Sunnis massacare more Iraqi Shias

Two female suicide bombers hiding explosives in their purses struck worshippers streaming into Baghdad’s most important Shiite shrine for Friday prayers, killing at least 66 people a day after Iraq’s most deadly violence in more than a year.

Dozens of Iranian pilgrims were again said to be among the dead.

The two days of attacks — both against civilian targets — marked a troubling twist to what had already been a recent rise in suicide blasts, many of them against security forces. The bombings, typical of Sunni extremists linked with al-Qaida in Iraq, are raising fresh concerns about the ability of Iraqis to take the lead role in protecting the capital and nearby areas as the Americans shift their focus and resources to Afghanistan.

“It is just like a massacre took place,” said Laith Ali, 35, who owns a shop near the tomb of Shiite saint Imam Mousa al-Kazim. The golden-domed shrine, a popular destination for pilgrims, is located in the northern neighborhood of Kazimiyah.

“Where are the security precautions that the security officials are talking about?” Ali asked.

The female bombers, believed to be in their 30s, detonated explosives that were stuffed inside their leather bags and linked to a grenade, according to Maj. Gen. Jihad al-Jabiri, the head of the Interior Ministry’s explosives department.

The women detonated the explosives by pulling the ring of the grenade, al-Jabiri told Iraqi state television late Friday.

The number of bombings carried out by women has spiked this year — even as overall violence has declined — because of their ability to often avoid detection at checkpoints.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a military task force to investigate the bombings, said military spokesman Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi. He also suspended the area commanders for failing to provide adequate security around the shrine.

The blasts took place within minutes of each other near separate gates of the tomb, said a police official. Another police official said the bombers struck shortly before the start of Friday prayers as worshippers streamed into the mosque.

The attack left the bodies of the dead — some of them burned — scattered on the ground near the entrance of the shrine. Hours later, pools of blood streaked the sidewalks.

Many of the wounded were taken to Kazimiyah Teaching Hospital, overwhelming the staff. AP Television News footage showed many victims, including women and children, forced to wait outside before they could be seen by medical staff.

Among the dead were 25 Iranian pilgrims, said police and hospital officials. At least 127 people, including 80 Iranian pilgrims, also were wounded in the blast, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

On Thursday, suicide bomb blasts tore through crowds waiting for food aid in central Baghdad and inside a roadside restaurant filled with Iranian pilgrims to the north in Diyala province. Eighty-eight people were killed Thursday, Iraq’s deadliest day since March 8, 2008.

Iran‘s powerful former president and influential cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani condemned the attacks and accused the United States of failing to protect the Shiite pilgrims.

“The extremists are the big criminals who launch jihad (holy war) out of ignorance,” he said, according to Iran’s official IRNA news agency. “The security should be guaranteed so that we will not witness such events in the future.”

The U.S. military said it could not provide further details because the area around the shrine was patrolled by Iraqi security forces.

Iraq’s Shiite majority — oppressed under Saddam Hussein — came to power after he was toppled, and Sunnis remain suspicious of the country’s new leaders and their links to Iran.

The Baghdad shrine attacked Friday has been a favored target of insurgents, most recently in early April when a bomb left in a plastic bag near the mosque killed seven people and wounded 23.

In January, a man dressed as a woman blew himself up near the shrine, killing more than three dozen people and wounding more than 70.

Imam Mousa al-Kazim is one of 12 Shiite saints. Hundreds of thousands of Shiites march to the shrine in Kazimiyah every year to commemorate his death in A.D. 799. Shiites believe al-Kazim is buried in the shrine.

Also Friday, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, arrived in Baghdad to take up his post three days after being confirmed by the Senate. The process was stalled for weeks as Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican, objected to Hill’s handling of talks with North Korea during the Bush administration. Hill was then the chief negotiator with the Communist nation.

By CHELSEA J. CARTER

AP

Advertisements

Taliban taking over entire Pakistan: Hillary Clinton (Video)

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday the government had abdicated to the Taliban by agreeing to the Swat deal, adding the country now posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

 

The US must strip Pakistan of its nuclear weapons, destroy their nuclear laboratories and detain Dr. A.Q. Khan. $11-billion of US taxpayers’ money, since 9/11, and barely anything of significant value from that Dane Geld, so no likelihood of $5-billion more having an impact vis-à-vis Saudi Arabian billions to enable radical-Islamic activity in Pakistan. Zardari, et al, reckon on playing the US for fools. Hardly surprising when North Korea, Somali pirates and Iran proceed with impunity.

