Mason University seeks Halal vendor

After taking the first step and providing Halal meat at the Johnson Center Convenience Store, George Mason University’s Student Senate is now required to find a new distributor because of a failed Sodexho food inspection, reports the student newspaper.

Ryan Bloomfield, a Student Senator, has been leading the process of attempting to provide more venues for Halal meat, which is meat slaughtered in the manner prescribed by Islamic law.

Washington Lamb, the initial distributor, failed the Sodexho food inspection after Bloomfield and the newly-formed focus group alongside him spent three months on the first attempt to make Halal food accessible to Muslim students on campus.

“I started noticing that my Muslim roommate was not eating on campus because he couldn’t eat the food available,” said Bloomfield. “I then contacted the Muslim Students Association President and we talked about what could get accomplished.”

According to a Halal Food Research Study conducted by MSA, 48 percent of participants said they would not eat on campus as long as Halal meals are unavailable.

The study presented to the focus group on Jan. 29 also indicated that 100 percent of participants would choose Halal meat if they were offered a choice between Halal and non-Halal meals.

Receiving support from the Muslim Students Association, the Arab Students Association, the Persian Club, the Pakistani Students Association, the Turkish Students Association and the Bengali Patriots, Bloomfield and Senator Lena Mualla were able to launch the process on offering Halal meat on campus by working with the focus group, consisting of student senators, various organization presidents and university administrators to then pass a resolution to the Student Senate.

Brooklyn school is dropped as site of Arabic Academy

NEW YORK, NY–The New York City’s Department of Education has abandoned plans to operate the Khalil Gibran International Academy, NY’s first public school devoted to the study of the Arabic language and culture, in the same building that houses Public School 282. The department is looking to house the school in another building.
The move comes in the light of a comapaign by parents of children at P.S.282 to barrage the Schools Chancellor with emails and protesting outside department headquarters over the plans for the two schools to share a building.

The parents said they were worried about losing classroom space and activities to accommodate the Khalil Gibran school. In recent weeks, some columnists in The New York Sun joined the battle, with accusations that the school was a madrasa, which teaches the Koran, a claim the department dismissed.

David Cantor, a department spokesman, said, “After further consultation with the principal and school leadership team of P.S. 282, we determined that siting the Khalil Gibran International Academy at the school would be detrimental to its core academic programs.”

Sikh, asked if he was a Muslim, to get $24,000 damages from health club

SILICON VALLEY, CA– A judge in California has ordered a health club chain to pay USD 24,000 in damages to a Sikh who sued the company for denying him a job after asking him whether he was Muslim.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Sukdev “Devin” Singh Dhaliwal, who is of Indian-origin, applied for a sales job with one of Chicago-based Bally’s Total Fitness’ five centers in June 2004. An interviewer asked Dhaliwal, who was born and raised in California, about his religious and ethnic background and then denied him a job. The Commission said that Bally’s hired a non-Sikh, non-Indian applicant with less experience.

“He was basically asked where he was born, where his parents were born, what religion he subscribed to and whether he was a Muslim,” said EEOC program analyst Linda Li. According to Joan Ehrlich, director for the EEOC’s San Francisco district, the questions violated federal employment laws and amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion. Under the consent decree approved by US District Judge Jeffrey S White, Bally’s must pay Dhaliwal USD 24,000 in damages. The lawsuit initially sought compensatory damages up to USD300, 000.
The company must also provide training in equal opportunity hiring practices to its managers. Dhaliwal said he plans to donate some of the money to his alma mater, California State University, Fresno, where a business law professor steered him to the EEOC after hearing about the interview.

New mosque to come up in New Jersey

CHERRY HILL, NJ–Nearly three years after the foundation laying ceremony construction will finally begin for a Dawoodi Bohra Mosque in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

The $1.5 million mosque will be two levels — a ground floor and balcony section. The bottom floor will be limited to men and the upper level to women, Dahodwala said. Like other mosques around the world, a tiled structure called a Mehrab will face the Islamic holy city of Mecca.

A kitchen and dining hall will be attached to the mosque since Dawoodi Bohra followers always eat meals together after prayer services, Dahodwala said. Also, the congregation’s amilsaheb — the equivalent of a priest — will live in a house on the mosque’s property.

“The mosques we build become landmarks,” Dahodwala said.

The Dawoodi Bohra denomination has mosques in New York, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Boston and Washington, D.C. Currently, the closest Dawoodi Bohra mosque to Cherry Hill is in Cranbury, Middlesex County.
Cherry Hill has warmly welcomed the mosque, said Biviji, noting the congregation has gotten next to no opposition.

“By having a diverse community, our residents and businesses are exposed to the best and brightest people in the region while creating a comfortable environment for anyone to move into,” said Mayor Bernie Platt in a prepared statement.

The groundbreaking “gives me great pride because it stands directly counter to the name-calling and bigotry many Muslim groups were exposed to after the tragic events of Sept. 11,” the mayor stated.
Platt said its his goal to make Cherry Hill the region’s most inclusive municipality.

Verizon donates to Muslim shelter

CLIFTON, NJ–Verizon Wireless has announced that it will give a financial donation to a Muslim shelter to mark the opening of its newest store in Clifton. The ribbon-cutting ceremony on May 4th included a $2,500 HopeLine(R) donations to Strengthen Our Sisters, a shelter and supportive service program for homeless, battered women and their dependent children, and WAFA House (Women Against Family Abuse), a privately run domestic violence crisis center based in Paterson that caters primarily to the needs of women of South Asian, Arabic and/or Muslim descent. A recognized corporate leader for its commitment to preventing domestic violence and raising awareness of the issue, the Verizon Wireless donations are made possible through the company’s HopeLine phone recycling program.

The Clifton Communications Store is the 58th to open in New Jersey and one of 140 Verizon Wireless retail locations in the New York Metro area.

Thirty-two Million Dollar Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Brooks Eckerd Pharmacy

The Law Offices of Karl J. Stoecker announced that it has filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit on behalf of five Muslim Americans against the Jean Coutu Group (PJC) USA, Inc., which operates Eckerd Pharmacies.

Eckerd Pharmacy managers, the Complaint asserts, routinely referred to the five Muslim Americans as “terrorists” and “Bin Laden’s brothers” and ultimately terminated their employment after falsely accusing them of participation in a Muslim conspiracy to steal from the Company to fund terrorist activities.

“This is one of the most blatant and egregious instances of discriminatory conduct by a large public company that I have ever prosecuted,” said Karl J. Stoecker, plaintiffs’ lead attorney. The five Muslim Americans, the Complaint alleges, “were (i) relentlessly berated, belittled and demeaned by their superiors in front of fellow managers, subordinates, and customers; (ii) subject to repeated and unwarranted scrutiny, interrogations, and false accusations of theft and other malfeasance; (iii) compelled to work additional night and week-end shifts; and, (iv) provided with inadequate staff, security, and resources.”

“It is unusual for a company of this size to tolerate or endorse discriminatory conduct of this magnitude. The Company’s response to plaintiffs’ complaints of discrimination was equally, if not more disturbing, than the conduct of plaintiffs’ immediate superiors,” Mr. Stoecker continued. The Complaint further alleges that after being apprised of the foregoing claims the Company initiated a campaign to further slander and defame the five Muslim Americans by claiming that they (i) were part of an organized terrorist group; (ii) were caught stealing cigarettes from the Company; (iii) used the proceeds of this theft to support terrorist activities; and, (iv) were, or would be, deported by Homeland Security.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the eastern district of New York.

