THE NEW CLIMATE CHANGE SCANDAL

Glacier melt claims were 'speculation'

Express.co.uk Monday January 18,2010 By Anil Dawar

FRESH doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.

It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

Dr Pachauri denies any conflict of interest arising from his various roles.

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.”

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

The IPCC was set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. It issued the glacier warning in a benchmark report in 2007 that was allegedly based on the latest research into global warming.

The scientists behind the report now admit they relied on a news story published in the New Scientist journal in 1999. The article was based on a short telephone interview with scientist Syed Hasnain, then based in Delhi, who has since said his views were “speculation”.

The New Scientist report was picked up by the WWF and included in a 2005 paper.

It then became a key source for the IPCC which went further in suggesting the melting of the glaciers was “very likely”.

Yesterday, Professor Murari Lal who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly.

Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Dr Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”.

The revelations are the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus on climate change.

It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal in November last year when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit appeared to show scientists fiddling the figures to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.

The scandal prompted critics to suggest that many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research.

Last month, the Daily Express published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man made.

2009: Banner Year for the Jihad Against the US w/ a Cameo by Wafa Sultan!

Robert Spencer: The UN’s Jihad Against Free Speech

Originally posted at Frontpage Magazine:

By Robert Spencer
Front Page Magazine

In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

While the resolution speaks of religion in general, the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the powerful 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc – so it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters of the resolution had in mind. This is underscored by the fact that Muslim states have worked energetically to make “Islamophobia” the focus of Durban II — the UN’s upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares that “defamation of Islam” should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”

In other words, if the OIC and the drafters of the Durban declaration get their way, any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to make recruits will be illegal. So not only does this herald the death of free speech, but it also leaves us mute and defenseless before the advancing global jihad.

This has been a long time coming. The UNHRC resolution and the Durban II draft are part of an international agenda agreed upon at the March 2008 meeting in Senegal convened by the OIC. At that convocation the OIC developed what the Associated Press called “a battle plan” to defend Islam – but not from the terrorists who, as we hear all the time, have “hijacked” their religion. Rather, the OIC declared its intention to craft a “legal instrument” to fight against the threat to Islam they perceived “from political cartoonists and bigots.”

The OIC was referring, of course, to the “notorious” Danish cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in 2005, touching off riots and murders all over the Islamic world. “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general. The AP reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.”

The offensive would take the form of a “legal instrument” that would criminalize what the OIC and other Islamic entities perceive as criticism of Islam. “Islamophobia,” Ihsanoglu declared, “cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.” This is a careful euphemism calling for restrictions on freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, made this point explicit: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”

The OIC’s campaign against free speech met with its first big success at the UN Human Rights Council. In June 2008, Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense. . . . This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach such sensitive issues.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” the AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session in which David G. Littman, speaking for several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), denounced the practices of female genital mutilation (FGM), execution by stoning, and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran angrily protested, interrupting Littman over a dozen times and eventually forcing the proceedings to be suspended.

With council president Costea ultimately prohibiting all discussion of “religious issues” from council meetings, the Islamic delegates can rest assured that there will be no more discussion of the fact that Islamic theology provides the basis for human rights outrages ranging from female genital mutilation to stonings. Thus, an international body ostensibly dedicated to promoting human rights voluntarily renounced any study of one of the leading sources of international human rights violations.

Shortly after this incident, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference, declared victory in clearly supremacist terms: Muslims had dictated to the West the “red lines that should not be crossed,” and the West was complying. He said that OIC initiatives against “Islamophobia” had resulted in “convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.” He added: “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

The attempt to compel Western states to ban insults to Islam is quickly picking up speed, and bodes ill for the ability of those states to defend themselves against the global jihad in all its forms – since Islamic supremacists and their allies routinely characterize all investigation of the Islamic roots of the jihadist agenda as “hate speech.”

This campaign represents the international dimension of the stealth jihad. It does not consist of attacking western countries with guns or bombs, or even threatening to do so. Instead, we’re pressured to accommodate Islam by placing the religion off-limits to critical discussion. It’s presented as an act of “tolerance,” but the deliberate result is the erosion of core Western concepts of free expression. Think about the extent to which that single value defines western civilization: for one thing, it is an indispensable foundation of the American Revolution and the American system of republican government. And we are surrendering it, gradually and voluntarily, to those who seek to impose on us a value system that elevates the sanctity of Islam over freedom.

In order to Islamicize the West, stealth jihadists need to convince us to relinquish our attachment to our traditional freedoms. One would have never thought that westerners would give up free speech of their own accord, but we are now in the process of carving out a major exception for Islam. Yet the freedom to criticize religion, of course, is the very cornerstone of the right to free expression. Once we surrender that right, can surrender of the freedom of religion be far behind?

