The Covenant with death; The contract with hell; United States-Israel strategic alliance - part I

A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed their "Strategic Dialogue." This is different--very different. Something far more significant has commenced between the two allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an Iranian President who insists that "ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THE MAP" and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a "World Without Zionism" (Haaretz).

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the Strategic Dialogue had broken off for "logistical reasons"--not because tensions over upgrading Israel's Harpy anti-radar aerial drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-'90s under Ehud Barak's regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement (Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it's time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are harping about something else . . .

IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP

Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major General Aharon Ze'evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden, and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel--let alone the aspirations of "democratic reforms" fashioned by Egypt's Islamic Brotherhood (BBC)!

"'If by the end of March 2006, the international community (i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block Iran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it will be possible to say that the international attempts to thwart [Iran's efforts] have failed,' Ze'evi said." (December 2, 2005, Haaretz)

Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout the Moslem World--at least not according to John Laughland in ICH:

"Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a new act of Anglo-American aggression."

As the "watch and see" Israelis reach "maximum vulnerability"--the US-Israel "special relationship" may, like the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News), evolve--by necessity--into a far more sinister tool of Western colonial imperialism. The Moslem World--and think not that I stereotype all Moslems into that "world"--is fixated, notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular Islam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect:

THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT

This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel's history it's taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don't wish to sound presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can't see the elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit stereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH!

First, let's be clear, the aforementioned "strategic dialogue" between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice: The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there's no need to hide the obvious--nothing like putting the whole world on notice, for we're about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!

Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to kill the Jews--grief, he meant what he said. Well, today you have Radical Islamicists (who need little "doctrinal platform" from the Koran to launch their aspirations)--double grief, they intend to "Wipe Israel off the map." Next, you have the Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and the shock and awe of history's most awesome military machine ever to countenance the planet--under girded by the recalcitrant "Bush Doctrine"--an amalgam of victorious democratic enforcement, buttressed by the Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate elite picking up the rear, hoping they'll get the contracts from this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but also Iran et al.

Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks--you know, the Air-head America Radio types--who have the supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with keeping "international accords" and the like, will somehow regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world. Look, let's just cut to the chase: The US Congress has spoken--401 to 3. We're staying put!

The Israelis and the US know that their "strategic-special relationship" is not built on thin air--but upon a host of platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship (approximately ¼ of the nation); both are terrorized by terrorists--the same ones; Israel's identification with the West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious affirmations--right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor, the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from the Crusaders way back when!

"Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a formal defense pact with the United States has arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and with the progress made in the peace process, some complex elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of such a pact in the current period would be significantly different from one during the Cold-War era" (Yair Evron, Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).

This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron--way back in October 1998--outlines the reasons for such a "Defense Treaty between Israel and the U.S." (minor editing):

1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense pact is likely to serve as part of American 'compensation,' offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American guarantees for developing a 'package' of security measures, which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such an agreement.

2. The subject of a defense pact might also arise within the context of the possible 'leakage' into the region (Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly Iran and even Syria--my edit) of nuclear materials or weapons from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.

3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a regional security system will be established; an important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an) Israeli-U.S. defense pact.

Again, Mr. Evron's perceptions regarding such a defense pact clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the USA and Israel; however, if you would--strategic peculiarity--of a defense pact occupies an "above and beyond" all Memoranda of Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance between the two, and, most definitely, all existing military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:

"The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as a 'strategic asset' and a stabilizing influence in the region . . . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization, and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect Israel's borders if those borders included the occupied territories. In the absence of a formal defense treaty, Israel's status was defined, for the first time, as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987." (ibid. Yair Evron)

Be very clear--the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if their Kadima party wins in March, 2006--same time that Iran gets the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But, that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu took over as Prime Minister.

BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT

Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton's Special Assistant for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.

Riedel spent time with Barak's aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi Shtauber, in formulating the "defense agreement and the compensation package" that Israel would receive if they structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the Israelis came to Camp David prepared--they "placed a draft of the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of financial and security requests" (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now, listen how Aluf Benn puts it:

"According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel's aid in the event of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American Congress and the Knesset."

Is that clear enough? O.K. let's spell it out:

(1) $15 Billion in American aid--primarily upgrading the IDF

(2) $10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians

(3) $10 Billion for building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state and Jordan

TOTAL: $35 Billion

Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .

"Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever. Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe after World War Two" (ibid. Aluf Benn).

PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT

Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli Defense Pact for a long time--positioning himself in the new Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a pact.

