Obama Take Action, Stop Mass Starvation in Afghanistan.

It's as an obscene a scenario as you can imagine.  Year after year, Afghan villages to which aid can easily be delivered are faced with starvation because the regions are peaceful and there is no need for Pentagon press releases about winning "hearts and minds."  

BBC reports:

"More than 2.5 million people face hunger in drought-stricken areas of Afghanistan despite billions of dollars of aid that have poured into the country in recent years, aid agencies say. Many villagers have only limited supplies of food left as winter looms...Aid agencies have been concerned for some time about the amount of aid directed towards conflict areas of Afghanistan.  Much of it is designed to win hearts and minds through "quick impact projects" in insurgency-plagued provinces in the south and east of the country. According to a US Congressional study, 80% of US aid has gone to troubled regions....For example, last year Kandahar province received four times more US aid per head than Bamiyan, while the equally quiet neighbouring Daykundi province saw five times less."

BBC says the policy of  letting people starve in the north and focusing on the southern, Pashtun regions is "roundly defended" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Ryan Crocker.  Crocker says:

"We have put substantial assistance into the south. You know, we are trying to end an insurgency here and that means, in part, funding a better future and giving people alternatives."

Getting aid to the villages faced with starvation is easy because security is not as big a problem.  The US manages to get food aid through to much "hotter" zones just fine.  Even in winter, airdrop capacity and technology is such that cargo planes can drop pallets of food and ammunition within a quarter mile of a combat outpost in all but worst of weather.   But ordinary, non-combatant Afghans who are starving in the snow don't rate this kind of attention (although I have no doubt that rank-and-file American soldiers would vie for these missions.)

Ten years after the occupation began,  Afghans at times are still often literally reduced to eating grass.

(Note: Bimayan Province is where our new little friends, the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers, are from.)  

David Swanson of War is a Crime reports:

"While the “Super” Committee works on the federal budget for FY 2013 and beyond, under the radar, the Congress is moving forward with another huge Defense budget for FY 2012. When it returns from Thanksgiving break, the Senate will be voting on a $682.5 billion Defense Authorization bill."

2.5 million are in imminent danger.  $2 worth of foodstuffs, protein/vitamin-enriched flour, cooking oil, etc., is a reasonable cost per person since most people are already living on less than a dollar a day.  That's 2 times 2.5 million times 90 days or about a half billion dollars for a solid commitment to warding off hunger during the three harshest months of the winter.  We spend $10 billion per month in Afghanistan on military operations.  So the entire food part of the program would cost less what we spend in 2 days in fuel, ammo, and the cost of maintaining the occupation.

2 days.  Obama should ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

The kicker is that the insurgency has steadily spread from the south, the "conflict areas," to the north, and Washington and the generals can't seem to figure out why. Why, why are Afghans so cynical about the US presence?  Now there is fighting where there was never fighting before!

When one looks at the dynamics, one thing starts to become perfectly clear: this is no recipe for winning a war.  Keep the masses in hunger and starvation, unleash brutal, indiscriminate force, such as drone attacks which kill mostly civilians, in the chase for a few insurgents, and make sure the Taliban is well-funded by the Pentagon itself through pay-offs for allowing military supply convoys to pass through.  This is a perfect recipe for keeping any war going.  

And why not?  In 2006 the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy reported that "stock price gains for defense contractors have averaged 48 percent" more than the overall stock market.  CEOs of major defense contracting corporations are not only in Occupy Wall Street's top one percent, but in the top .1%.

Investing Daily gushed last year:

The Afghanistan Troop Surge Means Profits!

the likelihood that the U.S. will end up the loser in Afghanistan is a long-term worry. In the short-term, military contractors doing business in Afghanistan will make a boatload of money...  - "How To Profit From the War in Afghanistan"

In 1934 Marine General and double Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler took off his uniform and traveled the country to tell Americans what he had learned from his career.  The title of his book and speech was "War is a Racket."  Butler until his dying day shook people by the scruff and begged them to understand what he had seen:

   "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

The failure of direct aid in the north is a microcosm of the greater, almost deliberate neglect on the part of the US to support the many avenues available, over the last ten years, for delivering meaningful assistance to Afghans wishing to rebuild the country's war-torn basic infrastructure, and instead directing billions toward foreign contractors and their subsidiaries who soak up 40-60 percent of the funds for profits and overhead, so that little of that aid actually reaches Afghans or goes toward projects that they themselves want and need.  