Islam is a religion of peace, we are told. And anyone who argues otherwise better watch out – if the UN, with which Obama wants to work so closely, gets its way, he may soon face legal action.

The only victors can be the jihadists themselves: Western authorities, already mired in politically correct myopia, will grow even more afraid to speak openly about what they’re trying to do and what we can do to stop it. The losers can only be those who value freedom of speech and understand why it is so important in a genuinely pluralistic society. The UN measure moves the West one step closer to submitting to the hegemony of Islamic norms.

---

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of eight books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) andThe Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is available now from Regnery Publishing.

Liberal Gulf Writers: Muslim Groups in Europe Are Exploiting Europeans' Openness

MEMRI.org

Two recent articles in the Gulf press discussed the attitudes of European Muslims towards the West. On December 2, 2008, Bahraini liberal Shi'ite cleric Dhiya Al-Mousawi published an article in the liberal Kuwaiti daily Awan on the Mumbai terrorist attacks, some of the perpetrators of which were Muslims who were naturalized British citizens. The second article, by liberal Kuwaiti columnist Khalil 'Ali Haidar, was published October 5, 2008 in the UAE dailyAl-'Ittihad. Both writers criticized Muslim groups in Europe for harming the West while at the same time enjoying Western freedoms and services. Haidar treated the subject more broadly, criticizing all Islamic movements and parties in Europe on the grounds that they are promoting Islamic extremism, that they have taken control of the lives of the European Muslims, and that instead of attempting to bridge the gap between the East and the West, they have consciously brought about isolation, alienation, and, ultimately, jihad-motivated terrorism against the West.

Following are excerpts from Al-Mousawi's and Haidar's articles:

European Muslims Are Spitting Into the Well from Which They Drink

In an article titled "When the Terrorist is British Born," Al-Mousawi wrote: "…It is sad that in Western countries there are thousands of Muslims who receive citizenship for themselves and their families after having been expelled from their respective homelands. [The West] gives them asylum, work, shelter, and health insurance - [yet] they are the first to turn their backs on their second homeland. Worse, some of them think nothing of committing suicide in the squares, in the very countries that have granted them and their families protection… It is odd that some sheikhs curse and revile the West from the pulpits of the Western [mosques,] and wish for the destruction of the [Western] countries, as the police of those countries guard them…" [1]

The Islamists Have Taken Control Over the Lives of the Muslims in the West

Al-Haidar wrote, in a similar vein: "The problem of Europe and the U.S. is neither the Arabs nor the Muslims. It is the Islamists, both parties and groups, who have taken over the political, religious, social, and cultural life inside and outside Islamic and Arab countries. [These parties and groups] have influence over the Muslim minorities of the Western countries… They have focused on imposing restrictions on the first generation [of immigrants], on brainwashing the second generation, and on excommunicating unions, organizations, and mosques. For many years - in fact, since the end of the Second World War - Western countries have been welcoming Arabs and Muslims, and providing [them] with extensive opportunities for preaching and [other] activities. They have treated them with amazing kindness. With time, the Muslims grew in power, and tightened their grip on the very heart of these societies.

"The presence of Islamists [in the European countries], with all their different parties, groups, and schools of thought, has been a testing ground for relations between their Muslim minority, which has been influenced by the indoctrination [carried out by different] parties, and these democratic societies. For many years, Islamists, and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, have complained about the oppressive [policies] of Arab regimes, the freezing of freedoms, surveillance, etc. [Abu A'la] Al-Mawdoudi's [2]writings, [originally in Urdu], have gained popularity in the Arab world, corrupting the youth and distorting their outlook. [Al-Mawdoudi] proclaimed to the entire world, and especially to [his] liberal European opponents, the advent of a new social order superior to Western democracy on every count - in liberty, flexibility, religious tolerance etc. - that will be introduced under the leadership of Muslim youth uncontaminated by the filth of Western civilization and its materialist [values]."

The Islamists Have Wrought Alienation and Terrorism

"The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al-Tahrir party, [3] and Egyptian, Pakistani, and other Islamic groups has cast the Arabs and the Muslims in Europe into darkness and confusion. With their books, films, and extreme separatist ideas, they have paved the way for the proliferation of different forms of extremism, and hence to overt terrorism.

