Wednesday, October 23, 2013

This is what happens when you try to visit the United States.


By Niels Gerson Lohman 
 
Why I Will Never, Ever, Go Back to the United States
This trip, however, was for my dad. He, a trumpet player, loved New Orleans and had died a year ago. It felt like the first sensible trip I undertook this year. I had been searching for ways to forget about the last hours at his deathbed. He had been ill for 15 years and his body just would not give up. It was a violent sight. I had decided the trip to New Orleans would put an end to those memories.
Usually, I barely plan my trips in advance. But this time I had booked everything: my train tickets, hotels and my flight back to Montreal, from which I would depart back to Amsterdam. In total the trip was supposed to take three weeks. The confirmations and tickets I had printed and tucked away in a brown envelope I had bought especially for the trip. I like things to be neatly arranged. At home, in Amsterdam, my house enjoys a slight version of OCD.
The first part of the trip, from Montreal to New York, is known to be one of the world's prettiest train routes. When we had just passed the sign 'Welcome to the State of New York,' the train pulled over for a border check. I put the brown envelope on my lap. On top of the envelope I filled in my migration form with utmost dedication. I love border crossings. Forms don't lie.
The customs officer walked by and asked everybody on the train a few questions. Where they were from, where they were heading. The usual stuff. Everybody who was not a U.S. or Canadian citizen was to head for the dining car to fill in an additional green form.
In the dining car sat a cheerful looking family from the Middle East and a German man with a mouth in which a small frisbee could easily be inserted. I took the seat across the German, who had already filled in his green paper, and started on my own, dedicated, hoping to impress him. He was not throwing me friendly looks. The customs officer took the German's papers and welcomed him to America. They switched seats. He put his hands on the table and looked at me. We must have been of similar ages. He had a goatee and slid my passport towards him like it was a small gift.
I had not finished my novel yet, but my passport was complete. It was filled with pretty stamps. He did not like the stamps.
First, he saw my Sri Lankan stamp. The customs officer raised his eyebrows.
"Sri Lanka, what were you doing over there?"
"Surfing. Traveling. My best friend lives there. He is an architect."
The officer flipped on, seemingly satisfied. Secondly, he found my stamps from Singapore and Malaysia.
"What were you doing over there? Singapore and Malaysia? Aren't those countries Islamic?"
Looking over my shoulder, his eyes searched for his colleague's confirmation.
"Malaysia, I think so, yeah. But not Singapore. It's a melting pot. A very futuristic city. Airconditioned to the ceiling. To Singapore I went mostly for the food, to be honest."
"Sure."
"I'm sorry?"
"Nothing. And how about Malaysia?"
I explained flights departing from Malaysia were cheaper compared to Singapore. That I only went there for a few days, but also, a little bit, for the food. The customs officer went through some more pages. Then he found my Yemeni visa. He put my passport down and stared at me.
"What the hell were you doing in Yemen?"
"I went to the island Socotra, it's not on mainland Yemen. It's a small island closer to Somalia. A very special place, some call it 'Galapagos of the Middle East.' I think 85 percent of the plants and animals there, are indigenous."
"Weren't you scared?"
"Yeah. I was scared. When I was at the airport in mainland Yemen. That entire area is now taken by al Qaeda, I believe."
The customs officer was looking at my passport no longer. If he would have leafed through, he would have found Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi stamps.
That was the first time I had to open my suitcase. Six customs officers went through my two phones, iPad, laptop and camera. In my wallet they found an SD card I had totally forgotten about. They did not like that. By now I was the only one left in the dining car and the center of attention. I had put a raincoat in my suitcase, because I'd heard New Orleans tends to get hit by thunderstorms in the late summer. An officer held up the coat and barked:
"Who takes a coat to the U.S. in the summer?"
I answered it would keep me dry, in case the New Orleans levees would break again. The officer remained silent. He dropped my coat like a dishcloth.
The raincoat seemed to be the last straw. The customs officers exchanged looks.
"We'd like to ask you some more questions. But the train has to continue, so we're going to take you off here."
I looked out of the window. We weren't at a proper station. Along the tracks were piles of old pallets.
"Will you put me on another train, afterwards?"
"This is the only train. But in case we decide to let you in, we'll put you on a bus. Don't worry."
I started to worry. I packed my suitcase as quickly as possible and was escorted off the train. There were three officers in front of me, and three behind. My suitcase was too wide for the aisle, it kept getting stuck between the seats. I apologized to the train in general. While I struggled, the officers waited patiently and studied the relation between me and my suitcase.
Outside, we stopped in front of a white van. The officers permitted me to put my suitcase in the back and I was about climb into the van, when the they halted me.
"You are not under arrest. There is no need to be scared. But we would like to search you."
"I'm not scared. But it's kind of exciting. It's like I'm in a movie. You're just doing your job. I get that."
To me, that seemed the right attitude. They searched me for the first time then, just like in the movies. Before I climbed into the van, I had to give up my phones. I seemed unable to close my belt by myself, so an officer helped me out. This is when the sweating started.
In a little building made of corrugated tin, I opened my suitcase once more. Behind me, there was a man in tears. An officer was telling him about the prison sentence the man was looking forward to. He had been caught with a trunk full of cocaine. The man kept talking about a woman who seemed to be able to prove his innocence, but he was unable to reach her.
After that they searched me again. Thoroughly.
Just like in the movies.
In the room next to me they tried to take my fingerprints, but my hands were too clammy. It took half an hour. An officer said:
"He's scared."
Another officer confirmed:
"Yeah. He's scared."
I repeated, another attempt to be disarming:
"This is just like in the movies."
But border patrol is not easily disarmed.
In the five hours that followed, I was questioned twice more. During the first round I told, amongst others, my life's story, about my second novel's plot, gave my publisher's name, my bank's name and my real estate agent's name. Together we went through all the photos on my laptop and messages my phones had been receiving for the past months. They wrote down the names of everybody I had been in touch with. In my pirated software and movies they showed no interest.
During the second round of questioning, we talked about religion. I told them my mother was raised a Catholic, and that my dad had an atheist mother and a Jewish dad.
"We don't understand. Why would a Jew go to Yemen?"
"But... I'm not Jewish."
"Yeah, well. We just don't understand why would a Jew go to Yemen."
Again, I showed them the photos I took in Yemen and explained how nice the island's flora and fauna had been. That the dolphins come and hang out, even in the shallow water and how cheap the lobsters were. I showed them the Dragonblood trees and the Bedouin family where I had to eat goat intestines. They did not seem to appreciate it as much as I had.
"You yourself, what do you believe in?"
I thought about it for a second and replied.
"Nothing, really."
Obviously, I should have said:
"Freedom of speech."
When I'm supposed to watch my words, I tend to say the wrong ones.
The last hour was spent on phone calls about me. Now and then an officer came and asked me for a password on my equipment. By then, the cocaine trafficker had been brought to a cell where they did have a toilet. I continued my wait. An officer, who I had not seen before, flung the door open and asked if I was on the Greyhound heading to New York. I shrugged hopefully. He closed the door again, as if he had entered the wrong room.
Finally, two officers came rushing into my waiting room.
"You can pack your bag. And make sure you have everything."
They gave me my phones back. All apps had been opened. I had not used my phones that day, but the batteries were completely drained. Because I was soaked in sweat, I attempted to change shirts while packing my bag. It seemed like I had made it.
"How much time do we have? What time will the bus depart?"
"We don't know."
I was unable to find the entrance to my clean shirt. I held it high with two hands, as if it was a white flag.
"So... what's the verdict?"
"We are under the impression you have more ties with more countries we are not on friendly terms with than your own. We decided to bring you back to the Canadian border."
They brought me back. In the car, no words were said. It was no use. I was defeated. To the Canadian border they said:
"We got another one. This one is from the Netherlands."
The Canadian officer looked at me with pity. She asked if there was anything I needed. I said I could use some coffee and a cigarette. She took my passport to a back room and returned within five minutes, carrying an apologetic smile, a freshly stamped passport, coffee, a cigarette, and a ticket to the next bus back to Montreal.
I have been cursed at a Chinese border. In Dubai, my passport was studied by three veiled women for over an hour and my suitcase completely dismembered. In the Philippines I had to bribe someone in order to get my visa extended for a few days. Borders, they can be tough, especially in countries known for corruption.
But never, ever, will I return to the United States of America.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Why is the West trying to destroy Iran?