Much more effective would be fully funding the indigenous Afghan National Solidarity Program (NSP), which has thousands of local projects voted on by community councils which are ready for ground-breaking but lack funds.  The NSP has been found by the US Special Inspector General to be honest and efficient.  These are the kinds of projects which put Afghans on the path to sustainability by rebuilding vital parts of the traditional agrarian economy: water projects, canal clearing and irrigation, and secondary (unpaved) road improvement. It is a myth that development cannot be done in rural regions because of security concerns, a myth that is used to excuse years of abysmal neglect.  Dr. Greg Mortenson says:

“Aid can be done anywhere, including where Taliban are...But it’s imperative the elders are consulted, and that the development staff is all local, with no foreigners.”

The UN World Food Programme country director in Afghanistan, Louis Imbleau, in the BBC article is adamant about the looming food crisis in the country where fuel costs alone amount to at least $300,000 per year for every single US soldier on the ground.  Speaking of the effects of malnutrition on those children who survive, Imbleau says:

"it's irreversible and should just not be allowed to happen. It should not be allowed to happen."

Obama ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Contact Congress
Switchboard: 202-224-3121

RAWA (2008): "Hunger Could Kill More People in Afghanistan Than the Taliban"

For more information of Afghan development go to Jobs for Afghans.

 

Obama Take Action, Stop Mass Starvation in Afghanistan.

It's as an obscene a scenario as you can imagine.  Year after year, Afghan villages to which aid can easily be delivered are faced with starvation because the regions are peaceful and there is no need for Pentagon press releases about winning "hearts and minds."  

BBC reports:

"More than 2.5 million people face hunger in drought-stricken areas of Afghanistan despite billions of dollars of aid that have poured into the country in recent years, aid agencies say. Many villagers have only limited supplies of food left as winter looms...Aid agencies have been concerned for some time about the amount of aid directed towards conflict areas of Afghanistan.  Much of it is designed to win hearts and minds through "quick impact projects" in insurgency-plagued provinces in the south and east of the country. According to a US Congressional study, 80% of US aid has gone to troubled regions....For example, last year Kandahar province received four times more US aid per head than Bamiyan, while the equally quiet neighbouring Daykundi province saw five times less."

BBC says the policy of  letting people starve in the north and focusing on the southern, Pashtun regions is "roundly defended" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Ryan Crocker.  Crocker says:

"We have put substantial assistance into the south. You know, we are trying to end an insurgency here and that means, in part, funding a better future and giving people alternatives."

Getting aid to the villages faced with starvation is easy because security is not as big a problem.  The US manages to get food aid through to much "hotter" zones just fine.  Even in winter, airdrop capacity and technology is such that cargo planes can drop pallets of food and ammunition within a quarter mile of a combat outpost in all but worst of weather.   But ordinary, non-combatant Afghans who are starving in the snow don't rate this kind of attention (although I have no doubt that rank-and-file American soldiers would vie for these missions.)

Ten years after the occupation began,  Afghans at times are still often literally reduced to eating grass.

(Note: Bimayan Province is where our new little friends, the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers, are from.)  

David Swanson of War is a Crime reports:

"While the “Super” Committee works on the federal budget for FY 2013 and beyond, under the radar, the Congress is moving forward with another huge Defense budget for FY 2012. When it returns from Thanksgiving break, the Senate will be voting on a $682.5 billion Defense Authorization bill."

