It is half the cause of Radical East international terrorism?

Muchas personas creen que el terrorismo internacional ha sido causado por la sed de petróleo Estados Unidos y el mundo occidental. Dicen que si el mundo occidental sería dejar el Islam solo entonces no tendrían ninguna razón para atacar. Sin embargo, esto claramente no es así como muchos de los fundamentalistas islámicos radicales creen si alguien es de una fe diferente, entonces son infieles y por lo tanto, debe ser condenado a muerte. De hecho bastante duras y aunque esta no es la opinión moderada o incluso cerca de ella, muchos más fundamentales radicalists suscribirse a esta creencia y concepto, que les permite atacar y matar sin remordimiento.

¿Así es el aceite realmente la causa del Oriente el terrorismo internacional y el fundamentalismo Radical? Muchos estudiosos y aquellos que han viajado a decir; Absoluto y no están comprando esto. Tu decir por ejemplo que fuimos atacados en los Estados Unidos y no importa lo que el caso que es irrelevante por qué, ya que creen que es una respuesta recíproca en orden a la magnitud más alta posible, que incluye la eliminación de todos los terroristas internacionales del planeta.

Además muchos en el mundo occidental, especialmente en aquellas naciones, que han sido atacadas han declarado; Si desea predicar paz guardarlo para aquellos que patrocinan, apoyan y albergan a Hamas, Hezbolá, Al Queda y otros. Sin embargo, mucha gente en Palestina, Líbano y Siria quieren decir buscar lo que el mundo occidental ha causado y las guerras que matan a nuestras mujeres y niños. ¿Esto es realmente lamentable, no puede negarse, pero muchos en el mundo occidental dicen que mueren no ver los terroristas internacional cuidando mucho sobre las mujeres y niños, guardar su discurso para ellos?

El motivo de este aceite es sobre nominal totalmente. Estados Unidos está preocupado y denuncia el terrorismo internacional, donde entonces es, ¿por qué no? Debemos abordar el terrorismo internacional retirando desde el período del planeta. Es lo mejor para toda la humanidad y cuanto antes es lo mejor para la progresión hacia adelante de la especie.

Si uno realmente se preocupa, necesitan a predicar la paz a quienes volar trenes, barcos, aviones, edificios, plantar bombas y matar vidas inocentes. Lo contrario quienes condenan el mundo occidental, pues sus comentarios son simplemente hastiado, unilateral y rencoroso. Así el mundo no puede permitir que cualquiera pueda hacer estos comentarios fuera de contexto o sin una comprobación de la realidad. Considerar todo esto en 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Consejo del Foro en línea Think Tank . Si tienes pensamientos innovadores y perspectivas únicas, vamos a pensar con lanza; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance es un escritor online en retiro.

Regardless of the differences: seeking the understanding of each religion of East

Learn about the history and ideals of East religion such as Islam or Judaism can lead to a better understanding of their faithful. And through greater understanding and tolerance, it is possible to dissolve the prejudice and hatred.

While it is true that there can be some of the most ferocious wars it came from religion, advocate groups have worked to put an end to the conflict not to take weapons. On the other hand, provide means to increase the understanding of these differences at the same time realizing the similarities between each religion.

To do this, the Foundation for Intercultural, interreligious research and dialogue (FIIRD) has focused on education as a means to foster the understanding of each monotheistic religion of the Middle East. FIIRD developed a program with this aim in the University of Geneva and then published a collection of books - a compiled Edition of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Koran. With these three books compiled together, readers can notice how every sacred text maintains ties with others.

Meanwhile, the press of the University of Texas has dedicated their publishing rights to disseminate information on free themes to more cultural knowledge. The Middle East, they say, has a suspension of significantly large in the international politics of United States, as well as its economy. As such, it is difficult to ignore them as an undisputed factor in international culture. Thus, these publications try to inform readers of different aspects of the Middle East, giving them access to a path of understanding.

While religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have their differences, it should be noted that they have similarities that may surprise those who finally learn about them. Each monotheistic religion of East defends and encourages the same fundamental values. Values fundamental as the honor to life, do no harm to people, them they want to do good and the belief in a God are held sacred in all of them, no matter how each approach differs.

Long time has passed the age put an end to the conflict by the sword and violence. Today, many only want peace and understanding. But simply wanting to do not you will spend, but should, rather, take steps to make it happen.

Violence begets violence. In the same way, peace begets peace. To begin to lay the foundations for a brighter future, we need to create understanding polite conversation. With many organizations and programs now open to everyone, anyone can take a step forward and begin walking the path to a peaceful future.

Resource box:

The lift Foundation is an organization nonprofit that aims to increase education in the culture of the Middle East. Approach to main additional studies in the religion of the Middle East, the Foundation is open to any questions at TheLevantFoundation.com or call 713-222-6900.

Iran: First stop for establishing democracy in the Middle East

In recent weeks, many European and American officials have acknowledged that the road to a Middle East free passes through Tehran. In other words, the only way to see the peace and freedom will prevail in the Middle East and especially in Iraq, is to see a democratic Government, taking power in Iran.

Although the Iranian people have been saying this for the last 3 years still pretty much ignored by Westerners, but reaching this conclusion is in itself a sign of reaching a new and deep understanding of the region by Western leaders.

Before the war in Iraq, Americans believed that some could how to get along with the Iranians as the largest in that country neighbour. Without a doubt, the United States, through diplomatic channels, officially requested the Iranians not to interfere in the war and for the duration of the operations and they actually get to keep them out. Then it turned out that the Americans actually had met with the Iranians a few times in Europe to discuss the matter.

In exchange for not interfering in the war, Iran asked the allies to bomb and annihilate your enemy for a long time, levels of Mujahedin of peoples of Iran (PMOI) which was based on Iraq. PMOI is recognized as the largest and most organized Iranian dissident movement that exists outside the country and has vowed to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran. Just before the war the PMOI said non-partisan war however its bases were bombed and many of its members were killed.

Shortly thereafter, WIPO and the American command in Iraq reached a peace agreement by the PMOI in the protection of US forces in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

After the war, Iran, finding himself under increasing international pressure due to its suspicious nuclear activities and the dreaded of human rights records, became aware of the danger of being surrounded by the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition, a central Iraq power vacuum blinked the opportunity to make a wish for a long time by Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and their followers to pursue the dream of an Islamic Empire, through Iraq to reach the holly land in Israel.

Announcing the plan for a Middle East free and open by President Bush and other world leaders, it was clear to the Iranian theocracy planned future does not include their ideologies backwards. To survive however, Iranians found their remedies in pushing ahead full force, making sure that Iraq will become "another Viet Nam" for Americans.

Interference in Iraq was through different means. The Group of Bader was based on Iran who had been training for a day so many years was now in Iraq taking key rules in the security forces Government and its newly formed. Using forces Bader and other groups in Iraq, the mules were able to create a field of battle against the Americans do not think the unthinkable.

Also cheating absolute in the elections of the Mullahs managed to seize most of the seats in the new Parliament and if it were not for the millions of Iraqis to Iraq taking the streets chanting "Iran, exit," would have been able to actually installing a Government puppet in that country.

Shortly after cheating Iran in Iraq elections and his bloody hand in the daily scenes of Iraq bombing were exposed, and after mounting international pressures, the Iranians began gradually losing control over the situation and began to see cornered by the international community.

In order to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes twice that we must remember that while there is the Iranian regime in the Middle East, it will be in the way of formation of democracy in the region as we currently see in the regeion.

The geopolitics of the region dictates that democratic defenders of Iraq being tested in practice first hand and he says, "the road to democracy in the region, undoubtedly passes through Tehran". We will only see peace and democracy in Iraq when there is a democratic Government, Pacific, newly established in Iran.

Nima Sharif is a political writer and human rights, and publisher of the website: http://www.stopfundamentalism.com

The Midwest as the Middle

I suppose that over the week of Christmas 2008, jets of Green Bay, Wisconsin attacked Yupper objectives in the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan... And then, news years day ground troops followed inflict large numbers of civilian casualties. After three weeks of fighting and a relation of the death of more than 100 to 1, you get a cease fire...

Here is how it may have happened:

1800-1948: After many years of persecution and dispersion, the (Jewish) Chippewa tribes try to regain their homeland in Wisconsin (Palestine). As auto had described fighters for freedom, the Chippewas used terrorism in an effort to boost the European settlers (Palestinian) of Wisconsin. Great Britain and France feel guilty about the genocide that allowed their European settlers to commit against the Chippewa. They use their military might to establish the Chippewa nation and ensuring its recognition throughout the world. Wisconsin refugees held in camps Yupper in the wooded and rocky where the prospect of agriculture is very poor.