Celebrating Religious Diversity One Meal at a Time

“All great change in America begins at the dinner table.”
Ronald Reagan

Troublesome contradictions, violence, and heated arguments dominate religious headlines today. But a deeper, softer story is dawning as well:
Soon thousands of Coloradans will be taking significant personal steps in celebration of religious diversity. And they will do so using the most ordinary of experiences – a shared meal around a common table. That’s the vision of Randy Harris and Sandra Sommers of Aurora and of two other Denver area couples . . . and is the purpose of the organization they’ve founded, Common Tables, LLC.

The Common Tables model is a simple one: Members join Common Tables, either as individuals or as pairs, by visiting the website at www.CommonTables.org, providing some basic personal data and paying a $25.00 annual administrative fee. They are then introduced into a diverse group, called a Table, which consists of four members – or member pairs. Member Tables are formed with a goal of maximizing the diversity of religious, spiritual and/or philosophical beliefs while maintaining a general geographic proximity for members. Over the following six month cycle each Table will get together four times – typically for dinner and most commonly in a member’s home.
Members are asked only to begin their six months with open hearts and with a spirit of curiosity. Most will end their first cycle with new friends and with an expanded optimism about what’s possible for the world.

Common Tables’ vision recognizes that in all religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems, the simple act of sharing a meal together is also a symbolic act of great significance. They see millions of diverse people breaking bread together. Here a Baha’i, a Baptist, a Hindu and a Jew are gathered around a Common Table. There perhaps a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Taoist are sharing a meal.

And here is what to many will be an interesting point: Their picture doesn’t really involve people sitting around a Common Table engaged in deep religious or philosophical discussions – though it is recognized that there will be some of that. The vision is much simpler:
“Our ideal is that most of the conversation in the majority of our groups will be simple, non-judgmental, getting-to-know-you sorts of dialogues. We hope members talk about their children and grandchildren and their gardens and about the price of a loaf of bread. Our prayer is that our members will simply get to know one another and that in that knowing they will discover that they have much in common. That they share many of the same hopes and dreams”, said Randy Harris.

For additional information about the Common Tables model for interfaith dialogue, visit their website at www. CommonTables.org. At this time Common Tables is accepting members from through out the United States. An international roll out will soon follow.

9-20

Islamic Relief Fundraising Dinner

April 1, 2007 Islamic Relief Worldwide held a fund-raising dinner for Darfur at the Sheraton Colonial Hotel in Wakefield, Massachusetts. [9] Imam Zaid Shakir ( http://www.zaidshakir.com/) of the Zaytuna Institute (http://www.zaytuna.org/ ) was the guest speaker.

The speakers described their experiences at refugee camps in Darfur and showed slides, less gruesome than those provided by Gloria White-Hammond or Mia Farrow. Imam Shakir emphasized the Islamic piety of the population of Darfur.

The Islamic Relief speaker pointed out that janjaweed (standard Arabic jund jawa’id) is simply a generic term for cavalry or militia. A janjaweed may be allied with the government, fighting for the rebellion or simply engaging in brigandage.

Because Darfur and Chad are so resource poor, refugee women that ventured outside the camps to collect firewood threatened the livelihood of local people, who sometimes became angry and attacked the refugees. This sort of violence is a consequence of the civilian population displacement caused by the civil war but is separate from the fighting between the rebels and the government. Once Islamic Relief workers acquired more efficient stoves so that the refugees gathered far less wood for fuel, a major source of friction between refugees and local people diminished tremendously.

One attendee pledged $10,000 to aid the refugees while two other guests pledged $5,000, and practically everyone pledged something.

Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch addresses Kennedy School of Government

On Friday April 27, 2007, the Carr Center for Human Rights presented a talk by Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth on “Human Rights at Home” at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Carr Center Director Sarah Sewall introduced Roth as someone deeply devoted to issues of justice and accountability.
In his address, Roth argued that the framework of criminal law provides a much more effective approach to combating terrorism than the Bush administration’s panicked war response, which consists of detentions, prosecutions, placing people in the category of enemy, and torture.

The enemy combatant category arises from the lack of ability to prosecute detainees for crimes, he said.
The Bush administration, he said, appears afraid that legal criminal prosecution would lead to the release of suspects that have been tortured.

He noted that the Bush administration is still transferring prisoners from secret facilities to Guantanamo even though the secret facilities were supposed to have closed months ago.

Roth claimed that CIA interrogators are worried about future prosecutions and the Army rewrote their manual to get out of the torture business. Criticism of organizations like HRW seems to have had some effect.

As he explained, an effective counterterrorism policy would prevent, punish, incapacitate, and deter terrorists. He argued that the Bush policy has ruined the US legal system and enraged people throughout the world. Useful information cannot be obtained via torture, as there is no way to know whether the information obtained is valid. Statistics on preventing terrorism show that only 10% of terrorism is prevented by interrogations, while 90% is prevented by walk-in voluntary testimony, but nowadays, no one is willing to report anything for fear of being detained themselves.

Roth, who served as a federal prosecutor for the Iran-Contra investigation, believes that a criminal law framework would make it possible to build non-testimonial prosecutions that would not depend on torture testimony. Britain prosecutes terrorism suspects via standard criminal deterrence techniques. This approach would rebuild respect for the US as a source of justice. At present, other nations are circumventing the US to create their own international legal regime to deal with terrorism that does not depend on the US.

One audience member mentioned the insanity of US discourse over Israel. Roth agreed and mentioned Dershowitz’s irrational attacks on HRW, but he avoided giving further details because he felt it was a topic for a lecture in itself.

Islamic Society of Boston Releases Evidence of Conspiracy Against Mosque

Boston–May 7–This week, the Islamic Society of Boston publicly released discovery materials from their conspiracy lawsuit, which reveal that in 2004, Israel advocates met with real estate investors, attorneys, and politicians at their office in Boston to discuss coordinating efforts “to present a legal challenge” to the Roxbury Mosque project. The executive director of the Israel advocacy organization congratulated the group.

“Discussion of issues and individuals involved in the Mosque led to some preliminary steps as we continue to gather information and develop an action plan” to unravel the land deal between the City and the ISB.
“…Given that they may not have parking, [IDF fundraising real estate developer] suggested we might thwart them through the building permit process for the intended parking.”

The real estate investors recruited a Jewish law student from Harvard to assist their attorney, who is a Republican Party activist.

The most aggressive of the real estate developers told the executive producer of the Investigative Reporting unit at Fox News in Boston how to use the Freedom of Information act to obtain records from the Boston Redevelopment Authority about the City’s sale of land to the Muslim community. He specifically instructed the TV news reporter to use language associating the mosque with terrorism.

“Aside from our 1st Amendment claims and the various other strategies to attack the mosque, ultimately our interest is based on the premise that some of the senior people in the ISB are supporters of terrorism and sworn enemies of America and Jews, and that the construction of the mosque may be funded by Wahhabis.”

The executive director collaborated with the ADL and some discredited terrorism “experts” to fabricate something she called a “comprehensive document regarding the individuals/organizations/history etc. of the Mosque, which will be the backbone of the media campaign…Filing the lawsuit would be the initial lead/newsworthy component of the media angles.”

“Mosque Characters.doc” lists over twenty Muslim leaders including various ISB directors with bogus and bizarre connections to “the Moslem Brotherhood,” Hamas, Hezbollah and Taibah.

