Why Osama Bin Laden is still a free man

Most fervent and loyal blog readers will remember a recent posting reporting on a dinner with four American friends.
Who explained why Osama Bin Laden can still live in freedom.

Osama Bin Laden

One of the American friends have now send an e-mail because of the publication of the posting.
She writes:

"I enjoyed reading your piece about our discussion.
I also wanted to add that keeping Osama Bin laden "at large" so to speak, is a way to keep fear in the american people, which is used to justify military " anti terror " intervention.
As long as he is a threat, military force will be supported by the citizens because of the fear he will orchestrate another attack".

This is quite a point the American friend is making.
It is the theory that the American people live in fear for no good reasons simply to control and manipulate them.
For the U.S.-Government and the groups they defend the interests of to obtain the public permission to have a military and aggressive imperialistic policy worldwide.

Without doubt the majority of the American people feel threatened by terrorists, whoever they may be.
A fear instilled by a merciless propaganda.
The truth is that no American living peacefully in the United States has any reason to have fear for terrorism.
For crime and violence from compatriots yes, but from terrorists absolutely not.

However, there is no denying that many people in the world hate the United States.
And that they have in their minds bad intentions.
But this is not caused by the American people.
Responsible are the American politicians.
And the key issue is the Palestinian-Israelian conflict.

Take the World Health Organization.
They published on January 20, 2010 a "Gaza Health Fact Sheet".

Gaza is sealed off and blockaded by Israel trapping hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who live in most miserable circumstances.
As the World Health Organization explains:

"Recent events have resulted in a
severe deterioration of the already precarious living conditions of the people in Gaza and have further eroded a weakened health system".
And:
"The closure of Gaza since mid-2007 and the last Israeli military strike between 27 December and 18 January 2009 have led to on-going deterioration in the social, economic and environmental determinants of health.
Rising unemployment (41.5 percent of Gaza’s workforce in the first quarter of 2009) and poverty (in May 2008, 70 percent of the families were living on an income of less than one dollar a day per person 3) is likely to have long term adverse effects on the physical and mental health of the population".

Meanwhile, yesterday, US Republican Eric Cantor, House Representative, was saying in the public discussion with Barack Obama:
"We have the best health care system in the world".

Eric Cantor

Denying the fact that Palestinians have to live in absolute misery and this for decades refusing to reign in Israel for its devastating policies.
To the contrary, American politicians defend Israel all the way.
No matter what it does.
Therefore, The United States are accomplices in devastating and ruining and murdering thousands and thousands of Arab people.

How is a person to feel who has brothers and sisters living in Gaza?
And what is that person supposed to do?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Gaza Health Fact Sheet of the World Health Organization can be found at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:s8n1zjLggCgJ:www.emro.who.int/Palestine/reports/advocacy_HR/advocacy/Gaza_health_fact_sheet_20Jan2010.pdf+who+fact+sheet+impact+blockade&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjDLJeVRBNK4zzqhGzRNUr6QxQqrmaZpXfTcrDygy4buYWhyktqIW53XdGUY6y_kLxebMuVeuLEvMTRh8lv6Ma85Wv-_AgzjE7eu9RM_UCApXoFoEttiy26YuteRYTc3W4c20jS&sig=AHIEtbSL8fMg69CSw0iIhY9Rsurol4eljw




.

Why is Silicon Valley not in Saudi Arabia?

In the late seventeenth century Europe was a brilliant, modern community.
New worlds were being explored not only across the oceans but also in science, music, art and literature.
New instruments to meet practical needs were being invented.
Today, many of these achievements have become the necessities and treasures of modern man.
Like the telescope, the microscope, the thermometer, the barometer, the compass, the watch, the clock, champagne, wax candles, street lighting and the general use of tea and coffee all made their first appearance in those years.
Music in that time was written by Purcell, Vivaldi, Telemann, Rameau, Händel, Bach and Scarlatti.
In literature there was Molière, Thomas Hobbes and John Milton.
In science Descartes, Boyle and Antony van Leeuwenhoek produced scientific papers on coordinate geometry, the relations between volume, pressure and density of gases developing and using a 300-power microscope.
The greatest scientific mind in the seventeenth century was Isaac Newton.
His greatest work was the "Principia Mathematica" formulating the universal law of gravitation.

