman
Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mussolini/Hitler rule, communist
dictator Tito rule and lastly during the UNMIK protectorate when about
230,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed.
There are many other parts of the world in which various minorities have
overwhelming regional population advantage. In the southwestern Chinese
Xinjiang province (17% of China) less than 1% is Chinese while 99% are
Muslim Ughyurs. Kashmir has a 90% Muslim majority with a 10% Hindu
Pandits. In Ahtisaari home country, Aland Islands belong to Finland
despite the fact that the Swedes constitute the majority. Former
Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia Joe Bissett stated: 'There is no
majority in the world which deserves independence less than Kosovo
Albanians.'

Legacy of Milosevic Rule

Another argument advanced by the Soros mostly funded International
Crisis Group (ICG), the Clinton administration stars like Holbrooke and
Albright and other Albanian lobbyists has been that the Serbs were
disqualified from retaining territorial integrity over Kosovo because of
the Milosevic rule. Ahtisaari served as the Chairman of the ICG. Several
other leading Serb bashers serve or served on the Board. In this
argument the millennium old history apparently starts and ends with
Milosevic. Nothing happened before or afterwards. It should be noted
that Ahtisaari, after negotiating termination of the Kosovo war,
predicted in 1999 that Serbia would lose Kosovo unless it became a
democratic state. The fact that the Serbs removed Milosevic from power
in a 2000 bloodless coup and established a democracy doesn't seem to
count!

Even during Milosevic's rule the fairy tale propaganda stories are used
instead of hard facts. As an example, Milosevic allegedly ethnically
cleansed and deported Albanians. During the vicious fighting between the
KLA insurrection from Albania, supported by the Islamist world,
including Al Qaeda and Iran, as well as by the Western intelligence
agencies, there were some 2000 fatalities on both sides but mainly
between the KLA fighters and the Serbian police. There were
displacements of civilians within Kosovo but that applies to the total
population not only to Albanians. The claim that Milosevic deported some
800,000 Albanians into Macedonia and Albania is nothing short of absurd.
Scores of witnesses testified in The Hague, including a British
journalist on the ground, that the Albanians were by and large running
away from NATO bombs as well as being ordered by the KLA to leave their
homes for Macedonia and Albania. What about the thousands of Albanians
that fled to Serbia proper? About 800,000 Lebanese civilians were
uprooted from their homes during the 34-day Israeli-Hezbollah war. Were
they deported too?

Mustafa Kruja, fascist Prime Minister of Greater Albania, 1942, called
for the extermination of the Kosovo Serb population.

Albanian terrorism in Kosovo dates back to 1912 when the Serbian troops
liberated Kosovo from the Ottoman Empire. During WWII, the Albanian
Balli Kombetar and the 21st Waffen SS Division Skanderbeg committed
merciless persecution of Serbs killing 10-20,000 and ethically cleansing
100-120,000. Massive colonization of Albanians into Kosovo took place,
which continued during the communist dictatorship. Under the 1974
Yugoslav constitution the Kosovo Albanians were granted unprecedented
autonomy. They only had formal links to Serbia but no right of
self-determination. Albanian professor, Dr. Hajredin Hodxa, stated: 'I
have visited more than 60 countries and I have attended the most
important conferences on these problems held in different parts of the
world. I have come to irrefutable conclusion that not a single national
minority in the world has achieved the rights that the Albanian
nationality enjoys in Socialist Yugoslavia. The Albanian nationality
exercises rights equal to those of other nations.' Despite this riots
erupted in 1981 with the Albanians demanding a republic with the
Leninist right of self determination: including annexation to Albania.
It should be noted that the Western powers supported Milosevic in the
timeframe 1995-1997. President Clinton and ambassador Holbrooke in
particular build him up as a peacemaker without whom the Dayton Accords
wouldn't have been possible. After Milosevic stole the municipal
elections from a coalition of Serbian democratic parties, and a 90-day
winter 1996-1997 street demonstrations, the Western powers bailed him
out and enabled him to stay in power. Hence, it could be argued that
whatever he might have done since 1997 the West must accept
responsibility.