The Israel advocacy group’s co-founder had made plans for “enlisting support of the Black Church community in the suit as a possible plaintiff,” but commendably, no one in the Black community would participate. The group made do with an Italian American who lives nowhere near the mosque. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2007 as being “without merit.”

9-20

By Patrick Cockburn
TomDispatch.com

Tuesday 08 May 2007

What the Bush Administration has wrought in Iraq.

At 3 am on January 11, 2007 a fleet of American helicopters made a sudden swoop on the long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in northern Iraq. Their mission was to capture two senior Iranian security officials, Mohammed Jafari, the deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. What made the American raid so extraordinary is that both men were in Iraq at the official invitation of the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who held talks with them at his lakeside headquarters at Dokan in eastern Kurdistan. The Iranians had then asked to see Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, in the Kurdish capital Arbil. There was nothing covert about the meeting which was featured on Kurdish television.

In the event the U.S. attack failed. It was only able to net five junior Iranian officials at the liaison office that had existed in Arbil for years, issuing travel documents, and which was being upgraded to a consular office by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Baghdad. The Kurdish leaders were understandably furious asking why, without a word to them, their close allies, the Americans, had tried to abduct two important foreign officials who were in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi president. Kurdish troops had almost opened fire on the American troops. At the very least, the raid showed a contempt for Iraqi sovereignty which the U.S. was supposedly defending. It was three months before officials in Washington admitted that they had tried and failed to capture Jafari and General Frouzanda. The U.S. State Department and Iraqi government argued for the release of the five officials as relative minnows, but Vice-President Cheney’s office insisted fiercely that they should be held.

If Iran had undertaken a similar venture by, for example, trying to kidnap the deputy head of the CIA when he was on an official visit to Pakistan or Afghanistan, then Washington might have considered the attempt a reason for going to war. In the event, the US assault on Arbil attracted bemused attention inside and outside Iraq for only a few days before it was buried by news of the torrent of violence in the rest of Iraq. The U.S. understandably did not reveal the seniority of its real targets – or that they had escaped.

Multiplying Enemies

The Arbil raid is significant because it was the first visible sign of a string of highly significant American policy decisions announced by President George W. Bush in an address to the nation broadcast in the U.S. a few hours earlier on January 10. There have been so many spurious turning points in the war – such as the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi government in 2004, or the elections of 2005 – that truly critical moments are obscured or underrated.

The true importance of Bush’s words took time to sink in. In the months prior to his speech, the U.S. seemed to be feeling its way towards an end to the war. The Republicans had lost control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections, an unexpectedly heavy defeat blamed on the Iraq war. Soon afterwards, the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group of senior Republicans and Democrats, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, spelled out the extent of American failure thus far, arguing for a reduced U.S. military commitment and suggesting negotiations with Iran and Syria.

President Bush did the exact opposite of what the Baker-Hamilton report had proposed. He identified Iran and Syria as America’s prime enemies in Iraq, stating: “These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.” Instead of reducing the American commitment, Bush pledged to send 20,000 extra troops to Iraq to try to secure Baghdad. In other words, the U.S. was going to respond to its lack of success in the conflict by escalating both the war in Iraq and America’s confrontation with Iran in the Middle East as a whole. The invasion of 2003 had destabilized the whole region; now Bush was about to deepen that instability.

The raid on Arbil showed that the new policies were not just rhetoric. Iraqis were quicker than the rest of the world to pick up on what was happening. “People are saying that Bush’s speech means that the occupation is going to go on a long time,” the Iraqi political scientist Ghassan Attiyah told me soon after the President had stopped speaking. Although the new U.S. security plan for Baghdad, which began on February 14th, was sold as a temporary “surge” in troop numbers, it was evident that the reinforcements were there to stay.

In April, the Pentagon announced that it was increasing Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Without anybody paying much attention, American officials stopped talking about training Iraqi army troops as a main priority. This was an important shift in emphasis. Training and equipping Iraqi troops to replace American soldiers – so they could be withdrawn from Iraq – had been the cornerstone of U.S. military planning since 2005. Now, the policy was being quietly downgraded, though not abandoned altogether.

Could the new strategy succeed? It seemed very unlikely. The U.S. had failed to pacify Iraq between 2003 and 2007. Now, with much of the American public openly disillusioned with the war, Bush was to try for victory once again. Common sense suggested that he needed to reduce the number of America’s enemies inside and outside Iraq, but his new strategy was only going to increase them.

The U.S. Army was to go on fighting the five-million-strong Sunni community, as it had been doing since the capture of Baghdad. The Sunni demand for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was not being met. At the same time, the U.S. was going to deal more aggressively with the 17 million Shias in Iraq. It would contest the control over much of Baghdad and southern Iraq of the Mehdi Army, the powerful militia led by the nationalist Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is regarded with cult-like devotion by many Shia Iraqis. Not content with this, Washington was also more openly going to confront Iran, the most powerful of Iraq’s neighbors.

As with so many U.S. policies under Bush, the new strategy made sense in terms of American domestic politics, but in Iraq seemed a recipe for disaster. Iran was easy to demonize in the U.S., just as Saddam Hussein had been blamed four years earlier for everything wrong in Iraq and the Middle East. The New York Times, which had once uncritically repeated White House claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, now ran articles on its front page saying that Iran was exporting sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraq that were killing American soldiers. There was no reference to the embarrassing discoveries of workshops making just such bombs in Baghdad and Basra. Above all, the Bush administration was determined to put off the day – at least until after the Presidential election in 2008 – when it had to admit that the U.S. had failed in Iraq.

A Security Plan Lacking Security

I was in Baghdad soon after Bush had spoken. I had never known it to be so bad. My driver had to take a serpentine route from the airport, driving along the main highway, then suddenly doing a U-turn to dart down an alleyway. He was trying to avoid checkpoints that might be manned by Police Commandos in their mottled uniforms who often acted as Shia death squads. The journey to the al-Hamra Hotel in Jadriyah, a district built in a loop of the Tigris river, took three times as long as normal. In the following days, I could see Mehdi Army checkpoints, civilians with guns and a car slewed across the road, operating almost within sight of the heavily guarded July 14 Bridge that leads to the Green Zone.

The extent of the military failure over the previous three-and-a-half years was extraordinary. The foreign media never quite made clear how little territory the U.S. and the Iraqi army fully controlled – even in the heart of Baghdad. It was astonishing, in early 2007, to look out from the north-facing windows in the Hamra and see columns of black smoke billowing up from Haifa Street on the other side of the Tigris river. This is a two mile long militant Sunni corridor less than a mile from the northern end of the Green Zone. Since the early days of the fighting, the U.S. Army, supported by Iraqi army troops, had been unsuccessfully trying to drive out the insurgents who ruled it.

Sometimes, U.S. commanders persuaded themselves (and embedded journalists) that they were making progress. On this occasion, I looked up and read a long, optimistic article about Haifa Street in an American paper, claiming there were signs that “the tide was turning on Iraq’s street of fear.” It was no longer an arrow pointing at the heart of the Green Zone; rebel leaders had been arrested or killed; large weapons caches had been discovered; insurgent attacks were less intense and less frequent; Iraqi troops were at last being effectively deployed. Having finished reading the piece, I was reflecting on whether or not the U.S. military and its local allies were at last achieving something on Haifa Street when I glanced at the piece and realized, with a groan, that it was dated March 2005, almost two years earlier.