1949-1967: After almost two decades of efforts failed to resettle refugees, Michigan (Egypt), Illinois (Syria) and Minnesota (West Bank) to declare war to the Chippewa nation push into Lake Michigan (Mediterranean Sea) and provide Wisconsin to refugees. The Chippewas quickly defeat the badly organized and poorly equipped Americans. Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota lost the territory to the Chippewas. Other United States States opted not to participate in the war leads to intense internal tensions between American States.

1968-73: Political extremism in the refugee camps of Yupper continues to grow as a second-generation Wisconsin refugees grows without a proper House. Driven by public anger, the surroundings of American States again attack the Chippewa nation. And they are again defeated quickly. Embarrassed by his lack of decisive participation in the futile American effort, Texas (Saudi Arabia) takes another States producers in an embargo that has resulted in the world energy crisis in oil.

1974-2000: In a Treaty of peace, Michigan recover sovereignty over part of its territory in exchange for official recognition of the Chippewa nation. After not forward a generation, despair again grows throughout the region. Suicide bombings by Yuppers met with massive retaliation by the Chippewas. More than 20 Yuppers die for every victim of Chip. Civil disobedience and the active insurgency becomes the norm in the occupied territories. Chippewa air force bombs regularly terrorist targets and Government offices in the UP and Minnesota. Periodically conduct Chippewa army search and destroy missions in the orchards, fields and cities - where terrorists might be hiding in the Western Great Lakes region. Nationalist Chippewas establish more settlements on the Bank of the Mississippi River and in the field of Minnesotan. Periodically the Chippewas cut access to the holy sites of United States in the twin cities (Jerusalem). The holiest site of the divided city is desecrated by the Chief of Chippewa (Sharon). To stop the flow of guns and rocket attacks, the Chippewa nation invades and occupies Ontario (Lebanon) for a couple of decades.

2001-2007: The situation of the Yuppers becomes old news. Meanwhile, in Minnesota more American land is claimed by settlers Chippewa. The Chippewas building a wall around the settlements to consolidate their territory and keep to the bombers. The wall also cut many Americans of their jobs in the Chippewa nation. The Chippewa nation re-invades Ontario with a full-scale air and land attack because soldiers Chippewa 2 two were kidnapped on the border. This time the Chippewas took significant casualties and failing to clear victory. Yuppers celebrate.

2008-2009: In response to the election of radical Yuppers, the Chippewas periodically blocked food and fuel to enter in the. After Michigan closed the bridge Mackinac, Yuppers smuggling of food, fuel and weapons through the Straits by boat. YUpper militia resume attacks with random rockets in frontier towns of Chippewa causing serious psychological suffering, significant damage and some deaths. The elections are approaching in the Chippewa nation. The ruling party is doing poorly in the polls and has been since the Chippewas did not win the last war in Ontario. It is the week of Christmas and the world focuses on holidays. Do what best time to attack the Yuppers!?

And so it is in the first few weeks of 2009 more than 13 00 Yuppers (Gaza) are killed in the UP (Gaza), while less than 15 Chippewas (Israelis) dying. In the early days the Chippewas respected war Tribal (Hebrew Hummurabi code) agreements on proportional retaliation established by the Council of Ojibway (Moses in exodus 2: "eye for an eye;") "a tooth for a tooth". No more.

Lowell Klessig is a fifth settler European generation that farms and writes in central Wisconsin. He has visited the frequently but never been forced to stay there.

Lowell Klessig 934 River Road N Amherst Junction, WI 54407

715/824-2490

lowellklessig@Hotmail.com

Lowell Klessig is Professor Emeritus of the integrated management of resources in the University of Wisconsin-Stevens point. In addition to articles in journals, he has created numerous Extrension publications in non-technical terms for adult audiences. He served as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Rural leadership program. He has traveled to 47 countries and taught in six foreign countries. He writes a monthly column for a weekly newspaper in the Midwest and makes occasional magazine features. (A biography of a summary page is available electronically on request).

Middle East - Summary of Conflict Area

Middle East, Theater of Conflict

Stretching from the Atlantic Ocean at the west, into the highlands of Iran and the Arabian Sea in the East, the Middle East's political, social and economic activities impact upon the rest of the world on ever-increasing scale. Oil, ethnic diversity, religion and politics all come into play in this conflicted area.

Based on language, custom and beliefs, ethnic diversity in this area creates both tension and beauty. Most people in the Middle East are Arabs; and of these, most follow Islam. The language, Arabic, dominates most of the Middle East as it is the language of Islam, which is a prevalent force in the region. Israelis number in the millions in the region, speaking Hebrew primarily. The Israel was created by the United Nations in the mid 20th century as a homeland for Jews. Although a small percentage of people living in Israel are Arabs, this small number causes great social and political upheavals. Over the centuries, Jews living amongst other religions have been victims of persecution, scapegoat-ing, and forced assimilation. Today, Israel provides a homeland for Jews where self-determination and faith leaves these people with a national identity.

Turkey holds within it many groups of people who define themselves Turks, Ottomans, Kurds among others, mainly speak Arabic and practice Islam. Though the people of Turkey are primarily Muslim, they follow a secular government which separates most government affairs from religious unlike the many other Islamic states in the area. This fact and a national movement in the early 20th century has lead to a more Western blend of culture and politics.

Once called Persia, Iranians, the descendants of the Aryans who migrated into the region, speak Farsi. These people are Muslims also, but are primarily of the Shiite sect. This sect, separate from the Sunni Arabs of some other Islamic countries, differ on the role of Imam, or religious leaders and the role heritage plays in the leadership of the Islamic faith.

The many languages, customs and beliefs that lace the Middle East together in a great mosaic of cultures and religions have caused subregional conflicts. Surged by the European presence in the colonial ages until the trend toward self determination and the granting of independence that started after WW1 and spread until the 1960's, nationalism and religion have caused many problems amongst neighboring nations. The Iran-Iraq war was one of these clashes.

Although they share many attributes, the Arabic Iraqi and the Persian Iranian do not see them through the veil of Islamic sectarian lines, secular versus traditional religious law and territorial disputes. The dispute came to blows eventually over three islands in the Persian Gulf, who were granted from the British to the United Arab Emirates, seized by Iran, which caused retaliation in the name of Arabic defense by Iraq. Iran, with their relative wealth and military strength, backed revolts in the Kurdish, northern Iraq provinces. Seemingly backed into a corner, the two nations came to agreement over the islands amidst the 1975 oil minister's conference. The ceding of the islands to the Iranians did not last long, as the war was played out in the early 1980's. Failing to garner the support of Arabs living in the contested region of Khuzestan, and under the strain of an Iranian blockade of Iraqi exports, The Iraqi president, Saddam Hussain called for a withdrawal and cease-fire. The Iranians denied the request and surged ahead with invasions into Iraq.

By the mid 1980's the conflict drew other interested nations into play. The Soviets supplied Iraq with missiles and aircraft. Iran purchased US weapons and defenses through the Iran Contra dealings. China provided missiles to the Iranians, which were used to threaten oil tankers in the Gulf. In the midst of this conflict, American forces gathered naval forces in the area. One US ship was attacked in the gulf by Iraqi forces. Mounting attacks in the Persian Gulf and the slowing of trade through this important route caused the UN to step forward with a peace settlement. By 1988, after some defeats of Iranian forces in the battlefield and the death of the Ayatolla in 1989, Iran and Iraq agreed upon a cease-fire. The two countries did trade prisoners of war (not all) and have not resumed warfare with each other since.

Oil quotas, criticism and calls of Arab repatriation of former Iraqi controlled areas lead to Iraq invading neighboring Kuwait. Leading up to the invasion, Iraq's president Hussain had charged that the Kuwaitis had overproduced oil which lowered the price and adversely affected Iraq and other members of OPEC. He also cited the granting of independent rule to Kuwait as illegitimate and claimed the land as originally Iraqi owned. These declarations, paired with the invasion caused lines to be drawn between the Arabic nations and the international community. The UN and the League of Arab Nations called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the continuance of payments toward war debts to Kuwait that were accrued during the Iran-Iraq wars. An import and export embargo would be placed until these demands were met.

