The police holds that there is still no evidence of the attack being a hate crime, but some have linked the incident to the mass-distribution of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam’s war Against the West in swing states earlier this month. Obsession is just another addition to the string of propaganda pieces that paint Muslims as devils and compares Islam with Nazism. Although many organizations have promoted the distribution of the DVD in the 2 years since its release, the current campaign (in which a reported 28 million copies were sent out) was funded by the Clarion Fund, a shadowy New York based organization.

It should be noted that four days before the attack, copies of “Obsession” were distributed with the Dayton Daily News.

 Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence? Sure, the filmmakers include disclaimers stating that most Muslims are not extremists, but between the footage  comparing Islam to Nazism and constant repeating that radicals won’t rest until they kill/convert all non-Muslims, that message is surely drowned.

The Clarion Fund justifies its action by claiming it’s meant to educate the public on the threat of Islamic terrorism, but there are surely other - more appropriate - methods of achieving that. The argument of freedom of speech would certainly be raised, but at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment abounds and Muslims struggle to make their condemnation of terrorism heard, wouldn’t coordinating efforts with Muslim leaders have been the right way to go? And if the intention was to educate the public, why were only a few states targeted?

You don’t have to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier to see in it nothing more than a masked political effort, in which Muslims are scapegoated. Yes, in every generation, a group will have to bear the brunt of hatred and discrimination (sadly, some groups have had to endure that for centuries), in most cases the discrimination is now shunned by the mainstream. With Muslims, it remains widely justified and accepted as ‘valid’ criticism

I do not deny that terrorism in all its forms needs to be addressed, but one-sided, offensive tactics are not a step in the right direction.

America faces some grave threats in our time, and by implication, so does the world at large. The threats we face seem to fall into three general categories: the threats posed by Extremist ideologies, the threats to the Environment, and the threats to the Economy. I call these threats the 3-E’s, for short.

Extremist thinking is not limited to groups like Al Qaeda, but exists wherever people put their personal beliefs above the needs of the people at large. It could well be argued, for example, that the meltdown in Wall Street was the result of personal greed trumping the needs of a healthy economy.

The threats to the Environment are beginning to loom large in the public mind. The Environment is quickly assuming the role of the ideological imperative. The decision, some 150 years ago, to run our economies on fossil fuels, may well have been the greatest mistake ever made, a mistake with dire consequences for the destiny of man.

The threats to our economy have been made quite clear in the last few days, with grave implications for the economic wellbeing of the entire world. The global economy, while it does hold the promise of great benefits for the world at large, also means that the downfall of one economy could trigger the downfall of others as well. What is clear is that the model embraced by Wall Street, and by other financial institutions, may need some fine tuning to say the least, if not a major overhaul.

Even to the cursory observer, the threats we face—Extremism, the Environment, and the Economy—are all inter-connected, and inter-related. They feed upon one another, and into one another. They are a package deal, of sorts. You literally can’t solve one, without addressing the other two. And since they are so related to one another, it is possible that a solution can be found which solves all three in one shot.

The search for answers to the problems which we face may well mean a search for new frontiers, for new ways of thinking, and for new actions taken pursuant to new ideas. It is as if our problems are beginning to point to a new paradigm for organizing ourselves as we make our way into the 21st century. As John Gardner put it, we face “…a series of opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.”

The cure for many of the ills which plague us may well be to usher in a Green Revolution, by which we use our technological and economic power to create jobs which are specifically designed to protect the Environment, which will help to curb the hold of extremist thinking, and which will help us to partner with nations around the world to grow our economies, but in a way that is sustainable for countless generations to come.

Think about it. If the threats we face are Environmental, Economic, and Extremist in nature, isn’t the answer to grow our economies by producing green technology goods and services, and by using the jobs created in this regard to give everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future, and by hoping that such an outcome will automatically help to neutralize extremist thinking?

It is as if the position that America finds herself cries out for a new frontier to be found and explored. However, this frontier is not about embarking on a journey to a distant land. This frontier is about looking at our current situation, and fashioning a solution which addresses all that is wrong with our world, and with our nation.