2.5 million are in imminent danger.  $2 worth of foodstuffs, protein/vitamin-enriched flour, cooking oil, etc., is a reasonable cost per person since most people are already living on less than a dollar a day.  That's 2 times 2.5 million times 90 days or about a half billion dollars for a solid commitment to warding off hunger during the three harshest months of the winter.  We spend $10 billion per month in Afghanistan on military operations.  So the entire food part of the program would cost less what we spend in 2 days in fuel, ammo, and the cost of maintaining the occupation.

2 days.  Obama should ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

The kicker is that the insurgency has steadily spread from the south, the "conflict areas," to the north, and Washington and the generals can't seem to figure out why. Why, why are Afghans so cynical about the US presence?  Now there is fighting where there was never fighting before!

When one looks at the dynamics, one thing starts to become perfectly clear: this is no recipe for winning a war.  Keep the masses in hunger and starvation, unleash brutal, indiscriminate force, such as drone attacks which kill mostly civilians, in the chase for a few insurgents, and make sure the Taliban is well-funded by the Pentagon itself through pay-offs for allowing military supply convoys to pass through.  This is a perfect recipe for keeping any war going.  

And why not?  In 2006 the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy reported that "stock price gains for defense contractors have averaged 48 percent" more than the overall stock market.  CEOs of major defense contracting corporations are not only in Occupy Wall Street's top one percent, but in the top .1%.

Investing Daily gushed last year:

The Afghanistan Troop Surge Means Profits!

the likelihood that the U.S. will end up the loser in Afghanistan is a long-term worry. In the short-term, military contractors doing business in Afghanistan will make a boatload of money...  - "How To Profit From the War in Afghanistan"

In 1934 Marine General and double Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler took off his uniform and traveled the country to tell Americans what he had learned from his career.  The title of his book and speech was "War is a Racket."  Butler until his dying day shook people by the scruff and begged them to understand what he had seen:

   "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

The failure of direct aid in the north is a microcosm of the greater, almost deliberate neglect on the part of the US to support the many avenues available, over the last ten years, for delivering meaningful assistance to Afghans wishing to rebuild the country's war-torn basic infrastructure, and instead directing billions toward foreign contractors and their subsidiaries who soak up 40-60 percent of the funds for profits and overhead, so that little of that aid actually reaches Afghans or goes toward projects that they themselves want and need.  

Much more effective would be fully funding the indigenous Afghan National Solidarity Program (NSP), which has thousands of local projects voted on by community councils which are ready for ground-breaking but lack funds.  The NSP has been found by the US Special Inspector General to be honest and efficient.  These are the kinds of projects which put Afghans on the path to sustainability by rebuilding vital parts of the traditional agrarian economy: water projects, canal clearing and irrigation, and secondary (unpaved) road improvement. It is a myth that development cannot be done in rural regions because of security concerns, a myth that is used to excuse years of abysmal neglect.  Dr. Greg Mortenson says:

“Aid can be done anywhere, including where Taliban are...But it’s imperative the elders are consulted, and that the development staff is all local, with no foreigners.”

The UN World Food Programme country director in Afghanistan, Louis Imbleau, in the BBC article is adamant about the looming food crisis in the country where fuel costs alone amount to at least $300,000 per year for every single US soldier on the ground.  Speaking of the effects of malnutrition on those children who survive, Imbleau says:

"it's irreversible and should just not be allowed to happen. It should not be allowed to happen."

Obama ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Contact Congress
Switchboard: 202-224-3121

RAWA (2008): "Hunger Could Kill More People in Afghanistan Than the Taliban"

For more information of Afghan development go to Jobs for Afghans.

 

Obama Take Action, Stop Mass Starvation in Afghanistan.

It's as an obscene a scenario as you can imagine.  Year after year, Afghan villages to which aid can easily be delivered are faced with starvation because the regions are peaceful and there is no need for Pentagon press releases about winning "hearts and minds."  