Meanwhile in those days the Europeans were exploring and colonizing the globe.
Most of South America and much of north America were ruled from Madrid.
English and Portuguese colonies had been planted in India.
Large parts of Africa were colonized by Germany, Belgium and France.
The eastern half of North America was ruled by the English, Dutch and French.

Looking back at that amazing time, we may wonder why there was such an explosion of progress, innovation and prosperity.
One major explanation is that in the seventeenth century the people were liberated from obeisance to religious doctrine.
There was religion but not an imposed doctrine.
Religion served to support all the fantastic efforts and accomplishments that were achieved.
Politicians, scientists and businessmen had specific goals but they were not forced to act and operate out of a rigid religious doctrine.

For a society to flourish religious doctrine must not be the dominant factor.
This is the conclusion when looking back at Europe in the seventeenth century.

But to understand that religious doctrine is making flourishing impossible we only need to look at contemporary countries that have wealth and potential but also have a rigid and strictly applied religious doctrine.
What is coming out of those countries in the field of science, art, literature and innovation?
Why is Silicon Valley not in Saudi Arabia?

Knowing and understanding the fact that religious doctrine is counterproductive for prosperity and innovation, we must make a choice whether to tolerate a dominant and leading position in society of orthodox religious fundamentalists who have as an agenda to have the population follow their religious doctrine.

In Afghanistan the Taliban, a movement implementing religious doctrine by force, closes down schools where girls attend.
In their view of the world, based on the Koran published in the year 632, girls and women have to be kept locked up in the house.
In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive a car.

Anybody who is in favor of prosperity, freedom, equality, democracy and innovation will say no to any religious doctrine.
It should never be allowed in politics.
A segregation between state and church, or mosque, is vital for a society to have a future.

Now, fervent and loyal blog readers may say, what are you worrying about, my friend?

On july 23, 2009 the Hizb ut-Tahrir organization was holding a conference in the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois.
300 persons attended.
Men in the front.
Women in the back.
This Khalifah Conference had as a theme: "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam".
One speaker at this conference was an Imam by the name of Jaleel Abdul Razek.
He envisions the USA to become in the future a part of the Muslim world.
At which point, according to Jaleel Abdul Razek, the US Constitution will be replaced by the Shariah: the laws coming from the Koran.

Therefore we say yes to all religions including the Islam.
But in the name of our own future we must say no to every religious doctrine that wants to interfere in and determine our lives.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To learn more about the conference of Muslims in the USA where they discussed replacing the Constitution by the Sharia, click on:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/07/replacing-the-us-constitution-with-the-koran

All women should be allowed to have a face

Bikinis are not as controversial as burquas.
The body and head covering sported by certain Muslim women.



This type of dress has its origins with desert times long before Islam arrived.
It had two functions.
Firstly as a sand mask in windy conditions.
This would be worn by men and women and is still common today.
For women only the masking of the face and body was used when one group was being raided by another. These raids often involved the taking of women of child bearing age.
With all women hidden behind a veil, and the home team fighting back, the chances of being taken were substantially reduced as the women of child bearing age could not be quickly distinguished from the very young and the old.

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Koran , and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public.
However, this requirement has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars and Muslim communities.
The burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Koran.
Hence, in most countries where a majority is Muslim the burqua is not required for women to wear.
Only in certain areas women wear burquas, like in North Western Pakistan.
And then we have the Taliban who forces women in Afghanistan to wear burquas.



In Europe the burqua has become controversial.
Some European countries have now large groups of Muslims.
And some of these Muslims are orthodox and fundamental.
Instructing their women to go out wearing a burqua.