Many around the world still look to America as the last remaining super-power, and as the last best hope for mankind. By all means of measure, America has much to be proud of: the most successful democracy, the guarantor of freedom and personal liberties, the strongest economy, the most powerful military, the most renowned academic institutions, the leader in technological advancement and research, the leader of the free world, the cultural trend setter of the world, the country that others look up to and depend on. But looking at America’s many accomplishments, the question still remains: To what end did America achieve her greatness, and to what purpose will she put her strength?

In the past, even in the darkest of times, America has risen to the occasion, and has cast her light on the right path, for all to see, and for all to follow. Like the Statue of Liberty in the New York harbor, America has often been a beacon of hope for countless people around the world. But having been a light unto the nations in the past, many now fear that America may have lost her way. And it is precisely at this time, and under these dire circumstances, that America is once again called upon to assume the mantle of leadership in the world, and to show by example the best way forward. Failure to do so could not only undo the fabric of our nation, but could well mean the undoing of the destiny of man.

The particular significance this election plays in so many peoples’ lives is the undeniably unstable and uncertain nature of the realities we are confronted with, both in America and across the rest of the world. Just a few examples of these issues may include: the collapsing economies, the continuously rising cost of living, increasing unemployment rates, loss of homes, the lack of availability of adequate healthcare and even food, the numerous humanitarian disasters both environmental and/or man-induced and of course the constant threat of war that people from many nations are warned about, regardless of how real or likely these threats are in actuality or not.

The outcome of this election is likely to determine to a great extent what path will be taken to tackle these issues and in what manner the US will interact with the international community, with particular concern on the Middle East, Iran and Russia. However, the outcome of the election is beyond the control of the international community who are anxiously awaiting a decision.

In light of this, I thought it would be appropriate to address the Dear American Voter discussions on what I, someone living in both Europe and the Middle East, is concerned about when it comes to the election of the next president of the USA. MideastYouth has previously posted on the Dear American Voter initiative, a project developed by Link TV that aims at getting the international communities voices heard within America.

Dear American Voter,

I recently returned to the UK from Syria, where I went to visit my parents who have now retired there. It is truly one of the most beautiful countries I have ever encountered, although undoubtedly it has its flaws and weaknesses. Apart from a number of cultural differences, what I realised most of all was the fundamentally universal nature of being human, the striving to simply live. Waking up every morning, earning money, consuming, loving your family, socialising with friends, trying everything in your power to make ends meet while at the same time attempting to enjoy and make the most of the short, temporary and precious life we each have been given.

It is difficult, amongst the welter of distracting images that obscure contexts and omit the real faces of people and places, to think of an ‘other’ as anything more than that. Instead Dear American Voter, I ask you to put a face on the victims of the US Government, because they are no different from you. We may pray differently, but we do not love differently and we do not suffer differently.

I ask you to question your government’s actions, to review the stories we have all been told, to uncover all the contradictions, identify the rhetoric and unearth the truth. It is clear to us and to you Dear American Voter that we have all lost and suffered enough at the hands of our governments. Your troops that have been able to return home, have unfortunately not been greeted by your government as heroes and patriots, instead they have been deprived of adequate medical care and have been refused financial assistance with their education. It would appear to me that the current US government perceives us all as faceless.

If we are to ever live in a truly globalised world, it is fundamental that each nation is able to remain independent and indigenous while at the same time being open to dialogue and negotiation. If this is our aim, to be able to work as a cosmopolitan world to tackle the issues we face such as environmental issues, poverty, etc. then we need the leader of the Worlds’ Super Power to lead us towards this instead of a possible war with Iran or maybe even Russia?!

America should be the greatest country in the world. Unfortunately it falls short. And both you and I, Dear American Voter, are the ones that bear the brunt of its shortcomings. You are suffering now, but instead it is the major corporations that are being bailed out with your tax money. In my opinion one of the biggest scams in history.

I suffer everyday wondering if Syria, my parents, my family, will be the next on America’s list. Unfortunately the decision for who will be the next president of America is out of my hands. However you have the power Dear American Voter, the power to allow for change to occur, the power to decide whether your country continues along the same terminal path or instead if your country is once again admired and looked to as a source of inspiration.