"The unceasing attacks on Western civilization, on man-made laws, and on Oriental studies, as well as on [what they regarded as] the cultural invasion and Western conspiracies - have made it difficult for [Muslims] to integrate into the new environment to which they migrated while hating it. [However, his integration] as far as his material interests or the aims of his party were concerned [was never impeded]…"

The Absence of a Culture of Revival and Innovation

"The Islamic party movement has not embraced the idea of revival and innovation; as a consequence, it has failed to see a positive side to Western society or to study Western literature, art, and culture so that it could create a model of modern culture, literature and art that combines Western and Islamic [elements]. Even the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, along with others who are proud of the Islamic civilization and profess to be heirs to the Baghdad and Andalusian civilizations - [even they], during the half century [of their sojourn] in Paris, London, or Germany, have not produced a [single] new idea, [let alone new] art or culture worthy of notice...

"True, they have established publishing houses to circulate their parties' books and publications; they never let up in improving their media weaponry, such as the press, television, and other [media outlets]; they developed their own financial institutions and banks [and called them] 'Islamic: no interest'; they established private schools, which only further isolated Muslim boys and girls from their European environment and thus enhanced the Islamic parties' control of their [lives] - and this is only a partial list. But what they have failed to do is to act as a bridge between East and West, as have, say, the poets of the [Muslim] diaspora. They also never helped plant seeds of modernization, democracy, and creativity - cultural, artistic, and literary - in the Arab and the Islamic worlds.

"Most reports on [Muslims in Europe], produced with great enthusiasm by the media, are about fights between [different] mosques, family honor murders, or extremist religious discourse. Not a single one of their associations has ever sponsored a useful cultural program, nor has any of their parties ever translated an encyclopedia or organized a study group to explore an aspect of culture, education, or ties between East and West. Neither have any of these circles invested effort [in a project] - not even to reexamine the writings of Islamic parties and modernize them by removing extremist ideas and the ideology of heresy accusations."

Abusing Tolerance

"Western tolerance towards Muslims in Europe and in the U.S. on freedom of religion in general, and its respect for Christian and Jewish converts to Islam in particular, has not been used as a model by any Islamic party. It didn't teach them religious tolerance; it didn't lead them to acknowledge that religious choice is a personal matter; it did not prompt them to protect non-Muslims in the Arab and Muslim world. On the contrary, they became increasingly offensive, since they perceived that the West was conceding to their demands and treating them with tolerance. Thus, they gained ground and popularity, and their arrogance was became boundless …

"The Islamist literature, publications, and sermons, even in the heart of Europe, have essentially retained the conceptual structure of ancient [Muslim] writings, in that they continue to treat any input from civilization as refuse, all the amazing technological innovations as purely material development, and the life and values of the West as decadence and degradation."

The Connection to Violence and Terrorism

"It has often been said that moderate Islamic groups have nothing to do with violence and terrorism. But this is an illusion. All the ideas of terrorist groups fit the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, of the Al-Tahrir [party], of Al-Jama'a Al-Islamiyya in Pakistan, and others. Ideas like idol worship, the rule of God, the establishment of shari'a, and others, which have assumed new fundamentalist connotations associated with new ruling parties, were not invented by Al-Qaeda or Fath Al-Islam. The notions of cognitive isolation, the invalidity of man-made laws, and serving God; the undermining of the values of homeland and citizenship, as well as all facets of political realism; proclamations such as the Muslim Brotherhood's motto 'Death for the sake of Allah is our highest aspiration,' and numerous other [slogans] - all these have not been invented by Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden, or [Sheikh Abu Muhammad] Al-Maqdisi…

"What can we expect of a youth who encounters [the following] idea, [which appears] in a book frequently discussed by the Muslim Brotherhood: 'Today we live in a jahiliya [the pre-Islamic era of idol worship], akin to idol worship in [Muhammad's] time and worse. We are surrounded by idol worship. Human achievement and beliefs, people's traditions and customs, their traditional sources, their arts and literature, their laws and regulations, and even most of what we regard as aspects of the Islamic culture, Islamic authorities, and Islamic thought and philosophy - all these are products of idol worship."

"This is a simple passage from the book Milestones by Sayyed Qutb. This book has been translated into all the languages of the Islamic countries: Turkish, Persian, Urdu, Malaysian, Indonesian, and others, as have hundreds of other Muslim Brotherhood books. These books are brainwashing thousands of youths in the Muslim world, and drawing [many of them] towards extremist terrorist organizations.

"Is not this passage, which has been read [and reread] by Islamists for over 40 years, the main reason for the Muslim's deepening sense of alienation from both his own society and from the society in Europe, America, or Australia to which he emigrated?…

"There is no doubt that it is these ideas, texts and doctrines - some of which seem innocuously 'moderate' [to us, after] they have poisoned our souls - that have shaped the views of many Muslims, men and women, worldwide, and have brought forth a generation of jihadi terrorists.

"It is this [phenomenon] that has precipitated the clash between the Islamists and Western societies in America and Europe." [4]

Endnotes:

[1] Awan (Kuwait), December 2, 2008.