American commanders often genuinely believed that they were in command of towns and cities which Iraqis, including the local police, told me were dominated by Sunni insurgents or Shia militia. On one occasion in early 2007, senior U.S. and Iraqi officers were giving a video press conference from Diyala, a much fought over province northeast of Baghdad, confidently claiming that they were winning the fight against the Sunni rebels. Even as they were speaking an insurgent squad attacked and captured the mayor’s office in Baquba, the capital of Diyala. It only withdrew after blowing up the building and kidnapping the mayor. The government announced that it was dismissing 1,500 policemen in Diyala because of their repeated failure to resist the insurgents. When I checked with a police commander a few months later he said threw up his hands in disgust and said that not a single policeman had been fired.

The addition, promised by Bush, of five extra brigades to the U.S. forces in Baghdad made, at least at first, some difference to security in the capital. The number of bodies of people tortured, shot in the head, and dumped in the street, went down from the horrific levels of late 2006. These death-squad killings were mostly of Sunni and were the work of the Mehdi Army or of army and police units collaborating with them.

A few days before the security plan began, Muqtada al-Sadr stood down his militiamen, telling them to dump their arms and move out of Baghdad. He was intent on avoiding direct military confrontation with the U.S. reinforcements. But while the Shia were killing fewer Sunni, the Sunni insurgents were still slaughtering Shia civilians with massive suicide bombs, often vehicle-borne, targeting crowded market places. These did not stop and improved security measures made little difference. On February 3, a truck delivering vegetables blew up in the Shia-Kurdish Sadriya quarter in central Baghdad killing 135 people and wounding 305. Ten weeks later, long after the Security Plan had been launched, another vehicle bomb blew up in the same market, killing 127 people and wounding 148. Not surprisingly, local people jeered and threw stones at American and Iraqi soldiers who turned up after the explosion. The main failing of the security plan for ordinary Iraqis, many of whom had initially welcomed it, was simply that it did not deliver security for them or their families.

Who Rules Iraq?

There was a central lesson of four years of war which Bush and Tony Blair never seemed to take on board, though it was obvious to anybody living in Iraq: the occupation was unpopular and becoming more so by the day. Anti-American guerrillas and militiamen always had enough water to swim in. The only community in Iraq that fully supported the U.S. presence was the Kurds – and Kurdistan was not occupied.

It is this lack of political support that has so far doomed all U.S. political and military actions in Iraq. It makes the country very different from Afghanistan where foreign troops are far more welcome. Opinion polls consistently show this trend. A comprehensive Iraqi survey has been conducted by ABC News, USAToday, the BBC, and ARD annually over the last three years. Its findings illuminate the most important trends in Iraqi politics. They show that, by March 2007, no less than 78% of Iraqis opposed the presence of U.S. forces, compared to 65% in November 2005 and 51% in February 2004. In the latter year, only 17% of the population thought that violence against U.S. forces was acceptable, while by 2007 the figure had risen to 51%. This pool of people sympathetic to Sunni insurgents and Shia militias was so large as to make it difficult to control and impossible to eliminate them.

Again and again, assassinations and bombs showed that the Iraqi army and police were thoroughly infiltrated by militants from all sides. Nowhere was safe. Some incidents are well known. In April 2007, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the café of the Iraqi parliament in its heavily defended building in the Green Zone. The bomber had somehow circumvented seven or eight layers of security. Earlier, on March 23, the deputy prime minister, Salam al-Zubaie, was badly injured by a bomber who got close to him with the connivance of his bodyguards.

There were lesser unknown incidents indicative of the divided loyalties of the security forces. On March 6, militants from the Islamic State of Iraq movement – of which al Qaida in Iraq is part – stormed Badoush prison northwest of Mosul. In the biggest jailbreak since 2003, they freed 68 prisoners of whom 57 were foreign. Of the 1,200 guards at the prison, 400-500 were on duty at the time, but did nothing to stop the Islamic militants breaking in or the prisoners breaking out. Some American soldiers see that the problem is not about a few infiltrators. “Any Iraqi officer who hasn’t been assassinated or targeted for assassination is giving information or support to the insurgents,” one US marine was quoted as saying. “Any Iraqi officer who isn’t in bed with the insurgents is already dead.”

Some problems facing the U.S. and Britain in Iraq have not changed since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. Getting rid of the Iraqi leader was far easier than finding a successor regime that would not be more dangerous to American interests. It is a dilemma still unresolved more than four years into the occupation.

A prime reason why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran in 1980-88 is that it did not want a Shia clerical regime, possibly sympathetic to America’s enemies in Tehran, to come to power in Iraq. It was the same motive that stopped President Bush senior pushing on to Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam after defeating the Iraqi army in Kuwait in 1991. After 2003, Washington was in the same quandary: If elections were held, the Shia, comprising 60% of the population that had been long excluded from power, were bound to win.

The nightmare for Washington was to find that it had conquered Iraq only to install black-turbaned clerics in power in Baghdad, as they already were in Tehran. At first, the U.S. tried to postpone elections, claiming that a census had to be held. It was only on the insistence of the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani that two elections were held in 2005, in which the Shia religious parties triumphed. Washington has never been comfortable with these Shia-Kurdish governments. It demanded that they try to reconcile with the Sunni – though exactly how Shia and Kurdish leaders are supposed to do this, given that the main Sunni demand is a timetable for an American withdrawal, has never been clear.

For their part, the Shia, have become increasingly suspicious that the U.S. and Britain do not intend to relinquish real control over security to the elected Iraqi government. There were many examples of this. For instance, in the Middle East the most important force underpinning every government is the intelligence service. In theory (as I explain in my book, The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq), the Iraqi government should get its information from the Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) that was established in 2004 by the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority. But a peculiarity of the INIS is that its budget is not provided by the Iraqi Finance Ministry but by the CIA.

Over the next three years, they paid $3 billion to fund its activities. During this time it was run by General Mohammed Shahwani, who had been the central figure in a CIA-run coup in 1996 against Saddam Hussein that had failed disastrously. For long periods he was even banned from attending Iraqi cabinet meetings. A former Iraqi cabinet minister, who was a member of the country’s National Security Council, complained to me that “we only get information that the CIA wants us to hear.” Iraqis did not fail to spot the extent to which the power of their elected government was being trimmed. The poll cited above showed that by Spring 2007 only 34% of Iraqis thought their country was being run by their own government; 59% believed the U.S. was in control. The Iraqi government had been robbed of legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.

Destabilizing Iraq

In the course of 2006 and 2007, Baghdad disintegrated into a dozen hostile cities at war with each other. There were fewer and fewer mixed Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. Terror engulfed the city like a poisonous cloud. There was a lot to be frightened of: Sunni insurgent groups; the Shia militias, Mehdi Army, and the Badr Organization; police and police commandos; the Iraqi army and the Americans. One day I received an e-mail message from an old friend. He wrote: “Yesterday the cousin of my stepbrother (as you know, my father married twice) was killed by Badr troops three days after he was arrested. His body was found in the trash in al-Shula district. He was one of three other people who were killed after heavy torture. They did nothing, but they are Sunni people among the huge numbers of Shia people in the General Factory for Cotton in al-Khadamiyah where they were working. His family couldn’t recognize his face [and only knew it was him] because of the wart on his arm.”