Kosovo as Sui Generis Case

Some Western policy makers, such as Undersecretary of State Nicholas
Burns, argue that the process of dissolving Yugoslavia is a unique event
supervised by the UN and carried out with democratic safeguards. Kosovo
as a ward of UN cannot be compared with unrecognized breakaway regions.

Russian president Vladimir Putin gave weight to the Kosovo precedent
idea on Russian TV on January 30th: 'We need universal principles to
find a fair solution to these problems. If people believe that Kosovo
can be granted full independence, why then should we deny it to Abkhazia
and South Ossetia? What is the difference?' Russia has backed these
pro-Moscow separatist enclaves in the post-Soviet region but has so far
been deterred from granting recognition because of long-established
principle of inviolability of borders.

Opening Global Pandora's Box

Kosovo independence precedent could open yet another Pandora's Box in
addition to Iraq. It would threaten to destabilize many corners of the
world as it would encourage secessionist movements in Azerbaijan
(Nagorno-Karabakh), Canada (Quebec), China (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang),
Cyprus (Turkish Republic), France (Corsica), Georgia (Abkhazia, South
Ossetia), India (Kashmir), Indonesia (Papua, Aceh), Ireland (Northern
Island), Italy (Sardinia), Moldova (Transniestria), Turkey/Iraq/Iran
(Kurdistan), Philippines (Mindanao), Rumania (Transylvania), Spain
(Basque Country, Catalonia), Sri Lanka (Tamil), Sudan (Southern Sudan),
etc. Like Kosovo most of these statelets would not be economically
viable and like tiny newly independent state of East Timor could be
mired in ethnic violence. Lastly there could be consequences within
former Yugoslavia itself, i.e. independent Republika Srpska in Bosnia
and eventual merger into Serbia, Croatian Herzegovina in Bosnia, Serbian
Krajina in Croatia, Albanians in Southern Serbia could demand annexation
to Kosovo, Albanians in Western Macedonia, already called Illyrida,
wouldn't be spared, the virus might infect Albanians in Montenegro and
Greece. Creation of micro-nationalist statelets ultimately could boost
the UN membership to some 400 countries and in the process causing many
perpetual wars. There are 5,000 different ethnic groups in 200
countries.

Kosovo as Jihad

Lack of valid arguments was substituted with a huge well financed,
politically motivated, a pro-Albanian bias on the part of a political
elite on both sides of the Atlantic. As stated above appeasement of
radical Islam appears to be a principal component of this policy. There
are perhaps others which are outside the scope of this paper. It should
be remembered why Clinton went to war as stated above. Clinton's
appeasement of radical Islam was a prominent feature of his foreign
policies. In my book, The Revenge of the Prophet: How Clinton and His
Predecessors Empowered Radical Islam, I have made an assertion that
these policies led to 9/11.

Kosovo Albanian Islamic mujahedeen Aslan Klecka in support for Kosovo
independence poses with a chopping knife used for Islamic ritual
beheadings of Kosovo Serbs.

A part of these political elite is Senator Biden who has now become the
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who stated that
'Pristina is one of rare Muslim cities in the world where the US is not
only respected but adored.' Pristina is some kind of an island in the
Muslim Sea. Before the war 40,000 Serbs lived in Pristina; that number
has been reduced to about 100. In a recent interview with the Financial
Times, Senator Biden lamented how Serbia and Russia are conspiring to
seize defeat from the jaws of victory. For him Kosovo independence is a
'victory for Muslim democracy, a better future for South-East Europe and
validation of for the judicious use of American power...The people of
Kosovo--already the most pro-American in the Islamic world-will provide
a much-needed example of a successful US-Muslim partnership.'