An orthodox Muslim woman can do this in Europe.
A woman can walk the streets of Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam and London wearing a burqua as she pleases.
She won't be arrested and no naughty boy will try to pull down her veil.
The problems with women in Europe wearing burquas arose when orthodox Muslim girls wanted to attend school dressed in that fashion.
That was considered unacceptable by the authorities resulting in loud protests from fundamental Islamists.

It is a very peculiar situation that a west-european girl dressed in a T-shirt and mini skirt will never be allowed to walk the streets of cities in Egypt, Morocco and Iran.
While people from those countries coming to Europe believe they have a constitutional right to parade around, go to school and to work dressed in a burqua.

In the UK a conflict arose when the politician Jack Straw asked Muslim women from his constituency to remove any veils covering their faces during face-to-face meetings with him.
Straw explained to the media that this was a request, not a demand, and that he made sure that a woman staffer remained in the room during the meeting.
A media furore followed.
Some Muslim groups said that they understood his concerns, but others rejected them as prejudicial.

There is an aspect of forced controversy here.
Of willingly obstructing and challenging European societies by fundamentalist Muslims.
In the own Muslim societies the tolerance is very limited.
However, in Europe the societies are very liberal and that is happily embraced by certain Muslims to practice their customs.
And when then a certain way of dressing, like the burqua, is not everywhere allowed in Europe, like in schools, there is an outcry that this is discrimination, limitation of freedom and anti-Islam.

This policy of creating controversy even went as far as the swimming pool.
Muslim girls would show up in what they called a "burkini".
A swimming suit that is specifically designed for the female adherents of Islam.



Imagine a public swimming pool with boys and girls, men and women dressed in West-European styled bathing suites: most men in Speedos and women in bikinis.
And here come some Muslim girls in their burkinis.
And why?
Because of religion.



In France now it is not allowed anymore to wear burkinis in public swimming pools.
The reason the authorities are giving is that it is unhygienic.

The issue with the burqua and the burkini is that when a woman wears these clothes in Europe, it is a public statement.
It is the statement of saying: "I am a Muslim".
A rather provocative way of propagating a religion when we know that in the Koran, the book on which Islam is based, nothing can be found about burquas and burkinis.

It is not that controversial to express in Europe a religion with a dress code.
In countries like Spain and Italy men can be seen in the streets wearing the soutane.
And women dressed like nuns.
But the fundamental difference with the burqua is that priests and nuns keep their identity.
The people can see them in the eyes and know who they are.

The burqua takes away the public identity of the woman.
As President Sarkozy of France recently put it: "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,"

Fundamentalist Muslims are going back in time.
Adapting ways of living even from before the Koran was written.
Pushing women back in a position as in the days when people lived like barbarians.
That is unacceptable.
At least in Europe.



.

With what God agrees

When traveling, Gulliver's representative goes through a constant process of amazement and learning.
Because in almost every new place the locals have found ways to exist in a different way than elsewhere.
The language is different.
The religion.
The customs.
The dress code.
The culture.
The cooking.
Traveling and visiting new people is like landing on a new planet.

To truly enjoy this, one must be able to practice Krishnamurti's technique of "choiceless awareness".
The traveller may learn about a certain surprising and different custom when new people are met.
This then can be absorbed without the traveller being judgmental.
Without condemning the custom or rejecting it.

These days we are all in the footsteps of Gulliver.
Because we don't need to go somewhere anymore to learn about different ways of living.
Television brings it right into our living room.
The hiking shoes can stay in the closet because we have a sofa and a TV with National Geographic and Discovery channels.

One way to effectively practice "choiceless awareness" when learning about a different way to live life is to always keep in mind that in spite of cultural, social and religious differences, some very fundamental things we deeply share.
Things that are the same no matter how different another person elsewhere lives.

One of those things is that any other person elsewhere in the world has also a father and a mother.
There is nobody on this planet who does not have parents.
Every one of us has once been carried in the womb of a woman.