Most of my Iraqi friends had fled Iraq for Jordan or Syria or, when they could get a visa, Western Europe. Soon, I could not enter the coffee shop of The Four Seasons, the hotel where I usually stayed in the Jordanian capital of Amman, without seeing several Iraqis I knew sitting at other tables. These were the better-off. The poor often had to chose between staying in jobs where they were at risk, becoming permanently unemployed, or taking flight. I was in contact with a Sunni family called al-Mashadani who lived in the west Baghdad district of Hurriya. It was under attack by Shia militiamen. Khalid, the father, worked as mechanic in the railway station. He was forced to leave his job when the repair yard was taken over by Shia militiamen. He stayed away and asked a Shia fellow worker to pick up his salary. This worked until the Shia militias found out what was happening and threatened to kill any Shia who passed on the salary of a Sunni.

Khalid was forced to leave for Syria where he found work. He left behind his wife, Nadia, and four children, the eldest of whom was eight years old. Living with them in the house was Nadia’s sister, Sarah, whose husband had been an ordinary guard at the Oil Ministry building. He was killed by the resistance who considered that his job made him a collaborator with the government. On December 25, 2006, this whole family group was told by the Shia militia to get out of their house immediately without taking any possessions or be killed. They fled into the night and sat beside the road until a charitable minibus driver picked them up. Eventually, they found refuge in a school. Nadia recalled that “we stayed 29 days in a dark and damp room and we couldn’t go out of it when the students were studying.” Her husband in Syria offered to return, but she told him to stay because the family could not afford for him to lose his job.

Nadia blames the Americans for the sectarian civil war that had engulfed her family. She says: “We were living together, Sunni and Shia, and there was no sign of sectarian differences between us in Iraq until the Americans came and encouraged sectarianism and let in foreign terrorists.” Many Iraqis similarly see sectarianism as the work of the Americans. This is not entirely fair. Sectarian differences in Iraq were deeper under Saddam Hussein and his predecessors than many Iraqis now admit. But in one important respect, foreign occupation did encourage and deepen sectarianism. Previously a Sunni might feel differently from a Shia but still feel they were both Iraqis. Iraqi nationalism did exist, though Sunni and Shia defined it differently. But the Sunnis fought the U.S. occupation, unlike the Shia who were prepared to cooperate with it. After 2003, the Sunni saw the Shia who took a job as a policeman as not only a member of a different community, but as a traitor to his country. Sectarian and national antipathies combined to produce a lethal brew.

The war in Iraq that started in 2003 has now lasted longer than the First World War. Militarily, the conflicts could not be more different. The scale of the fighting in Iraq is far below anything seen in 1914-18, but the political significance of the Iraq war has been enormous. America blithely invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein to show its great political and military strength. Instead it demonstrated its weakness. The vastly expensive U.S. war machine failed to defeat a limited number of Sunni Arab guerrillas. International leaders such as Tony Blair who confidently allied themselves to Washington at the start of the war, convinced that they were betting on a winner, are either discredited or out of power.

At times, President Bush seemed intent on finding out how much damage could be done to the U.S. by the conflict in Iraq. He did so by believing a high proportion of his own propaganda about the resistance to the occupation being limited in scale and inspired from outside the country. By 2007, the administration was even claiming that the fervently anti-Iranian Sunni insurgents were being equipped by Iran. It was a repeat performance of U.S, assertions four years earlier that Saddam Hussein was backing al-Qaeda. In this fantasy world, constructed to impress American voters, in which failures were sold as successes, it was impossible to devise sensible policies.

The U.S. occupation has destabilized Iraq and the Middle East. Stability will not return until the occupation has ended. The Iraqi government, penned into the Green Zone, has become tainted in the eyes of Iraqis by reliance on a foreign power. Even when it tries to be independent, it seldom escapes the culture of dependency in which its members live. Much of what has gone wrong has more to do with the U.S. than Iraq. The weaknesses of its government and army have been exposed. Iraq has joined the list of small wars – as France found in Algeria in the 1950s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s – that inflict extraordinary damage on their occupiers.

Baghdad-Arbil

April 2007

Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, Patrick Cockburn was awarded the 2005 Martha Gellhorn prize for war reporting. His book on his years covering the war in Iraq, The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq(Verso) was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for non-fiction. This essay will be the new introduction to the paperback edition of that book, due this fall.

Courtesy swissinfo

One of the largest Islamic cultural centers in Europe could be constructed just north of the Swiss capital, Bern.

The 23,000 square metre center, the concept of which has been proposed by Umma, the coordination center of Islamic organisations in Switzerland, will comprise a museum on Islam, a mosque, a convention center, offices and a four star hotel.

Farhad Afshar, Umma spokesman, confirmed reports in the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper and said that central to the project was “the prospect for a differentiated dialogue with Islam”.

Afshar said a global competition would be launched to find an architect to build the SFr60:80 million ($72:96 million) complex, which would be named the Avicenna Center after a Persian philosopher and scientist who lived 1,000 years ago.

He said he hoped the center would attract a similar level of interest and acclaim as the Paul Klee Center, a museum dedicated to Swiss painter Paul Klee, which is also located in Bern.

The location under consideration is the former abattoir area in Wankdorf, northern Bern, near the Bern:Zurich railway line.

The land belongs to the city of Bern and is part of the development project called “Wankdorf City”. Various developers have shown interest in the property and the authorities are set to decide in summer on how to proceed.

Cultural richness

The business model of the Islamic center is based on the House of Religions in Bern, work on which is set to begin in early 2008.

Afshar said the financing would be split between a public company, which would deal with the commercial element of the convention center, and a foundation, which would be responsible for the cultural side.

A project study and a business plan are currently being worked out in order to meet the necessary requirements of the municipal authorities and the project’s investors.

Marco Ryter, from Bernese architects Bauart, which is carrying out the project study, said: “Every Swiss should be able to take their children by the hand and show them Islam in this museum.”

Afshar, who is also the Muslim representative on the Swiss Council of Religions, said showing the richness of Islamic culture around the world would play a central role, hopefully ensuring that the current fuss involving Islam would not degenerate into “unworthy debates” about headscarves and minarets.

Opposition

Islamic buildings have not always received a warm Swiss welcome. Moves to block the construction of minarets, the distinctive architectural features of mosques, are underway in various regions.

The cantonal parliaments of Zurich, Bern, St Gallen and Ticino are considering proposals to make the construction of buildings of worship, such as minarets, temples and churches, dependent on approval at the ballot box.

On a local level, rightwing extremists in the town of Langenthal in canton Bern have collected signatures and organised public protests against mosques.

Furthermore, a committee that includes parliamentarians from the rightwing Swiss People’s Party has announced an initiative aimed at blocking the construction of minarets.

Currently only two mosques in Zurich and Geneva have a minaret. There are about 310,000 Muslims in Switzerland, mainly from the Balkans and Turkey, representing up to five per cent of the Swiss population.

9-19

Courtesy Free Internet Press

April 26, 2007

Lori Brim cradled her son in her arms for three months before he died at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

Dustin Brim, a 22-year-old Army specialist had collapsed three years ago in Iraq from a very aggressive cancer that attacked his kidney, caused a mass to grow over his esophagus and collapsed a lung.