BBC reports:

"More than 2.5 million people face hunger in drought-stricken areas of Afghanistan despite billions of dollars of aid that have poured into the country in recent years, aid agencies say. Many villagers have only limited supplies of food left as winter looms...Aid agencies have been concerned for some time about the amount of aid directed towards conflict areas of Afghanistan.  Much of it is designed to win hearts and minds through "quick impact projects" in insurgency-plagued provinces in the south and east of the country. According to a US Congressional study, 80% of US aid has gone to troubled regions....For example, last year Kandahar province received four times more US aid per head than Bamiyan, while the equally quiet neighbouring Daykundi province saw five times less."

BBC says the policy of  letting people starve in the north and focusing on the southern, Pashtun regions is "roundly defended" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Ryan Crocker.  Crocker says:

"We have put substantial assistance into the south. You know, we are trying to end an insurgency here and that means, in part, funding a better future and giving people alternatives."

Getting aid to the villages faced with starvation is easy because security is not as big a problem.  The US manages to get food aid through to much "hotter" zones just fine.  Even in winter, airdrop capacity and technology is such that cargo planes can drop pallets of food and ammunition within a quarter mile of a combat outpost in all but worst of weather.   But ordinary, non-combatant Afghans who are starving in the snow don't rate this kind of attention (although I have no doubt that rank-and-file American soldiers would vie for these missions.)

Ten years after the occupation began,  Afghans at times are still often literally reduced to eating grass.

(Note: Bimayan Province is where our new little friends, the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers, are from.)  

David Swanson of War is a Crime reports:

"While the “Super” Committee works on the federal budget for FY 2013 and beyond, under the radar, the Congress is moving forward with another huge Defense budget for FY 2012. When it returns from Thanksgiving break, the Senate will be voting on a $682.5 billion Defense Authorization bill."

2.5 million are in imminent danger.  $2 worth of foodstuffs, protein/vitamin-enriched flour, cooking oil, etc., is a reasonable cost per person since most people are already living on less than a dollar a day.  That's 2 times 2.5 million times 90 days or about a half billion dollars for a solid commitment to warding off hunger during the three harshest months of the winter.  We spend $10 billion per month in Afghanistan on military operations.  So the entire food part of the program would cost less what we spend in 2 days in fuel, ammo, and the cost of maintaining the occupation.

2 days.  Obama should ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

The kicker is that the insurgency has steadily spread from the south, the "conflict areas," to the north, and Washington and the generals can't seem to figure out why. Why, why are Afghans so cynical about the US presence?  Now there is fighting where there was never fighting before!

When one looks at the dynamics, one thing starts to become perfectly clear: this is no recipe for winning a war.  Keep the masses in hunger and starvation, unleash brutal, indiscriminate force, such as drone attacks which kill mostly civilians, in the chase for a few insurgents, and make sure the Taliban is well-funded by the Pentagon itself through pay-offs for allowing military supply convoys to pass through.  This is a perfect recipe for keeping any war going.  

And why not?  In 2006 the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy reported that "stock price gains for defense contractors have averaged 48 percent" more than the overall stock market.  CEOs of major defense contracting corporations are not only in Occupy Wall Street's top one percent, but in the top .1%.

Investing Daily gushed last year:

The Afghanistan Troop Surge Means Profits!

the likelihood that the U.S. will end up the loser in Afghanistan is a long-term worry. In the short-term, military contractors doing business in Afghanistan will make a boatload of money...  - "How To Profit From the War in Afghanistan"

In 1934 Marine General and double Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler took off his uniform and traveled the country to tell Americans what he had learned from his career.  The title of his book and speech was "War is a Racket."  Butler until his dying day shook people by the scruff and begged them to understand what he had seen:

   "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives... A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

The failure of direct aid in the north is a microcosm of the greater, almost deliberate neglect on the part of the US to support the many avenues available, over the last ten years, for delivering meaningful assistance to Afghans wishing to rebuild the country's war-torn basic infrastructure, and instead directing billions toward foreign contractors and their subsidiaries who soak up 40-60 percent of the funds for profits and overhead, so that little of that aid actually reaches Afghans or goes toward projects that they themselves want and need.  