by Murtaza Hussain 

In 1920, the American historian Theodore Lothrop Stoddard published his famous work "The Rising Tide of Colour Against White World Supremacy [3]". The book is notable today for its frank discussion of the central role that racism played in geopolitics; especially in the context of the Western imperial project in Asia and Africa. In it Stoddard wrote:"The brown world, like the yellow world, is today in acute reaction against white supremacy … when faced by non-white opposition, white men have in the past instinctively tended to close their ranks against the common foe …. Future generations have a right to demand of us that they shall be born white in a white man's land."
While we rightly recoil today from the crude racial categorisations espoused by Stoddard, during his time, such views were extremely popular and were openly echoed at the highest echelons of political power. President Woodrow Wilson argued to his cabinet in 1917 that the United States must "keep the white race strong against the yellow [4]" and that "white civilisation and its domination of the planet rested largely on our ability to keep this country intact".
Going further, President Theodore Roosevelt openly discussed the benefits of "the expansion of the peoples of white, European, blood during the past four centuries [5]" and stated that in his view: "democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portion of the new world's surface".
That such men were committed military imperialists [6] flowed naturally from their worldview; one in which the races of the world were organised into a clear hierarchy and where it was their prerogative to brutally subjugate all others.
While it has become impolitic to publicly express the same views today, contemporary events suggest that just beneath the surface the same impulses motivate many supposedly rational advocates of military action against "the brown world" in our own era.
Of Persian snake charmers
Where Roosevelt and Wilson inflicted the brunt of their violence on the peoples of Asia and on the "coloured" populations of their own nation [7], their modern heirs have in recent years directed their own state violence overwhelmingly against the peoples and nations of the Middle East.
The neoconservative hawks who were the architects of Iraq's destruction - apparently unfazed by their ghoulish record in this regard - have in recent years set their sights on the nation of Iran as their next target. To this end, crippling sanctions - designed to literally "take the food out of the Iranian peoples' mouths [8]" - have been implemented in an effort to inflict maximum suffering on the civilian population and to generate favourable conditions for another war. Disregard for the basic humanity of the many Iranians who will die in the course of such policies is a necessary accomplice to this project.
However, in recent weeks it would seem that a major setback has occurred to the neoconservative plan for another US war. A new Iranian government - conciliatory in its tone where its predecessor was shamelessly provocative - has come to power with the stated intention of reaching peaceful detente with the United States. Such a development necessarily makes the possibility of war more remote, and, to the chagrin of the neoconservatives, these overtures appear to have been cautiously welcomed [9] by the administration of President Barack Obama.
With their prized new war seemingly snatched from their grasp, it has been remarkable to watch the vast tantrum of anger and indignation among some hawks, in which the same racist beliefs which characterised past imperialism have bubbled back to the surface with remarkable speed.
From warnings to "beware of Persian snake charmers [10]", to allegations that for Iranians "deception is part of their DNA [11]", the prospect of a peaceful detente with Iran has brought out a seemingly inexhaustible cavalcade of frankly racist rhetoric.
As part of this campaign, long-time Pentagon official and neoconservative stalwart Harold Rohde has published a helpful primer on the apparently-monolithic "Iranian mind" and the dangers it poses in any negotiation. According to Rohde: [12]
"Compromise (as we in the West understand this concept) is seen as a sign of submission and weakness. When the West establishes itself as the most powerful force and shows strength and resolve, Iranians will most likely come on board ... it is for this reason that measures of good-will and confidence-building should be avoided at all costs."
In this are clear echoes of the stunningly ignorant claim - popularised during the era of the Iraq War - that "Arabs only understand force [13]", and that thus uniquely among human beings, they are incapable of appreciating empathy or conciliation.
Similarly, according to this overtly racist argument, Iranians too are unlike any other humans on Earth and are in fact more akin to animals or small children who must be shown firm discipline as opposed to respect or decency in the course of any negotiation.
With remarkably ignorant worldviews such as these informing their strategies, it is unsurprising that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been such a catastrophic failure over the past decade.
Dispatches from 'the villa in the jungle'
On October 1, Binyamin Netanyahu attended the UN General Assembly [14] to deliver an unapologetically aggressive, demeaning and hostile speech directed towards the just-elected president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. In his address Netanyahu used language completely alien to the typically careful discourse of international diplomacy, calling Rouhani "a wolf in sheep's clothing", characterising him as an untrustworthy liar, and bizarrely stating at one point that "Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake [uranium] and eat it too". It is difficult to imagine such language openly directed against any other elected leader in a diplomatic forum such as this.
But as a representative of Ehud Barak's "villa in the jungle [15]" and the state that Theodor Herzl correctly said would exist as "a rampart of Europe against Asia", Netanyahu was not alone in his overt condescension towards Iran and the Iranian people. A senior Israeli official also advised his US counterparts not to trust any Iranian offers of dialogue as "Persians have been using these [duping] tactics for thousands of years, before America came to be [16]".
The darkly humorous coda to this spectacle was Netanyahu's suggestion - days later - that  he would "consider" taking a phone call [17] from Rouhani if one were proffered. Ostensibly, this consideration would come only if the Iranian president were to grovel on his knees and beg for such an opportunity, even in the wake of Netanyahu's unabashed insults and threats towards him.
Live on your knees
In this episode one can glimpse a microcosm of a dynamic that has long been at play in the Middle East. For many, what is desired with Iran is not peaceful negotiation but rather total capitulation. In this view detente would be a failure; what is required is to utterly crush any "Asiatic" country that dares to wield an independent foreign policy in a region otherwise populated by pitiful satrapies.
It's not enough that Rouhani says he wants peace; he must first acquiesce to the absolute subjugation and humiliation of the nation of Iran as a precondition for any negotiation. Indeed, regardless of the government in power, Iran has long been the target of similar malice whenever it has sought to assert its own rights as a sovereign nation.
In the 1950s the liberal, secular, and democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh was faced with almost identical rhetoric as that which Rouhani's government receives today. Before being deposed by a brutal CIA-orchestrated coup, Mossadegh was described in Western press accounts as [18] "an incorruptible fanatic", "impervious to common sense" and a man who by nationalising his country's oil had "issued a defiant challenge that sprang out of a hatred and envy almost incomprehensible to the West".
That Mossadegh was an admirer of the US and a committed democrat made little difference. For the crime of asserting Iran's right to its own natural resources, he and his elected government were utterly destroyed. As Christopher de Bellaigue noted in his seminal work on the topic [19]: "there was disquiet across the white world", about Mossadegh's "show of Oriental bad form".
The religiosity or lack thereof of Mossadegh's rule was completely irrelevant in this formulation. For this reason it can be seen why contemporary Iranian religious leaders such as Ali Khamenei - born out of the blood and ashes of Iran's recent past - have so forcefully and repeatedly sought to convey the message to the United States that: [20] "We are not liberals like [Salvador] Allende or Mossadegh whom the CIA can snuff out."
Racism and war
As much as it did during the time of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the prime impulse behind military imperialism (in addition to seemingly insatiable greed) has always been a barely concealed racism towards the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Liberal Western thinkers have at certain points in history succeeded in checking the most heinous and self-destructive impulses of the hawks who feed off of endless war, but they persist in their machinations nonetheless. As the Iraq War demonstrated, such actors can still exert their will onto the world [21] when circumstances are right.
While we like to believe the polite fiction that our policymakers are generally intelligent, reasoned and rational, at certain moments the mask slips and we learn that of the crude bigotry and arrogance which informs much war advocacy. We discover that the reason war is apparently both necessary and desirable [22] is due to the deficient DNA of foreigners; to their incurable Oriental untrustworthiness [23] and their fanatic desire to assert their own national sovereignty.
While in many ways civilisation has matured, the racist impulse - so clearly articulated by Roosevelt and Wilson - to subjugate and destroy the disobedient peoples of far flung lands has not dissipated in some quarters. It would be prudent to recognise it today for what it is, lest the horrendous crimes of the recent past be repeated.

Columbus did not discover the Americas.


By Joanna Eede 
 

Stop Saying Columbus 'Discovered' the Americas—It Erases Indigenous History

Just over a hundred years ago in Peru, a tall history professor from Yale University left his camp in a valley northwest of Cusco, and walked through cloud forest to a mountain ridge more than 7,500 feet above sea level. There, high above the roaring Urubamba river, he found an ancient stone citadel; sculpted terraces of temples and tombs, granite buildings and polished walls that were covered in centuries of vines and vegetation.
Hiram Bingham had stumbled across the Inca site of Machu Picchu, the site he believed to be the ‘Lost city of the Incas’. ‘Machu Picchu might prove to be the largest and most important ruin discovered in South America since the days of the Spanish conquest,’ he wrote in the 1913 edition of the National Geographic.
But his words were misleading. Bingham hadn’t ‘discovered’ Machu Picchu. Nor was it ‘lost’. He may have alerted it to the western scientific world – for there were no accounts of it in the chronicles of the Spanish invaders – but local tribes must have been aware of its existence. Yet Christopher Heaney, a Fellow at the University of Texas and author of a book on Hiram Bingham, claims the historian was amazed to discover an indigenous family close to the citadel. ‘When he climbed the mountain he was very surprised to find an Indian family at the top of the ridge,’ he said. Why Bingham was surprised is bewildering in itself.
It is unlikely that his terminology had adverse ramifications for the local indigenous peoples, but the language of colonists has long had a tragic part to play in the destruction of tribal peoples across the world. For centuries, tribal lands have been referred to as ‘empty’ in order to justify their theft for commercial, military or conservation reasons. After all, if a region is uninhabited, so the expedient thinking goes, there are by definition no human rights to address. Similarly, racist prejudices – the labeling of tribal peoples as ‘backward’, ‘uncivilized’ or ‘savage’ – have inculcated a popular attitude of disrespect and fear, so underpinning (and even justifying, in the perpetrator’s mind), the appalling treatment to which tribal peoples have been subjected.
When European settlers landed on the shores of Australia, they claimed the land was ‘terra nullius’ – land belonging to no one. It wasn’t. The Aboriginal people had lived there for perhaps 50,000 years yet the concept of ‘terra nullius’ was only properly overthrown in 1992, allowing the lands to be stolen legitimately from the people who had first occupied the continent. Under British colonial law, Aboriginal people had no rights; they were deemed too ‘primitive’ to be owners. In just over 100 years from the first invasion, the Aboriginal population was reduced from an estimated one million to only 60,000.
Similarly, when the trade winds carried Christopher Columbus to the ‘New World’ in 1492, he had in fact arrived in the homelands of peoples who had lived there for millennia: tribes who had their own successful laws, rituals, beliefs, values, ways of life and religions. ‘The whites shout out today, “We discovered the land of Brazil,”’ says Davi Kopenawa, a Yanomami spokesman, ‘as if it were empty! As if human beings hadn’t lived in it since the beginning of time!’ a thought echoed by Megaron Txukarramae, a Kayapo Indian when he said, ‘The land that the whites called Brazil belonged to the Indians. You invaded it and took possession of it.’
The reality of course is that South and North America were not ‘new,’ Australia was not ‘empty’ before Europeans arrived and Machu Picchu was not ‘discovered’ in 1911. ‘The phrase ‘discovery’ of America is obviously inaccurate,’ wrote the linguist and philosopher Professor Noam Chomsky. ‘What they discovered was an America that had been discovered thousands of years before by its inhabitants. Thus what took place was the invasion of America – an invasion by a very alien culture.’
These lands were the homes of indigenous peoples. To claim a land was ‘empty’ before the invasion of colonists and ‘discovered’ once they arrived is to rob tribal peoples of their identity, dignity and land rights; it is to deny their very existence.
They are still the homes of indigenous peoples. In the summer of 2013, Peru’s Prime Minister announced that his government has scrapped an official report warning of the dangers a controversial gas project poses to uncontacted tribes, and at least three ministers resigned amidst growing pressure to approve the project. The UN has called for the project’s ‘immediate suspension’. The invasion of their lands continues; their existence and rights overlooked.