The problems she saw during her time at Walter Reed, including her son screaming in pain while doctors argued over medications, had nothing to do with mold and shabby conditions documented in recent news reports. What this mother saw was an unexplainable illness consuming her son.
Read more →

By Dr. AS Nakadar

America’s prestige and clout grew to new heights with its virtuous and victorious involvement in World War II and its subsequent rebuilding of Europe. The winning of WW II contributed to its being a world leader but more important than that was its policies it pursued at home and abroad. The freedom of religion, freedom of press, policies that espoused the democratic values, individual liberty with their full faith in its judicial system and fiduciary responsibilities that gave the green back its mighty value commanding the world’s respect.

In the middle of the last century, America’s industrial complex needed more manpower to support its growth. The stringent requirements for immigration were relaxed. The result was a large influx of immigration from the entire world, that contributed to America’s richness in every field. Its economy, based on the capitalist model, soon provided vast avenues of limitless opportunities to immigrants hitherto unavailable in their own countries. Many enjoyed making more money and the hard working people with imagination and innovation made headlines with their success stories.

America’s educational system has long been considered the best in the world. It has been many students’ dream to have an American degree after their names. Its prestige in this system ensured students of worldwide recognition and assured them of respectable employment or position in any academic field.

Education encompasses discipline, intellectual growth and developed character. The availability of unmatched research facilities was a dream come true for many. That drew students from all the corners to the extent that some countries complained of “brain drain.”

Immigration from various parts of the world bought with it different languages, cultures and different religions. It created a beautiful pluralistic mosaic that each community was eager to learn about others.

Tolerance took precedence over differences and appreciation of others became the hallmark of community’s progress.

The USA commanded its respect in the international arena because of its respect for human rights; its mighty dollar provided relief and rehabilitation to the countries in need, its production of grain surplus fed many in the world and it always stood for upholding the international boundaries in reverence.

Today, the American landscape is changing. America is under siege. The American capitalist system fed the greed, leading to unscrupulous and corrupt dealings of big corporate giants like Enron. Perhaps Enron is only the tip of the iceberg. Greed and unfounded fear, again, guided America to a disastrous war in Iraq. The greed for oil and the unfounded fears of Iraq’s military strength coupled with its presumed chemical warfare capabilities led America into a losing war.

Greed in corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater made them concerned only with their profit, irrespective of human rights or lives–leading to colossal and unprecedented human tragedy in Iraq. This greed has also been responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and millions of Iraqi families uprooted.

Our school education is falling and failing. School–once thought a sacred place–has become a fortress, guarded with metal detectors for guns, knives, and other lethal weapons. Indulgence in drug is becoming a common place. Alcohol abuse on college campuses is rampant. School closings due to insufficient funding are becoming common occurrence. And since Columbine tragedy there has been deadly shootings on school and college campuses on regular basis, the latest being the massacre on West VA’s tech university.

The proclamation of freedom of religion for its pluralistic society is under scrutiny. The arrest of six imams praying at the airport provides sufficient evidence. Ask the people bearing the name Muhammad or similar Muslim sounding names, how often they have to go through the harassment and the spiteful interrogation at the airport. Do they feel the glass ceiling in their employments and other promotions? How about the much touted freedom of press? Has it been used selectively for misinformation, disinformation, stereotyping, and controlled media? The oldest democracy of the world saw the 2004 election counting in Florida and in Ohio of 2006 election, according to some, as stolen elections.

On the economic front we have become the greatest debtor nation in the world by losing our fiduciary responsibility. How far other countries of the world are going to finance almost $2 billion in interest payment per day on our trillions of dollars of debt? The mighty dollar is already loosing its steam in the world market. The worst economic impact is yet to come after the Iraq war.

The present regimes of neo cons have led America and Americans in to a quagmire. We are under siege on almost every front. All the values we cherished and the world respected us for are in quick sand. It is our duty as an American to assess and evaluate what is best for America. It is not too late. We have a lot to offer if we start working from to day, irrespective of any affiliations. The presidential elections are only 18 months away and let us start doing our part to show to the world that America will regain its adored values and its former position.

Dr AS Nakadar
ceo@muslimobserver.com

9-19

Qatari Government Gives $20,000 For Muslim Community Of Houston.

Interview with Qatar Consul General Rashid A. ALKhater

Question TMO: When did you join Diplomatic Core of Qatar?

Answer: Consul General Rashid ALKhater: I am a graduate of Minnesota University, with one of my majors being Political Science. I joined the Foreign Service of Qatar in 1985 and my first appointment was in Muscat. After that I have been to Mumbai, Germany, New York U.N.O., Embassy of Qatar in Washington D.C. and then Consulate of Houston in November 2004. Recently an interesting thing happened; when I met the Consul General G. R. Baluch of Pakistan in Houston and few days later saw myself being in the Embassy of Qatar in Islamabad Pakistan. So hopefully if the dream comes true, that may very well be my next appointment.

When did this Consulate of Houston start?

In September 1997.

What services does this Consulate provide?

We serve 16 States of the USA–this Consulate provides services which include providing information on investment opportunities in Qatar, details about the excellent tourism spots of Qatar, certification for import and export from and to Qatar, assistance for students from the USA to get scholarships and study in Qatar. Our aim is to strengthen the ties between Qatar and USA and one way of doing that is to properly liaison with the different governments of 16 states of the USA and here in Houston, very close relationship with the Office of Honorable Mayor Bill White.

We have learned that the Government of Qatar has always shown kind gestures worldwide?

Yes: We feel God has Blessed us and it is our duty to serve the needs of humanity. Like for instance, the People of Qatar through our Embassy in Washington gave more than $100 Million for rehabilitation efforts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi after the Hurricanes of Katrina and Rita.

We have learned that the Government of Qatar through your office has given a gift to the Muslim Community of Houston: Can you tell us about that?

Yes: We have given $20,000 to the Islamic Society of Greater Houston (ISGH). When I met with the President of ISGH Sheikh Rodwan Saleh, I used to ask, if we can be of any assistance.
Recently Sheikh Rodwan asked for help in the outreach work in Houston, which is done by ISGH via their Main Center located along Eastside Street. As such we have given $20,000 for printing of Qur`an with English translation, reprinting of brochures called “Islam for Americans” and some running expenses of the Main Center of ISGH.

[The President of ISGH Sheikh Rodwan Saleh was present on the occasion and graciously thanked the Honorable Consul General on behalf of all Houstonian Muslims for this most kind gesture]…

Any final comments and messages?

Yes – On behalf of the Government of Qatar, I would like to welcome American Investors and Tourists to come to Qatar and feel our good business environment, most exotic locations and hospitality.

Our office is here to assist you. 1990 Post Oak Boulevard, Building Number Three, Ste. 810; Houston, Texas 77056; 713-355-8221; Fax: 713-355-8240;

email: ralkhater@sbcglobal.net.

Qatar–A Profile

There are five countries in the Persian Gulf, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar. With the second largest reserves of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) after Russia, Qatar is a most strategic country within the Persian Gulf.

Historical Perspective

Archeological discoveries, inscriptions and a collection of exquisite pottery which were found in scattered areas in the country have proven that the land of Qatar was populated as early as 4000 BC. After being a sovereign state since 1916, Qatar gained complete independence on September 3rd, 1971. In the distant history, under the Abbasid State during the 8th century AH (the 14th century AD), Qatar experienced great economic prosperity as can be gleaned from the inscriptions of (Murwab) Fort on the western coast of the peninsula, which bears the marks of the Abbasid architectural style.