These days, on our planet, an escalation is taking place between religions.
Islam in many places has supporters who would like to see society ruled based on interpretations they make of the Koran.
These persons are very strong believers in what they are convinced of.
So strong that they are prepared to enforce their convictions on others.
This is obviously the opposite of "choiceless awareness".
It is an awareness with a tunnel vision: they see only one truth.

The awareness of a fundamentalist Muslim is within the framework of the Koran only.
Everything is seen through that tunnel.
When this approach to life is imposed on others without respect for different convictions, an unacceptable situation is created.
The principle of "choiceless awareness" cannot be exercised anymore because the personal freedom of others is entered and is tried to be forcibly altered.

Once we have a world where "choiceless awareness" is being corrupted, violence starts.
Imposing results in resistance.
And if the imposing comes with violence, the resistance will not be peaceful.

People have to learn to respect the others and accept them with the values they have.
They have to learn not to impose doctrines.
To allow fellow human beings their personal freedom.

And with this God agrees.





.

Marital rape allowed

A new law has come into effect in Afghanistan.
It is intended for the Shia people.
Only a part of the population of Afghanistan.
This new law confirms what has been the religious traditions with Shia people for centuries.
The tradition that men have to be controlled very strictly because probably otherwise they will act like animals.

Take for example the aspect of the new law saying that a woman can only leave her house after she obtains permission from her husband.
And if she does get permission she has to be accompanied by a man.
This proves that the Shia have a community where it is not safe for women to go out on their own.
If they do without permission and unguarded the things that will happen to the women performed by men are presumably so terrible that a law must protect the vulnerable women.

Hence this law stops men from attacking women in the towns and villages of Afghanistan.
Because over there, presumably men are like animals unable to control their physical desires.

But the law does provide the option for men to act like animals within their home and marriage.
It offers them the option of marital rape.
They have obtained the legal right to have sex with their wives when they please.
If the woman refuses, she is eligible for punishment.
The rule is that a woman must allow a man to have sex with her with a minimum of once every four days.

Needless to say it is a pretentious law.
It presumes that the man of a married couple needs to have sex at least every four days.
Social research has made clear that a couple that is married and have the first years of sexual passion behind them, rarely have more often sex than once a week.
But the Shia in Afghanistan pretend they do almost twice as good.

There is another weird aspect to this law.
It is a one way law.
It guarantees the man sex with a minimum of every four days, but what about the woman?
What if Abdullah has not mounted his wife for over five days?
Can she complain also?
Go to the police and have Abdullah arrested to be flogged until he promises to do a proper job that very night?
No, fervent and loyal blog readers: this is not provided in the new Afghan law.

This new law legalises animalistic behaviour.
A man has a legal right to have sex even when his wife doesn’t want.
Hence, his physical desire, disconnected from emotions, affection and caring, is considered the most important.

But the fundamental flaw of this law is that it mixes religion with state.
Traditions and rules from a religion are made into law.
This always leads to extremes and conflicts.
To the dictatorship of the religious leaders.
Because the new law in Afghanistan has not much to do with Islam as coming from the Koran.
The ingredients of the new law are coming from men who make specific interpretations of the Koran.
Interpretations for their own benefit, comfort and sexual pleasure.

Each Government must do what they believe is the right thing to do.
Afghanistan is an autonomous country.
If they want to have sex every four days: they do have our blessing.

But Afghanistan declares herself a friend of Europe and the USA.
And asks not only huge amounts of money but military assistance as well.
These days there are soldiers from the USA and Europe who risk their lives and sometimes lose it to assist Afghanistan in becoming a true democratic, civilised and well organized country.

So how could they pass in Afghanistan this law opposing every ingredient of human rights and democracy?
Treating women as if they were lower than animals?

News reports say that when this law was presented in Afghan Parliament, many members who voted in favor of this law, were not aware what they were voting for.
Therefore, what kind of democracy is this we are supporting?