[2] Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdoudi (1903-1979)(1903-09-25), also known as Mawlana (Maulana) or Sheikh Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, was a Sunni Pakistani journalist, theologian and political philosopher, and a major Islamist thinker. He was also a political figure in his home country of Pakistan, where he founded the Jamaat-e-Islami Islamic revivalist party.

[3] Hizb Al-Tahrir (Liberation Party) is a radical Islamic group whose agenda is to rally Muslims with a call for a new Caliphate.

[4] Al-Ittihad (UAE), October 5, 2008.

Terror infests Pakistan

UPI Asia.com

Toronto, ON, Canada, — Terror has become a daily affair in Pakistan, which has hit civilians the most due to suicide bombers mingling with them. Such attacks are sometimes a result of the Pashtun tribesmen’s pique at the Pakistani government; other times they are interfaith rivalries between the Sunni and Shiite communities. In addition, they are also “bomb battles” between rival political party activists in big cities.

This all began when Pakistan started training terrorists for attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir. When this met with immediate success, terror activities were expanded to cover the rest of India. The last attack took place in Mumbai in November 2008.

With every successful explosion terrorists have become more sophisticated, with some using bombs to settle their local grievances. In October last year a Sunni resistance group reportedly carried out a suicide bomb attack on Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards that killed several top commanders.

Pakistani authorities never anticipated that terrorists would turn against them. In 2009, some 6,000 Pakistanis died in terror attacks, making it one of the bloodiest years of domestic violence. Half of those killed were security personnel.

Terror attacks declined considerably in India’s Kashmir region in 2009, partly due to mounting international pressure on Pakistan and partly due to the vigil mounted by Indian security forces. Deaths from terrorist attacks included 55 civilians and 76 security personnel.

Until 2001, Pakistan was untouched by India’s accusations that it was responsible for acts of violence in India. However, the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States changed that. Pakistani security services, although not directly responsible for 9/11, had acted as facilitators to the terror masters in Afghanistan.

This became common knowledge, and the United States mounted pressure on Pakistan to dismantle its terror business completely, offering aid and military hardware in return. But the campaign never succeeded. The Pakistanis pleaded ignorance of terrorist activities, while winking at their organizations and training facilities on their territory.

While Pakistan seemed unconcerned with terror elsewhere, trouble began brewing at home as al-Qaida and the Taliban made the frontier region of Pakistan their new home. That brought the United States into the picture, with its successful drone attacks to eliminate leaders of terrorist groups.

The U.S. action caught al-Qaida and the Taliban by surprise. They pushed the local Pashtun tribes to rebel against the Pakistani government. Some of them did, resulting in the present impasse in Pakistan.

Now the same terrorists are biting the hand that fed them. The United States managed to convince the Pakistani army to go after the terrorists, which was easier said than done. As the Pakistani army entered terror-infested areas in 2009, they suffered heavy causalities. Besides, terrorists relocated themselves to different areas of Pakistan, making the army’s task doubly difficult.

Will terror ever relent in Pakistan? It is highly unlikely. First the United States will have to withdraw from Afghanistan, but even if it does, al-Qaida and the Afghani Taliban will find excuses to continue fighting. Second, no efforts have been made to reform the Pakistani intelligence services that head various terror organizations.

The United States has been on the wrong foot all along in dealing with Pakistan. Prior to 2001, the U.S. and British intelligence services encouraged religious elements within the Pakistani security apparatus. They did it to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and later encouraged the religious elements to maintain law and order after the Soviets withdrew from the region.

The United States did not realize that it had created a monster in the form of the Taliban. The monster would be unleashed if the Taliban again grabs power in Kabul and invites al-Qaida into its midst.

It was the United States that created Pakistan’s intelligence services, from 1980 to 1988. In addition, the Pakistani army was pampered with modern weapons and even allowed to steal nuclear weapon technology from Europe and the United States. When caught, Pakistani agents were let off lightly. Since 2001 more new weapons were offered in the name of fighting terror. The Pakistanis took the weapons but did nothing to help the United States in return.

The present Afghani Taliban, after its demolition by the United States in 2001, was created by Pakistan from 2002 to 2007. The Pakistani army provided weapons and training in civilian garb. Their fundraising has been based on drug smuggling and through Pakistanis living in the Middle East.

All sanctuaries for rest and recreation for the Taliban are in Pakistan. There is a silver lining though – the Pakistanis are not helping the Arab, Uighur and Chechen elements of al-Qaida. They are on their own and suffer the most during U.S.-led drone attacks.