Muhammad goes to Allah on a flying horse.


Muslims believe that Muhammad, their prophet, went up to God on a flying horse. This set me thinking: What about all these Muslim sinners? Will they go up on flying pigs after they die?

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Muslim women's veil.


 The Muslim women's veil, contrary to what Muslims believe, has little to do with their religion. The veil actually predates Islam by many centuries. In the Near East it was the Assyrian kings who first introduced the veil. Prostitutes and slaves, however, were told not to veil, and were slashed if they disobeyed this law.

Beyond the Near East, the practice of hiding one's face appeared in classical Greece, in the Byzantine Christian world, in Persia, and in India among upper caste Rajput women. Muslims in their first century didn't give a hoot about the female dress. When the niece of one of the prophet's many wives, Aisha bint Talha, was asked by her husband Musab to veil her face, she told him, "Since the Almighty has made me beautiful it is my wish that the public should view my beauty. On no account, therefore, will I veil myself."

As Islam reached other lands, regional practices, including the covering of women, were adopted by the early Muslims. Yet it was only in the second Islamic century that the veil became common, first used among the powerful and the rich as a status symbol.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Obama Is Presiding Over the Biggest Rogue State in the World, Trampling Every Law It Demands That Others Uphold.


 
By George Monbiot
You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council [3]. They've defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. They have abused the powers and trust with which they have been vested. They have collaborated with the other four permanent members (the UK, Russia, China and France) in a colonial carve-up, through which these nations can pursue their own corrupt interests at the expense of peace and global justice.
Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence.
Through this tyrannical dispensation – created at a time when other nations were either broken or voiceless – the great warmongers of the past 60 years remain responsible for global peace. The biggest weapons traders are tasked with global disarmament. Those who trample international law control the administration of justice.
But now, as the veto powers of two permanent members (Russia and China) obstruct its attempt to pour petrol on another Middle Eastern fire [4], the US suddenly decides that the system is illegitimate. Obama says: "If we end up using the UN security council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier … then I think people rightly are going to be pretty skeptical about the system." Well, yes.
Never have Obama or his predecessors attempted a serious reform of this system. Never have they sought to replace a corrupt global oligarchy with a democratic body. Never do they lament this injustice – until they object to the outcome. The same goes for every aspect of global governance.
Obama warned last week that Syria's use of poisoned gas "threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations [5]". Unravelling the international norm is the US president's job.
In 1997 the US agreed to decommission [6] the 31,000 tonnes of sarin [7]VX [8],mustard gas [9] and other agents it possessed within 10 years. In 2007 it requested the maximum extension of the deadline permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention – five years. Again it failed to keep its promise, and in 2012 it claimed they would be gone by 2021. Russia yesterday urged Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control [10]. Perhaps it should press the US to do the same.
In 1998 the Clinton administration pushed a law through Congress which forbade international weapons inspectors from taking samples of chemicals in the US and allowed the president to refuse unannounced inspections. In 2002 the Bush government forced the sacking [11] of José Maurício Bustani, the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [12]. He had committed two unforgiveable crimes: seeking a rigorous inspection of US facilities; and pressing Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, to help prevent the war George Bush was itching to wage.
The US used millions of gallons of chemical weapons in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It also used them during its destruction of Falluja [13] in 2004, then lied about it [14]. The Reagan government helped Saddam Hussein to wage war with Iran in the 1980s while aware that he was using nerve and mustard gas. (The Bush administration then cited this deployment as an excuse to attack Iraq, 15 years later).
Smallpox has been eliminated from the human population, but two nations – the US and Russia – insist on keeping the pathogen in cold storage. They claim their purpose is to develop defences against possible biological weapons attack, but most experts in the field consider this to be nonsense. While raising concerns about each other's possession of the disease, they have worked together to bludgeon the other members of the World Health Organisation, which have pressed them to destroy their stocks.
In 2001 the New York Times reported that, without either Congressional oversight or a declaration to the Biological Weapons Convention, "the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities [15]". The Pentagon claimed the purpose was defensive but, developed in contravention of international law, it didn't look good. The Bush government also sought to destroy the Biological Weapons Convention as an effective instrument by scuttling negotiations over the verification protocol required to make it work.
Looming over all this is the great unmentionable: the cover the US provides for Israel's weapons of mass destruction. It's not just that Israel – which refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention – has used white phosphorus as a weapon in Gaza [16] (when deployed against people, phosphorus meets the convention's definition of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm").
It's also that, as the Washington Post points out: "Syria's chemical weapons stockpile results from a never-acknowledged gentleman's agreement in the Middle East that as long as Israel had nuclear weapons, Syria's pursuit of chemical weapons would not attract much public acknowledgement or criticism." Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, and the US supports it in defiance of its own law, which forbids the disbursement of aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction.
As for the norms of international law, let's remind ourselves where the US stands. It remains outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, after declaring its citizens immune from prosecution. The crime of aggression it committed in Iraq – defined by the Nuremberg tribunal as "the supreme international crime" – goes not just unpunished but also unmentioned by anyone in government. The same applies to most of the subsidiary war crimes US troops committed during the invasion and occupation. Guantánamo Bay raises a finger to any notions of justice between nations.
None of this is to exonerate Bashar al-Assad's government – or its opponents – of a long series of hideous crimes, including the use of chemical weapons. Nor is it to suggest that there is an easy answer to the horrors in Syria.
But Obama's failure to be honest about his nation's record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn't involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.
During his first inauguration speech Barack Obama promised to "set aside childish things". We all knew what he meant. He hasn't done it.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The screwed up world of Islam.



Back in the rosy days of Islam, in Spain, Muslims were on the verge of breaking out into a new age of science, of critical thinking and into what Christian Europe (after overcoming the obstacles placed in its path by Christian fundamentalists) later experienced as "renaissance".

Sadly for the Muslims the forces of Islamic beliefs were too strong to overcome and they remained mired in religiousity, their scholars and scientists denied freedom to do their work, even to express their opinions in the light of historical facts. Even to this day Muslims cannot, for example, say anything negative about Muhammad the "prophet" for fear of being set upon and beaten to death. They cannot entertain the idea that a state can be secular where religion is kept out of politics. Which is why when there are democratic elections the islamic parties always win, as it has happened in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt.


It never occurs to them that their religion might be a millstone around their neck.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Tragedy in a Florida court.



If I were an African-American and I was aware of the widespread discrimination against black people, I too would be offended if some white guy was suspiciously following me. I mean who the hell did this bastard think he was?! I wouldn't be inclined to just keep walking away from this creep (although that would have been the wise thing to do).

I don't know what exactly happened but one can imagine that this teenager turned around and angrily burst out "why are you following me?" which inflamed John Wayne and a confrontation ensued, making the cowboy pull out his gun for he could not tolerate being spoken to like that by a darkie.

Now I ask you: Can this gun-wielding  wannabee cop claim self defense when he himself started the whole thing?

Why did the prosecution allow a jury consisting only of whites? Why were there no blacks in it?

It is a travesty of justice. I predict that this murderer would have no peace henceforth. He would be constantly looking over his fat shoulders for people who are determined to hunt him down like a dog.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Advice for Inguinal Hernia.


Have you developed a condition called inguinal hernia? Well, if you have you should not rush to the doctor for an operation because such an operation has now been shown to lead to complications such as chronic pain and sexual dysfunction. An acquintance of mine who had undergone such an operation confirmed to me that he no longer could achieve an erection. The advice that doctors now give to patients is that you should live with it for as long as you can; they say it may take as much as 20 years before the problem gets really serious. It appears that if you lie on your back or on your left side the hernia goes down and stays down for a period. Coupled with an appropriate diet and exercises to strengthen your stomach muscles you should be okay.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Some recommendations for your computer.


Have you tried deleting files in volume D and failed? After many failures I did the following:
Formatted the drive and then ran my excellent Jet Clean registry cleaner. Everything in D had finally been got rid of.
Jet Clean is the best cleaner I have come across. It removed a whopping 800 useless items from the registry with just a click of the mouse. I use this free software along with CCleaner to keep the computer running smoothly.
You can ditch the windows notepad and use instead the much better WordPad, which is also pre-installed in windows.
I use also the following free software:
Firefox browser (always surf in incognito or private mode)
Flash Video Downloader Add-on for Firefox.
VLC media player
ZoneAlarm anti-virus plus firewall.
Touchpad blocker for typing without the cursor flying off.
Sumatra PDF
Skype

Ladies, keep your boobs. Don't listen to Angelina Jolie.




This article is by Mike Adams.

In a New York Times op-ed explaining her decision to have both of her breasts surgically removed even though she doesn't have breast cancer, Angelina Jolie cited risk numbers as key to her decision. She said that doctors told her she had an "87% risk of breast cancer." Her solution? Undergo three months of surgical procedures and have her breasts cut out.