While a few Arab countries agreed with Iraq's claims to the territory, many did not. Saudi Arabia asked the US to intervene, as it feared a similar fate. Led by US forces, a multinational force mounted an attack on the Iraqi forces in defense of Kuwait. In 1991, after just seven months of active military campaigns, the Iraqi forces were well routed. The army withdrew from Kuwait and the international coalition cried victory. Though it would take most of the 1990's and many requests and impositions upon Iraqi export quotas and UN declarations, Saddam Hussain finally allowed for a UN inspection team to view its nuclear sites to ascertain whether weapons of mass destruction were being developed by the Iraqi government. When this team was expelled in the late 1990's, along with retaliation toward US and British warplanes enforcing the No-Fly zone in Iraq, the international parties bombed defense and communication installations in Iraq. Subsequently, a UN and Iraqi agreement led to looser restrictions on imports for civilian and military goods under review of the UN Security Council.

The terrorist attacks upon US soil by the Al-Queda and a build-up of military troops on the Iraq border brought an about face by Hussain who opened up his nuclear facilities to UN groups and called for the destruction of long-range missiles and a self-imposed ban on nuclear military materials. Though these measures were taken by many nations as good faith, the US military, lead by President Bush and his foreign affairs officials decreed that Hussain posed a threat to US security. Many nations refuse to support this idea and did not join in the UN coalition of forces against Iraq. By 2003, the British armies and US invaded Iraq.

Many issues were raised by this action. The world leaderships have not yet agreed upon debates over the need, propriety and legality of the invasion. Though Hussain and many of the political and sectarian leaders of Iraq have been removed, killed or disappeared, the nation has as of yet been awarded true self-government or has it seen peace within its borders. Some scholars decry forced adoption of Western democracy upon the nation. Others find the reports of weapons of mass destruction to be fraudulent. Whatever the motivations, the outcome of the invasion and occupation has been a sum total of upheaval and tense terrorist subversion of coalition interventions in government and peace-keeping.

The nation of Israel as a Jewish homeland has been the actualization of a movement's vision paired with the endorsement and follow-through of both the British government and later, the United Nations. The following is a brief overview of the struggle, claim and victory that was seen in the realization of Israel as a sovereign nation.

The root of the Zionist movement started in the late 19th century. The term Zionism was coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1892 and was meant to rally Jews globally in the name and goal of a Jewish sovereign nation. In his book, The Jewish State (1896) Theodor Herzl promoted the idea of Zionism as a long-term answer to the plight of Jews across the globe who live amid growing and pervasive anti-Semitism. This outlook stressed the point that Jewish folk were a "people" and not just a religion. It also sought to preserve this identity against the assimilation that occurred when and where Jews were forced to blend into a culture in order to live without stigma or harassment.

Both Birnbaum's and Herzl's call to rally around a Jewish homeland were heard world-round. Although some disagreed, most Jews heeded the charismatic and compelling literature and philosophy that surrounded the movement. The harsh life under the authority of a nation that never (seemingly) would allow the Jews to be anything more than a second class citizenry would prove to be a conviction that stirred these dissatisfied, disillusioned and disaffected Jews.

The Balfour Declaration (1917), was a letter sent from Lord Balfour, the Foreign Secretary and former Prime Minister of Britain to a Sir Walter Rothschild, a Jewish community leader in England. The word-age of the letter signaled affirmation of the United Kingdom's agreement that the Jewish people should find a nation of their own within the boundaries of Palestine. The sympathy stated in the letter was shadowed by the statement, which followed the agreement of the due and necessity of the founding of a Jewish state, that the British government wished it to be being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This declaration of sympathy was at once seen as a boost for the Zionist movement and as somewhat contradictory as it implied that the Jews would not be receiving aide in acquiring the land, just a "nod" toward the movement. The Balfour Declaration, while it bolstered the ideals of the movement, did not grant the Jews a nation in the Palestine territory.

Where the Balfour Declaration was theoretical in its message, the United Nations' resolution in 1947 for the creation of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel was the concrete move that set into effect the creation the Nation of Israel. Jews flocked from Europe, the Americas and within other countries in the Middle East to within this fledgling state. Although carved out of Palestine, the Israeli nation was the end of the Zionist vision, and beginning of Jewish freedom from anti-Semitism and forced assimilation.

Arab opposition to Israel has lead to major warfare in the region. Palestinian Arabs had been forced into refugee camps as the Jews took their land. Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip conflict with Palestinian views of ownership. In the fight for the contested lands, or the Jewish rights to land at all, Arab support for Palestinian control has been fractious. The strength of Arab ties tends to be elastic in nature. In some arenas, they are strong, in others, not as much. An- Naqba, the forced removal of Palestinians from the borders of other Arab nations lead to disunity amongst the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. The Palestinians relied on historic, local rights and compacts to give them identity. Israel forged one out of the disenfranchisement from the rest of the world and a common religion. Arab disputes and long held disagreements were held off in their fight against the Jews in Israel, but were not forgotten.

The PLO, or Palestinian Liberation Organization sought to bolster unity among Arabs in the fight against Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Since the 1960's, the PLO fought for an sovereign

Palestinian state. The movement caught itself in a full revolt in 1987 when PLO members clashed with the Israeli Defense Forces. The group was labeled a terrorist organization and violence marred the movement. Later the 1980's and 1990's, the group's leader, Yassir Arafat moved the PLO toward peace by recognizing Israel's right to exist and calling for attention toward the refuge situation rather than armed conflicts.

Born from this paradigm shift, the PNA, Palestinian National Authority worked toward a nation for Palestinians who were living in occupied areas and abroad in Arab nations. Since the 1990's, a series of peace talks between the Palestinians, Israelis and other world leaders have taken place. A Temporary peace has ensued and the territories in dispute are being re-aligned, areas repatriated and concessions on both sides are being made.

Although in the past few years a resurgence of terrorist groups like Hamas and other militants still mar the process, the return of lands and the slow growth of a Palestinian nation continues.

Anti-American sentiments sprout from our intervention into the Iraqi land-grab of Kuwait and our alliance with Israel. Many Muslim's who view Arab nations with "loose" or even secular governments as being against Islam. The Islamic fundamentalist movement has grown in the last few decades and has gained momentum in many Arab national governments. Calling for the US to remove military bases and personnel from all Muslim and Arab nation is one of the herald-calls of the Al- Queda and Taliban movements.

After the September 11th attacks on US targets masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, the United States and members of a anti-terror multinational coalition have fought militants bent on destroying either the US and/or our partners and allies. Thus the US embarked on a "War on Terror" which endeavors to stop any terrorist activity in the world waged by fundamentalist Islamic militants. Many individual liberties have been suspended or levied against in the name of this "war".

The nebulous and ethereal nature of such a war, to me, is one fraught with subjective views and a venture into ore disputes as it has subverted the politics and sovereignty of many nations. Afghanistan was bombed harshly in the hours after the 9-11 attacks. Raids on suspected terrorist cells have been rained upon citizens in many nations from Indonesia, west to the Mediterranean shores and as far as Europe and even America. By fighting the "War on Terror", the US and its allied nations may have bred an even bigger generation of zealots who have taken to fundamental and militant Islamic calls in the aftermath of US occupation and anti-terrorism acts abroad.

Since WWI nations in the Middle East have held a concert of border disputes, wars over religions, land rights and water resources. Embargoes, foreign instigation and alliances have entangled Europe and American nations into the pitfalls of these disturbances. Islamic opposition to secular or non-religious governments causes this oil-rich area to be in almost constant turmoil. The Middle East may be a region of either shared history and backgrounds in some ways, but it also exemplifies the troubles that arise when religion and ethnicity takes precedence over common goals. The independence granted by the colonial empires in the 20th century removed a common enemy (until now?) and has let loose the grudges that have been underlying the area for centuries.

Watching from the balcony [tangled East]

Special Report: "Today [at this very moment] at 12:04 PM, the last day of the month of December, 201?, the Ateret Kohanim Zealots of Zionism, after walking through the streets of Jerusalem to the huge Islamic structure called: 'The Dome of the Rock,' [one of the Muslims holiest shrines and mosques in the world], known to Zionism as, 'The Temple Mount,' carried out--after a number of unsuccessful failures--a successful act of terrorism, by dynamiting the under structure, or foundations of the 'Dome of the Rock,' which sunk it to the subterranean tunnels underneath it. In consequence, the once renowned sanctuary is no more. It was chanted in the streets by the group called: the Ateret Kohanim, its leader in particular, saying, 'We have forced God's hand to send us the long awaited for messenger is evoked today, divine power for Israel, Zionism.' The streets of Jerusalem are like the days of 9/11 in New York City, everyone is in a daze."

