SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (6703)4/7/2007 3:56:41 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20106
 
CAIR: Coalition of American Islamofascists for Repression.



To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (6703)4/7/2007 7:00:40 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20106
 
Mystery shrouds UK sailors' saga
By Bridget Kendall
BBC diplomatic correspondent


President Ahmadinejad took everyone by surprise

That moment on Wednesday when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waved his magic wand and declared he was freeing the captured British crew looked like a public relations coup of some magnitude.

And no wonder he beamed broadly as they all lined up to shake his hand and offer apologies. He was the hero in a fairy-tale that had just reached its happy ending, a tale that spoke of his generosity and of Iran's desire for good relations with other nations.

"Just a compulsory vacation," he joked to one of the young sailors, as though they had spent the entire last two weeks playing chess and nibbling pistachio nuts, sitting on red carpets in rooms with floral wall paper - like the scenes in the footage released by Iranian TV.

Well, now they have got back home we have heard a rather different story. Not so much a fairy-tale. More of a nightmare.

'Mind games'

Far from straying into Iranian territory, the British crew say they were well within Iraqi waters when Revolutionary Guards rammed their vessels and trained machine guns on them.


In their filmed accounts in Iran, crew members praised Iranians
Once arrested, they were blindfolded, their hands tied and lined up against a wall, while they could hear the sound of guns being cocked.

"Not exactly a mock execution," said one officer stoically, but admitted he had never been so scared in his life.

They were kept isolated, in small cells, subjected to aggressive questioning and what they called "mind games". They were told to confess on camera, or risk up to seven years in jail.

It sounds as though Faye Turney had the worst of it. For four days she thought she was alone, and the others had been sent home.

Once they had all recorded TV interviews, conditions improved. But the footage of them we saw was, they told us, a massive propaganda stunt.

Once the filming was over, they were blindfolded and taken back to their cells. Even after they met the president, they were blindfolded and taken under guard to a hotel.

A holiday, compulsory or otherwise, it was not.

Quiet diplomacy

Of course Iran now disputes that account, and claims the sailors' news conference was staged to win propaganda points.

The war of words between the two sides over this saga goes on.

What one can glean about British attempts to solve the crisis is also instructive. Over that two-week period, it went through ups and downs.


Mr Blair insisted no deal was done to free the 15 navy personnel
From the start, the British government seemed confident the incident was premeditated and the British crew had been arrested illegally.

The problem was working out why and persuading Iran to hand them back.

At first the Foreign Office tried quiet diplomacy. But the extended Iranian New Year meant many senior Iranians were unavailable.

"You can't just phone them on your mobile like you can a British minister," complained one official.

London's suspicion was that the different power bases in Tehran would not work out what to do with them until the holiday was over.

Five days in, British patience was wearing thin.

Margaret Beckett called the Iranian foreign minister to warn him Britain was giving Iran until 1230 on Wednesday to act, or it would go public with its evidence and enter - as Tony Blair put it - "a different phase".

From quiet diplomacy Britain abruptly switched to pulling out the stops. Bilateral ties were frozen. Appeals were made to the UN Security Council and to EU foreign ministers to join Britain's protest.

It was a pretty risky strategy. Iran's immediate reaction was to drop the idea of releasing Faye Turney early.

British officials tried to argue that they had never believed the promise anyway.

Late-night calls

At the UN, several countries, including Russia, were reluctant to take sides. The final Security Council appeal was watered down and did not even demand the captives' immediate release.

When President Ahmadinejad's dramatic announcement came, the British government was it seems, as stunned as everyone else


It did not look good.

By now Britain was asking anyone it could think of to ratchet up the pressure. Even Syria was asked to help. Even Colombia in Latin America called in the Iranian ambassador.

At one point, apparently, Margaret Beckett's office tried to reach the Iranian foreign minister by phone, to be told by a complaining aide: "Mr Mottaki is having to take quite a lot of calls already as a result of your activities."

Eleven days in, Iran had sent London a note of protest, and London had sent one back, apparently offering to de-escalate the row by talking bilaterally, but British officials were agitated.

With no reply back from Tehran, they seemed unsure what would happen next.

Then, Iran's chief negotiator popped up on British television and signalled that Iran wanted bilateral diplomacy.

Britain seized on this, hoping Iran now wanted to talk, and followed it up with a late night phone call to him from Tony Blair's office.

They hoped talks might start soon. But that was all. Margaret Beckett even publicly warned against a swift resolution.

'In the dark'

So when President Ahmadinejad's dramatic announcement came, the British government was it seems, as stunned as everyone else.


The crew said opposing their captors was "not an option"
In Tehran, British diplomats rushed to the presidential palace, frantically trying to get access.

Foreign journalists exchanged a word with the newly pardoned sailors long before the British ambassador was allowed to see them.

The British government was kept firmly out of the loop, as far as one can tell.