Without the $5-billion from the US, Pakistan is toast, and when the Taliban gain power in Pakistan, there will be no shortage of Pakistanis clamoring to gain access to the EU and the US. Which is partly why there will be 11 Pakistani students getting their UK student visas revoked, and returned to Pakistan.

Chief of Taliban has links with Pakistan’s Intelligence (ISI)

Baitullah Mehsud, the chief of Pakistani Taliban, who claimed credit for the recent deadly attack on a police academy near Lahore, has links with the country’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), and insider inside the Pakistani Intel revels on the condition of anonymity.

 

Within days of the government’s announcement of the imposition of Islamic Sharia law in Swat, 125 km (80 miles) northwest of Islamabad, Taliban militants forced their way into nearby Buner, closer to the capital Islamabad. They said their aim was to push their harsh version of Islam across the country.

 

“Investors are scared about the Taliban issue and the fear of more violence,” said Tauseef Ladak, a dealer at Taurus Securities Ltd.

 

Residents said the Taliban had occupied police stations in Buner and that gun-totting fighters were roaming market places urging people to support their efforts to impose Islamic law.

 

Politicians who pushed the government to enforce Sharia law in Swat have even begun expressing worries about the growing clout of the Taliban.

“If the Taliban continue their advances at the current pace they will soon be knocking at the doors of Islamabad,” Fazl-ur-Rehman, head of the Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam, the country’s largest Islamic party, told parliament on Wednesday.

 

 

 

8 year old Zamiran forced in to marriage with 50 year old Muslim money lender

Another classic Islamic example of child rape or child marriage has been witnessed on Sunday in Pakistan when a heavily-indebted Mr. Mohammad Siddiq Sheikh gave his eight-year-old daughter, Ms. Zamiran, in marriage to a 50-year-old Muslim moneylender, Mr. Nihal  to clear the debt in the Jungal village in Jacobabad district in Pakistan on Sunday night.

On Sunday night, Mr. Nihal accompanied by his accomplices visited Mr. Muhammad’s house and repeated his demand to which Muhammad said he would not be able to pay.

Nihal asked him to give his minor daughter Zamiran in marriage to him to get the debt cleared, which the father agreed readily. He called the local Islamic priest moulavi Inayatullah Soomro who solemnised his daughter’s nikkah with Nihal. 

 

Note: Islam which allows child marriage and another point to be noted is the founder of Islam Muhameed at the age of 56 had married 6 year old Ayesha, it also allows polygamy, women beating, stoning of women if they do not comply to the diction of men, all of which comprises the core of the Islamic law or Sharia as stated in Koran or Quran( the holy book of terroists oops.. Muslims)

 

Come Meet Brigitte Gabriel:Expert on Islamic Terrorism

Brigitte will discuss the latest threats radical Islam poses to our safety and security, including…
Iran’s relentless march to a nuclear bomb, and why this threatens more than Israel.
Why Pakistan is today’s headquarters of Islamic terroism.
The increasingly militant – and successful – effort by Islamists worldwide to criminalize any criticism of Islam.

How the various actions and overtures taken by the Obama administration are putting us at greater risk – and why.

How Islamic shariah law is creeping into America.

The threats posed to us by terrorist cells and Islamist compounds right here in America.
But even more important than this, Brigitte will spell out the strategies and tactics ACT! for America is employing to effectively fight back against these threats.

Brigitte’s message will be illuminating, at times disturbing and even shocking — but ultimately inspiring, empowering, and filled with hope!

You will hear first-hand how we can successfully roll back the tide of Islamofascism…how we don’t have to live in fear or resign ourselves to the inevitability of the threats arrayed against us…and how we will prevail.