(I am sitting on my veranda in St. Paul, Minnesota watching this, watching it on TV.)

Prior to this event all three religions: Islam, Judaism [for some: it is Zionism], and Christianity, put claims, in their own modest and sometimes over zealous ways, on Palestine. All claiming to be descendents of Abraham: the prophet; yet none are willing to work together. Palestine, otherwise known as the Holy Land, if it would have been possible for a secular rulership, possible, perhaps achievable, things could have, or might have taken a different course instead of the revolutionary's form of rebellion that has just taken place, is as it is, narration.

Yes, now its times past and the vast array of humanity are wondering what's next: what will be the course of action to take place. Up to this point there have been countless disappointments, moments during the time since the creation of Israel as a state and country by the United Nations in 1948; but nothing so suffering, or equal to this misery of this deceitful nature, and uncertain action has taken place or occurred up to now, from neither government, Palestine or Israel, thus, a showdown seems inevitable between the Muslims and the Jews.

This is why some have been calling this incident a disaster, while others despite its ramifications call it a triumph. Whatever it is or maybe to one or the other, it is surely an uncertain path that leads out of Jerusalem, and a horrid.

As I watch my TV, enthusiasts succeeded in destroying the 'Dome of the Rock,' where once it has been said, stood: Solomon's Temple. What will follow will be a bitter-sweet war of religion I fear. But I must watch and see this unfold. And unfold it will, right on my veranda.

As I implied, the event has just taken place, the 'ifs', and 'buts' and 'whys' will be sorted out later, as always, but the here and now is what troubles me. Things are happening fast, so very fast. I got the radio on, the TV on; my wife just put the newspaper on my lap. I do not recall that the surrounding Arab countries are greatly disturbed by this, only that they now can unite in war against Israel, and have the rest of the world to join them. One can easily imagine how exhausting it has been for both sides to live amongst one another while Hamas and other such groups try to entangle the war cry between the Arabs and Jews, as has finally happened by the opposite Zealots--the Kohanim.

A man just remarked on CNN [from Rome], and I quote:

"Had the United States not been so extended in Europe, the Middle East, throughout Asia and South America, this might have been avoided."

It doesn't seem like he is blaming the United States, just getting out anger, as Paris and Berlin have done in the past, as has probably every country in the world at one time or another, in particular resentful France.

In the Holy Land the Zealots have grabbed onto the messianism, that is, the Zionist. Hamas, and its tentacles [terrorist groups of Palestine and beyond] a legacy of the once archrulership of Arafat, are in shock, as is the world, as is the Arab-Islamic neighbors, as they are at this moment stomping their hands and feet on whatever is closest to them; it is now 12:15 PM; 11-minutes have gone by, and there is smoke and dust and debris all over the area.

War or Peace

The Jews search the Talmud, the Christians the Bible--: both read, the end of days cannot be predicted, that redemption will come when it does, it is a mystery, yet Jew, Muslim and Christian are all waiting for their own individual messiah at this very writing, and all expect it to be soon.

Someone quoted the Bible over the TV, saying: no man knows the time or the day. Yet, some would prefer it to be today; --on both sides of the coin: by the Muslim's and Jew that is, both for different reasons.

Said I, sitting on my veranda, my wife to my side,

"It's not wise to try and force the hand of God...hmm," she looks at me, a light smile, and I hold the newspaper slightly up while resting on my lap, its old news now, everything is old news every third, or forth second is old news, "I'm ok," I let her know, she worries so much about me.

(I start to think, not saying a word, watching the TV, looking over the city, in the sky, at cars, people, trees, anything moving, people breathing):

I have lived through the Korean War, fought in the Vietnam War, seen the conflicts in Eastern Europe, in which my son was a soldier; and took note of the 1967 and 1974 wars with Israel and the Arab nations, along with the two Gulf wars, and the Afghanistan War. And I'm only 58-years old; and saw the Twin Towers in NYC crumble to the ground, in what I call the advent of WWIII. And from what I see on the TV, it is looking like a call to Arms, possibly the whole world.

I turned, to see my wife, again I should say, saying:

"What indeed are we in for?"

A rhetorical question at best, who knows? She puts her hand on my shoulder--a quite beauty (she has a slight smile on her face; it is to calm me down, nothing to do with the situation at hand).

What I am now watching on television is a new modern version of Zionism, or at least it seems that way to me, along with the ongoing new Islamic-terrorist version brought about by the staunch Muslim sect, which seemed to be--for the most part--the contemporary version, for most Muslims are starting to own it. And the Christian's now had their flamboyant-warlike concepts also.

I think deep in my mind, should we live through a religious World War; the New World Order will have their way and wipe out religion for good; somewhere down the line here. It's hard sometimes to differentiate between the Christ of the Bible, and the times of today with the ongoing rhetoric we receive from those who would have us follow their concept of the Bible, or the Karen, or the Talmud: --which they all seem to breed seeds of contempt, power, and vengeance.

It is not God I am speaking of, rather man's version of Him. He is often the scapegoat for everyone's woes. Be that as it may, they have all gone against their old ideologies, all waiting for the signs, a miracle and in the mean time, prepare for war. What an unsaintly and well chosen second choice: war, killing, all before peace (like in the Crusades of the far past); all in the name of God. We must all be quite a joke to God, if He ever took us serious, we would be shoveling coal down in the dungeons of hell for our thoughts and actions. If we were to be weighed, we'd all be found wanting, or in need, short changed if you will.

Yes, oh yes, as Mother Shipton had predicted 400-years ago: love will cease, and enterprise take over. Nobody looking at their roots, values. Men will eat like hogs, and women will look like men, and everyone will be going to and fro (which is exactly as it is now). Then she added in her predictions back in the 1400s): this is the time to go to the mountains, hide, for there will be great upheavals. Yes, like I am witnessing today.

A News Flash!! 

"Hamas, and it cohorts have just assonated the Prime Minister of Israel, like when the US got hit on 9/11, the Palatines are celebrating in the streets; Arab nations are preparing for war: Russia is talking with Syria, Egypt, Iran, and other countries to be a partner of the willing against the Jews and all those who would protect them. The EU is trying to avoid as is the UN any confrontational dialogue or statements...least they become part of the woes of he Arab world, and its new forming confederation."

"Inevitable," I tell my wife as she gives me some calm down pills [tranquilizers]. [It is 12:25 PM; 21-minutes have passed since the destruction of the Dome.]

[Thoughts]

Who is right, and who is wrong. The United Nations and the European Union seem to always be on the side of the PLO [the Palestinians]. In a like manner, the United States seems always to be on the side of Israel; everyone pointing fingers. Could it be, possibly be, we are dealing with two rights and two wrongs that both nations are equally to blame, both are right and both are wrong? If so, then would not it be wiser to have a secular-interceder to settle the issue, for when religion is placed in the center, when two, two religions that is, we then have two absolutes, not much room for compromise, and it is compromise that will save the day, if the day is to be saved. And no one is compromising; and the Palestine's are yelling legitimacy for their right to live on a piece of this earth, the Jews are claiming they were simply exiles returning to where they belonged: and the Wall goes up, and the suicide bombers go out looking for more targets.

Some old issues, for they have gained land as we all know, land they got by force they say, but it was the old General Sharon, the Prime Minister that gave it to them, and yet they complain of this and that. It is the old creel they instantly have welded onto their souls: the destruction of Israel at any cost. Willingly or not, it is hard to wipe old stains away.

--Now as I sit back resting in my chair, on my veranda, letting the winter sun seep though and across my shoulders, a blanket over me somewhat, still I feel a slight chill, and the heat of the house I can feel on my back, the TV is showing more conflict, quarrels starting up with Cairo and Israel over this happening, but isn't one terrorist group like another--this is what I am telling myself anyways, that is Hamas is no different then what is Ateret Kohanim? And the Taliban like al Qaeda, they all come from the same strain. Except this time the rhetoric is becoming dangerous for the whole world, not just a region. The United States is now being told by the European Union, and the United Nations, along with Russia and China, to stay out of this entanglement. My guess is, they will have a Plan A and B but that is not what I fear, I fear plan C, which to me is the frustration of both plans A and B, when they fail.