The moral of the tale is that the gap between Iranian claims and what is really going on may be quite great. But do not rely on the British government to have the answer.

Relations between Britain and Iran were strained before this crisis and have probably got worse. There isn't always a conspiracy or a backroom deal.

Quite often diplomats, like the rest of us, are working in the dark.

news.bbc.co.uk



To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (6703)4/8/2007 7:51:13 PM
From: ExCane  Respond to of 20106
 
Sensitive political test for Sestak
The new member of the U.S. House spoke to a Muslim group. He offered praise as well as some admonishment.
By Tom Infield 4/8/07
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) speaks to the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It is perilous not to speak, even to others who you may not agree with," he said in an earlier interview.

Inside the posh Hilton Philadelphia last night, a dinner crowd of several hundred Muslims was full of praise for the political courage it said U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak had shown merely by showing up to speak.

Outside the City Avenue hotel, amid Passover week snow flurries, about a dozen Jewish protesters held up signs blasting Sestak for what they said was his nerve in showing up. One sign read, "Say it ain't so, Joe."

Sestak, a Democrat from Philadelphia's western suburbs, was facing the first real test of his first term in office - how to navigate the conflicting passions that had sprung up with his acceptance of an invitation to address the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The group, known as CAIR, is one of the largest Muslim organizations in the country, and its banquet drew a sold-out crowd of about 500.

Small but vocal Jewish groups have accused CAIR of being an apologist for terrorism at best, a front for terrorism at worst.

"I think it's a disgrace for an American congressman to come to an organization that has so many ties to terrorists," said one of the protesters, Rabbi Lisa Malik of Suburban Jewish Community Center, a Havertown synagogue.

CAIR is not on any U.S. list of terrorism sponsors. Since its founding in 1994, it has had good relationships with the U.S. government. It has worked with the FBI in training agents in cultural sensitivity.

Gov. Rendell, though not a scheduled speaker, showed up late at the event last night.

CAIR, which promotes civil rights for Muslims, has consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But it has refused to condemn the Palestinian group Hamas and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which the United States does recognize as terrorist organizations. That, more than anything else, has raised its critics' ire.

"We try to avoid condemning individuals, organizations or countries, because that prevents the ability for us to create opportunity for bridge-building," said Iftekhar Hussain, chairman of CAIR's Philadelphia chapter, in an interview Friday.

Parvez Ahmed, the group's national chairman, told the dinner crowd that Sestak was being "demonized and vilified by the right-wing media and pro-Israel extremists" for agreeing to speak. He said Sestak should be applauded for "standing up to these folks."

Sestak, who has said his Seventh District includes at least 20,000 Jewish voters, delivered a 20-minute speech in which he started with praise for peaceful tenets of Islam and the advances of American Muslims.

Near the end of the speech, amid clanking silverware and the burble of table conversations, the former Navy admiral said it was not sufficient for any group just to condemn terrorist acts.

He said it was CAIR's duty to condemn individuals or groups that commit terrorism, and he specifically mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah.

"It's the same as those who did not speak out against the perpetrators of Jim Crow laws . . . or the Holocaust," he said.

The remark drew no reaction from the audience
. At the end of his speech, he was applauded.

Sestak, in an interview Friday, said he had agreed to attend because he had been told that 250 of his constituents would be at the event.

"I honestly believe it is the right thing to do," he said in the interview. "It is perilous not to speak, even to others who you may not agree with."

The controversy over his speech sprouted March 11 when he addressed a community forum at the Suburban Jewish Community Center. The event was cosponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

Sestak was hit with a barrage of criticism from the synagogue audience, which had learned of his plans to speak to CAIR.

Sestak's critics pointed out that one of his aides, Adeeba Al-Zaman, is the former communications director for the CAIR chapter in Philadelphia. She had helped him organize support in the Muslim community when he ran for election last year. She had then joined his congressional staff.

Sestak said Al-Zaman, without checking with him, had accepted the speaking invitation.

"Lots of people wanted me to fire her," he said.

But he did not.

While declining to say Al-Zaman had made a mistake, he said in the interview that he wished that she had talked to him first.

He said he wouldn't have accepted the invitation if he had known that the $50-per-person banquet was partly to raise money for CAIR.

He said he told CAIR that he would still attend, but only if it separated the fund-raising portion of the program from the portion at which he would speak. He said CAIR had done that.

Midway through the banquet, after Sestak's speech, CAIR officials abruptly announced that the fund-raising portion of the evening would begin.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of the Philadelphia-area chapter of the Zionist Organization of America, said separating the program was just a fig leaf to cover up Sestak's help for CAIR in raising money.

"After they received heat, they changed it to look as if if were two different events," Marcus, a lawyer, said in an interview Friday. "It's at the same place, one right after another, which is ridiculous."

She said Sestak had "a right to speak to anyone he wants," but she added: "You don't go to a fund-raiser for a group that has a connection to terrorism."