Much more effective would be fully funding the indigenous Afghan National Solidarity Program (NSP), which has thousands of local projects voted on by community councils which are ready for ground-breaking but lack funds.  The NSP has been found by the US Special Inspector General to be honest and efficient.  These are the kinds of projects which put Afghans on the path to sustainability by rebuilding vital parts of the traditional agrarian economy: water projects, canal clearing and irrigation, and secondary (unpaved) road improvement. It is a myth that development cannot be done in rural regions because of security concerns, a myth that is used to excuse years of abysmal neglect.  Dr. Greg Mortenson says:

“Aid can be done anywhere, including where Taliban are...But it’s imperative the elders are consulted, and that the development staff is all local, with no foreigners.”

The UN World Food Programme country director in Afghanistan, Louis Imbleau, in the BBC article is adamant about the looming food crisis in the country where fuel costs alone amount to at least $300,000 per year for every single US soldier on the ground.  Speaking of the effects of malnutrition on those children who survive, Imbleau says:

"it's irreversible and should just not be allowed to happen. It should not be allowed to happen."

Obama ask Congress for an emergency appropriation and begin relief operations immediately.

White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Contact Congress
Switchboard: 202-224-3121

RAWA (2008): "Hunger Could Kill More People in Afghanistan Than the Taliban"

For more information of Afghan development go to Jobs for Afghans.

 

Iraq: Just Another War Without an End

 

by WALTER BRASCH

 

 We know the names of every one of the 4,479 Americans who were killed and the 32,200 who were wounded, both civilian and military, between March 20, 2003 and Oct. 21, 2011, the day President Barack Obama, fulfilling a campaign promise, declared the last American soldier would leave Iraq before the end of the year.

We know Second Lieutenant Therrel Shane Childers was the first American soldier killed by hostile fire in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On March 21, 2003, less than a day after the U.S.-led invasion, Childers was shot in the stomach by hostile forces while leading a Marine platoon to secure an oil field in southern Iraq.  His father, Joseph, told NPR that it was his dream to lead Marines into combat.

Childers, from Gulfport, Miss., had enlisted in the Marines 12 years earlier, was a security guard at the Geneva consulate and the Nairobi embassy, fought in the Persian Gulf War, and then attended the Citadel on a special program that allows enlisted personnel to be commissioned upon graduation. He was a French major and on the Dean’s List. Childers, who had wanted to be a horse trainer when he retired from the Marines, was 30 years old when he died. The Marines promoted him to first lieutenant posthumously.

On the day Childers was killed, 12 men—seven from the United Kingdom, one from South Africa, and four from the U.S.—were killed in a helicopter crash near Umm Qasr, a port city in southern Iraq. At the time, the Marine Corps called the crash of the CH-46E Sea Knight accidental, but didn’t elaborate.

About the time the helicopter crashed, Lance Corporal José Antonio Gutierrez, a 22-year-old Marine, was killed by what is euphemistically known as “friendly fire.” He was an orphan from Guatemala who had illegally crossed into the United States from Mexico, lived on the streets of San Diego and Los Angeles, was granted a temporary visa, lived with a series of foster families, graduated from high school, and began attending college, hoping to become an architect. The U.S. granted him citizenship posthumously.

On the second day of the war, three more Americans and six from England were killed. On the third day, 30 more Americans and four British were killed. By the end of March, 92 were killed.

One month before the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had declared the upcoming war, which he warned would be a “shock and awe” strategy, might last “six days, maybe six weeks; I doubt six months.”

On May 1, 2003, aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, President George W. Bush, decorated in flight gear, declared “Mission Accomplished.” Official military records show that when President Bush made his announcement, 172 Coalition troops had been killed. More than 4,600 American and allied soldiers would die in Iraq after that declaration; more than 31,500 Americans would be wounded, many permanently disabled, after that bravado proclamation.

We know the oldest American soldier to die in combat was 60; the youngest was 18, of which there were 34. We know that 476 of those killed were from California; Pennsylvania and Florida each had 176 deaths by the time the President announced full withdrawal from Iraq.