I'm thinking as I'm watching the rioting and chaos in the streets of Jerusalem, the cars being set on fire, the rock throwing, the guns going off everywhere, I'm thinking, really thinking, thinking hard, if we, the United States help Israel, what next? And if we don't help Israel, what else? I again look at my wife, saying:

"The US...says--I can't hear the T.V [?]"

1:04 PM

Nobody, but nobody is compromising--I noticed on the TV nobody is looking at the human rights and tasks, responsibilities, only at assertions, revenge. There is no love and therefore, there is little justice: -in this theological horror. Secularism--that is what is missing, that is what may have (now the 'ifs' and 'buts' come into play) counteracted this war to be. Woops, now I see Paris, someone hit the Eiffel Tower; it is blown away, a suicide bomber I think.

Now the New Cast is shifting over to San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge has just been blown-up; it is completely apart, cars falling on both sides as it hangs loose like a dying snake. Florida now has the National Guard out, soldiers dug into trenches, something is happening, I can't make it out. And I just heard there are three nuclear subs off the coast of New York.

"To, bad," I tell my wife, "...possibly we are witnessing, not as the Jews expected, the coming of the Messiah, rather, the raft of a world gone overboard with overreactions. For when the Messiah returns, all will be surprised, not necessary this, for this is no surprise, it was obvious, just a matter of time, not if, but when. I can't figure out anymore who are the good guys from the bad guys." She smiles again [she: being my wife], hugs me, and says: "Yes, --I know."

See Dennis' web site: http://dennissiluk.tripod.com

Obama Placates the Middle East at America's Expense

As everyone now knows, or should be for now, President Obama is an African American, the son of a Muslim father and a temporary resident of Indochina which is predominantly Muslim.

On the upside to this assumption is that it becomes much harder for the Islamic world him typecast as a son of the "great Satan", especially because his middle name is Hussein.

However, fair or unfairly President Barack Obama is receiving much praise filled him now by much of the Muslim world because chose the Saudi Arab-owned TV news channel Al - Arabiya that first make its formal television interview.

What is bad?

Well when give interviews to foreigners who are basically hostile to his country probably isn't a great idea to criticize their own country in the first place and secondly praise one who despises him, but that's what basically made Obama.

He said,

"All too often begins United States dictating and in the past some of these questions do not always know all the factors that were involved." So we are going to listen to. Well, here is what I think it is important. Watch the proposal which was proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. You might not agree with all aspects of the proposal, but had great courage to present something that is so important. "I think that there are ideas in the entire region of how might continue us the peace".

United States was previously dictatorial and the Saudi King had been brave.

Obama came to say,

"But if you look at the record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and collaboration that United States had with the Muslim world recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there is there is reason why we can not restore." And I think that it will be an important task. Which is why we want to do is listen to set aside some of the prejudices that have existed and have been built in recent years. And I think that if we do that, then at least there is the possibility of making some progress. But I think that you will see is someone who is listening, that is respectful and who is trying to promote the interests not only of the United States, but also people who now suffer from poverty and lack of opportunity. "I want to make sure that I'm talking about with them, as well as".

So although America made the following commendable things Obama gave the impression the United States to America haters only had been wrong!

-American saved Kuwait.

-He spoke against Russia on behalf of the Chechens.

-Tried to save Somalis.

-Bombed, Christian European Serbia to save the Kosovars and the Bosnian Muslims.

-It helped Afghans fight the Soviets.

-It is still struggle against the Taliban.

-Overthrew Saddam Hussein and is still fighting at Iraq.

-Invested billions struggle against the disease in Africa many of them is Muslim.

-With the aid of the victims of the tsunami.

And the list goes on and and Bush may show many things to his credit.

-The United States was not hit by terrorists for seven years.

-Nuclear proliferation from Pakistan were arrested.

-Libya renounced its nuclear program.

-Syria Lebanon mainly left.

-The leadership of Al Qaeda is scattered and less effective.

Over the nearly two years of political campaigns is understood implicitly that mentioned Obama second name and ancestry were misplaced.

Obama however does not feel limited by this tacit understanding, the own

"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that United States has an interest in the welfare of the Muslim world, the language that we use has to be a language of respect." I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries. The largest one, Indonesia. So what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of their faith, and United States is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers, who, regardless of their faith, all people have certain common hopes and common dreams.

The conclusion is presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush all hard-working to promote peace in the Middle East, but among the main obstacles to peace are religious intolerance, illiberality, violent aggression and complicity in promoting terror by Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The above-mentioned countries know only too well the role they have played for their own political reasons and Obama also know that he has been fixed since appease them with the disadvantage that most probably will make a bad situation much worse.

Items found in a vein similar to this can be found in http://www.ourchangingglobe.com/

The site offers articles with a different inclination on the politics and economics.

Different for the MSM - mainstream media!

Middle East violence - part I

I asked the question if Islam is a religion that peaceful, then why all the wars and terrorism in the Middle East. Although I am not a historian or a professional politician, I have lived long enough in the region to understand some of the dynamics that can be linked to their problems. Nothing that I would write here could be the novel for this problem has been more covered, but it will try to establish from the perspective of an Egyptian American regular.

It is difficult to know where to start as it started long time ago when the Egyptian Empire that was the envy of the world at that time was weak enough as for all greedy neighbors strongly wrest part of Egyptian Treasures. Victim of Egypt filling numerous invaders who ruled for thousands of years. The last of these were the British who remained in Egypt from 1882 until 1954. The same fate was of more countries in the Middle East, but I will keep the Egyptian perspective as much as you can. Egypt during the period of the occupation was a very secular society. It was always the religious class, but respect religious beliefs does not seem be widely disseminated among the middle class. Although I am not old have witnessed this time I, books, articles and films reflect these previous comments.

The modern era of wars in the Middle East had already begun before the British army left Egypt with the 1948 war. It's the first war with Israel. Israel was a newly established country sanctioned by the British in the Palestinian territory that was controlled by the British at the time. This war cemented Israel in the area. The second war was in 1956 and was a reaction to the nationalization of the Suez Canal by the young nationalist President of Nasser. There is no religious roots to that war in which Israel, France and Britain attacked Egypt to regain control of the channel. War not be has been able to achieve its objectives and it had established to Nasser as an Arab nationalist hero. Second Guerra of Nasser with Israel was the six day war in 1967. A war that was and continues to be a disaster for the Arab countries. Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza, the desert of Sinai and parts of Syria during this war. Apart from Sinai, Israel still controls this land seized until today. This new was not a religious war, but rather a political war. This is when it starts to get more interesting as religion mixed with politics.

Israel now took control of the City Holy Jerusalem. A city that is had claimed Holy by all 3 religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. From the perspective of Egypt, it was a great insult to lose this miserably and they have the desert of the Sinai under the occupation. Still there were no large religious movements in Egypt during this period 1967-1973. Nasser died and Sadat became the President. Continued construction of the Egyptian army efforts to avenge the disaster of 1967. In October 06, 1973, the fourth great war broke out as Egypt tried to recover lost ground and the Egyptians were on the move. They were winning the war against Israel, but with the help of the United States and errors of the Egyptians, the tide was turning and the Egyptians had to accept a call for an end to the war. Sadat realizing that militarily does not seem possible to regain the Earth, began to negotiate with Israel. A step that finally returned the Sinai to Egypt, but also was a movement that isolated Egypt from the Arab world. Sadat was a hero in the Western world, but was a very controversial figure within Egypt. It can not be known to many that Sadat may have been the main mentor of religious radicalism in Egypt which led to its eventual demise in 1981. This will be discussed in the second part, but ultimately this part can be seen that the great wars in the Middle East were mainly driven by nationalist units, self-defense and self-protection rather than religious beliefs.

Mohamed Al [http://www.homeforthoughts.com]

Violence in the Middle East - part II

This is part 2 of my answer to the question of why the constant in the Middle East violence if Islam is a peaceful religion. In the first part simply they realized the main 4 wars in the Middle East that Egypt and Israel were parties and how from the perspective of Egypt were mainly nationalist wars. Religion was not entirely absent from the image, however, with the religious claim to the land of Palestine by Israel, but continue to discuss the recent rise of radicalism in Egypt.