Please view full article/graphics/links @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com

Doug is a member of the "Last Days Network" . . . a group of evangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion in Politics. "Applied Biblical prophecy," apostasy and deception, the impact of the American New World Order System, and the influence of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture--are topics discussed by the group. He is an educator in the public schools (California) and an administrator. Doug?s articles can be found all over the net?but anchored @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com (a real upbeat web site, given the name).

Osama Bin Laden: Implicaciones de una muerte en Pakistán

Presidente Obama anunció el 2 de mayo líder de Al Qaeda que Osama Bin Laden había confirmado muerto en Pakistán noreste durante una operación en domingo, 01 de mayo de 2011. Informes locales a la palabra de BBC un tiroteo estaba en marcha en unos 01.00 hora local.

Una escaramuza armada centrada en un compuesto elaborado en un área suburbana de media milla de la Academia militar paquistaní, punto del oeste de Pakistán. Hay presencia de bin Laden ha provocado algunos a sospechar que facciones dentro de las fuerzas armadas de Pakistán pueden haber sido albergan le. Esta desconfianza puede ser infundada; pero es kindled preocupación internacional sobre si estos eventos podrían causar la guerra afgana derramar, en serio, en Pakistán.

¿Qué hace la guerra y para la región?

Pakistán: Una historia de luchas

Situaciones explosivas no son nuevas en Pakistán. Cronología de noticias de BBC * revela un siglo de conflicto y controversia.

Pakistán fue el origen de la Liga Musulmana, creada en 1906 para apoyar a los musulmanes en su lucha por la separación política de la India. Mientras que Pakistán tiene las instituciones de un Estado democrático moderno, secular, estos sit dentro de una historia turbulenta - control por hombres fuertes como la familia Bhutto, el General Zia (1977-1988) o el ex Presidente Musharraf (2001-2008); asesinatos y corrupción en las altas esferas; y las presiones económicas trágicas exacerbada por las inundaciones generalizadas y devastadores terremotos.

En la cara de esa agitación, Ley de la Sharia - formalmente adoptada en el código legal de Pakistán en 1991 - aumenta su atractivo; vivir decentemente exige seguridad y paz. Mientras Occidente defiende democráticas respuestas a desafíos regionales, los beneficios del pensamiento democrático y las instituciones pueden parecer remotos a aquellos cuyos problemas son inmediatos. Ley de la Sharia - conocida y entendida en todo el mundo islámico - aporta claridad a áreas como la meseta de Pakistán, donde el orden es una prioridad. Esto puede parecer una opción incomprensible para nosotros en Occidente, donde la educación es más diversa y justicia más asociadas con los procesos de diálogo que obediencia divina autoridad.

¿Cuya "democracia"?

Osama Bin Laden está muerto, pero su valor como símbolo de esa claridad exclusivamente no terminará con su muerte. A quienes le admiraba, él seguirá para un resurgimiento de estrictos valores islámicos - y para la acción contra los intereses extranjeros invasivos que aliarse con regímenes opresivos domésticos. Historia ha hecho a este aspecto de su apelación pan-nacional y pone a todas las esperanzas de una resolución inmediata, pacífica a nuestras diversas intervenciones de vuelo a través de territorios islámicos.

Pakistán camina una línea agitada entre los intereses occidentales y regionales. Tiene elecciones, sin embargo se encuentra en una región donde los intereses familiares, étnicos y religiosos describen mejor que los partidos políticos, alianzas donde generalizadas quejas comunes combustible disturbios políticos. Bajo tales condiciones, límites políticos suelen funcionar muy eficazmente. La situación es demasiado volátil y fluido.

Acusar a Pakistán de complicidad sobre presencia de Bin Laden es inútil. Las instituciones políticas y religiosas pueden converger en toda la región, pero es muy difícil determinar quién o qué realmente representa "la voluntad del pueblo". Las negociaciones políticas son, para el futuro previsible, condenadas a ser parciales.

¿Mártir, Outlaw, otros?

Discurso del Obama tras muerte de Bin Laden establece claramente la política estadounidense: Bin Laden era un criminal, no un héroe y un hombre claramente responsable de la muerte de muchos musulmanes y no musulmanes por igual. Si quienes encontraron un líder en Bin Laden ahora le hará un mártir todavía está por verse. Lamentablemente, lo que podría ser en interés de la paz inmediata mayor puede no ser tolerable para aquellos que buscan una mucho más futuro político trascendente.