There is an abundance of evidence to prove that for the Islamists Kosovo
is a jihad. In 1992 the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which
Albania joined the same year, demanded independence for Kosovo. Osama
bin Laden established a base in Albania in 1994. He invested $11.4
million in the Arabic-Albanian bank. In 1997/98 he armed and infiltrated
the KLA. Hundreds of mujahideen joined the KLA. After the 1998 US
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and 9/11 in particular the US was
successful in neutralizing Al Qaeda cells in Albania but the Islamist
interest is currently concentrated in Kosovo. As a matter of fact Kosovo
is currently a White Al Qaeda training center... Recently Western
intelligence officers provided Defense & Foreign Affairs with
documentation, including NATO maps of 16 terrorist and combat training
camps and depots, plus a network of safe houses and support locales.

A terrorist attack discussed in my book on the Bondsteel American base
was fortunately averted. Explosives for the Madrid and London bombings
came from Kosovo. Eradication of Christianity has taken place. 150
Serbian churches have been demolished while some 400 mosques have been
built. Saudi flag is flying on some of them. In his most recent book
Pakistani President, a moderate Muslim and a key U.S. ally in the war on
terror, suggests that the British MI-6 had recruited Omar Sheikh,
murderer of the Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl, and sent him to
Kosovo to join the jihad. There is little doubt that the Islamists will
declare a victory for jihad if Kosovo becomes independent.

Ahtisaari Mediation: A Farce

UN brokered talks opened in Vienna in February 2006. After eight
sessions Austrian diplomat, Albert Rohan, acting as Ahtisaari deputy
announced in mid-September: 'We're approaching a moment where by talking
alone we won't accomplish the goal. We could talk for another 10 years
and not change anything.' Rohan said that the two sides deadlocked over
how many municipalities should be set up to give Serbs influence in
day-to-day affairs in areas where they form a local majority. The
Albanians declared that the talks ended and threatened violence in the
event the independence decision is delayed. Ahtisaari, who attended only
one session, briefed the UNSC that possibilities for negotiations
between Belgrade and Pristina have been exhausted. Dr. Sanda
Raskovic-Ivic, head of the Coordination Center for Kosovo and Metohija,
reminded the Council that between October 25, 2005 and September 1, 2006
there were 260 ethnic incidents. She concluded: 'Albanians without Serbs
cannot do too much and therefore they should not lightly reject the
reasonable and generous offers coming from our side of the table. In
spite of the evident difficulties, there still exists maneuver space for
an agreement, based on democratic principles and European standards.'

During Vienna talks on August 8, Ahtisaari told the Belgrade negotiators
that Serbia must take into account the legacy of Milosevic's regime:
'Serbs are guilty as people.' With this statement Ahtisaari joined the
advocates of the darkest ideas in the history of mankind on the
collective responsibility of entire nations. This is one of the axioms
of fascism. Even after all Nazi horrors in WWII, including the
holocaust, the Germans were not deemed guilty as people. This was a
perfect timing for resignation.

While it should be reasonable to postulate that Ahtisaari has been
entrusted with the UN mandate of enabling negotiations in order to
achieve a compromise, a historical just solution based on the principles
of international law it is not how he interpreted the mandate. On
several occasions he has advised that compromise and negotiations are
superfluous because a solution already exists that needs only to be
implemented and that is independent Kosovo. This led former U.S.
ambassador to Belgrade, William Montgomery, to state that the talks for
Kosovo future status that are held in Vienna are a 'farce directed by
the international community.' Ahtisaari apparently was led to believe
that Serbia, under huge Western, mostly Anglo-American, pressure would
give up 15% of its territory for some foggy promises of membership in
NATO and the EU. In other words the negotiations were designed to fail
in a similar manner like so called February 1999 Rambouillet Conference
was not a peace conference but a setup for the war. Independence would
be imposed through isolation putting Serbia in a Belarus type of
isolation. Holbrooke and other Serb bashers had publicly threatened that
Serbia had a choice of either becoming a NATO and an EU member or facing
Belarus type of isolation. According to a number of media reports,
Rumania and Bulgaria which have joined the EU on January 1 caught 'the
last train' before the EU shuts its door to future applicants at least
for a long while. The EU is not even willing to talk about the schedules
to applicants from Western Balkans like Serbia any longer.