Problem solved, right? With her breasts removed, she says her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent. The same bizarre logic can also be applied to men who cut off their testicles to "prevent testicular cancer" or people who cut out their colons to "prevent colorectal cancer." But that would be insane, so nobody does that, because one of the most basic principles of medicine is that you don't subject patients to the considerable risks and costs of surgery and anesthesia to remove organs that have no disease!

But the really sad part about all this is that Angelina Jolie was lied to. She didn't have an 87% risk of breast cancer in the first place. All the women reading her NYT op-ed piece are also being lied to. Here's why...

How cancer doctors lie with statistics and use fear to scare women into high-profit procedures

The very idea that breast cancer is a "percent risk" is a complete lie. In reality, everyone has cancer micro-tumors in their bodies, including myself. Cancer is not a disease you just "get" like being randomly struck by lightning. It's something you must "manage" or "prevent" day by day, meal by meal, through a lifestyle choice that involves vitamin D supplementation, nutrition, superfoods, vegetable juices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals and radiation.

So when a doctor says you have a "chance" of getting cancer, what he's implying is that you have no control over cancer, and that's an outright lie. Cancer quackery, in other words.

Even Jolie with her BRCA1 gene that's linked to breast cancer can quite easily follow a dietary and lifestyle plan that suppresses BRCA1 gene expression. It's not rocket science. It's not even difficult. It can be done with simple foods that cost a few dollars a day. Those foods include raw citrus, resveratrol (red grapes or red wine), raw cruciferous vegetables, omega-3 oils and much more. Those same foods also help prevent heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases.

Indole-3-carbinol (I3C), by the way, a natural chemical found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cabbage, offers powerful prevention against BRCA1 gene expression. But you don't hear cancer doctors telling women to "eat more cabbage" because that doesn't make the cancer industry any money. You can buy I3C as a potent nutritional supplement from a variety of sources. It's literally cancer prevention in a capsule.

So the whole "chance" argument is pure quackery. There is no chance involved in whether you get cancer. It's all cause and effect. You are either living a pro-cancer lifestyle and therefore growing cancer, or you're living an anti-cancer lifestyle and keeping cancer in check so that it never becomes a problem. Cause and effect is what results in either the growth of cancer tumors or the prevention of cancer tumors. There is no "luck" involved.

It's fascinating, isn't it, that medical doctors don't believe in luck or voodoo on any topic other than cancer. But when it comes to cancer, they want all women to be suckered into the victim mentality that cancer is purely a matter of "luck" and therefore women have no control over their own health outcomes. How dis-empowering! How sick! How incredibly exploitive of women!

If you really want to be informed about breast cancer and the corrupt, dishonest cancer industry, read my related article 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know. Or listen to our upcoming FREE Cancer Solutions Summit broadcasting this coming Monday, May 20th.

Why doesn't the cancer industry empower women with a sense of control over their own health?

I find it astonishing that the cancer industry doesn't believe in cause and effect. They would rather scare women with "risk" statistics that imply people have no control over cancer. Empowering women with a sense of control over their own health is the last thing the cancer industry wants to do, because that would cause them to lose customers and lose money.

It's far more profitable to scare all women into a state of such irrational panic that they agree to the most insane things imaginable such as chopping off both their healthy breasts even though they have no cancer. Such women are then convinced they've literally saved their own lives by agreeing to be mutilated by cancer surgeons.

"My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent," says Jolie. "I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer."

Will she also tell her children they should mutilate themselves, too, as a form of medical disease prevention? And what happens if she learns she has a risk of brain cancer? Does she chop off her head and call it a cure?

The scam of making women believe there is only ONE way to reduce your "risk" of breast cancer

The other enormous scam in all this is the idea that there's only one way to reduce your "risk" of breast cancer. Even if you believe the fictitious number of "87% risk," why does everyone automatically assume there is one and only one way to lower that risk?

"For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options," writes Jolie in the NYT. Yet she utterly fails to offer women any options other than the one she took: check in to a cancer center and let them play "cut-poison-burn" on your body. Jolie's op-ed piece, which reads as if it were written by the public relations department of the Pink Lotus Breast Center, offers nothing in the way of nutrition advice, lifestyle choices, holistic therapies, wellness, alternative medicine... nothing! What an incredible disservice to all the women of America...

In the world of health, nutrition and cancer, there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only. Nothing else exists in their world, not nutritional prevention, not vitamin D therapy, not vitamin C potentiated micro-chemotherapy, not ozone therapy, sauna treatments, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, stress reduction or anything else. You are supposed to believe that none of these things exist!

And why? Because the cancer industry wants to funnel women like cattle into their slash-poison-burn system of quack treatments. And Angelina Jolie is their new cheerleader. Scarred and no doubt experiencing the chest and armpit numbness that almost always accompanies mastectomy surgery, she now seeks to "inspire" other women to exercise their own sick "choice" and have their breasts removed, too!

It is the sickest invocation of women's power that I've ever witnessed. This is not empowering women, it's marching them into self-mutilation. And the "risk" is a complete fraud. In truth, Angelina Jolie had a higher risk of dying on the operating table than dying from breast cancer if she simply followed an anti-cancer lifestyle.

Don't be tricked into self-mutilation by cancer industry quacks

In summary:

• The claim that you have a "percent risk" of breast cancer is a big lie which implies you have no control over cancer.

• BRCA1 genes can be kept quiet (suppressed) through proper foods and lifestyle choices. A gene is not a death sentence.

• The implication that there is only ONE way to reduce breast cancer risk is a complete lie. There are thousands of options and strategies for preventing cancer. Never be cornered into surgery by a group of surgeons pushing irrational fear.

• Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be "managed" in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors.

• The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm.

• The claim that cutting off healthy breasts somehow "empowers" women is sick and demented. Women are far more empowered by honest information on nutrition and healthy living that allows them to keep their bodies intact rather than being sliced up by dishonest cancer surgeons.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

May she rot in hell.



That's Thatcher I am talking about. You know Thatcher, that old bag who died a few days ago. Not only was she an imperialist like a lot of the less educated British people (I know because I spent 5 years amongst them back in the late 50s and early 60s) but, like Churchill  an out and out racist. Just ask Bob Carr, the Australian foreign minister. She was in favor of Apartheid in South Africa, she loved Pinochet of Chile and Ronald Reagan of America, loved the Zionist animals in Palestine and was offended when Argentina took over the Falklands. Just imagine the cost to Britain for going to war over that, not just in lives lost but in money spent. That money would have gone a long way in continuing to support free education in Britain which she ended.

Yes, she indeed was a witch.

Morsi of Egypt -- enemy of Palestinians.



Israel isn't Gaza's only enemy. Morsi, like Mubarak --"brother Arabs"-- has handed over  Gaza's southern border to the control of Egypt's dreaded secret police, the Mukhabarat, which credible reports link closely to the CIA and the Israeli Mossad.

The Egyptian government's latest assault on the people of Gaza is the filling up of tunnels that run into Egypt with sewage.

How can a "brother" sink so low, one might ask?

Saturday, April 6, 2013

North Korea, Iran and western arrogance.




The western alliance has nuclear weapons and it does not want unfriendly countries to have them as well. This is understandable. But is it wise to start imposing sanctions on those countries? The upshot of such sanctions would almost always be defiance, for no country could allow itself to be humiliated by outside powers who themselves have such weapons of mass destruction.
Just imagine how different the reaction from Iran and North Korea would have been if they had been treated with respect and friendliness and their concerns were addressed peacefully. The chances are they would have ended up being allies instead of enemies.


Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Chavez was killed by his doctors.




It was not cancer that killed Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, but the so-called doctors who believed that tinkering with the body and exposing it to radiation and chemo-therapy was the answer to tackling cancer. How wrong they were! Let this be a warning to all who suffer from serious illnesses. Attacking the symptoms of a disease, which is what doctors mostly do, can never cure the disease. Read my post entitled " Fasting can cure cancer."

Friday, March 1, 2013

How Israel gets away with torturing Palestinians to death.




How Israel Gets Away With Torturing Palestinians to Death

Sabbagh reported that when he saw Jaradat, the man was terrified. Arafat told his lawyer that he was in acute pain from being beaten and forced to sit in stress positions with his hands bound behind his back.
When it announced his death, Israeli Prison Service claimed Arafat - who leaves a pregnant widow and two children - died from cardiac arrest. However, the subsequent autopsy found no blood clot in his heart. In fact, the autopsy concluded that Arafat, who turned 30 this year, was in fine cardiovascular health.
What the final autopsy did find [2], however, was that Jaradat had been pummelled by repeated blows to his chest and body and had sustained a total of six broken bones in his spine, arms and legs; his lips lacerated; his face badly bruised.
The ordeal that Arafat suffered before he died at the hands of Israel's Shin Bet is common to many Palestinians that pass through Israel's prisons. According to the prisoners' rights organisation Addameer, since 1967, a total of 72 Palestinians [3] have been killed as a result of torture and 53 due to medical neglect. Less than a month before Jaradat was killed, Ashraf Abu Dhra died while in Israeli custody in a case that Addameer argues was a direct result of medical neglect.
The legal impunity of the Shin Bet, commonly referred to as the GSS, and its torture techniques has been well established. Between 2001 and 2011, 700 Palestinians [4]lodged complaints with the State Attorney's Office but not a single one has been criminally investigated.
Writing in Adalah's 2012 publication, On Torture [5] [PDF], Bana Shoughry-Badarne, an attorney and the Legal Director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, wrote, "The GSS's impunity is absolute."
Israel's High Court has been extravagantly helpful in securing the Shin Bet with its imperviousness to accountability to international law, and thus enabling widespread and lethal torture.
In August of 2012, Israel's High Court rejected [6] petitions submitted by Israeli human rights organisations Adalah, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and PCATI to demand that Israeli attorney general, Yehuda Weinstein, carry out criminal investigations into each allegation of torture by the Shin Bet.
And in the first week of February, two weeks before Arafat was killed, the High Court of Justice threw out [7] Adalah's petition that demanded the GSS videotape and audio record all of its interrogations in order to comply with requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) to which Israel is a signatory.
In May 2009, UNCAT condemned [8] [PDF] Israel for exempting the Shin Bet's interrogations from audio and video recording, noting that such oversight is an essential preventative measure to curtail torture. Yet despite this admonition, in 2012 the Knesset extended [9] the exemption for another three years.
Rationalising its failure to comply with this most basic requirement of recording interrogations, the State maintains that it is in the interests of "national security" that its interrogation techniques not be made public.
Arafat was killed under torture. Torture is routine. But the following is not routine: upon the announcement of his death, thousands of Palestinians, already unified in solidarity with the arduous struggle waged by Palestinian hunger striking prisoners, responded in force. At least 3,000 prisoners [10] refused their meals; thousands [11] poured into the streets of Gaza and impassioned demonstrations [12] erupted across the West Bank. While the State of Israel continues to deploy its deadly arsenal of weapons to repress Palestinians, the banality of the evil of this regime is, as it will always be, eclipsed by the mighty Palestinian will for self-determination.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

THE DARK HISTORY OF AMERICA.