I await your decision in anticipation.

I urge anyone else who feels strongly about the direction our world is going in but who does not have the opportunity to vote in this upcoming election to express their thoughts and concerns to our Dear American Voters, while there is still ‘hope’ for ‘change’.

In a motion made to U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade earlier this month, the Bush administration asked that Mazon be denied the right to argue the most fundamental issues driving alleged corruption in the handling of war-related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mazon is a victim of the corruption and Halliburton’s drive for greed. But Halliburton is attached at the hip to President Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the former CEO of Halliburton.

But many believe that once out of office in January, Cheney will return to head the company which is currently based in Houston but is moving its corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

It is ironic that Cheney’s company is willing to move to Dubai in the UAE, but Bush and Cheney were unwilling to allow Dubai to handle the security of American ports. It’s a great example of the hypocrisy that embraces the Bush administration’s misguided war and confirms suspicions the administration’s foreign policy are based mainly on greed.

And that’s why Mazon’s trial is so important.

The Bush administration has asked in a “Motion in Limine” made Sept. 2, 2008, that Mazon be denied the right to argue the following in this second trial:

- the defendant is being made a scapegoat by KBR, his former employer, and Halliburton Co., KBR’s former parent company, in connection with the charges against him;

- Halliburton, KBR and its executives and managers have framed the defendant or otherwise caused the government to improperly charge him;

- the government has acted in concert with Halliburton and KBR in order to improperly charge Mazon; and d) improper conduct by Halliburton and KBR in their handling of government contracts should exculpate the defendant.

The Bush administration filed this motion because Mazon sought to subpoena Halliburton’s CEO David Lesar. This motion is normally used to prohibit the submission of evidence that might hurt the defense, not the prosecution.

The government argued the issues would “confuse” the jury. But the truth is, the jury was confused by the charge. Mazon’s attorneys argued successfully that the alleged inflation of the contract Mazon controlled was in fact a simple miscalculation involving the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Kuwait Dinars.

This conversion problem has plagued many of the war related contracts. There are about 3.3 Kuwait Dinars for every dollar. When converted, the $1.6 million contract was about 5.5 Kuwait Dinars, except it was listed as $5.5 million “U.S. Dollars.”

Mazon beat the first attempt to convict him when a majority of jurors rejected the government’s argument in a trial that took place in April of this year. The jury was deadlocked.

The Bush administration will try a second time, moving the trial from Rock Island to Peoria. Apparently, the government believed Mazon’s foreign heritage – he is Ecuadorian – and his association with Arab contractors in the Middle East, would make him unsympathetic to the region’s Bible-belt constituency jury pool.

Trying Mazon in Rock Island was also an apparent attempt to take the case out of the scrutiny of the national media. It could have been tried in Washington D.C. insuring high profile media coverage.

But high profile media coverage would have refocused the issues from the weak case against Mazon to the bigger issues of Cheney, the culture of corruption that plagues Halliburton and the corruption that is the foundation of the Iraq War itself.

The Peoria trial, which begins this week, places the trial on a higher public plain. But the government had no choice after losing the first trial. The federal judge in the case, U.S. Justice Joe Billy McDade, is from Peoria and had to drive to and from Rock Island during the first trial. This second trial is convenient to McDade.

The Bush administration knows that if the second trial becomes a referendum on their failed policies in Iraq, the next jury might not deadlock. They might vote to acquit Mazon. A fair jury can conclude Mazon is being persecuted, not prosecuted, to protect Halliburton and Cheney.

Since the charges were first filed against Mazon five years ago, public attitudes about the failed war in Iraq have changed dramatically from blind support to open challenge. The public knows that Bush and Cheney, Halliburton’s former CEO, lied and misled Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion.

Why wouldn’t they also lie to protect Halliburton?

How are they protecting Halliburton? Well, if any other corporation with no national political clout had a similar track record of corruption and mismanagement and suspicions of price gouging, their contract would have been revoked within the first few convictions.