In the circumstances Kosovo Albanian leaders behaved as if the
negotiating process was intended to be nothing but pro-forma and simply
beginning of a dialogue for preparation of independent Kosovo. In his
final appearance prior to his death, in December 2005, Ibrahim Rugova
said: 'We did not achieve independence (in 2005), but we will have it in
2006.' On the other hand Serbia adopted a European solution for Kosovo:
Respect for the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international
law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The treaty's
foundation was the doctrine of sovereignty, which declared a state's
domestic conduct and institutions to be beyond the reach of other
states. This doctrine was codified in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act
regarding inviolability of international borders. It clearly leads to
the position that Kosovo could never become independent in a legal and
just way but it could 'only be seized' by legal violence based on force.
Serbia wouldn't accept a declaration of another Albanian state on its
own territory no matter what the reward or punishment may be. As the
Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica said for Serbia the Kosovo status issue
was resolved at the Serbian referendum when the Constitution declaring
the province an inalienable part of Serbia was confirmed.

Incidentally Ahtisaari refuses to condemn Albanian terrorist acts.
During this writing Albanian terrorists dynamited the Zvecan-Kosovo
Polje railway tracts, the railway used by the Serbs. In addition, the
Albanians stoned busloads of Serbs in the Strpce municipality. These
types of terrorist acts are reported by mainstream media but Ahtisaari
chooses to ignore them. The Serbian Prime Minister, Vojislav Kostunica,
has requested a response to the question why Ahtisaari has never
condemned terrorism by Albanian separatists in accordance with his
mandate and responsibilities. 'We must know what it is that is
preventing Ahtisaari from carrying out his responsibilities.'

Flawed Assumptions

Ahtisaari presumably was assured that opposition from Russia would be
somehow removed. Ambassador Montgomery suggests that the Western
international community has relied on two key outdated assumptions:

1. Pressure and deception would finally convince Russia to yield in the
UNSC. If this fails then the UNSC could be bypassed and individual
countries would recognize independent Kosovo. The assumptions were valid
for the Yeltsin era when Russia was weak. Russia is now an energy
superpower which has defined own foreign policies.

2. Serbia would so badly want to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic
institutions, like its neighbors did, that it would be willing to give
up Kosovo. In 2001 and thereabout that assumption was valid. However
various Western blackmails related to the Hague Tribunal in particular
and lack of economic progress discouraged and frustrated the Serbian
population and resulted in apathy and support for the Radical Party with
a nationalist agenda.

While in Washington in the summer of 2006 this writer was told that the
U.S. would buy the Russian and Chinese votes in the UNSC by offering
those favors elsewhere in the world. It is conceivable that Russia could
have been lured if the U.S. agreed to grant independence to Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Transiestria but that has not been the case.

Ahtisaari Calls for Time-out

Ahtisaari was working diligently to deliver a plan for conditional
independence before the year end. However, his plan fell through because
of Russian firm and principled position that the UN Charter cannot be
breached, that the principles have to be universal and that Russia could
only support an agreed upon rather than an imposed solution. To the
disappointment of Albanians he announced a delay after the Serbian
January 21 Parliamentary elections. While undoubtedly the Serbian
elections played a part in his considerations, as the West wants to
reinforce the democratic camp, there were other important factors .i.e.
divisions within the Contact Group, the UNSC and the EU. Divisions in
the UNSC have not changed since 1999. At the November meeting of EU
Council of Ministers, Ahtisaari failed to win support of EU countries.
Spanish representative stated clearly that Spain cannot support any form
of Kosovo independence because in doing so it would violate the
international law, especially the Helsinki Final Act. This position was
supported by Greek and Rumanian foreign ministers. There are other EU
countries with similar positions like Cyprus and Slovakia.