* Para una línea de tiempo de la BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1156716.stm

© 2011 Alexandra Brunel, todos los derechos reservados.

Alex Brunel es uno de elite del Ezine diamante autores, lo que significa que su trabajo ha mostrado consistencia y calidad excepcional.

Un escritor/investigador estadounidense basado en Stratford upon Avon, Inglaterra, ella tiene un fondo como un analista de investigación internacional y ha trabajado para muchas de las principales empresas y organizaciones en el mundo. Es una experta en la percepción y la psicología de la Web.

Más información sobre su trabajo de investigación internacional puede verse en: http://www.alexbrunel.co.uk/

Alex escribe ficción, demasiado. Actualmente está trabajando en una adaptación para televisión de Christine novela de Richard, "Whitewalls", situado en las fronteras escocesas. Puede ver una colección de cuentos de Alex online - en Storywrite: http://storywrite.com/riveralex

God, Life, Death, and the Universe

At times we all wonder about the true meaning of life and what happens after we die. There are different ways of examining the subject. We can look at it from the point of view of religion. In order to use this approach a person must have faith. Alternately, we can use science to study our place in the universe, where instead of faith; we base our truths on experiment. In this article I will attempt to give you some insight into the subject from my own beliefs largely based on experiment and logic.

Religion: Good vs. Evil.

Religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, believe in an all powerful God that controls the universe. This God is given many of the attributes of powerful human kings and dictators. He wants man to be humble and worship Him. If man needs anything, man must pray to Him, and if He feels like it He will grant man's wishes, if not man's prayers go unanswered.

According to many religions, the world is divided into two conflicting groups. Those who follow God and His teachings are called good, while God's opponents are called evil. God has created for Himself a powerful adversary to keep our world in constant turmoil. This adversary is called the Devil or Satan. It's his job to tempt mankind into going against God's will. Since the beginning of time there has been a struggle between good and evil, and it's likely to continue as long as religions dominate society.

The definitions of good and evil are relative to the religion a person belongs to. The God of Israel ordered Joshua to kill the inhabitants of Jericho because these people were "idolaters." The people of Jericho did not worship the Jewish God, so they were termed evil. But in their eyes the Jews were the real "idolaters" and were the evil ones. Because the Jews had a mightier army, Joshua and the Jewish God prevailed.

If we look at things logically, the true God or Force Governing the Universe must be for everybody. Since the True God is responsible for everyone's existence, favoring one religion or nationality would violate God's status as a Universal Force. Many human laws, like human religions, are not universal. By forcing people to follow specific laws, God would show favoritism. So God ignores all human laws. He does not favor either saints or lawbreakers. It's up to us humans to reward our saints and punish our lawbreakers.

There is no reason to believe that the true God would have an adversary. Satan is a figure invented by religion to help control humanity. Many religions are based on stories found in ancient texts like the Bible. Usually, every story has an antagonist; even an all powerful story book God, needs an almost as powerful enemy. Satan serves as such an enemy and as the symbol of evil in religious mythology. In the real world, there isn't any definitive proof that supports his existence. Hollywood just loves Satan. Like vampires, werewolves, and zombies, Satan is a recurrent theme in many Hollywood movies. Movies like "The Exorcist" and "Drag Me To Hell." portray Satan at his worst.

Observation of historical events verifies that the true God does not favor any religion, law or social group. In the time of Joshua God let the Jews persecute the people of Jericho but in different eras the Jews became the victims of persecution. Millions were killed during the Holocaust by the dictator Adolph Hitler. During the time of Nero, the Romans persecuted the Christians; but, at the time of the Inquisition, the Christians persecuted scholars and heretics. So it goes, no country, no religion, no philosophy is ever favored by God.

In the modern world there are some people that enjoy enormous wealth, while many others live in nearly unbearable poverty. Many of the world's poor are constantly praying just to get enough food to make it through the day. And what about the dictators like Hitler or Stalin who murdered millions of innocent people? If God considers such injustices as evil, why does He let them happen? Rich, poor, master, or slave, observation of history shows us that God doesn't meddle in human affairs. He gives us free will, and if we don't like what's happening, it's up to us to change it.

Maybe, what happens here on earth is just not that important in the endless sea of eternity. If after death, we exist in a spiritual plane - Most religions believe this. - then consider that what we see as good or evil on earth could be irrelevant there. Here many of us consider murder the worst kind of evil. In the spiritual world, if we have no bodies, we can't kill or be killed. There is no need for money or sex. All these concepts are part of the earthly struggle between good and evil, yet don't apply in the spiritual plane of existence. There could be other laws governing the spiritual plane, but since we have not been there yet, we have no way of knowing what they could be.