The following is by Fred Branfman 

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” --Martin Luther King Jr. “Beyond Vietnam” speech, April 4, 1967
I recently watched all 10 episodes of Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" (on Showtime) [3]. I strongly recommend it to everyone, but particularly to America's young people who have been robbed of a most precious legacy: an understanding of their true history, and thus their future. I can't think of a more meaningful gift to young people for, as Stone says, “history must be remembered or it will be remembered until the meanings are clear." The same U.S. Executive Branch mentality that produced Vietnam is today illegally and inhumanly murdering and weakening U.S. national security interests throughout the Muslim world, and threatening its own citizens as never before. It has never been more urgent to learn from American history.
I am not ashamed to say this series moved me to tears. First, by its depiction of the millions of lives the U.S. Executive Branch has ruined all over the world. This includes over 21 million -- officially estimated -- killed, wounded and made homeless in Indochina and Iraq alone, bring back the most painful memories of my life: my interviews with over 1,000 Lao refugees who reported seeing beloved parents, spouses and children burned alive, buried alive, and shredded to pieces by years of secret, illegal and inhuman U.S. Executive Branch bombing. [Showtime has made available some of the episodes free to watch over the internet [3].]
Second, I was touched by the awful beauty of simply seeing the truth told so clearly and vividly. The combination of the information, the imagery and Stone’s narration touched levels far deeper than the mind.
I was most moved by Episode 7, on the war in Indochina, whose closing words below constitute not only an epitaph for the Vietnam War, but for America itself. I thought of Martin Luther King Jr.'s warning [4] as I watched this segment, which chronicles how U.S. leaders waged aggressive war, killing over 3.4 million Vietnamese according to former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and hundreds of thousands more Laotians and Cambodians. The U.S. has never apologized for doing so, let alone cleaned up its tens of millions of unexploded bombs and environmental poisons which continue to kill, wound and deform tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The U.S. has never even contemplated paying the reparations it still owes the Indochinese.
I watched this episode after reading Nick Turse’s monumental new book, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam [5], which documents the systematic “industrial-scale” slaughter of Vietnamese civilians by U.S. troops, ordered by top U.S. military officers.
I cannot say that I am surprised that America's political leaders, media and public intellectuals continue to ignore the U.S. Executive's ongoing inhumanity and murder of the innocent -- particularly through its global and spreading drone and ground assassination programs and increasing reliance on the automated warmaking I first saw in Laos 40 years ago. America’s elites are as indifferent to the “mere Muslim Rule” today as they were to the “mere Gook Rule” in Vietnam that Turse so painstakingly documents.
But I am astonished that even those who justify U.S. leaders' actions on the grounds of national security have failed to notice the obvious fact that U.S. warmaking in the 1.8 billion-strong Muslim world is jeopardizing U.S. national security as never before. Just as U.S. backing of the Shah of Iran created a U.S. foreign policy disaster in 1978, the continuation of such policies today will guarantee many more Irans in the future.
Nothing will threaten Americans more in the coming decade than an irrational U.S. foreign policy that, in return for killing a handful of "senior Al Qaeda" leaders (often replaced by more competent deputies), has turned hundreds of millions of Muslims against it including countless potential suicide bombers. This foreign policy has greatly strengthened anti-U.S. forces, destabilized friendly or neutral governments, and as revealed by Wikileaks, vastly increased the danger that materials from Pakistan's nuclear stockpile -- the world's fastest growing and least stable -- will fall into terrorist hands. Today’s U.S. Executive Branch poses a far greater threat [6] to U.S. national security, and to each of us, than to its foes.
Oliver Stone's words below pose basic questions: has Martin Luther King's warning come true? And if so, what can we do to promote the birth of decency, humanity and rationality in this spiritually dead nation of ours?
From Episode 7: "Vietnam, LBJ, Nixon and the Third World: Reversal of Fortune," from Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States”: 
--“The accepted mythology of the time was the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam. But as linguist, historian and philosopher Noam Chomsky has pointed out, 'it's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims. The maximal aims being turning it into something like the  Philippines. They didn't do that. They did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave.' Elsewhere he wrote,'South Vietnam had been virtually destroyed,  and the chances that Vietnam would ever be a model for anything had essentially disappeared.'
When an aging and wiser Robert McNamara returned to Vietnam in 1995 he conceded, somewhat in shock, that despite official US estimates of 2 million Vietnamese dead, 3.4 to 3.8 million Vietnamese had perished. In comparison 58,000 Americans died in the fighting and 200,00 were wounded.
The U.S. had destroyed 9,000 of South Vietnam's 15,000 hamlets -- in the north all six industrial cities, 28 of 30 provincial towns, and 96 of 116 district towns. Unexploded ordnance still blankets the countryside. Nineteen million gallons of herbicide had poisoned the environment. Almost all of Vietnam's ancient triple canopy forests are gone. The effects of chemical warfare alone lasted for generations, and could be seen today in the hospital in the South where Agent Orange was used. Dead fetuses kept in jars. Surviving children born with horrid birth defects and deformities. And cancer rates much higher than in the North.
And yet, incredibly, the chief issue in the United States was, for many years, the hunt for 1,300 American soldiers missing in action, a few hundred of them presumed taken as captives by the North Vietnamese. High-grossing action movies were made out of this topic.
No official apology from the United States has ever been issued, and absolutely no appreciation of the suffering of the Vietnamese.
President Bill Clinton finally recognized Vietnam in 1995, 20 years later. Ever since the war American conservatives have struggled to vanquish "the Vietnam Syndrome," which became a catchphrase for Americans' unwillingness to send troops abroad to fight.
For a war that so mesmerized and defined an entire generation, surprisingly little is known about Vietnam today among American youth. This is not accidental. There has been a conscious and systematic effort to erase Vietnam from historical consciousness.
--Reagan: "It is time that we recognized ours was in truth a noble cause. We dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feeling of guilt, as if we were doing something shameful."
It was not only conservatives who whitewashed American history. Bill Clinton: "Whatever we may thing about the political decisions of the Vietnam era, the brave Americans who fought and died there had noble motives. They fought for the freedom and the independence of the Vietnamese people."
The outcome has been shrouded in sanitized lies. The Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, dedicated in November of 1982, now contains the names of 58,272 dead or missing Americans. The message is clear. The tragedy is the death of those Americans. But imagine if the names of 3.8 million Vietnamese and millions of Cambodians and Laotians were also included.
The supposed shame of Vietnam would be finally avenged by Ronald Reagan, the two Bushes and even to an extent Barack Obama, in the two decades to come.
The irony is that the Vietnam war represented a sad climax of the WWII generation from which Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and all the generals in the high command came, those proclaimed by the mainstream media in the late 1990s as "the greatest generation."
Yet that same media ignored the arrogance of a generation that, overconfident from WWII, dismissed Vietnam as a fourth-rate power that could be easily defeated. From what the ancient Greeks called hubris or arrogance comes the fall. And from this initially obscure war came a great distortion of economic, social and moral life in America. A civil war that polarized the country till this day -- with much denied, little remembered, nothing regretted, and perhaps, nothing learned.
"History must be remembered or it will be remembered until the meanings are clear." The second president of the United States, John Adams, once said, "Power always thinks it has a great soul and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws."
Which makes the details of the oncoming history a sad, inevitable bloodbath that repeats itself again and again, as the U.S.A., much too often, stood on the side of the oppressors, propping up allies with financial and military aid, war on drugs programs, police and security training, joint military exercises, overseas bases, and occasional direct military intervention.
The U.S. empowered a network of tyrants who were friendly to foreign investors who could exploit cheap labor and native resources on terms favorable to the Empire. Such was the British and French way. And such would be the American way. Not raping, looting Mongols, but rather benign, briefcase-toting, Ivy-league educated bankers, and corporate executives who would loot local economies in the name of modernity, democracy and civilization, to the benefit of the United States and its allies.
During the Cold War politicians and the media sidestepped debate over the basic morality of U.S. foreign policy, by mouthing platitudes about U.S. benevolence and insisting that harsh, even dirty, tactics were needed to fight fire with fire. The Kissingers of the world called it "realpolitik." But even when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, our nation's policies did not change, as the U.S. time and again, has taken the side of the entrenched classes or the military against those from below seeking change.
It was the American war against the poor of the earth, the most easily killed, the collateral damage.
As was asked at the beginning, was it really about fighting communism, or was that a misunderstood or disguised motivation?
It was George Kennan, America's leading early Cold War strategist who went to the heart of the matter in a memorandum written in 1948:
"With 50 percent of the world's wealth but only 6% of its population, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, raising of living standards and democratization. We are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans the better."
But George Kennan, who died in 2005 at the age of 102 years old, was an intellectual who never sought political office. Never in his wildest dreams could he have imagined the barbaric proportions of the upcoming presidency of Ronald Reagan.”