U.S.-Russia Tug-of-War

The U.S. and Russia engaged publicly in a tug-of-war over Kosovo in
December. This has happened at the time when both countries need to
cooperate with resolutions of top-tier issues like Iran, North Korea and
the Middle East. The U.S. supports conditional independence and wants
to set a timetable. Russia is dead against any deadlines and says that a
solution must be found that satisfies both sides. Russia threatens to
veto in the UNSC any attempt to impose a solution and will not accept
any UNSC resolution that would disregard international law. Sergei
Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, stated: 'The solution could be
only a negotiated solution and I do not see how the Security Council
could associate itself with any idea, which would mean imposing decision
to one of the parties.' U.S. Undersecretary Burns said he couldn't
believe Russia was threatening a veto even before a proposal was
announced and wants the UNSC to adopt a solution by early March.
Subsequently the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs, Daniel Freid sad that Russia plays a constructive role
in finding a solution for Kosovo.

Albanian Blackmail

With no promised decision by the West before the yearend and uncertainty
as to what they are going to be offered in 2007, the Albanians have
concluded that they will gain less than hoped for. So they have reverted
to their traditional policies of blackmailing with violence and threats.
They have also created a working group to draft a constitution and are
talking about unilateral declaration of independence.

On November 28, the day of pan-Albanian celebration of the Flag Day,
demonstrations of some 5000 Albanians turned into riots in which damage
was made to the UNMIK building and other locations in Pristina. The
stones and paint used by the rioters were transported by Kosovo's
Ministry of Labor. Armed clash of a group of masked paramilitaries,
patrolling western Kosovo with the UNMIK established Kosovo Police was
another violent event. The paramilitaries were armed not only with light
weapons but also by rocket propelled launchers and sophisticated night
warfare equipment. They wore black uniforms with patches of the so
called Albanian National Army (ANA). Illegal checkpoints were the KLA
hallmarks. In 2003, the third UNMIK pro-consul, Michael Steiner,
declared ANA to be a terrorist organization. Hashim Thaci, now a top
opposition leader accused the government of 'putting masked men' on the
roads in order to destabilize the province and score political points.

A graffiti on a demolished Serb home in Kosovo reads: 'Kill all Serbs'
(Mort les Serbes)

At a UNSC meeting in New York Russian ambassador Vitally Churkin accused
the leaders of Kosovo Albanians of blackmail because of their
announcements of mass-scale protests and riots in case the UN resolution
is further delayed. 'We can only interpret such statements as an
unacceptable blackmail of the entire international community and
attempts of radical elements to instigate violence.'

Albanian separatist friendly press is predicting a calamity unless the
West delivers independence on the plate. Here is a quote from November
25 issue of the Washington Post: 'Putting-off Kosovo's independence
would only enrage the province's 2 million Albanians and trigger the
Balkan meltdown that the West hopes to avoid.' It is this type of rage
that led to ethnic cleansing of two thirds of pre-war Serbian population
and destruction of 150 Serbian churches and monasteries. The UNMIK
chief, Joachim Rucker, told the UNSC: 'Resolving Kosovo future status as
soon as possible would bring benefits to the entire Balkan region, while
any further delays would only raise tensions and help the cause of
extremists.' STRATFOR, described by some as shadow CIA, predicts even
the next Yugoslav war! Unlike in 2004, KFOR should be ready to handle
such mass-scale protests. If the Yugoslav communists could handle the
1981 riots the KFOR should be able to do it in 2007.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Attending the 12th European Forum in Berlin on December 2 Ahtisaari
said: 'It is stupid to claim that a compromise for the future status of
the province can be reached through negotiations.' Therefore he has been
forced to present his own proposal for a solution. He went on to say
that he never said that the Albanians in Kosovo have right to
independence! International presence of the EU, OSCE and NATO will
continue to be needed. From this it is anybody's guess what his proposal
might be. Of all the temptations of writing a piece like this prediction
is the most dangerous. Nonetheless, my guess is that he will reject the
Serbian offer of substantial autonomy as well as the Albanian demand for
independence but open the door for some form of conditional or limited
or supervised independence, with the word independence not used, with
strong EU/NATO/OSCE presence. It will not contain neither foreign and
defense ministries nor a UN seat. He might even propose for Serbia to
maintain control over Serbian enclaves. Belgrade believes that whatever
he proposes will not be a binding sketch for a solution and that the
real talks between Belgrade and Pristina will ensue.