Sadat, the Egyptian President who made peace with Israel was somewhat responsible for the increase of religious militancy in Egypt. It is said that you encouraged religious groups to emerge and flourish in order to control the tide of Communists in Egypt movement. They were allowed to be active, to recruit within universities, trade unions, etc.. These religious groups were mostly moderate, but the atmosphere was ripe for radicalism to emerge. The economic policies of Sadat, long years of wars have made large segments of society, poor, illiterate, desperate and hopeless; creating a fertile ground for inciting hatred of society and create the radicals. These radical groups adopted dark religious books written by unknown, at least to the moderates within the society. At the time of realization of Sadat, the side effect of his plan of fighting communism, things were receiving from the hands. Radical groups condemning the whole society emerged. Those who were not with them were against them. They were willing to kidnap, kill innocent bomb Moslems and Christians alike in Egypt to try to create public wrath to overthrow the Government. Sadat back struggled, thousands were imprisoned, tortured and probably more than that. His last days were dark for who dared to disagree with him.

Disappearance of Sadat came on the anniversary of what he considered as the day of his glorious victory over Israel. He was killed by one of the militants that their policies helped create in Egypt. His death at the laws of exception to Egypt in 1981. Egypt is still under control of these laws to this day. The huge suppression of groups religious, moderates and radicals, not eliminate, terrorism and its dangers within Egypt. Terrorist attacks in Egypt are produced sparsely and hit any objectives especially tourists to embarrass the Government. In recent years, I have observed that Egyptian society has slowly tended to be more religious and more conservative. Most of the women is now hijab; a scarf covering their hair. Many are trying to learn more about Islam and the Koran. This, however, is more than one return autoguiada to the religious roots that can really help combat radicalism within the society.

Ultimately this part political manipulation, economic conditions, despair, oppression and ignorance were and continue to be responsible for creating the radicalism around the world and not an inherent message of violence in Islam.

Mohamed Al [http://www.homeforthoughts.com]

The elephant roared and brought Forth a Turd: a case against the democratization of Middle East

The original vulgarity was bylined: ...The Constipation of America's Mid-East Peace Policy!

It is with some trepidation that I embark upon this discourse; for one, out of respect for elephants, but more so because within the American framework of democracy I have so greatly benefited. Thus, to liken the extension of America's efforts to democratize the civil administrations of Moslem states--even with the caveat "considering cultural sensitivities"--to the intestinal hardships of our beloved pacaderm is in itself cause for internal consternation, reflection, and a longing for interior relief.

"STUNT OMNES UNUM"

The current administration's mascot bears some responsibility for the chosen political metaphor; however, it must be duly noted, that this article could just as well be entitled: Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum! (Latin for: "The Jackass of Jackasses in the Centuries of Centuries", or "The Greatest Jackass in Eternity"--this, and other Latin expressions in honor of Pax Americana will be duly sprinkled throughout this missive)--giving equal honors to both dominate American political parties for their extended efforts at peace in the Middle East, for: Stunt omnes unum . . . they are all one!

Indeed, by giving credit to where credit is due, we must keep in mind that the commonality of purpose to secure America's interests in the Middle East and, ipso facto, the West's energy spicket, via proping up its Islamic dictatorships, or hastening the democratization of the region, is the continuous policy of both Democratic and Republican State Departments--make no mistake about it.

The Democrats differ only in the design of a better mouse trap and have no right to cast their stones of dispersion from their glass palace at the failed policies of the GOP--policies now garbed in democratic hyperbole.

WELCOME TO THE THEOLOGICAL CALDRUM

Peace in the Middle East! Better yet: What is the current administration's Mid-East Peace Policy? Road Map to Peace? Peace Process? It is prudent, though policy makers would dearly extract this fixation from the debate, the theological implications--Moslem, Jewish, and Christian--from this canundrum of canundrums, and why, specifically, "Jerusalem (has become) a cup of trembling (i.e., "reeling" or "drunkeness") to all the surrounding peoples . . . a very heavy stone for all peoples . . . though all nations of the earth are gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:2-3)?

The Biblical metaphor of "reeling" and "drunkeness" is actually the physical reaction of a person who trembles after imbibing a poisonous potion. You drink of this venom, you immediately go into radical convulsions, with one destination in view: death!

Initially, so it appeared, our President's so-called lack of a coherent Mid-East peace plan at the commencement of his administration both mystified and concerned--sooner or later he too would be compelled to deal with this Middle East "tar" baby. Could you blame him--grasping this "cup of trembling" portends incessant disappointment and, worse yet, staggering political liability with purient involvement leading to--as we now bemoane--intractable conflict.

Yet, the greatest "Consuming Nation" ever to countenance the planet--fueled by the mecurial petroleum molecule--would inevitably be sucked into this black hole whose exit strategies escape all nations.

EXTOLING OUR VIRTUES--PLAIN VANILLA

Nothing like pontificating--i.e., extolling our efforts at peace in the region. This was masterfully accomplished by the Council on Foreign Relations' Aaron D. Miller at the CFR's "Transition 2005: Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East Peace Process" forum in February. Dr. Miller--a former U.S. State Department official, having served six previous Secretaries of State by helping to formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli "peace process"--confirmed my original thesis regarding the bi-partisan nature of our endeavors at formulating peace in the Middle East; to wit:

"The three Americans that have made the most compelling contribution in the history of American diplomacy, and there are only three--two Republican secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and one Democratic president, so it transcends party lines, Jimmy Carter--all combined those qualities, with an acute sense of knowing when to intercede. That is how to do effective American diplomacy. And if in fact we were to succeed again, that is an approach that we have to come back to. (Note: Apparently, Miller dismisses President Clinton's endeavors.)

In any event, bi-partisan consensus was summed up by political think tank Seeds of Peace president Miller as follows:

(1)President Bush must make the Middle East Peace Process a 24/7 top priority--working with a diverse team of "competent" advisors.

(2)Policy must not neglect what's happening on the "ground" (i.e., realities on the ground integrate with immediate policy).

(3)The U.S. must remain in control of its own policy (i.e., don't let either side, Israeli or Palestinian/Arab, dictate).

(4)Beware of interim deals, but also beware of high-risk efforts to solve this problem quickly.

(5)Combine empathy and trust, with toughness, to both Israelis and Arabs.

Furthermore, avoidance of the black hole is useless--Miller concludes:

"If we want to supplement our war against terror, further the cause of democratization, there is no other issue that would do more to enhance our credibility than the pursuit of this one" (i.e., full engagement in the so-called "Middle East Peace Process" involving Arabs and Israelis).

Safe, reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful--yep, just plain vanilla. But the status quo of Dr. Miller's world was about to be shaken with the departure of one Collin Powell, and the subsequent installation of National Security Advisor, now Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!"

"In this time of great decision, I have come to Cairo not to talk about the past, but to look to the future -- a future that Egyptians can lead and define.

"Ladies and Gentlemen: In our world today, a growing number of men and women are securing their liberty . . .

"After all, America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings -- and the governments they create -- are inherently imperfect. And the United States was born half free and half slave. And it was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all of its people.

"Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move America closer every day to the ideal of democracy. Here in the Middle East, that same long hopeful process of democratic change is now beginning to unfold. Millions of people are demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries" (Excerpts from Sec. of State Rice's speech at the American University in Cairo, Egypt on June 20, 2005).

Naturally, Dr. Rice's (later references) to democratic aspirations for the region--addressing her audience as "ladies and gentlemen" to highlight Islamic suppression of women in general--blew the Kaffiyeh off her Arab audience.

Notwithstanding all the cultural sensitivities to the contrary . . . it is nigh impossible and absurdly ridiculous to fathom how Judeo-Christian Americana ideals and cultural backgrounds relate to Middle Eastern realities on the ground (as we speak). Never mind--the President must opine:

"America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, make their own way" (Rice, in her same speech, quoting from President Bush's second inaugural address, while prefacing his words with: "We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.").

Thus, in one-fell swoop, we witness cultural wiggle room at its height as Arab states commence their march toward freedom and Islamic-style democracy!

EGYPT MUST LEAD, AS SHE LED OF OLD

"The people of Egypt should be at the forefront of this great journey, just as you have led this region through the great journeys of the past" (Again, excerpt from the Rice speech.).

At this point, one must ponder: What Egyptian journey of the past do we contemplate? How about the slave-driven, pyramid-building, totalitarian civilizations of the Pharaohs?