What made the loyal Pashtuns rebel against Pakistan? Pashtuns in the Northwest frontier region are loyal to Pakistan, although their loyalty is under severe test today. The situation changed when convoys escorted by Pakistani security forces came under attack and army personnel were killed. Later, deeply religious Mullahs in the frontier region vowed to expel Pakistanis from the region. They even captured a few districts there to make their point. This led to a larger conflict with the army.

The situation is at an impasse, with the Pashtun loyalty factor under severe strain. Although the Afghani Taliban is not encouraging the Pakistani chapter, it seems both are increasingly driven by a common goal – to drive out the United States and Pakistan from Afghanistan and the frontier region. This may be the beginning of the formation of Pashtunistan, a homeland for Pashtuns. This demand has been in cold storage for a while but can be revived with ease.

What makes Pakistanis confront India so diligently? Kashmir is the face of the Muslim desire to rule over India. Today, they are fighting over Kashmir – it that is resolved they will think of something else. It is their relentless pursuit to rule from New Delhi, which is the crux of the problem.

The British took away power from the Muslims in 1857 and slowly handed it back to the majority Hindus. By 1947, Hindus were ready to rule and had learned to pick up the sword again. When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948, it was beaten. Again in 1965 and in 1971 it was beaten. The Pakistani army’s surrender in 1971 in Dhaka has not sat well with them for the last 40 years. They wish to avenge it and tried in 1998 in Kargil, but lost heavily. Still, they want to keep trying.

Presently, the Pakistani army is being trained to counter India in war. Soldiers are told that one Pakistani soldier equals 30 Indian soldiers, although facts prove otherwise. India with its bigger economy and resources is doing a fine job in keeping its enemies out of its territory. If Pakistan starts a conflict, it could be driven back within 94 hours.

With no way to beat its favorite enemy India, Pakistan has turned to jihadism. It did not count on al-Qaida succeeding spectacularly in its 9/11 attacks. Also, when it encouraged the Afghani Taliban, it did not expect the emergence of the Pakistani Taliban.

Today Pakistan is in a worse shape than it was ten years back. There is no end in sight to its internal fighting. India, for sure, is now beyond its reach.

Muslims Slaughter Christians in Egypt.

Pakistan Christian Post By Lee Jay Walker, Tokyo Correspondent, THE SEOUL TIMES

Over half a dozen Coptic Christians were killed and another half dozen were hurt in a Thursday morning drive-by shooting following a Christmas midnight Mass in Nag Hamadi in Upper Egypt.
Another year may have just started but in Egypt the endless persecution of Christians goes on and the endless martyrs who follow the faith of Christianity “shine out” in a world of hatred. However, why does this suffering continue in Egypt and in other parts of the world?
This article is in response to the recent murders of Christians in Egypt and I aim to link the current situation with the bloody history of Egypt and its endless persecution of Christians.
According to popular myth Egypt is a moderate nation and this mainly Muslim nation is meant to be a moderate bastion within the mainly intolerant “Islamic world.” However, while Muslims in this nation highlight the fact that you have thousands of churches, they fail to say why and they gloss over the endless persecution and discrimination within Egypt.
After all, Egypt was mainly Christian before countless Islamic invasions and in time Arabization would limit the role of the Coptic language and colonialization took root over many centuries. The indigenous Christians of Egypt already had a rich Coptic culture and history and the Coptic Christian church was blessed with a strong-minded priesthood.
However, constant Islamic invasions, linguistic colonialization via Arabic, massacres of Christians, and systematic persecution of Christianity via Islamic Sharia law and dhimmitude; meant that Islam would rule supreme.

Of course, not all Muslim rulers were anti-Christian but Coptic Christians always had to rely on the given ruler for protection. Yet, irrespective if the ruler was moderate or anti-Christian, one theme remained the same and this applies to institutionalized discrimination and persecution which is part and parcel of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.
Therefore, from the early conquests and up until today, it is clear that converts from Islam to Christianity face persecution. Yes, Islamic enlightenment in Egypt means that in the past the convert to Christianity would be killed, however, now it is mere prison or persecution or a mixture of both.
Turning back to the reason of this article, I will now focus on recent events in Egypt in 2010. For on January 6 in Nagaa Hamady, which is near Luxor, Muslims killed six Christians and one security guard. They were gunned down on Christmas Eve (Christmas day is January 7 for Coptic Christians and other Orthodox Christians) and clearly the timing was important.
Yet for many Christians in Egypt this is all about the embedded persecution of Christianity in this nation. Therefore the recent massacre is further evidence that Islamic intolerance and systematic persecution is part and parcel of the traditions of Egypt since the first Islamic invasion began.