Geography

Qatar is a peninsula located halfway down the west coast of the Arabian Gulf. Its territory comprises a number of islands including Halul, Sheraouh, Al-Ashat and others. The total land area of Qatar is approximately 4,500 square miles. The population of Qatar amounts to 865,000 inhabitants compared to 525,000 inhabitants in the 1990s. 83% of inhabitants reside in the Capitol Doha and its main suburb Al-Rayyan. Other major cities are AL-Wakrah, Al-Khor, Dukhan, Al-Shamal, Mesaieed and Ras Lafan.

Flag

The White-&-Maroon Flag of Qatar was adopted on July 9th – 1971. The meaning of Qatar’s Flag is: The White color reflects the internationally recognized symbol of peace, the Maroon color symbolizes the bloodshed during the several wars Qatar had undergone, particularly in the second half of the 19th century–the nine-point serrated line indicates that Qatar is the 9th member of the “Reconciled Emirates” of the Persian Gulf in the wake of concluding the Qatari-British treaty in 1916.

Government

The 45 year-old, HRH Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, is the Emir of the State of Qatar since June 27th, 1995; while the 27 year-old, HRH Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al-Thani is Heir Apparent.

The 48 year-old, HRH Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, is the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs; the 55 year-old, HRH Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy and Industry.

The government structure is based on the 1970 provisional constitution with the Council of Ministers and Advisory Council. Islam is the official religion of the country and the Shariah (Islamic Law) is a main source of its legislation.

Language & Currency

The official language of Qatar is Arabic, while English is widely spoken. The official currency is the Qatari Riyal (QR), which is divided into 100 dirhams. The exchange parity has been set at the fixed rate of 1- US- $ = 3.65-QRs.

Education

Qatar follows a policy of compulsory and continuous education, where all citizens receive free schooling reflecting the country’s identity and providing equal opportunities to all.

Basic education consists of the following stages: Elementary Stage: Six years / Preparatory Stage: Three years / Secondary Stage: Three years.

Government schools provide free education for the children of non-Qatari residents, who work for the public sector. Qatar also has private schools as well as schools for the different Arab communities like the Lebanese, Jordanian and Sudanese schools plus those for non-Arab communities like the Indian, American and other schools. Statistics from 1997 show that illiteracy for Qataris for over 10 years old is 13.60% – 8.60% for males and 18.40% for females.

Weill Cornell Medical College (Doha, Qatar), is the first American medical school ever set up overseas. It is funded by the Qatar government through the Qatar Foundation, operated by Cornell and began its full Cornell M.D. degree program in September 2004. It also provides a preparatory two-year pre-medical program. Due to the strong agriculture sector in Qatar, there is a campus of Texas A&M University in Doha.

Economy

The main industry is Oil & Gas, with all of the top sister oil companies present in Qatar, namely ExxonMobil – The Royal Dutch Shell Anglo-Dutch – BP Amoco – Mobil – ChevronTexaco – The Gulf Oil – Marathon – & – Texaco.

The Non-Oil Sector of Qatar includes Agriculture & Fishing, Manufacturing, Electricity & Water, Building & Construction, Trade, Restaurants and Hotels, Transport and Communications, Finance, Insurance & Real Estate.

Tourism

Qatar gives everyone the opportunity to explore the natural environment, take an exciting desert safari, relax at the many beaches and pool facilities, or enjoy your favorite sport: Golf courses, billiards and snookers tables, bowling alleys, tennis and squash facilities, ice skating rinks.

Qatar grants tourist visas at border points for the nationals of more than 33 countries including USA, Canada, Iceland, West European countries, some East European countries, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, besides the nationals of the GCC countries.

Visit visas for the residents of the GCC countries and their companions are issued at border points, while entry visas for businessmen coming from places other than the countries mentioned above need to be arranged beforehand.

Visitors

on tourist visas are required to use Qatar Airways to enter the country. The passport section at Doha international airport can issue renewable 14-day tourist visas in 24 hours for all visitors to Qatar with the exception of travel documents holders.

For more information, please visit the Ministry of Interior’s website http://www.experienceqatar.com/

9-20

By Bob Wood, Muslim Media News Service (MMNS)

If you’ve never read a copy of the cult favorite, “Mad Magazine,” there is certainly no shame involved, but you might want to do a Google search on that name. The caricature of Alfred E. Neuman always appeared on the cover with the caption: ‘’What, me worry?’’ When you see the picture, you will understand what follows.

The Neuman face has long been used as a symbol of — stupidity. Perhaps you have seen variations of the face created by critics of our current president. But once you understand the character, you will understand why I think the 2007 stock market resembles him.

To start, yes, I continue to be a Bear while the market is hitting new highs points – while technology stocks with options investigations, intense competitive pressures and lofty valuations are running even higher. Doesn’t this scene resemble the late 1990s? But of course, as a Bear, I have to find ways to feel better about being wrong, don’t I?

Well, I do. And I don’t! We all find ourselves on the wrong side of something from time to time. I certainly missed calling the duration of the current bull market cycle, which I thought might be ending when domestic markets returned so little on investments in 2005. But since then, markets have rallied on, and here we are at new highs for the Dow. What did I miss?

I think I missed the willingness of the Fed and other fiscal policy makers to print money at what would normally be considered “reckless” speed. But when they stopped reporting how fast they were printing money (now labeled by the Bulls as ‘’excess liquidity’’) and eliminated the release of M3 figures, that, admittedly, should have been a hint.

The idea that reckless expansions of the money supply are positive factors for an economy has never succeeded in the past. Look back at John Law and what happened in the French economy and banking system in the early 1700s when he began printing money in a panic-induced effort to save his schemes. Or revisit Weimar Germany for another great example.

Printing massive amounts of money, in excess of the growth rate of the economy, has always been inflationary. And inflation has always reduced the lifestyles of those living in that economic environment. But too many in today’s financial media call the process “a great thing” because of the credit creation it has fostered. But reckless it is, and the results, being played out now in our economy, won’t be pretty.

So when will the other shoe will drop and the consequences of these reckless policies become obvious and finally affect the stock market? Obviously, I don’t know the timing, but I do know that, at some point, it will happen, and it will matter. I may have to wait another year or two, or even longer, before my “bearish” call on the markets looks smarter than it does now. I just want to be on the right side when that day comes.

For the Bulls, this is a case of a “What, me worry?” stock market. They seem to have the uncanny ability either to look past the threats to the markets and economy or, even better, offer justification for why each threat is really an opportunity in disguise. The current mood reminds me of 1999, when the Bulls looked at the Bears with derision for relying on the underlying fundamentals and asking difficult questions about the true health of the markets. Their explaining then how internet stocks could be valued using metrics unrelated to profitability was an amazing thing to hear.

I am reminded, too, of how the real estate industry assured us just a couple years ago that there was little to fear about rapidly rising house prices, when demand was building because of the endless supply of newly printed money and credit offered to marginal buyers who previously would never have qualified for mortgage loans.

And today, threats to our economy are “nothing to worry about” again. This is the ‘’Goldilocks Economy’’ where everything is “just right,” and stocks are forever cheaply priced. “What, me worry?” — about the dramatic downturn in the housing market, one of the most critical industries in the economy and the largest generator of jobs over the past five years? Not me!

“What, me worry?” — about the massive U.S. trade deficits, now running over $800 billion/year and growing? That’s nothing to fear! Buy stocks! And with stock valuations running close to twenty times earnings, which is where all Bull markets have ended in the past, there is nothing to worry about there, either!