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

A challenge to all Muslims out there.



A former Muslim by the name of Ali Sina offered $50,000 to anyone who could, with the help of Islamic texts, disprove the following claims:

"Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter."

So far the reward has gone unclaimed.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

The shocking life of Muhammad and the unpleasant facts about Islam.


The following is taken from thereligionofpeace.com


The Life of Muhammad:
An Inconvenient Truth

Timeline of Muhammad's Life (A.D)

570 - Born in Mecca
576 - Orphaned upon death of mother
595 - Marries Kadijah - older, wealthy widow
610 - Reports first revelations from angel at age of 40
619 - Protector uncle dies
622 - Emigrates from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra)
623 - Orders raids on Meccan caravans
624 - Battle of Badr (victory)
624 - Evicts Qaynuqa Jews from Medina
624 - Orders the assassination of Abu Afak
624 - Orders the assassination of Asma bint Marwan
624 - Orders the assassination of Ka'b al-Ashraf
625 - Battle of Uhud (defeat)
625 - Evicts Nadir Jews
627 - Battle of the Trench (victory)
627 - Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
628 - Signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya with Mecca
628 - Destruction and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews
629 - Orders first raid into Christian lands at Muta (defeat)
630 - Conquers Mecca by surprise (along with other tribes)
631 - Leads second raid into Christian territory at Tabuk (no battle)
632 - Dies

Introduction

What if a man you knew began telling people that God was routinely speaking to him and only him - and that the "revelations" he claimed to be receiving were mostly about him and his relative importance to all other people?  Say, for example, that this self-proclaimed prophet insisted that God had declared him to be the 'perfect example' for mankind and that others were therefore to accord him with special privilege, unwavering obedience, wealth and earthly desires, including all of the slaves and women that his lust could handle.

Such figures still arise from time to time.  Some of the more dynamic manage to develop a small group of followers so taken with their leader's self assurance that they willingly offer their own children to him for "marriage" or even kill on his behalf if requested.

Would it really validate the message of any such cult leader if his followers did successfully kill and seize the property of anyone who dared disagree?  What if they gradually expanded their power and numbers in such fashion that eventually they were enough to be recognized as a major world religion?  Would that make the cult leader's claims about himself true?  Would it really change the fact that what they believe ultimately sprang from the imagination of a narcissist?

In 610, an Arab salesman with a commanding personality attracted a small cult of credulous fanatics by claiming to be a prophet.  Though his "revelations" were self-referential and occasionally contradicting, he was successful in manipulating his followers with promises of heavenly reward and threat of divine wrath.  The god heard only by him told them to lie and steal for him, to give their children to him for sexual pleasure and, eventually, to gruesomely murder his detractors.

There are two ways to approach a study of Muhammad.  One is with reverence and the other is with skepticism.  Thinking persons choose they latter.  They are not influenced by the number of Muslim believers in the world today or by their force of belief because these are meaningless for determining truth.  They care only about fact.

The facts presented here about the life of Muhammad and the origins of Islam are fully supported by the works of early Muslim biographers upon which all later historians rely.


Origins

To understand Islam, you must understand the harsh circumstances into which the religion was born.  The Arabian Peninsula at the time of Muhammad (b.570 AD) was a barren and desolate region with scorching sun and oppressive heat by day, and chilling cold at night.  There was little vegetative growth, and the nomadic inhabitants lived between jagged rocks and shifting sand dunes.

While Europe and much of the Middle East was transitioning from the Roman to the Byzantine Empire, with roads, irrigation canals, aqueducts, and a culture that included philosophical discourse and theater, the Arabians lived short and brutal lives in warring tribes with little to offer the rest of the world beyond their own harsh existence.

This partly explains Islam's inherent hostility to music and art, which some extremists, such as the Taliban, take quite literally.  Islam does not encourage the pursuit of knowledge outside of itself.  It is, as Oriana Fallaci puts it, it is “the religion which has produced nothing but religion."

The inhospitable climate protected the peninsula from conquest and cultural influence.  No foreign army felt that sheep and goats were worth taking from the desert fighters, so the area was relatively isolated, with the exception of certain trading routes.  The renaissance of knowledge that the rest of the world had been experiencing since the Greek revival was largely missed out on by the Arabs, whose entire energies were devoted to daily survival against the ruthless environment and other tribes.

For these people, morality was dictated merely by necessity, and obligations did not extend beyond one’s tribe.  This is a critical basis for the development of the Islamic attitude toward those outside the faith, including the moral principle that the ethics of any act are determined only by whether or not it benefits Muslims.

There were pagan religious traditions in Arabia, particularly among those based in the trading centers such as Muhammad's birthplace of Mecca.  Some of these towns had Kaabas - cube-like structures that would attract pilgrims during holy months.  The Kaaba at Mecca housed various idols, including the black meteorite that remains to this day.

In addition to the black rock, Muhammad's Quraish tribe worshipped a moon god called Allah.  Other gods were recognized as well.  In fact, the town of Mecca was renowned for religious tolerance, where people of all faiths could come and pray at the Kaaba.  (This would later change once Muhammad gained the power to establish his authority by force).

Islam was created both from these crude pagan practices and from the basic theological elements of Christianity and Judaism as Muhammad [often erroneously] understood them (his inaccurate interpretation of Christianity, for example, is often attributed to an early experience with fringe cults in the Palestinian region, then known as Syria).


Early Life at Mecca

Muhammad was born around 570 AD to a widowed mother who died just six years later.  He grew up poor and orphaned on the margins of society, which was controlled by tribal chiefs and trading merchants.  He worked for his uncle, Abu Talib, as a camel herder.  Although his uncle had some standing in the community, Muhammad himself did not rise above his lowly station until he was 25, when he met and married a wealthy widow, Khadija, who was 15 years older.

His wife's trading business not only nurtured Muhammad's natural talents of persuasion, but it also gave the successful salesman an opportunity to travel and acquire knowledge that was not as accessible to the local population.  He would later use this to his advantage by incorporating the stories that he had come across into his "revelations" from Allah, particularly the tales from the earlier religions, Judaism and Christianity.

Having attained a comfortable lifestyle and the idle time that wealth affords, Muhammad would wander off occasionally for periods of meditation and contemplation.  It is quite likely that he was experiencing the symptoms of a midlife crisis, including a desire for personal accomplishment and meaning.

One day, at the age of 40, he told his wife that he had been visited by the angel Gabriel in a dream.  Thus began a series of "revelations" which lasted almost until his death 23 years later.  The Qur’an is a collection of words that Muhammad attributed to Allah.  The Hadith is a collection of narrations of the life and deeds of Muhammad.  The Sira is his recorded biography.  The Sunnah is said to be Muhammad's way of life, on which Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

With his wife’s influence and support, Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet in same "lineage" as that of Abraham and Jesus, and began trying to convert those around him to his new religion.  He narrated the Quran to those who believed him, telling them that it was the word of Allah (heard only by himself, of course).

Muhammad's Quran did not contain a single original moral value and it contributed only one new idea to world religion - that Muhammad is Allah's prophet.  In fact, Muhammad's "Allah" seemed oddly preoccupied with making sure Muslims knew to obey Muhammad's every earthly wish, as this mandate is repeated at least twenty times in the narration of the Quran.

In the beginning, Muhammad did his best to compromise his teachings with the predominant beliefs of the community’s elders, such as combining all 300 of their idols under the name “Allah.”  His amalgamation of Judeo-Christian theology and pagan tradition grew more sophisticated over time.  He also used his "revelations from Allah" to repeatedly affirm his own position.  Even if he did not remember the Biblical stories correctly, for example, each one was conspicuously modified to incorporate a common theme: "Believe in the Messenger (Muhammad) or suffer the consequences."


Preaching and Persecution at Mecca

According to early Muslim historians, the Meccans did not mind Muhammad practicing his religion, nor did they feel threatened by his promotion of it.  This changed only after the self-proclaimed prophet began attacking their religion, including the customs and ancestors of the people (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167).  This was enough to stir up the resentment of the influential leaders of Mecca, who then mocked his humble background against his pretentious claims.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad was Persecuted for Preaching Islam)

Still, Mecca at the time was a remarkably tolerant society.  Muhammad was allowed to attack the local customs for thirteen years, even though the town's economy depended on the annual pilgrimage attended by visiting pagans, whose religion he actively disparaged.

At first, Muhammad was only successful with friends and family.  After thirteen years, “the street preacher” could boast of only about a hundred determined followers, who called themselves Muslims.  Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali (who would later become his son-in-law and the fourth caliph of Islam).  Another early convert was Abu Bakr, a wealthy merchant whose money and credulous acceptance of Muhammad can be credited with the survival of the fledgling cult.  (Muhammad would later "marry" Abu Bakr's 9-year-old daughter).

Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as "the Satanic Verses" in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah.  This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome.  But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him.  He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 &  53:19-26).

The locals intensified their mockery of Muslims and made life particularly difficult for some of them.  Although Muslims today often use the word "persecution" to describe this ordeal (justifiably, in some cases), it is important to note that the earliest and most reliable biographers (Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari) record the death of only one Muslim during this period, an older woman who died from stress.

This fact is a source of embarrassment to modern apologists, who do not like admitting that Muslims were the first to become violent at Mecca (see MYTH: The Meccans Drew First Blood against Muhammad) and that Muhammad was the first to resort to militancy... and at a later time, when it was entirely unnecessary.

To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were "under constant torture."  They may also include apocryphal accounts that are unsupported by earliest and most reliable historians (see MYTH: Persecution of Muslims at Mecca - Many Deaths).