Heaven and Hell.

Along with the concept of good and evil, many religions preach the idea of reward for those who diligently follow the teachings of God, and punishment for those who do not. This reward is called heaven and punishment is called hell. Heaven is associated with eternal bliss while hell is an eternal flame designed to keep the wicked in perpetual agony. Some Islamic extremists believe that America is the "Great Satan" and Americans are evil so the Islamic extremist hell would be full of Americans. Americans, on the other hand, believe that Islamic extremists are terrorists and call them evil. Then the American hell would be full of Islamic extremists. As we can see, there doesn't seem to be a "universal" hell, but depends on which religion one believes in. Since we have concluded that the laws that Govern the Universe cannot favor any religion, it follows that there can be no heaven or hell.

Handling Morality.

If good and evil, and heaven and hell are not central concepts of the Universal Force and there is no definitive law of God, how then can one handle morality on earth? One answer could be that most of us desire to live a happy earthly life. Being in prison is not an ingredient of a happy life so we must obey our local laws reasonably well to avoid this. If we constantly fight with our neighbors, life will not be happy. War creates turmoil and does not lead to a peaceful, happy life, so we must avoid it. We can study different philosophers like Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius and others for guidance. As human beings, we still have a sense of what is right and wrong. Let our conscience guide us down the path of life. We must practice what we consider to be right because we want to and not because we're forced to. Such morality will help us lead a happy and peaceful life. Surprisingly a person that fears no punishment and expects no reward, often turns out to have a better working morality than a practicing religious zealot.

Life After Death.

Our standard religions always talk about some kind of reward for the faithful after death. With the exception of some Eastern religions, they never give any physical evidence that an afterlife is possible. There are rigorous observations that are being made by scientists that suggest survival after death is indeed a possibility. For centuries there have been stories about young children remembering their past lives. Previously this belief was held only in Eastern cultures. Lately it has been gaining ground in the West. The late Dr. Ian Stevenson was the head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia until his retirement in 2002. This scholar spent forty years amassing nearly 3000 cases suggestive of reincarnation from around the world. Even skeptics agree that his data is the best proof to date for reincarnation. It turns out that some children, ages from 2 till 7, remember their past lives. A lot of what these children claim can be verified from government documents and living witnesses. Although conventional science doesn't accept this data as proof, they can't explain it away either. For me it's too much to ignore. The University of Virginia is continuing Dr. Stevenson's studies and numerous other scientists and institutions are also investigating this interesting field.

What Dr. Stevenson's studies suggest is that there is something called the "soul" that can exist without a body for a time and come back in another body if and when it so desires. We have no idea how many souls come back and how many remain in the spiritual plane or why they choose to get reincarnated. We currently don't know what the soul is made of or any characteristics of the plane or dimension it exists in after death.

Some souls possibly remain at their earthly place of death for long periods of time. They sometimes even interact with the living. These souls are called ghosts. Since these disembodied spirits have an extremely hard time interacting with our physical plane, actual evidence for ghosts is rare. TV shows like "Ghost Hunters" are designed to make money and not investigate paranormal phenomena. Because of this, these shows have to be staged to be more interesting than they really are. If scientists are skeptical of real researchers, then you can't expect them to accept the findings from reality television shows. It is, however, possible that these "ghost hunters" can run across real phenomena in the course of their investigations.

Psychic Phenomena.

Related to the existence of the soul is the existence of psychic phenomena. Dean Radin, a scientist in the field of parapsychology says that research has established that these phenomena really do exist. The reason there is so much skepticism, is that on earth the effects of these phenomena are very small. Let's take an example. There is a best selling book out named "The Secret" that professes that you can get health and wealth just by thinking about it and really believing it. Research in parapsychology shows that the mind can influence the physical world, but only by a minute amount. To a normal person, thinking about money will not make it appear, but it can start a series of events that can eventually lead him to it. To get it, he would still have to work very hard for it. If there were individuals that could efficiently influence the physical world with their minds, then they would not need to work hard for their money, they could just wish for it like "The Secret" says. Unfortunately, as far as I know, such individuals are rare or nonexistent.

Many psychic phenomena could be very powerful if used to their full potential. They can be thought of as being the attributes of God. Each of us has some psychic ability, but only a very tiny amount. What this implies is that we are all, in a small way, part of God. If, in ages to come, we evolve to be able to easily use our psychic powers, we will become more Godlike. Perhaps, even today, there are monks in some far off monastery that can use their psychic powers efficiently. We haven't heard of them, because they have evolved enough not to use their abilities for earthly wealth or power.