In recent times you have had many attacks against Christians and this applies to murders, riots against Christians, attacks against Coptic Christian churches, abduction and forced rapes of Christian females, and other insidious forms of discrimination and persecution.
In truth, ever since the first Islamic conquest of Egypt you have had systematic persecution because religious pluralism and freedom of thought does not exist in Islam. Therefore, from the very foundation of Islam in Egypt it was clear that Christians had to pay tax (jizya) in order to be protected and non-payment could mean death, enslavement, or forced conversion.
It is worth mentioning that Mohammed himself stated that Muslims must (Koran 9:29) "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Therefore, it is clear that Mohammed understood the power of tax and other draconian laws in order to subdue other faiths. After all, how can other faiths thrive when apostasy from Islam means death?

Prof. Kenneth Cragg sums up the dhimmi system by stating that the "Dhimmi, 'tolerated minority,' status under Islam has long made for a pattern of quiescence in ancient, local Christianity around the mosque. Traditional tolerance allowed only a freedom to remain, to teach the faith only within the family, so that adherence became a circumstance of birth, and continuity that of a closed community. There was no freedom to express faith, still less to recruit to it, outside that circle of one's origin."
Coptic Christians after the Islamic conquests were therefore faced with a bleak future. After all, if Coptic Christians were forbidden to propagate their faith freely in public then at best they could only survive. Yet this survival meant severe restrictions and systematic persecution, with the consequences of this being an ever diminishing minority and open to public ridicule because of their inferior status in law, education, and other important areas.
Therefore, in 2010 you have many minorities in mainly Muslim societies who are fighting for survival or who face open persecution because of state sanctioned laws which are based on Islamic Sharia law and maintaining massive inequality.

Minority groups who suffer open persecution in the modern world applies to the Baha’is in Iran; the Shabaks, Christians, Mandaens, and Yazidis who face persecution on a daily basis in Iraq; converts to Christianity in Somalia who are being butchered by radical Sunni Islamists; Buddhists in Southern Thailand have also suffered greatly in recent times including Buddhist clerics being beheaded; Hindus also suffer enormously in both Bangladesh and Pakistan; Ahmadiyya Muslims also face severe persecution in Pakistan and in 2009 several Christians were burnt alive in this nation; while Christians also face daily threats in Northern Nigeria and last year three Christian pastors were beheaded and other terrible attacks took place; the list is endless and of course Coptic Christians in Egypt suffer from both state sanctioned discrimination and being threatened by radical Sunni Islamists.

The current situation in Egypt does not look good for Coptic Christians because the “flawed” political system under President Hosni Mubarak means state sanctioned discrimination. However, you also have the fear that radical Islamists could fill the political vacuum and this would add greatly to the woes of the embattled Christian community in Egypt.
Sadly, major political leaders in many Western nations are in appeasement mode and they are not confronting this global menace. However, radical Islam is also growing in the streets of London and Paris, and in other major cities throughout parts of Europe and in other parts of the mainly non-Muslim world.
Therefore, the ongoing silence towards events in Egypt, Iraq, Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Southern Thailand, Somalia, and other mainly Muslim nations; is impacting on other nations because this hatred is spreading wide and far and silence or appeasement isn’t working.