Host:
Type:
Network:
Global
Date:
Friday, April 24, 2009
Time:
7:30pm – 9:30pm
Location:
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills
Street:
4201 Eucalyptus Ave
City/Town:
Chino, CA
 
Phone:
9093937100
Email:

President Obama won’t meet Israeli PM Netanyahu

Has Obama started to revel his true colors or is he politically so naive for his series of anti-American policy blunders?? First he is praised Muslims in United states for changing the America for better, I ask which Muslim did what to change the face of America?? May be he is mentioning the 9/11 and the constant threat of a nuke attack our country is facing from the Muslim terrorist everyday. Then his bend over act before Saudi dictator, which makes everyone wonder how will he as the head of state dictate any US interests assertively when it comes to our relation with the Saudis and their Islamic extremist indoctrination of their own future generation and their spreading of evil Islamic teachings to the US by Islamic schools (Madrssas) in the US. Then came the reveling secret memos of our primary protector of the CIA, all this along with the latest that he will not meet with the leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, of a democratically elected and one of our best friends Israel

 

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the upcoming AIPAC summit, after it became clear that US President Barack Obama would not meet him during the conference.

Netanyahu announced that while he will not attend the conference in person, he will send a video-taped message to Washington.

Army Radio reported that the prime minister asked President Shimon Peres to represent Israel at the summit, scheduled to take place in Washington in the beginning of May.

According to the radio station, sources in the president’s bureau confirmed that Peres had received a request from Netanyahu and AIPAC officials to attend the summit, but noted that the president had not yet decided whether to accept the invitation. “

Jpost.com

 

NOTE:

 

 

I may be criticizing Mr. Obama, my intention is to point to his mistakes rather than stand opposed to him as a person, I’m not saying Obama is perfect, don’t we all make mistakes what I’m saying is Obama is the best bet we have when compared to Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or any republicans who do not represent the middle class or people other than the white race or people other than the christian religion, nor do they agree to freedom of peoples choices.

 

 

 

 

Torture memo release for Muslim appeasing has put US in danger

President Obama visited the CIA headquarters yesterday to placate officials dismayed by his decision to release top secret “torture” memos, a move that has provoked accusations that he is willing to compromise America’s safety out of political correctness.

Mr Obama’s first visit to the CIA, to boost morale there and shore up his own reputation, came as his decision to release the memos detailing brutal interrogation sessions of terror suspects continued to attract criticism.

There were claims from inside the agency’s ranks that the move had undermined its ability to extract vital intelligence from America’s enemies, and could even blow the cover of some secret operatives.

Michael Hayden, who ran the CIA under President Bush, said before Mr Obama’s visit that the release of the memos had compromised the CIA’s intelligence gathering work and, in effect, aided America’s enemies.

Mr Obama sought to assure CIA staff that they still had his support and that he was prepared to draw a line under the agency’s dubious recent practices.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he said. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we have made some mistakes — that’s how we learn.

“But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.”

The meetings between President Obama and the agency’s leadership and staff in Langley, Virginia, were also overshadowed by the revelation, contained in the Bush-era memos, that the CIA had used waterboarding techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 terror attacks, 183 times in March 2003. It suggested that the use of the technique, which simulates drowning, was far more extensive than previously admitted.

Another terror suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

A former CIA officer claimed in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah was subjected to the technique — which Mr Obama says constitutes torture and has outlawed — for 35 seconds.

In the memos legal officials of the Bush Administration argued that harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, slapping and sleep deprivation did not amount to torture.

Mr Obama reiterated yesterday that he had no intention of seeking the prosecution of any CIA employees involved in waterboarding or of any Bush Administration officials who authorised and justified the policy.

He also acknowledged how the release of the memos had upset many in the CIA. “I know the last few days have been difficult,” Mr Obama told CIA staff.

He said that he had ordered the publication of the classified documents because of a freedom of information lawsuit that would have been difficult to defend.

“I have fought to protect the integrity of classified information in the past and I will do so in the future.”

However, former leaders of the agency were furious, arguing that harsh interrogation techniques had disrupted plots and saved American lives. Apart from Mr Hayden, three other former CIA directors, and Leon Panetta, the present head of CIA, opposed the release of the memos.

Mr Hayden warned that making the documents public would make it harder to get useful information from suspected terrorists in the future.

“I think that teaching our enemies our outer limits, by taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances . . . for CIA officers to defend the nation.”