Modern storytellers and filmmakers (such as those behind 1976's The Message) have even been known to invent fictional victims of Meccan murder, either to dramatize their own tale or to provide justification for the "revenge killings" that followed.  But, in fact, the only Muslim whose life was truly in danger was that of Muhammad - after 13 years of being allowed to mock the local religion.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad was Tortured at Mecca).


The Hijra - Flight from Mecca to Medina

The death of his uncle, Abu Talib, in 619 left Muhammad without a protector against the Meccan leadership, which was gradually losing patience with him.  The true agitator in this situation, however, is quite clearly Muhammad himself, as even Muslim historians note.  Consider this account of what happened at Abu Talib's deathbed, as the Meccans implored him a final time for peace with his nephew:

[Muhammad's chief adversary] Abu Sufyan, with other sundry notables, went to Abu Talib and said: "You know the trouble that exists between us and your nephew, so call him and let us make an agreement that he will leave us alone and we will leave him alone; let him have his religion and we will have ours." (Ibn Ishaq 278)

Muhammad rejected the offer of peaceful co-existence.  His new religion was obviously intended to dominate the others, not be on equal standing with them.  Meanwhile, the Muslims were beginning to become violent with the people around them.

Muhammad's search for political alliance led him to make a treaty of war against the Meccans with the people of Medina, another Arab town far to the north (Ibn Ishaq 299-301).  This was the last straw for the Meccans, who finally decided to capture Muhammad and put him to death.  (see also MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims Fled Mecca because of Persecution)

Although this sounds harsh against Western standards, it is important to note the contrast between the Meccan reaction and that of Muhammad when he had the opportunity to deal with perceived treachery in Medina at a later date on the part of those who hadn't even harmed anyone.

The Meccans limited their deadly aggression to Muhammad himself.  This is quite clear from the episode in which Muhammad escapes his home by using his son-in-law, Ali, to trick his would-be assassins into thinking that they had him trapped (Ibn Ishaq 326).  No harm was done to Ali or his wife, both of whom subsequently remained in the city for several days to complete the transfer of Muhammad's family business to Medina.

Compare this to the episode of the Banu Qurayza (below), in which Muhammad slaughtered an entire tribe of people based on their leader having switched loyalties in a conflict in which none of them even participated.

The year that Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina was 622, which marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar.


Medina and the Origin of Jihad

Stinging from the rejection of his own town and tribe, Muhammad's message quickly become more intolerant and ruthless - particularly as he gained power.  Islam's holiest book clearly reflects this contrast, with the later parts of the Quran adding  violence and earthly defeats at the hands of Muslims to the woes of eternal damnation that the earlier parts of the book promises those who will not believe in Muhammad.

It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society.  During these last ten years of Muhammad's life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.

To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it.  This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina (see MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims were Persecuted by the Meccans at Medina).

Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations "from Allah" which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426).  The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property).

Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way.  The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means.  In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459).  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives)

The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr.  This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders.  Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad's time.  In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others.  (See also MYTH: The Battle of Badr was Defensive).


The Consolidation of Power

Muhammad defeated the Meccan army at Badr, which emboldened him to begin dividing and conquering the three local Jewish tribes at Medina.  Their mistake was to accept the Muslim presence, but reject Muhammad's claim that he was in the line of Jewish prophets.  His stories from the Torah simply did not agree with their own.  (Muhammad's recited version of Bible stories sounds more like fragmented fairy tales with the same moral - believe in his personal claim to be a prophet or else).

How these three tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir, and the Banu Quyrayza met their fate is insightful into the Muslim mindset, which employs an inherent double standard in its relations with those outside the faith.

First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith.  In fact, he changed his followers' direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews' tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them.  These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion.  The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.

The Jews' knowledge of the Torah naturally threatened the Muslim leader's credibility, since it easily refuted the claims that he made about himself as a prophet of God.  They also saw through the Biblical narrations that he had picked up from secondhand sources and knew that these contradicted established revelation.  Conveniently, Allah stepped in to tell Muhammad that the Jews had deliberately corrupted their own texts to hide the very evidence of his own prophethood that he had previously insisted existed.  (To this day, Muslims have never been able to produce a copy of the "true" Torah or Gospel to which their own Quran refers).

While the Jews remained unconvinced by such obvious gimmickry, Arab polytheists converted to Islam in large numbers, which soon gave Muhammad the power to make his intentions clear that Islam would be imposed by force:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."  Bukhari 53:392

The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress.  Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad (see MYTH: Muhammad Rejected Conversions to Islam made under Duress)

Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina.  According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman.  Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.

After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate - something that Allah later "rebuked" him for.  The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own.  Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).

This episode helped ingrain within Islam the immature principle of group identity, whereby any member of a religion or social unit outside of Islam is just as guilty as any of their peers who insult or harm a Muslim - and just as deserving of punishment.  (Muhammad's punishments usually did not fit the crime).

Members of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him.  What is most intriguing about this episode is that it occurred after the Muslims had killed several prominent Jews on Muhammad's order, including a leader of the Banu Nadir (named Ka'b al-Ashraf).  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Murder)

When the prophet of Islam learned that he might be targeted in retaliation (something that he claimed was "revealed" to him by Allah), he promptly laid siege to the Banu Nadir community.  After forcing them to surrender, these original inhabitants of Medina were then banished from their homes and land by the Muslim newcomers, who again started to take as much as they could for themselves (Ibn Ishaq 653).  (To the disappointment of his people, this time Muhammad produced a revelation from Allah that allowed him to confiscate the entire portion for himself).

In a critical example of how deception is sanctioned under Islam, a surviving contingent of the Banu Nadir (under Usayr ibn Zarim) was later tricked into leaving their fortress by promise of peace talks.  The contingent of Muslims sent by Muhammad to "escort" them, however, easily slaughtered the victims once they let down their guard (Ibn Ishaq 981).   (See also MYTH: Muhammad always Disapproved of Dishonesty).


The Qurayza Massacre

By the time the Banu Qurayza met their fate, Muhammad was wealthy and powerful from his defeat of the other two tribes.

The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad's wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench).  By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect.  It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).

Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14).  He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups.  Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.

Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender.

The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves.  This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad's personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed.  The prophet of Islam apparently "enjoyed her pleasures" (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.

In some ways, women were much like any other possession taken in battle, to be done with however their captors pleased.  But Muslims found them useful in other ways as well.  In fact, one of the methods by which Islam owed its expansion down through the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women.  In addition to four wives, a man was allowed an unlimited number of sex slaves, with the only rule being that any resulting children would automatically be Muslim.

Muhammad ordered that a fifth of the women taken captive be reserved for him.  Many were absorbed into his personal stable of sex slaves that he maintained in addition to his eleven wives.  Others were doled out like party favors to others.  (See MYTH: Muhammad was an Abolitionist)

At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since "Allah has written whom he is going to create."  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Rape)

Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad's men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy "revelation" that allowed the debauchery.  (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).


The Origin of Islamic Imperialism

From Medina, Muhammad waged a campaign of terror, to which he openly attributed his success (Bukhari 52:220).  His gang of robbers launched raids in which hapless communities were savaged, looted, murdered and raped.  The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation.

The excuse for military campaign began to shrink to the point that it hardly existed at all.  Muhammad told his followers that Muslims were meant to rule over other people.  Supremacist teachings became the driving force behind Jihad (see also MYTH: Muhammad Waged War Only in Self-Defense) and Jihad became the driving force behind Islam.

The brutal conquest of the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community that was not at war with the Muslims, is a striking example.  Muhammad marched in secret, took them by surprise and easily defeated them.  He had many of the men killed, simply for defending their town.  He enslaved women and children and had surviving men live on the land as virtual serfs, paying Muslims an ongoing share of their crops not to attack them again.

Muhammad suspected that the town's treasurer was holding out and had his men barbarically torture the poor fellow by building a fire on his chest until he revealed the location of hidden treasure.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved Torture).

Afterwards, the prophet of Islam beheaded the man and "married" his widow on the same day (she first had to pass through the hands of one of his lieutenants).  Given that the woman's father was also killed by Muhammad, it isn't much of a stretch to say that true love had very little to do with this "marriage."


A Life of Hedonism and Narcissism

Muhammad's personal life became the picture of hedonism and excess, all justified by frequent “revelations” from an increasingly arbitrary and capricious god   In his later years, he frequently used his influence for purely personal goals, including sex, wealth and power.  Allah's authority for him to pursue these earthly ambitions is even immortalized in the Quran (suras 33 and 66, particularly).

The same man who earlier in his career had justified his claims as a prophet by saying that he "asked for no reward" from others, reversed course and began to demand a fifth or more of all booty taken from conquered tribes.  According to his biographers, he became fat from living off this enormous share of ill-gotten gain.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad was a Brave Warrior who Trusted in Allah to Protect him)

In the span of a dozen years, he married eleven women and had access to an array of sex slaves (see MYTH: Muhammad Married Multiple Women as a Favor to them).  When he wanted a woman, even if she were the wife of another man, his own daughter-in-law, or a child as young as 6-years-old (see MYTH: Muhammad Condemned Pedophilia), Muhammad was able to justify his lust and inevitable consummation with an appeal to Allah’s revealed will for his sex life - which was then preserved forever in the Quran, to be faithfully memorized by future generations for whom it has no possible relevance.

The first verse of Sura 66 is a good example of this.  It was narrated by Muhammad to his wives shortly after two of them pressured him into not visiting a favorite sex slave:

O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives?  (Quran 66:1)
Allah (according to Muhammad) was so upset with his prophet for denying himself an afternoon of pleasure with the concubine that Allah had provided for him that it was a good thing for Muhammad that Allah was a forgiving and merciful god!  (For the Muslim faithful, it must surely be a source of embarrassment that Allah evidently had more interest in Muhammad's personal sex life than he did about tolerance or universal love.  The god of Islam encourages sex with slaves in several other places as well).