Contact staff writer Tom Infield

at 610-313-8205 or tinfield@phillynews.com.

from philly.com



To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (6703)4/8/2007 7:52:06 PM
From: ExCane  Respond to of 20106
 
Sensitive political test for Sestak
The new member of the U.S. House spoke to a Muslim group. He offered praise as well as some admonishment.
By Tom Infield 4/8/07
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) speaks to the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It is perilous not to speak, even to others who you may not agree with," he said in an earlier interview.

Inside the posh Hilton Philadelphia last night, a dinner crowd of several hundred Muslims was full of praise for the political courage it said U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak had shown merely by showing up to speak.

Outside the City Avenue hotel, amid Passover week snow flurries, about a dozen Jewish protesters held up signs blasting Sestak for what they said was his nerve in showing up. One sign read, "Say it ain't so, Joe."

Sestak, a Democrat from Philadelphia's western suburbs, was facing the first real test of his first term in office - how to navigate the conflicting passions that had sprung up with his acceptance of an invitation to address the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The group, known as CAIR, is one of the largest Muslim organizations in the country, and its banquet drew a sold-out crowd of about 500.

Small but vocal Jewish groups have accused CAIR of being an apologist for terrorism at best, a front for terrorism at worst.

"I think it's a disgrace for an American congressman to come to an organization that has so many ties to terrorists," said one of the protesters, Rabbi Lisa Malik of Suburban Jewish Community Center, a Havertown synagogue.

CAIR is not on any U.S. list of terrorism sponsors. Since its founding in 1994, it has had good relationships with the U.S. government. It has worked with the FBI in training agents in cultural sensitivity.

Gov. Rendell, though not a scheduled speaker, showed up late at the event last night.

CAIR, which promotes civil rights for Muslims, has consistently denounced acts of terrorism. But it has refused to condemn the Palestinian group Hamas and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which the United States does recognize as terrorist organizations. That, more than anything else, has raised its critics' ire.

"We try to avoid condemning individuals, organizations or countries, because that prevents the ability for us to create opportunity for bridge-building," said Iftekhar Hussain, chairman of CAIR's Philadelphia chapter, in an interview Friday.

Parvez Ahmed, the group's national chairman, told the dinner crowd that Sestak was being "demonized and vilified by the right-wing media and pro-Israel extremists" for agreeing to speak. He said Sestak should be applauded for "standing up to these folks."

Sestak, who has said his Seventh District includes at least 20,000 Jewish voters, delivered a 20-minute speech in which he started with praise for peaceful tenets of Islam and the advances of American Muslims.

Near the end of the speech, amid clanking silverware and the burble of table conversations, the former Navy admiral said it was not sufficient for any group just to condemn terrorist acts.

He said it was CAIR's duty to condemn individuals or groups that commit terrorism, and he specifically mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah.

"It's the same as those who did not speak out against the perpetrators of Jim Crow laws . . . or the Holocaust," he said.

The remark drew no reaction from the audience
. At the end of his speech, he was applauded.

Sestak, in an interview Friday, said he had agreed to attend because he had been told that 250 of his constituents would be at the event.

"I honestly believe it is the right thing to do," he said in the interview. "It is perilous not to speak, even to others who you may not agree with."

The controversy over his speech sprouted March 11 when he addressed a community forum at the Suburban Jewish Community Center. The event was cosponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

Sestak was hit with a barrage of criticism from the synagogue audience, which had learned of his plans to speak to CAIR.

Sestak's critics pointed out that one of his aides, Adeeba Al-Zaman, is the former communications director for the CAIR chapter in Philadelphia. She had helped him organize support in the Muslim community when he ran for election last year. She had then joined his congressional staff.

Sestak said Al-Zaman, without checking with him, had accepted the speaking invitation.

"Lots of people wanted me to fire her," he said.

But he did not.

While declining to say Al-Zaman had made a mistake, he said in the interview that he wished that she had talked to him first.

He said he wouldn't have accepted the invitation if he had known that the $50-per-person banquet was partly to raise money for CAIR.

He said he told CAIR that he would still attend, but only if it separated the fund-raising portion of the program from the portion at which he would speak. He said CAIR had done that.

Midway through the banquet, after Sestak's speech, CAIR officials abruptly announced that the fund-raising portion of the evening would begin.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, president of the Philadelphia-area chapter of the Zionist Organization of America, said separating the program was just a fig leaf to cover up Sestak's help for CAIR in raising money.

"After they received heat, they changed it to look as if if were two different events," Marcus, a lawyer, said in an interview Friday. "It's at the same place, one right after another, which is ridiculous."

She said Sestak had "a right to speak to anyone he wants," but she added: "You don't go to a fund-raiser for a group that has a connection to terrorism."

Contact staff writer Tom Infield

at 610-313-8205 or tinfield@phillynews.com.

from philly.com



To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (6703)4/8/2007 7:53:23 PM
From: ExCane  Respond to of 20106
 
duplicate deleted