Seeking to justify “ harsh interrogation” Mr Hayden denied claims that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah had produced no useful information. “The critical information we got from Abu Zubaydah came after we began the . . . enhanced interrogation techniques,” he said. “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer — it really did work.”

Mr Hayden added that the publication of the memos had damaged the morale of CIA operatives. “Officers are saying, ‘Will this happen to me in five years because of the things I’m doing now?’.

“The basic foundation of the legitimacy of the agency’s action has shifted from some durability of law to a product of the American political process. That puts the agency in a horrible position. There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations. And this to an agency . . . that is at war and is on the front lines of defending America.

“The really dangerous effect of this is that you will have the agency officers stepping back from the kinds of things that the nation expects them to do. You’re going to have this agency on the front line of defending you in this current war playing back from the line.”

His comments were echoed by Charles Grassley, a Republican senator. “You don’t tell your enemy what you know or what you’re going to do. This allows our enemies to be properly informed and prepared to be prisoners of the US,” Mr Grassley said.

Mr Obama had argued that such harsh techniques sullied the reputation of the US abroad and served as a recruiting tool for terrorists. He said that the release of the memos was to show transparency and to close a dark chapter in US history.

Mr Obama told the CIA employees, who met him in a secure auditorium, that they had to perform their work ethically because they were guarding America against attacks from “people who have no scruples”.

He said that he understood that intelligence officials sometimes felt as if they were operating with one hand tied behind their backs. “You don’t get credit when things go good, but you sure get some blame when things don’t. I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rule of law. I know I can count on you to do exactly that.”

Tim Reid for Times

Freedom of Speech in Islam

The term ‘Human Rights’ is used by many, also by Muslims. But it doesn’t necessarily imply that the users of the term mean the same thing. This is important to note as we discuss freedom of speech and religion. There are two major global entities with their respective declarations on human rights: The United Nations (UN) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

United Nations was founded after the 2nd World War. The UN declaration on human rights is based on Judeo-Christian ethics and was established in 1948. OIC was founded in 1969, has 57 member states and represents every fifth person on the globe. OIC has developed and adopted its own declaration on human rights, partly in opposition the UN version, stating that Islamic human rights are different. These Muslim countries have signed up to the UN declaration but pay little attention to it in practice, and adhere rather to the Islamic version, called the Cairo Declaration.

The Cairo Declaration states that all 57 Muslim countries should abide by the declaration. But it further clarifies that the declaration applies to the “ummah”, i.e. all Muslims all over the world, even in non-Muslim countries. This is noteworthy and remarkable. It is the norm of international treaties and conventions that nations sign up and commit themselves to abide by them. But the Cairo Declaration indirectly nullifies national borders and laws by asserting that the sharia based interpretation of human rights applies to all Muslims regardless of citizenship and country of residence. That means that Islamic laws (and the Cairo Declaration) supersede national laws, in every case and in every place.

The declaration states again and again – in the preamble, in various articles and in the conclusion – that everything is subject to sharia and should be interpreted in light of the Koran and Islamic law. Thus it may mention freedom and rights, but they are restricted according to the Koran and Islamic law.

Article 10 in the Cairo Declaration deals with religious freedom and asserts that there mustn’t be any compulsion in religion – but of course subject to Sharia. But it is a well known fact that those who leave Islam are at risk and quite a few are punished, even by death. Article 18 in the UN Declaration deals with religious freedom and has three main components: The right to have, express and change your faith. But in countries where Islam has a major influence there are definite limitations regarding expressing your beliefs and changing your religion; the latter especially for Muslims. In general Christians are allowed to convert to Islam, but it is illegal and dangerous for a Muslim to leave Islam.

This is what the Cairo Declaration says about freedom of speech: “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shariah.”  Thus freedom of speech is interpreted and limited by sharia.

Many surveys measuring various freedoms shows – again and again – that citizens in Muslim countries suffer oppression. They lack basic human rights and freedoms when it comes to politics, media, religion, gender equality, and so forth. One may speak of human rights, but Islamic versions of the same lead to the opposite, as a result of the supremacy of sharia law in Muslim faith and practice globally. This also includes freedom of speech and religion. Thus we need to be aware of similar or same terms that may be filled with different contents. 

Mats.Tunehag