But the worst was the President of Afghanistan who signed the law into effect.
The flamboyant Hamid Karzai who always presents himself with his traditional coat around his shoulders as if a desert storm will soon start blowing inside the White House and who wears a flower pot on his head to hide his baldness.
Who always asks for huge sums of money by blackmailing that otherwise the Muslim Fundamentalists and the Taliban will overrun the world.

He said because of this new anti-women law:
“Key elements of the bill are misinterpreted by Western news organizations.
We understand the concerns of our allies and the international community. Those concerns may be due to an inappropriate, not-so-good translation of the law, or misinterpretation."

It is the old strategy of pretending the problem is with the opponents and criticasters.
To turn the whole thing around.
Because what is there to misinterpret when it says a woman cannot leave her house without the permission of her husband?
What inappropriate interpretation can one give to understanding such a simple rule?

This President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai is milking the West of money and soldiers.
And on the other hand allowing in his country enormous corruption and room for Muslim Fundamentalism.

Next time he comes to visit the White House, he must be told he can only leave when he gets permission.
And every four days he will be raped.
By Aunt Charlotte’s poodle.

In the meantime, while Karzai is absent from Afghanistan, we can install Dick Cheney as the temporary Governor with Karl Rowe as his assistant.
To make order in the Afghan mess.

If that is unacceptable, let’s forget about Afghanistan.
Too bad for the women there, but that country doesn’t deserve nothing from us.
Let’s leave them alone and have them cook their own soup.
As they prefer.

Or, and this has the very preference, apply the nothing for nothing strategy.
If Afghanistan wants things from us, we dictate and enforce terms.
Term one: respect your women.

Barack Obama called the new Afghan law “abhorrent”.
That’s not enough, Bar!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To learn more about the new Afghan law legalising marital rape, click on:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/06/afghanistan.law/





.

Throwing 5 billion

When watching the news on TV, one experiences in fact a constant stream of an emotion called indignation.
Because of all the injustice one sees.

A perfect source for a good load of indignation was the decision of rich countries made this week in Tokyo to donate 5 billion Dollars to Pakistan.

There are 173 million people living in Pakistan.
And they haven’t managed to make their country prosperous.
There is corruption and violence.
Never a Government is long in office because either the army interferes or a coup is staged.
The current leader of Pakistan is President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benatir Bhutto who was assassinated.
President Asif Ali Zardari's, a man who has been in jail for many years condemned for corruption.

The problem many countries believe to have with Pakistan is that in the northwestern tribal areas a lawlessness exists in which the Taliban and Al Quaida can flourish.
It is believed that Osama Bin Laden is living over there and that the insurgence in Iraq and Afghanistan is orchestrated from that mountainous and inaccessible area.

Recently Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's has blackmailed the USA, Europe and Japan.
Saying that the situation in his country was completely out of control.
Due to the extreme Muslims in the northwest of his country.
Saying that if the rich countries wouldn’t give him money, the whole world would suffer of more and more Islamic terrorism.

This is how he got his 5 billion dollars.
In a time that the economy is in a recession, factories are closing, many people are losing their jobs and the stock market is painfully low.

What is all this money supposed to do for Pakistan?
It will be spend to build new schools.
New hospitals.
New infrastructure.
Equip and train the Pakistan army.

Thank you very much, many Pakistani will say.
They get a new school and hospital for free.

The idea is that if the comfort of the people improves, the Taliban will have less credit with the population.
This is based on the belief that people will follow the one who is handing out gifts.
Therefore the plan is to give more than the Taliban can.

This is of course a fundamental mistake.
A dramatic error in strategy.

First of all, the person responsible for the spending of the 5 billion dollars, the director for South Asia of the World Bank, has said that they will not spend the money in the areas of Pakistan where it is too dangerous.
Hence, it will be invested where it is not necessary.

Second, President Asif Ali Zardari's of Pakistan recently made an agreement with extremist Muslims who are ruling the northwestern part of his country called Malakand.
100 miles away from Pakistan’s capital Islamabad.
These extremist Muslims have now the power to rule their territory under Taliban Islamic law.
The feared Sharia.
And already, the first woman has been publicly flogged.
Under Taliban Islamic law women are not allowed to have a job or to go to the market, said the Taliban cleric Soofi Mohammad.