Leaving Failed States Alone By Rabbi Jeremy Rosen

5TJT January 15, 2010

I know this is going to sound harsh and unfeeling but we ought to leave failed states alone to stew in their own self-imposed cruelties. It is, in the end, up to their own citizens to either put up or shut up.
I really thought Obama was going to usher in a new era and stop trying to cure those sick parts of the world that do not want to be healed. But it seems his arms dealers, his scaremongers, his political allies and supporters all have a vested interest in keeping armed forces overseas, sending young men and women to their pointless deaths, and throwing away vast sums of money that could better be used improving the fabric of society and infrastructure at home. I remember in my youth the arguments for staying in Vietnam. There was the domino theory that all of Asia would collapse into Communism. The line had to be drawn. Failed states would present a danger to the USA and World Peace. And they all proved to be false.
If you cannot tend to everyone else's garden, at least you can make sure yours grows properly. And if you put all your energy and resources into trying to help someone who hates gardening to spend time weeding, you will inevitably fail. Have we not yet learnt that no matter how benevolent an occupier is, an occupier is a resented alien who will never be accepted?
I remember vividly the 1967 war in which Israel ejected the Jordanians from the West Bank they had illegally occupied in1948 (though no one in the UN seemed to mind if it was Arab occupying Arab). The Palestinians threw roses at the Israeli tanks as they passed through the villages, so hated were the Jordanians. Unbelievably, the victors simply refused to learn from what their own eyes were telling them--that any occupier comes to be hated, and certainly one who tries to subjugate and disenfranchise. About the only thing to be said in favor of Russia this last century was that she actually did give up on Afghanistan and get out.
So I say cut your losses and get out. Occupation does not work.
Will a failed state become a haven for Al Qaeda terrorists? So isolate that state. Track those who come and go, rather than try to change it from the outside. Any attempt from the outside will be regarded as a crusade, imperialism, or an American Zionist plot. It will only reinforce blind fundamentalism.
In Iraq, the US ended up in league with the very Sunnis it initially booted out of power. The Taliban rulers were ejected from Afghanistan. Yet most analysts now think the only chance of any kind of success is by making a deal with the new Taliban. Meanwhile, they and Al Qaeda are protected within Pakistani territory, because its own political and military system is riddled with fundamentalists and it is a nearly failed state with an already tested nuclear bomb. Look at all the failed states harboring Al Qaeda or other dangerous potential terrorists. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. And in the case of Somalia the US left with its tail between its legs. The world cannot even deal with Somali pirates.
There is a mindset amongst many moderate Muslims that only outside intervention can rescue then from the oppressive Muslim regimes they live under. That is why it is argued that the USA should reach out to and support moderates in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Not that she will be thanked. Only when a sufficient number of oppressed citizens within a country feel so strongly about it that they are prepared to rebel can there be any hope of regime change. That, for example, is precisely what happened in Honduras, and in time it will happen in Venezuela too. Hopefully Zimbabwe as well. They are not as toxic as Iran and North Korea--two virtual nuclear powers. Yet no one I have heard is arguing that the USA should invade them.
In Iran the oppressive regime murders, tortures, and rapes its own people. That’s the way in the East. No one is making a fuss of Christians killed in Egypt or Malaysia. Who cares if in Abu Dhabi a royal prince gets off scot-free after torturing and maiming another Muslim. We don't expect justice or freedom in such places. Shall we invade them too?
Thanks to China's refusal to countenance any interference in the internal affairs of regimes, there is no way to impose universal sanctions or effective restrictions. Free countries have no alternative other than to rely on their own methods of self-protection.
As for locally born terror, stop pretending it is exceptional. Political correctness and appeasement will not protect anyone. Britain still refuses to acknowledge that its universities are centers of recruitment for aggressive Islam, something students have been telling anyone who would listen for years.
America's decision to require stricter security for visitors from certain Muslim states which harbor terror has been attacked both by American Muslims and Civil Rights campaigners. I hope the USA stands firm (I know Europe won't). I do feel very sorry for innocent peace-loving Muslims who suffer as a result. But they have it in their own hands either to help change regimes or bring the pressure to bear on those Muslims who give Islam a bad name. ♦

Muslim Europe – by Jamie Glazov. Frontpage Magazine

FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign.. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News,Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of the soon to be released, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (forward by Ambassador John Bolton).

FP: Pamela Geller, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about a mass Muslim immigration plan that is going into the works in Europe and not too many people know about it. Can you enlighten us please?

Geller: Thanks, Jamie.

The disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership is in the process of going into effect, with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media.

The European human rights group called Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership. A statement on the SIOE website criticizes the secrecy of the process:

“It was shocking to hear about the plans and at the same time knowing that Danish politicians and a [cowardly] Danish press — who is otherwise proud to be critical — has told nothing to the Danish people about this project which begins already in January next year [2010]. This also showed clearly at the conference. Only very few politicians showed up and no media. Those politicians who showed up had obviously never heard about the Euro-Mediterranean project.”

The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea. The goal is to establish a “comprehensive political partnership,” including a “free trade area and economic integration”; “considerably more money for the partners” (that is, more European money flowing into North Africa); and “cultural partnership” — that is, importation of Islamic culture into post-Christian Europe.

According to the SIOE, in the Euro-Med plan, “Europe is to be Islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. 50 million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”

FP: Who exactly is behind this agenda? Why is it being done so secretly and how come it is allowed to happen this way?

Geller: Jamie, this agenda is being pushed at the highest levels of the European Union. The official EuroMed Partnership website says it’s an initiative of “the EU and its southern neighbors.” And it’s huge in scope. Recently in Brussels there was a summit meeting of trade ministers from 43 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean. And it’s being done secretly because the European governing elites know the people of Europe wouldn’t go along if they knew what was happening.

FP: How does this effect America and Americans?

Geller: Americans have to care about this for a number of reasons. Short term the most obvious reason presented itself on Christmas day, when a jihadi from Amsterdam attempted to blow up a passenger jet carrying 278 people as it was landing in Detroit. A flood of Muslims into Europe, many of them “devout,” would increase the security risks to America.

And the destruction of national identity also bodes ill for us. This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Barack Obama seems to want to do the same thing to America.

Longer term, a Euro-Arab partnership would put control of the oil in the hands of the new Eurabians, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage. Oil is power, and we would be at their mercy.