Conclusion.

The Universal Creative Force is the true God.
Man has not evolved enough to begin to understand God.
God does not favor any religion. Good and evil are human concepts relative to earthly society and are largely ignored by God.
Satan is a myth arising from ancient religious texts like the Bible.
There is no Heaven or Hell.
Man has free will on earth.
Since God doesn't impose laws and human laws may be flawed, it's up to the individual to create his own morality.
Reincarnation research suggests that the soul does exist.
Survival after death and reincarnation are possible.
Psychic phenomena exist to a small degree in all of us.
We are all part of God.

Please do not take the above points as dogma. Only the major religions tell you how to think. Everyone should be an individual and reach his or her conclusions about the subject. My philosophy is dynamic. As new research and ideas become available, my philosophy changes to fit what I perceive as fact.

George Lunt is someone who feels the world is getting too corporate. His writings relate the individual's struggle with big government and big corporations. His website is http://www.corporate-aliens.com.

This article is © George Lunt. All usage of this article must include a citation to the author and a link to corporate-aliens.com.

Death of democracy? Ban the burka

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has previously admitted the burqa makes him uncomfortable, Jack Straw caused a media ruckus in 2006 by asking Muslim women to remove veils covering their faces during face-to-face meetings, while the (supposedly non-racist) UKIP have called for a complete ban. But what is a burqa?

Burqas are an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of hiding a female's body when out in public. It is worn over the usual daily clothing and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household, out of the view of men that are not their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and grandsons. The headscarf is NOT a sign of Islamic fundamentalism, but a peaceful sign of religion and family life.

The banning of (or suggestion of banning) of burqas has already begun. For example, French public schools have had a ban since 2004 as the result of a law that prohibits students to wear any clearly visible religious symbols. This was followed on 22 June 2009, when the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy said that burqas are "not welcome" in France, commenting that "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity".

On 26 January 2010, the commission reported that access to public services and public transport should be barred to those wearing the burqa. The Netherlands seek to propose a country-wide ban as well. On 29 April 2010, the lower house of parliament in Belgium passed a bill banning any clothing that would obscure the identity of the wearer in places like parks and in the street.

However, dressing modestly should not be a crime simply because she chooses to adhere to her Islamic beliefs. Any proposed ban should be cause for concern among all who support and cherish the concept of freedom, regardless of creed or nationality, as part of a democracy. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, offered a good summary when he said it is "important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear".

Despite the blow to "freedom of choice" that any potential ban may be across the various countries in Europe, at least in it has travelled through the democratic process and was widely debated in European society. However, both France and Belgium appear to have carried out a knee-jerk reaction to the current fear of Islam. In conclusion, burqas may seem diverse and "difficult to understand" to non-Muslims, but with a simple education about the reasons why headwear is worn by followers of Islam and a reminder of the basic principles of why democracy has put the Great in Britain, then we can perhaps avoid following the mistakes of our European friends.

Andrew Parker is a freelance journalist who has written many articles on Islamic fashion, abayas and hijabs.

Buddhists and Islam a Dark Past of Death

Many Buddhists do not support the war in Iraq and they want peace throughout the region. Who can blame anyone wishing for peace, that is the noblest goal of mankind, but is mankind ready for peace yet or are we simply doomed to repeat in a continual loop? Will the Middle East ever be peaceful?

Speaking of history it should be noted that Muslim invaders destroyed temples and killed monks only a few hundred years ago. In the world of Islam that is recent history and if this same attitude now permeates some of the international terrorists who "claim" Islamic faith then indeed the Buddhists might wish to reconsider their defense. Surely, everyone wants peace, but that is no reason not to defend against tyranny or the killing of innocent life.

In past periods when the "Muslim Invaders" rode into the Buddhist Temples to slaughter the Buddhist Monks, it painted a dark spot on the era and region. It created a rift between the two different religious ways of thinking. Slaughtering the peaceful Buddhist Monks was a horrific act of coward-ness, as the Buddhist Monks were un-armed and had no intention of fighting back.

Nevertheless they were slaughtered where they sat, stood and prayed. It is amazing that those of the Buddhist religion and way of life do not hold animosity or revenge for these acts of long ago. Yet it is equally amazing that such horrific acts of killing innocent people still go on today in the name of religion. Think on this.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.