Of course we Americans intuitively know what the President and Dr. Rice mean (at least we once did) . . . but driving this democratic square peg into the black, moon-shaped hole of Islamic civilization may ultimately necessitate Alexander the Great's resolution of untying the Gordian Knot he encountered at the ancient city of Gordium (100 miles west of Ankara, Turkey).

An oracle of Zeus alleged that if anyone could untie this knot, that person would be the conqueror of all Asia. Of course everyone knows, Alexander (champion of the Ancient West) cheated on the oracle by cutting the knot with his sword instead of untying it--notwithstanding, the avaricious behavior of the god Zeus still gave Alexander Asia!

Even so, the conclusion of the matter (i.e., incorporating nigh 1,500 years of Islamic civilization into Western thinking and democratic idealism first proclaimed by the Greeks) may ultimately necessitate a rather crude Greco-Roman application; simply put: CUT TO THE CHASE!

And, why might this be the case? Consider the utter futility of the West approaching the "Islamic Knot" of Asia--let's just consider the "lead" of Egypt toward democratic liberalization:

Nina Shea's piece on Egyptian democratic ideals tells it bluntly--the Muslim Brotherhood would be swept to power if open elections were held in Egypt:

"Mubarak's policies have created a situation in which pro-Western democrats like Ramy Lakah are silenced or driven abroad, leaving the Muslim Brotherhood as the only organized opposition within Egypt. If an open election were held this year, few doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood would win. An Islamist group, the Brotherhood has won hearts and minds through charitable work and exploited religion to thrive despite ruthless repression against it. It purportedly renounced violence in the 1970s, but its motto continues to be: 'Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.'"

And, what of Islamic Brotherhood?

"A social and political movement which started in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna for the purpose of establishing a pan-Islamic state, transcending all current political and geographic divisions. Like those before him, al-Banna also regarded the West as posing a fundamental threat to the future of Islam. He felt that even worse than military campaigns were the attempts to import Western culture and political ideals. The root of Muslim problems was that the Shari'a (Islamic law) had not been implemented - once this was accomplished, everything would be better." (Taken from: Islamic Extremism)

This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Anwar Sadat--in spite of Sadat's attempts to assure them of his Islamic fidelity. Is it any wonder that the Brotherhood continues to call for "a more open and democratic political system in Egypt."

Tracing the so-called hydra-headed monster of Islamic terrorist organizations is not the intent of this discussion. One can deliberate for countless hours on this serpentine figure (Please see http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2001/5258.htm). But, what is of peculiar note is where Secretary Rice delivered this sea-change in American foreign policy: In the heart of Egypt, where the Brotherhood and scores of Islamicists recruit insurgents against America's War on Terror!

IRANIAN DEMOCRACY AT WORK

While the U.S. attempts to light the fires of Iraqi liberty and democracy--against the backdrop of rabid Islamic insurgency, London bombings, and ominous threats upon homeland US targets (Including "soft targets in the U.S. like movie theaters, restaurants and schools" etc.) (Please see: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005364.php), the Iranian people by the millions decide it's time to elect an even more radical regime to pilot their nation through the incursions from the West!

Of course, with the election of hardliner and American hostage taker, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (though vehemently denied by Iranian authorities), at summer's commencement (2005), how heartening are his initial exploits heard in the West:

"Today, we can say that nuclear technology is our right!"

How comforting too, to know that a "Greater Persia"--which encompasses Southern Iraq's Shiite majority--also awaits the full development of the democratic Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Some, like Michael Rubin in Forward Magazine, conjecture that the Bush Administration has no coherent policy on Iran regarding the spread of "democracy." Dear Michael--let me disabuse you of such folly! The West, led by the Bush Administration, knows precisely how to "democratize" and, ipso facto, diffuse the Islamic Bomb! If, on the other hand, you consider this contrary to "democratic ideals" - live with it.

ISLAMIC MODERATES?

There is this Western fascination, perpetrated by certain strata of its intelligentsia and fomented by both the progressive and entrenched liberal media, that the vast majority of clear-thinking Moslem leadership, when push comes to shove, is tolerant and merciful; yes, caring souls who long to live in peace with all mankind, especially with folks in the West.

Frankly, let's quit pussy-footing around with discovering a Salman Rushdie here, a Dr. Khalid Duran there, or even a Tashbih Sayyed, President of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance--these rare exceptions dwell in the ethereal world of the West's civilization. What's happening on Dr. Miller's ground bespeaks the antithesis of the so-called moderate Moslem.

One gets this image of President Bush standing amidst a sea of moderate Moslem clerics gathered--all the while this minuscule segment of Islam is utterly overshadowed by the vast majority of mainstream believers in Allah to whom "moderate Moslem" is regarded in the Qur'an as an Infidel and should be treated as any Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

(For entire article . . . please go to http://www.the-tribulation-network.com; includes graphics, links, etc.)

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 New American World System, and the influences of the Religious Right and Left upon American culture, are topics discuss by the group. He is an educator based in Northern California; his articles appear on numerous blogs throughout the nation and the world.

The Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Renaissance - Iran, the Pillar of the Middle East Power Play

The recent surge in Islamic fundamentalism has been a source of worry and discomfort not only to the Western powers but nearly to all the regimes in the Middle East. This has been particularly true in the case of countries which have vital interests in the area and whose technological development and daily life heavily depends on the availability of energy derived from petroleum. These vast oil resources are controlled in the Middle East by Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia has the largest petroleum reserves followed by Iran and Iraq. Iran possesses the second largest gas reserves in the world, estimated to last for 1,200 years under the present level of global consumption. It has the most literate (82.3 percent adult population) and highly educated population of 71.2 million, much exceeding those of all the others combined. Its remarkable Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 286 billion with an impressive 6.9 percent (2002-2006) annual growth rate of real GDP, despite all international economic sanctions against it. [The Economist, Pocket World in Figures, 2910 Edition, p. 263.]

Iran is also a large country (1,648,000 sq km) most strategically located in the Middle East, having an extended border with the countries of ex-Soviet Union in the north, with Iraq and Turkey in the west, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, and the Persian Gulf and sea of Oman in the south with control over all northern shores of both. Consequently, Iran considers itself the legitimate authority as the guardian of the Persian Gulf and views the presence of foreign powers as an infringement on its legitimate right. Iran believes that the Persian Gulf should be governed by the countries bordering it, the major authority being vested on Iran because of some 40 percent of shores and Straight of Hormuz, the only exit from the Gulf, under its control. During the last decade, Iran has been in the process of developing political and ideological influence among all countries bordering it plus those of Central Asia.

This unique strategic position of Iran has always attracted the attention of great Western powers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, the old Russia and then theSoviet Union, and for the last four decades, the United States. Presently both Russia and China have established friendly relations with Iran. France, England and Germany are trying to recover their pre-Revolution positions, though not their influence. The point is that there cannot be any plan to stabilize the region with the exclusion of Iran. This country has been and is the pillar of the Middle East diplomacy. It is a country that has kept its independence for nearly 3,000 years and by high cultural and intellectual heritage has been able to assimilate temporary conquerors into its culture and transform them. It has always resented outside influence and reacted until it is eliminated. Here are two recent examples: The nationalization of oil industries, controlled for over four decades by British interests and ousting them in the late 1940s. Ousting of Americans by the Islamic Revolution of 1979, who had come to the position of influence in 1953 by ousting the democratic government of Prime Minister Dr. Mossaddegh and reestablishing the dictatorial regime of Mohammad Reza Shah.

The point is that in any policy affecting Middle East, the position of Iran must be given central and prime consideration. Presently, Iran is governed by theologians who place importance in following the teachings of the Islamic religion. Islam is rich in this regard since it is not only a set of religious principles but a way of life encompassing from individual self development and purification to social interactions extending to the process of government. Islam in essence is a system of democratic socialism in which there is no religious hierarchy similar to those in Christianity. It is based on the individual's own relation with the Creator, where human beings have important individual value yet are parts from the community and responsible for its well being.

Any kind of government that fits these characteristics of Islam is welcome by the Muslim society where individuals find the government and its policies in harmony with their own religious directions and beliefs. They feel at home and comfortable. This has been the secret of endurance of the Islamic regime in Iran despite its autocratic leadership. The support for the regime comes mainly from the farmers, lower and middle class, which altogether constitute some 85 percent of the electorate. The system is comforting to Iranians to see that their rulers do not live in castles with luxuries and privileges, but live like any other middle class citizens in a modest house and among them. There are no apparent corruption among these theocratic leaders in sharp contrast with those under the previous regime of the Shah.