Inflation is running at the high rate you would expect with today’s excessive money printing, but if official inflation reports just eliminate those components (like food, energy, health care, or insurance costs) that are rising too fast for comfort, there is nothing to worry about. And even though real costs are rising and average Americans are spending more than they earn each month (as shown by the negative savings rate), don’t let that bother you!

Of course, those low savings rates have resulted in the average American worker in the 45-54 age group having saved less than $100,000 for retirement. Add to that dilemma renewed concerns about the massive shortfall in funding for the Social Security and Medicare benefits promised and you might begin to see a huge problem about to manifest itself in ways we can only imagine. But for today’s stock market Bulls, the response is: “What, me worry?” That’s a problem for tomorrow. Today we party on!

Remember, of course, that the U.S. is involved in two expensive wars, with neither of them going well and neither appearing to end anytime soon. Some see a very real possibility that the U.S. may be in the ‘’last throes’’ of its efforts to turn the tide of bad results in the Iraq fiasco before our troops finally wear out from overuse. And with dissention coming from higher ranking officers like Lt. Colonel Paul Yingling, who is assailing the performance of generals who are running the war, it may be only a matter of time until that effort is doomed. Waning public support is yet another sign of our fading chances of success.

And what effect does losing a war have on our economy, especially in terms of the massive resources devoted to the effort? For today’s Bulls, it’s nothing to worry about. Just add the cost to our debt, which is now funded by foreign central banks to the tune of over $2 billion/day — as if they will prove a never-ending source of funds. Let’s face it, if we have to borrow that much from foreign central banks, we can’t even pay the interest on our debt. And that sounds like the Federal government may be running a massive Ponzi Scheme, doesn’t it?

And the Bulls believe that will work out just fine too!

Call me stupid — or just prone to worrying too much. But I can’t see how these concerns can be considered trivial to anyone using an ounce of objectivity. Bad fiscal policies, poor leadership, lost wars and overwhelming amounts of debt are not ingredients for a strong and sustainable economy going forward. And none of them individually bodes well for the future.

But we are experiencing all of them, and they all have generated negative consequences in other economies of the past. To think that somehow they will work positively for us now seems to refute all logic and history.

I’m remain as bearish as ever on the domestic markets, just as I was pessimistic about the housing market last year while the head of the National Association of Realtors was promoting his new book explaining how to get rich buying real estate.

To me, today’s scenario provides an easy call. It bodes ill for anyone thinking that buying expensive stocks works even in the best of times. In times like this, it spells disaster. Yet the Bulls party on, regardless of the fundamentals (which they now consider “quaint”), and I’m sure they think they’ll be fast enough on the sell button to get out before it all hits the fan.

I think I have a better idea. Don’t get into the game at all. There are still better places to invest, though with global liquidity now at record levels, that list grows shorter by the day.

Have a great week.
Bob

Bob Wood ChFC, CLU Yusuf Kadiwala. Registered Investment Advisors, KMA, Inc., invest@muslimobserver.com.

9-19

By Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael

Courtesy t r u t h o u t | Report

The following was sent to George Tenet today in care of his publisher. The letter, written by a group of former intelligence officers, reflects disgust with George Tenet’s effort to burnish his image with his new “tell all” book.

28 April 2007
Mr. George Tenet
c/o Harper Collins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street 8th Floor
New York City, New York 10022

ATTN: Ms. Tina Andredis

Dear Mr. Tenet:

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the “damage to your reputation”. In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.

You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President.

This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.

You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.

Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.

You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You signed off on Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA’s most precious asset – credibility.

You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence. Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.

It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community – a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.

Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done? What could you have done?

For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent. Your candor during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002 provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, “fixing” the intelligence to the policy.

By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you “played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.”

The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous. The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.

Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael

9-19

Oppression exists, but this Muslim success story sees a land of opportunity

Courtesy Nadia Jamal

AHMED Fahour has a cautionary tale for any worker climbing the corporate ladder: be kind to the cleaner. Or in his case, the cleaner’s son. As a young boy, after school Fahour would help his father cleaning at a branch of the National Australia Bank.

Now 40, Fahour has returned to the bank – as its chief executive for Australia and Asia, and an executive director of a company that paid him almost $7 million last year. He is seen as a role model, not just because of his business success but for how, as a Muslim, he copes with perceptions of his faith since the September 11 attacks.

Until now, he has had little to say about his religion; he does not hide it, but nor does he feel the need to discuss it much in public. He wants to be judged on his work.

Fahour’s parents are devout Muslims, but he is quick to point out that his father is just as passionate about Carlton Football Club. And Fahour himself is married to an Australian of English-Irish heritage, Dionnie.

He prays, but like many other working Muslims he does not think it is the end of the world if he cannot help but miss a session, even if his father does.

“So many values in Islam – honesty, trust and helping other people – are completely consistent with Australian values,” Fahour says.

“So if any Muslim thinks that their religion is under question by living here, and if there is a disconnect, then it’s not the country that has to change, it’s the individual. The Koran says that when you are in another

country, you have an obligation to observe the laws of that country.”

Fahour is the product of immigrant parents from Lebanon. He is close to both, but describes his mother as the secret to his success. When his father was involved in a serious car accident, his mother, who had eight children to raise, had to find a full-time job. She often calls on Allah to bless her son, and when Fahour says “be good to your mother”, he really means it. After the accident the family banded together.

“I hope that people can see that the system isn’t completely stacked against them,” Fahour says. “If you open your eyes and look around, there are so many opportunities.”

He does not see it as his role to lecture about Islam, preferring to leave it to the “experts”. However, he does believe that Muslim women have borne the brunt of anti-Muslim sentiment. But if you over-analyse the situation, Fahour says, you are likely to end up unhappy and perhaps lonely.

“There may be some biases out there but there are also cases when there are no biases. Which way are you going to see the world? You need to take advantage of the glass that is half full. I say to people, ‘You can worry about the injustices committed to you and that can take up your whole day, a month or a year and you can end up a depressed person, or you can tackle it in a positive way’.

“Life is about these obstacles, and what makes you a better human being is how you deal with these challenges.”

For Fahour, diversity in the workforce is not complicated. It makes business sense.

“Companies are increasingly understanding that diversity of talent is a massive plus for their business and therefore the way I see it is that if people like [NAB bosses] John Stewart and Michael Chaney are presiding over the hiring of a guy like me, what does that say about them? That they care about this issue.”

Fahour confesses that he does not think too far ahead in terms of his next job. He does not have to, with his multi-million dollar pay packet. Still, he says that he does not take wealth for granted and believes he has an obligation to give to charity.

But does he see a friction between Islam and banking, given that a small but growing number of strict Muslims in Australia are opposed to dealings involving the payment or earning of interest? “The great majority of people deal with traditional banking and this is the way business is done here, so I don’t have an issue with that whatsoever,” Fahour says. “What I try to do is to find ways of catering for all different segments of the community.”

Fahour has lived in Sydney but finds Melbourne, where he grew up and is now based, “more harmonious”. In a previous job he lived in New York – and was riding the subway when the Twin Towers fell in 2001. Fahour understood the emotional cries of “them and us” that followed the attacks. They worried him a little: he got the message and placed American flags outside his home.

In the end, he got sick of the cold winters, missed his parents, brothers and sisters, and wanted his children (four under 12) to grow up in Australia – a place he believes offers a “less intense” existence.

9-19