The floodgates for Talbanisation of Pakistan and consequently of Afghanistan has been opened.
And not even 5 billion dollars is going to stop it.

Because, and this is the third mistake of the agreement of Tokyo, it is not about money.
About new schools and hospitals.
About re-arming the Pakistan army.
It is about an extreme religion that promises and guarantees things that money can’t buy.
An extreme religion that settles the man-woman issue in a final and male favourable way.

The only way to counter extreme religions is to balance it with a philosophy of life that is stronger and better.
And that, dear fervent and loyal blog readers, the western world doesn’t have anymore.
They still do have money, but they have no more moral authority.
Western morality has been going down the drains.
The empire is collapsing.
The oak tree is hollowed inside and about to fall over.

The way to go is to let the Taliban free.
Let them do what they want.
Take the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop giving money.
Allow them to have it their way.
Meanwhile, start working on making the own house in order.
Clean up democracy.
Clean up capitalism.
And the public bathrooms.





.

Kill said God.

Today an e-mail from Iran was received.
Saying:

“From time immemorial greetings is a classic way of human transaction.
On the verge of Eid-Ul-Azha I wish you all a happy and prosperous life!!!
With warm wishes ....”

Attached an image:




Having a Christian background, it was not immediately known what the greetings were for.
What was Eid-Ul-Azha?

Fortunately we have Wikipedia, the internet encyclopaedia, that explains:

Eid al-Adha (Arabic: عيد الأضحى ‘Īd ul-’Aḍḥā) or the Festival of Sacrifice is a religious festival celebrated by Muslims and Druze worldwide in commemoration of the willingness of Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his son as an act of obedience to God.

The devil tempted Ibrahim by saying he should disobey God and spare his son.

As Ibrahim was about to sacrifice his son, God intervened and instead provided a lamb as the sacrifice.

This is why today all over the world Muslims who have the means to, sacrifice an animal (usually a goat or a sheep), as a reminder of Ibrahim's obedience to God.

The meat is then shared out with family, friends (Muslims or non-Muslims), as well as the poor members of the community.

Where to begin to express amazement about Eid-Ul-Azha?
It is an old tradition and followed as part of the Islamic doctrine.
Performed and celebrated without thinking what it is really about and what is actually being done.
The thinking, consciousness and awareness being blocked by the doctrine.

It is celebrated that a man, nobody knows exactly how long ago, was prepared to kill his son.
Probably without asking consent from his wife first.
The man was ordered to do so by his God as a sacrifice.

May we ask, what man, right in his head, wants to kill his own son?
We should celebrate instead if the man had refused to kill his son.
An annual celebration that he refused to kill his son even for his God.
That man would be an example for everybody for the rest of the time of humanity.

There can never be a reason to kill the own child.
In the least for a God.
Hence, what kind of disbalanced, simple minded, weird, naive and easy to convince man was that Ibrahim?
Why is he so glorified for following up immoral and criminal instructions?
Why is following instructions blindly made as an example for all the others?
Why is getting sane ideas about the crime to perform presented as the interference of the devil?

This is a very scary thing.
Because Eid-Ul-Azha glorifies total obedience to a God.
And it instructs that to refuse to kill the own child is siding with the Devil.
God’s opponent.
Imagine: one should be able to kill with the own hands the child that was born from the own blood.
To be able to do so is celebrated as the ultimate and perfect surrender to the god of this religion.

Once a religion has made its believers accept this concept, they are ready to do anything.
They become will-less followers without the capacity to think and be conscious as individuals.

Another thing to be aware of is that these days worldwide millions of goats and sheep are massacred because of Eid-Ul-Azha.
Only because that is a tradition.
These animals have to die because of a myth.
Animals having to lose their lives because humans have something to celebrate.
However, this is common.
Recently in the United States, millions of turkeys had to die because of a celebration called Thanksgiving.







.