A regime guided by Islamic fundamentalism is also strongly against foreign influence in internal affairs of the nation. This policy is very strongly supported by overwhelming majority of the population. These elements plus other fundamental principles of general welfare such as free education, national health care, anti-poverty programs, all together make the Islamic Republic quite attractive to ordinary citizens in Iran and understandably in any other Muslim society.

The successful Iranian Revolution and establishment of an Islamic republic has caused an Islamic Renaissance all over the Muslim world from Philippine Islands, Indonesia to the whole Middle East and Africa. It has resulted in a surge of activities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey and Central Asian countries. So far Islamic fundamentalists have succeeded in democratic elections in Algeria then outlawed and deprived from taking over the government; they have also succeeded and rule in Turkey despite the imposition of some restrictions imposed by military and conservative forces.

Accordingly, the Islamic world will not be the same and apparently with increased rigor will resent to be influenced or controlled by the Western powers, the United States in particular. As a result of its mistaken policies, the United States is considered the worst enemy of Islam by many Muslim societies, if not by their government. Even the new friendly approach by President Obama, proclaimed by his recent speech in Egypt may not affect this adverse feeling until strongly supported by action on the ground, for example, in Arab-Israeli conflict. In any policy affecting any Muslim nation this intention of solid support of the Muslim interests must be taken into consideration.

It is a grave mistake to think that any Islamic fundamentalist regime that may succeed in establishing itself in any country will be under the influence of, or even be friendly with Iran. Islamic fundamentalism is an ideology based on Islamic principles. It does not belong to, or favor any Islamic society. It is similar to representative democracy applied in many countries of western Europe and the United States. Yet, none is under the influence or control of any other, Each has a specific national interests and its policies are made to accomplish them. Each country is free to oppose others if there is any conflict in policy. The same will apply to the countries with Islamic fundamentalist regimes. On this ground, it is a mistake to think that if Iraq is ruled by the Iraqi Shi'its it will fall under the influence of Iran. Iraqi Shi'its are Arab with different culture and historical background and quite devoted to the independence of their country and its national interests. However, after Iraq is stabilized, it is likely that it will tend to establish friendly relations with Iran, Syria and Turkey. Nothing better than this could happen for the stability of the Middle East. If the autocratic unelected theocratic rulers, such as the Supreme Leader and his entourage, are eliminated, the Iranian Islamic Republic system is the best socialist-democratic model not only for Muslim societies but for all other developing countries as well. Iranians are not happy by being ruled by a non-elected ruler which makes their long fought democratic system look ridiculous. As evidenced in the past, a new movement is on the way to remove this obstacle from the regime. It may take a while, it may be quite bloody, but it will succeed. [ Iran in turmoil: The Beginning of the End, The Economist, January 2, 2010, pp. 8-9.] When the Supreme Leader and his instruments of control are eliminated, the regime will restore its democratic nature and substance. President will be the highest authority sharing power with the parliament and individuals like President Ahmedinejad will not have chance to rule. So, the term Islamic Republic refers to a government without an autocratic ruler on its summit.

It needs to be noted that it is unduly baseless any concern about Iran's modernized and sizable military force. Iran had a devastating experience with the invasion by Iraq and ensuing eight years of war which made Iran conscious of its military weakness. The present modernization and expansion of its military forces, considering its size, long borders with different countries, extended seashores, and large population, seems quite nominal compared to neighboring countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Any thought that Iran may invade its neighbors is groundless. Iran with its rich humanistic cultural heritage has shown no desire to invade another country. Its history of the last two centuries is the best evidence. During this period it has never invaded any country while has almost continually been forced to defend itself against invasions by Russia, Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, United States and recently Iraq.

Accordingly, Iran has created a much more effective force than military or nuclear weapon working in its favor with no cost or danger to its people. It is the success story of the concept of Islamic Republic and the birth of the Islamic Renaissance. So far, Iran has not even attempted to export it to other countries. Many groups in different countries, taking Iran as a vivid example of an Islamic republic, are proceeding on their own. The Islamic Renaissance has taken root and will continue to grow all over the Muslim world and beyond because of attractiveness of the Islamic republic system its democratic nature and welfare programs, to developing countries enmeshed in poverty and ruled by autocratic regimes.

A wise foreign policy by any advanced country including the United States has to consider this inevitable transformation rather than oppose or disregard it. It is an enormous force moving unavoidably, toward political domination. Regarding Iran, the American government needs to remember the grave mistake it made, in 1953, by overthrowing Dr. Mossaddegh's democratic and pro-western government and returning Mohammad Reza Shah to throne. It deprived Iranians from continuation of their newly gained democracy and subjected them to 25 years of harsh dictatorship costing tens of thousands of lives. The Shah was finally ousted by a general strike and mass uprisings of the people resulting in the 1979 Revolution with total exclusion of the United States from the Iranian scene and an accumulated hatred toward its government.

Because of its highly appealing components to the people in developing and poor countries, the idea of Islamic renaissance is expanding inevitably among the Muslim societies. It would be impossible for the Western powers or dictatorial regimes to stop or suppress it. It is a political phenomenon deeply attached to socio-cultural values of Islam that others must cope with. Countries like Germany, France, and Russia with long experience in the region have already understood the importance of this movement and have been forerunners in establishing good relations with Iran. To this list one may add also China. Islamic renaissance movement has been developing in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Lybia, Azerbaijan and nearly all the Central Asian countries.

More likely, as mentioned above, Iraq, after becoming stabilized, will tend to have friendly relations with Iran. This is essential to the stability in the whole region. Iran, Iraq and Syria can form the pillars of the regional stability. The Western powers and the United States should not spend so much time and efforts in trying to deprive Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran is in a position to have such weapons sooner or later and enormous time and efforts devoted to this matter will go waste. Two centuries historical background of Iran clearly shows that Iran has never attacked any country but has been repeatedly attacked by other countries including the United States. It needs to prepare itself for defense The vital importance of the alliance of these three countries becomes further clear when one perceives the likelihood of near future instability in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The developing trend of Islamic renaissance in these countries clearly points out to unavoidable future political turmoil and transformation.

From a global viewpoint, it is a serious mistake to underestimate the importance and effect of the Islamic Renaissance exemplified by Iran. According to statistics, Islam is the most rapidly growing religions in the world. For every one person being converted to Christianity, seven accept Islam. Being a socialistic, equalitarian and democratic religion, Islam has become highly attractive to depressed, suppressed, deprived and poor which comprise nearly 80 percent of the world population. Islamic revitalization is in progress now with dynamic forces behind it, The present consciousness is induced by historical facts of an advanced religion which created a great civilization with the most scientific and artistic achievements for seven centuries; a civilization that extended from Spain, North Africa eastward to the Middle East, Central Asia, India to Indonesia. This consciousness is also enlighten and fortified by the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in establishing a socialistic and democratic Islamic republic. Islam is also an international religion with no central power and authority, based on equality of societies and brotherhood, and officially recognizing the validity of all major religions with a holy book.

In conclusion, the point to be stressed by all these developments is that the Western powers must take into consideration Islam, its influence, its revitalization by the Islamic renaissance, Iran as its main actor in international arena, with its super strategic position, military and economic resources and its ever increasing political influence in Islamic world. This seems to be the only policy direction if the purpose is to create an stable, harmonious, balanced and peaceful situation in the region. Now, is a perfect time for the Western powers to reevaluate their national interests in the light of the realities in the region along with their long range objectives. Dictatorial Islamic systems like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and brutally aggressive country against Muslims like Israel are walking into shaky grounds.

Dr. Reza Rezazadeh

Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin System,and a Fulbright scholar, a multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual scholar with background in Mechanical Engineering (B.S.M.E.), Continental and Islamic Law (Licenciate), J.D. in American Jurisprudenxce, LL.M. in International Law and International Economics, Ph.D. in Political Science, Economics and Administration, and Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D.) the highest law degree offered in U.S. Fluent in five languages: English, French, Spanish, Persian, Azeri-Turkish. Elementary knowledge of Arabic, Urdu, Russian and Italian. Patented inventions; an artist, a poet (oil and pastel), a musician (violin), with over 35 years of academic background in teaching, reseasrch and administration, research and cultural studies in many countries in Europe including USSR, Middle East, Central Asia, Northe africa, Central and South America. Author of 8 books and many scholarly articles listed in his website http://www.democracywhere.com