 

There are names we don’t know. We don’t know the names and life stories of the 4.7 million refugees, nor the two million Iraqis who fled the violence caused by the Coalition invasion. We don’t know the names of the orphaned children, one-third of all of Iraq’s youth. We don’t know the names of the 100,000–150,000 civilians killed. We don’t have accurate records of more than a million who were wounded. It no longer matters who killed or wounded them, who destroyed their lives and property—American, allied, Shia, Sunni, insurgent, criminal, or al-Qaeda. It doesn’t matter if they died from IEDs, suicide bombers, gunshots, artillery, bombs, or missiles. In war, they’re simply known as “collateral damage.”

In Afghanistan, 2,769 Coalition troops have been killed, 1,815 of them American, by the day that President Obama announced the withdrawal from Iraq. There are already 14,343 wounded among the Coalition forces. Between 36,000 and 75,000 Afghani civilians have been killed by insurgents and Coalition troops during the past decade, according to the United Nations. President Obama told the world that the war in Afghanistan would continue at least two more years.

You can try to sanitize the wars by giving them patriotic names—Operation Iraqi Freedom; Operation Enduring Freedom. But that doesn’t change the reality that millions of every demographic have been affected. War doesn’t discriminate. The dead on all sides are physicians and religious leaders; trades people, farmers, clerks, merchants, teachers, and mothers.  And they are babies and students. We don’t know what they might have become had they been allowed to grow up and live a life of peace, one without war.

We also don’t yet know who will be the last American soldier to be killed in Iraq. As important, we don’t know how Post-Traumatic Syndrome Disorder (PTSD) will affect the one million soldiers who were called for as many as seven tours of duty, nor when the last Iraq War veteran will die from permanent injuries. And we will never know the extent of the terror that will plague the families, children, and grandchildren of those who served.

But there is one more thing we do know. A year before José Antonio Gutierrez was killed, he had written a “Letter to God” in Spanish. Translated, it read: “Thank you for permitting me to live another year, thank you for what I have, for the type of person I am, for my dreams that don’t die. . . . May the firearms be silent and the teachings of love flourish.”

[Walter Brasch first began writing about war in 1966. He wishes he didn’t have to. His latest book is Before the First Snow, a novel that focuses upon America between 1964 and 1991, the eve of the Persian Gulf War.]

 

 

 

Sharia = apartheid!

SHARIA = APARTHEID!

The news: Volume 14, Issues 13-25 - Independent Communications Network Ltd., 2000 - Page 6
Sharia is what apartheid was in South Africa. Even if constitutional, it is unjust! If we do not dismantle it like apartheid, it will dismantle Nigeria.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=gGQuAQAAIAAJ&q=%22sharia+is+what+apartheid+was+in+south+africa%22

National Writers Syndicate - Islamic Apartheid Muslims Only
Islamic Apartheid in Mecca and Medina is a legal, political, and religious segregation enforced by the Shariah compliant country of Saudi Arabia, ...
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/2294/40/

Surrender! - HUMAN EVENTS
Jul 8, 2008 – This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27394

Shilling for Shariah | FrontPageMagazine
Aug 30, 2011
... So Shariah is based upon a religious ideology that embraces gender apartheid, religious apartheid, cruel punishment and the denial of freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience. As such it cannot be compatible with western pluralistic democratic societies.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/30/shilling-for-shariah/

Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron
Feb 26, 2008 - Islamic law for Muslims would create legal apartheid in Britain, David Cameron said today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3438846.ece

Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid
Sep 1, 2009 - Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid.
http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/1544-shariah-islamic-law-legal-apartheid

Islamic Gender & Religious Apartheid
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/topics/1/islamic-gender-religious-apartheid

Racism, Cultural ... - Maryam Namazie - Human Rights Activist
She is spokesperson for the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in ... women and girls continue to face apartheid and Islamic laws and customs.
http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/racism_cultural_rel.html