Muhammad used eternal paradise and damnation to solicit strict obedience to his every command: "Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me will not enter it’” (Bukhari 92.384).

Islam became centered completely around its founder.  Of all the prophets, new converts are required to affirm only the legitimacy of Muhammad.  The Muslim leader even shares the Shahada with Allah ("There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger").  To this day, every Muslim must bow down five times a day "toward" Muhammad's birthplace (Islam's "prophet" did not know the earth was round).

The prophet of Islam was also an extremely superstitious person, leaving many bizarre rules for Muslims to follow, including which direction they should defecate and how many stones they should wash their anus with afterwards (any odd number... for anyone who's curious).  (See also MYTH: Muhammad did Away with Superstition).  Sketchy hygiene apparently left him with an annoying lice infection.

Not content with waiting for Allah to act on his behalf, Muhammad had personal critics executed, including poets.  One of these was a mother of five children, who was stabbed to death by Muhammad's envoy after a suckling infant was removed from her breast (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Women).  Other innocent people were killed merely because they were of a different religion, sometimes including children (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Children).

The glaring double standards of Islam were ingrained by the prophet of Islam during his lifetime.  This included commands to execute apostates (those who wish to leave Islam) and evict people of other religions from their homes.

An elderly woman named Umm Qirfa once ran afoul of Muhammad merely by fighting back when her tribe was targeted by Muslim raiders.  Muhammad's adopted son tied the woman's legs separately to two camels, then set the camels off in opposite directions, tearing the woman's body in two.  He also killed her two sons - presumably in gruesome fashion - and made her daughter into a sex slave.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed the Elderly).

Today's Muslims inherit this legacy of self-consumption and disregard for those outside the faith.  They may or may not agree with terrorist attacks on non-Muslims, but they are nearly united in their belief that the victims have no right to strike back, even if it is in self-defense.

The Quran distinguishes Muslims from others, bestowing the highest praise for believers while heaping the vilest condemnation on those outside the faith.  Islam is a true supremacist ideology.  (See also Is the Quran Hate Speech?)


The Taking of Mecca

Though many of the Arab and Jewish tribes were eliminated and absorbed through military victory and forced conversion, the city of Mecca remained.

In 628, six years after fleeing, Muhammad’s followers were allowed to re-enter the city under an agreement whereby he set aside his title as “Prophet of Allah.”  This was a temporary ploy that enabled him to gain a political foothold in the city through the same “fifth column” activities that are still used today by organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which use their host’s language of religious tolerance to disguise an ulterior agenda that includes systematic discrimination against non-Muslims.

Many of his followers were disappointed that Muhammad had made concessions to the Meccans, not understanding how it actually fit perfectly with his ultimate agenda of domination.  It was during this time that he led the campaign against the Khaybar, to assuage their lust for blood, women and loot.

Technically, Muhammad was the first to break the treaty with the Meccans when he violated the portion of it that restricted him from accepting members of the other tribe into his camp.  His own people also staged deadly raids on Meccan caravans (see MYTH: The Meccans were the First to Break the Treaty of Hudaibiya).  Although he evidently had no personal obligation to the treaty, the prophet of Islam held the other party to the letter of the law, particularly after he amassed the power to conquer in overwhelming fashion.

The excuse that Muhammad eventually used to march his armies into Mecca was provided when a tribe allied to the Meccans conducted a raid on a tribe allied with the Medinans.  Although a true man of peace would have heeded the fact that his enemy did not want war, and used non-violent means to resolve the tension while respecting sovereignty, Muhammad merely wanted power and vengeance.  (See also MYTH: Muhammad always Chose Peace over War).

In just under a decade, Muhammad had evolved from trying to sell himself as a Judeo-Christian prophet, seeking followers, to an Arab warlord, seeking subjects, slaves and total dominance.  The early Quran (of Mecca) tells unbelievers to 'follow the example' of Muhammad or suffer Hell.  The later Quran (of Medina) tells unbelievers to 'obey' Muhammad or suffer death.

Following Mecca's surrender, Muhammad put to death those who had previously insulted him (see also MYTH: Muhammad was a Forgiving Man).  One of the persons sentenced was his former scribe, who had written revelations that Muhammad said were from Allah.  The scribe had previously recommended changes to the wording that Muhammad offered (based on some of the bad grammar and ineloquent language of "Allah") and Muhammad agreed.  This caused the scribe to apostatize, based on his belief that real revelations should have been immutable.

Although the scribe escaped death by "converting to Islam" at the point of a sword, others weren't so lucky.  One was a slave girl who was executed on Muhammad's order because she had written songs mocking him.

In what would also become the model for future Muslim military conquests, those Meccans who would not convert to Islam were required to accept third-class status.  Not surprisingly, almost the entire city - which had previously rejected his message - immediately "converted" to Islam once Muhammad came back with a sword in this hand.  This included has adversary, Abu Sufyan, who was bluntly ordered to "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head."

Those who would not convert to Islam were banned from the city a few months later - again underscoring the dual ethics of Islam.  When Muhammad was previously banned from Mecca, he described it as a "persecution" that justified his "slaughter" of those who prevented him from performing the Haj.  Yet, when he attained power, he immediately chased anyone who would not convert to Islam from Mecca and prevented them from performing the Haj.

To this day, people of other religions are barred even from entering Mecca, the city where Muhammad was free to preach in contradiction to the established religion.  Islam is far less tolerant even than the more primitive Arab religion that it supplanted.  A person preaching the original Arab polytheism on the streets of Mecca today would be quickly executed.


Jihad and Jizya

Tellingly, some of the most violent verses in the Quran were handed down following Muhammad's ascension to power, when there was no threat to the Muslim people.  The 9th Sura of the Quran exhorts Muslims to Jihad and dominance over other religions:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."  (9:29)

The verse that follows curses Christians and Jews by name and says "May Allah destroy them" (as with other sections of the Quran, it is unclear whether it is Allah or Muhammad speaking).

Before his death, Muhammad ordered 30,000 men to march on Christian lands (which were Byzantine at the time).  It is possible that he believed false rumors of an army amassed against him, but there is absolutely no evidence of such a force having been assembled.  Instead, Muhammad subjugated the local people and extorted "protection" money from them - something that has come to be known as the jizya (a tax that non-Muslims pay to Muslims).

Another episode from this period that offers insight into the legacy of Muhammad is the forced conversion of the al-Harith, one of the last Arab tribes to hold out against Muslim hegemony.  Muhammad gave the chief of the tribe three days to accept Islam before sending his army to destroy them.

Not surprisingly, the entire people immediately embraced the Religion of Peace!

Most Arab tribes recognized Muhammad's quest for power and wisely pledged their political allegiance without a fight.  This quickly presented a problem for his core band of followers, however, since they had become used to living off of what could be stolen from others via raids and battle.

Since it was against the rules to attack fellow Muslims, Muhammad began demanding tribute from his new "converts" instead, but this proved to be less profitable than the jizya - not to mention that it carried the risk of internal resentment and strife.

Khaybar, the remote Jewish city that had been turned into a sharecropper state on behalf of its Muslim masters was a more preferable economic model for a growing Islamic empire that had become dependent on extortion justified by religious superiority.

Years before attacking Christian and Persian lands, Muhammad wrote to governors in each, telling them, "embrace Islam and you will be safe."  There was no mention of oppression or liberation cited as a justification.  The only threat these people faced would be from Muslim armies.  (Only six years later, 4,000 peasants in the modern-day Palestinian region would be slaughtered for defending their homes).

At the time, the wealth of other nations was an open source of envy among Muhammad's followers, which he promised to rectify.  The subsequent military expansion that he set in motion may have been sanctioned by Allah and powered by religious zealotry, but the underlying motives of money, sex, slaves and power were no less worldly than any other conqueror of the time.


The Legacy of Islamic Imperialism

Muhammad died of a fever in 632 at the age of 63, with his violent religion spread over most of Arabia.  His method of forcing others to convert under duress had several negative consequences, beginning with the civil wars that were immediately engaged in following his death.  Many tribes wanted out of Islam and had to be kept in the empire via horrific violence.

Abu Sufyan, the Meccan leader who was literally forced to "embrace" Islam at the point of a sword actually had the last laugh.  He skillfully worked his own family into the line of succession and his son, Muawiya, became the heir to Muhammad's empire at the expense of the prophet's own family.  In fact, Abu Sufyan almost lived to witness his son and grandson kill off Muhammad's own grandchildren and assume control of the Islamic empire.

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear successor resulted in a deep schism that quickly devolved into violence and persists to this day as the Sunni/Shia conflict.  His own family fell apart and literally went to war with each other in the first few years.  Thousands of Muslims were killed fighting each other in a battle between Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, and his adopted son, Ali.

Infidels fared no better.  Through Muhammad's teachings and example, his followers viewed worldly life as a constant physical battle between the House of Peace (Dar al-Salaam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb).  Muslims are instructed to invite their enemies to either embrace Islam, pay jizya (protection money), or die.

Over the next fourteen centuries, the bloody legacy of this extraordinary individual would be a constant challenge to those living on the borders of the Islam’s political power.  The violence that Muslim armies would visit on people across North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and into Asia as far as the Indian subcontinent is a tribute to a founder who practiced and promoted subjugation, rape, murder and forced conversion.

In Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them..."  (Bukhari 8:387)

It is certainly the basis not just for modern day terror campaigns against Western infidels (and Hindus and Buddhists) but also the broad apathy that Muslims across the world have to the violence, which is an obvious enabler.

As Indonesian cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir recently put it, "If the West wants to have peace, then they have to accept Islamic rule."