It appears that Ahtisaari will present his proposal first to the Contact
Group shortly after the Serbian Parliamentary elections on or about
January 26. The proposal then goes to Belgrade and Pristina for
comments. The Contact Group will meet again in Vienna on the 26th of
February. It will then reach the UNSC some time in March with an
objective of arriving at a new resolution. The EU would take over from
UNMIK like it happened in Bosnia. The takeover would take place in 3-6
months.

A Way Forward

Srdja Trifkovic has ably summarized the present situation: 'Kostunica
will not be duped, Serbia will not cave in, Russia will not relent, and
the Albanians will not give up on what they had been promised by those
who had never had the right to make the promise in the first place.'

The right thing to do is for those 'who had never right to make the
promise' to recognize that independence would represent a sharp break
from well established international laws and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act
in particular. Hence, they should abandon bankrupt conditional
independence quest and convince the Albanians that their aspirations for
self-rule are met by reasonable Serbian government offer of
internationally guaranteed substantial autonomy as opposed to the one
guaranteed by the Serbian constitution only or the Yugoslav constitution
in the past. This would satisfy the Contact Group criterion of no return
to pre-1999 situation. As an important recent precedent 6.8 million
Catalonians have recently secured a wider degree of autonomy from Spain.
Alternatively the Albanians should be told that they must enter into
internationally mediated negotiated process. The international mediation
team could consist of representatives from the EU, U.S., Russia and the
UN (the Middle East Quartet).

The Bush administration is the only one who could convince the Albanians
since they do not trust the Europeans. Besides it is in its
self-interest to do so for many reasons:

. Stability in the Balkans, which is a part of Europe's stability, is
badly needed at the time of laser focus on Iraq and Afghanistan. All key
players in the Contact Group and the EU have issued statements to the
effect that the proposed solution for Kosovo should deliver stability in
the region. Argument that independence could deliver sustainable
stability is deeply flawed. How could a gross violation of the
international law bring sustainable stability without a prior revision
of the 1975 Helsinki Act? The Serbian Prime Minister stated that the
prospect of Kosovo independence and the breakup of Serbia is the 'most
dangerous and most destructive' idea in Europe today.

. Perception that the U.S. behaves as a principal violator of
fundamental international laws, to some as an international pariah,
would further downgrade its standing in the law-abiding portion of the
world.

. Avoidance of a domino effect of secessions in other parts of the world
which would create a chaos in the world affairs.

. U.S. Kosovo Envoy, Frank Wisner, told the Serbian government that the
U.S. wanted good relations with Serbia and humiliating Serbia most
certainly cannot meet that objective.

. Serbia recently joined NATO's Partnership for Peace Program and thus
de facto became a U.S. ally.

. Bypassing the UNSC would unnecessarily aggravate relations with Russia
and China when their cooperation is badly needed to confront nuclear
proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

. In the war on terror arena, delivery of a victory to radical Islam
sends a wrong message to the world. Terrorism, terror, ethnic cleansing,
eradication of Christianity, drug trafficking and sex slavery must not
be rewarded.

. It is an opportunity to jettison the burden of the Clinton
administration mismanagement of Balkan policies. President Bush
personally should take an opportunity do distance himself from
ideological opponents like Soros as well as from the Clinton holdovers
in the State Department who misled him.

. U.S. business investment in Serbia must be preserved. Currently the
U.S. is number one foreign country investor in Serbia. US will continue
to be an economic partner if Kosovo stays a part of Serbia.
























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]