Introduction: Tenets of Shariah Law
Shariah Law is a military political doctrine written 1,200 years ago by Islamic authorities. The believers of Shariah Law have created a movement like Apartheid in which a minority oppresses a majority.
The goal of authoritative Shariah Law is to establish a one-world militant political Islam through Jihad. There are three forms of Jihad: Violent, Cultural, and Financial.
http://www.stopshariahnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=328&Itemid=149

The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices - Page 11 - Steven Vertovec, Susanne Wessendorf - Taylor & Francis, 2010 - 210 pages
... that the ultimate outcome of multiculturalism, if unchecked, could be the recognition of Sharia law in Britain. ... quite literally, a legal apartheid to entrench what is the cultural apartheid in too many parts of our country.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUaHVimJkT0C&pg=PA11

Islamic Finance or Sharia-compliant Finance - Q Society
Understand what Islamic finance really is and ignore the marketing lies. - Do not endorse the introduction of sharia law and apartheid in Australia,..
http://www.qsociety.org.au/qonshariafinance.pdf

Dutch VVD Bolkestein warns of Ethnic apartheid | Eux Online
He fears that there are areas in Holland where the Islamic Sharia law is being practiced.
http://www.euxonline.com/dutch-vvd-bolkestein-warns-of-ethnic-apartheid

LGF Pages - Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain
Feb 26, 2008 – The reality is that the introduction of Sharia law for Muslims is actually the logical endpoint of the now discredited doctrine of ...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/19514_Sharia_would_create_legal_apar

Civil Rights | American Public Policy Alliance
These groups understand what is at stake: Shariah doctrine in America is the 21st century equivalent to Jim Crow segregation laws and apartheid laws.
http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=195

Taliban
A Pashtoon city, Kandahar has accepted the Taliban’s strict version of sharia ... increasing dogmatism and ‘gender apartheid’ by the denial of basic human rights ...
http://www.womenaid.org/humanrights/shadows/taliban.htm

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
by A. M. Dershowitz
September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am
Sep 21, 2011 – It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law... The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that “Islam is the official religion in Palestine.” It also states that Sharia Law will be “the major source of legislation.” It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular...
To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion..
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2442/united-nations-palestine

Ban Koran-burning?
If Islam becomes a protected faith, free expression will be no more
The Washington Times
Thursday, April 7, 2011
... Shariah law - the legal basis of most Islamic states - is a form of religious apartheid, systematically classifying Christians and Jews as third-class citizens. Christophobia and anti-Semitism are rampant in the Muslim world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/ban-koran-burning

Fears and Smears
National Review Online - ‎Oct 22, 2011‎
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280997/fears-and-smears-andrew-c-mccarthy

New Republic - Sep 29, 2011
Wierdly, the progressives talk all the time about class, apartheid (in Israel where it doesn't exist) but somehow doesn't see us women as a class and is loathe to speak out about the mistreatment of half the people on the planet.
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/95539/saudi-arabia-women-voting-human-rights

Islamophobia is Not an Irrational Fear, Nor is it the Fear of Islam.
AINA (press release) - [Oct. 24, 2011]
Moreover, they believe this can be done mostly without violence, through a sedulous campaign of voluntary apartheid (integrating with but not assimilating into the West) and the infiltration of sharia principles into our law and our institutions.
http://www.aina.org/news/20111024103759.htm

Sharia: Obama-encouraged Libyan transitional council approves polygamy,...
Daily Caller - Neil Munro - ‎[Oct. 24, 2011]
... Abdul-Jalil's announced support for Islamic law could have meant anything between a symbolic nod to fundamentalist rebel groups and a promise for Saudi-style theocracy — complete with apartheid-style treatment of Muslim women and Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. His announcement ending the Gadhafi-era ban on polygamy suggests that he and his allies intend to implement much of Sharia.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/sharia-obama-encouraged-libyan-transitional-council-approves-polygamy-bans-banking-interest/

StopShariaNow

Diaries

Advertise Blogads