More troubling is that we seem to be following the same European model of Muslim immigration. We have opened up Islamic immigration via diversity visas and religious visas to countries that are hotbeds of jihadist activity.

The European model is in play.

FP: So is all of this taking effect now?

Geller: Indeed it is. EuroMed agreements have already begun to take effect. The British newspaper the Daily Express reported back in October 2008 about “a controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ “that opened in Mali at that time as “just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU.’ Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.”

To offset this decline, a “blue card” system is to be created that will allow card holders to travel freely within the European Union and have full rights to work – as well as the full right to collect welfare benefits.

FP: What can be done to block this project?

Geller: Europeans and Americans must become aware of what is going on and fight it. The EuroMed Partnership will destroy what is left of European civilization, and ultimately shake the foundations of this country. Free people must not allow that to happen. We must stand up and demand that our leaders protect our civilization and take our countries back.

FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Euro-med Union article today in The Washington Times

The European media that is supposed to be the watchdog for the populations in Europe has been completely silent when it comes to the facts about the Euromediterranian cooperation.

However after SIOE told Pamela Geller about the Euro-med plans there has been an international interest of the subject.

Pamela Geller has a revealing article about the subject published in Washington Times today where she also explains the consequenses for America concerning the Euro-med cooperation.

Excerpt from the article:

…Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media.

Why should Americans care about this? Americans have to care because this global gobbledygook is coming to our shores, thanks to our globalist president.

The European human rights group called Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE) has been working tirelessly to expose the mass Muslim immigration plan of the Euro-Med Partnership…

Read the article in The Washington Times

British XMRV study full of holes

One of the co-authors of this study, Simon Wessely, has a vested interest in the outcome of such virus studies. Simon has staked his entire academic career on the idea that neurological diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome are caused by purely psychological factors.

Therefore Simon Wessely would be the last person you would want in a study like this: if he finds the virus in CFS patients, he shoots himself in the foot, and his career may never recover. So I wonder just how hard he looked for this XMRV virus.

The odd thing is, the authors declared in this study that they have no competing interests: not true! It is very much in the interest of Simon Wessely to not find this XMRV virus. Another interesting fact is that these 3 “scientists” that conducted the study in UK where in the Psychiatric field. We know that UK goes by the Oxford Criteria while US and most other countries goes by the Canadian Criterias which states that CFS/ ME is neurological/ viral in nature, while UK says it’s a psychiatric disorder (for heavens sake!).

In a just-published study, British researchers say they didn't find XMRV in people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS or ME/CFS), which appears to contradict a study recently published in the journal Science,in which researchers found the retrovirus in the majority of people with ME/CFS. But what does this new study really prove?

It's fairly common for an infectious agent to be present at different rates in different places, so this could mean that XMRV is more rare in the UK. This is supported by prostate cancer studies -- a US study indicated a link to particularly aggressive tumors, while European studies did not.

Different procedures may also account for the difference. According to Dr. Suzanne Vernon of the CFIDS Association of America, the techniques used by the British team may simply not have been as good at detecting XMRV. (You can read her analysis here: XMRV Negative Results Emphasize Need for Robust Replication Study)

The Whittemore Peterson Institute, which conducted the original XMRV research, put out a press release outlining some key problems with the new findings:

The scientific methods used by WPI are very exact and require specific techniques to ensure
accuracy. Differences in techniques employed by Erlwein et al. not only explain their failure to
replicate the WPI study, but also render the conclusions meaningless. These differences
include, but are not limited to the following:

1. blood sample volumes and processing;
2. patient criteria/population differences;
3. number and type of tests done to assure accurate results, including white blood cell
   culture;
4. use of a molecular plasmid control in water versus a positive blood sample; and
5. different primer sequences and amplification protocol used to find the virus, which
   were not validated by a clinical control.

The WPI study was published after six months of rigorous review and three independent lab
confirmations, proving that contamination had not taken place and that infectious XMRV was
present in 67 percent (actually 98%, they expanded the testing with astounding results) of CFS patients diagnosed according to the Canadian and Fukuda criteria.
In contrast, this latest study was published online after only three days of review. Significant
and critical questions remain as to the status of patient samples used in the UK study as those
samples may have been confused with fatigued psychiatric patients, since the UK has relegated
"CFS" patients to psychiatric care and not traditional medical practices.

(You can see the WPI's entire statement here: Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Regarding UK Study)

So, essentially, this study doesn't tell us a lot. Hopefully, current and upcoming studies will use methods more like those used in the original and will also test healthy people. Only then will we start to get an accurate picture of XMRV's prevalence, what threats it may pose, and what role (if any) it plays in ME/CFS.