Despite 36 war related corruption convictions, Halliburton continues to enjoy a near exclusive headlock on hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

(Ray Hanania is a Chicago-based columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.)

While only Americans have the right to vote in the upcoming US presidential elections, the rest of the world is closely watching who will become the next leader of the world.

What is your message to American voters?

Should America withdraw from Iraq?

Should the US have a role in the Middle-East peace process?

Do you want your point of view heard?

Tell us what you think!

Dear American Voter, a project of Link TV, invites you to be a part of a global dialogue featuring responses from around the world to the question, “What should Americans think about as they cast their ballot?”

Watch global citizens in over 90 videos from over 22 countries talking about how American policies affect their lives.

What does change look like promo:

Send us your videos, photos, check out our blog, or just jump in on the conversation.

He is charged with tossing a hand grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a 2002 firefight at an al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan. [Source]

Apparently there’s no documented evidence on that. In fact, Michael Melia, an Associated Press reporter, notes that claims against Khadr were intentionally altered by a U.S military commander:

The military commander’s official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Khadr as the suspect.

The report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.

Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”

Why should we expect evidence? We never got evident reports on Aafia Siddiqui’s case either, who has apparently been tortured enough to have lost her sanity, and her lawyer claims that she can’t even sit properly on a wheelchair. Until today Siddiqui’s family also have no idea what happened to her children, one of whom was only a few months old at the time of her arrest.

For those of you who often (very often) confuse demands for justice with supporting terrorism, here’s a message that might help develop your logic:

He [his lawyer] said Khadr is not asking for forgiveness or even freedom.

“Just give him a court room. He’s asking for a fair process,” he said.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. No exceptions. We already have enough propaganda that can justify anything in existence, what is needed here is evidence, which has yet to be provided, instead of a banquet of baseless claims being force-fed to the public under the false banner of “national security,” a term that has been abused and over-used to justify several vile crimes.

Unfortunately, Siddiqui has yet to receive a fair trial as well. Hundreds of other “suspects” remain forgotten and abused in the hands of the U.S government. They tell us demanding information is in line with supporting and justifying terrorism, this is an increasingly popular strategy that our own governments also use when we demand justice for minorities or free-thinking civilians who are regarded as “threats” to our national security despite a clear lack of any evidence that remotely suggest that. This is an ongoing process that reeks of corruption.

Families of both so-called “suspects” want their loved ones home. I’m sure hundreds of other undocumented cases exist and devastated families of such individuals continue to ask simple questions which have consistently been ignored by the U.S government.

We want answers.

For Arab American and Muslim voters, however, an Obama-Biden ticket seems like good news for they have had to endure a long arduous 8 year journey of the Republican rule of Bush-Cheney administration that wrecked havoc in their personal lives, eroded their civil rights, a futile war in Iraq, and vehemently supporting Israeli’ s occupation and destruction of Palestinian lands and peoples.

Arab and Muslim voters thought in Obama that they were witnessing a candidate with a shot of wining, that he was not part of the pro-Israeli establishment that fills the halls of power in Washington who usually go out of their way to support Israel at expense of Arab and Palestinian rights.

But Arab and Muslims voters did not have wait for too long for their disappointment to arrive when they felt that Obama had increasingly started treating them like a plague avoiding them at all costs so as not to upset the racists and bigots in this country.

In Detroit, last June, Obama’s staff made sure to remove two Muslim American women from the seats behind Obama so as not to “ offend” American voters, as if Muslims voters are not “fully” Americans.

This insult to Muslims is too deep to let it go so easily, it also speaks volumes about the hatred and racism in the American society where Arab and Muslim Americans are usually at the receiving end of its repeated blows, and with no end in sight.

It appears to be that Obama candidacy feels that it has to go along with the racist sentiments against Muslims because, in America today, it is not a bad policy to discriminate against Muslims or disrespect them and demean their faith and value system and there will no political ramifications because of it. Except at the ballot box.

Obama went even further in his attempts to appease the right wing racists by repeatedly denying that he is not a Muslims, and he is not, but why does it being a Muslim or not has to be an issue in a country that the faith of the candidate is besides the point, not the point.

As for the Middle East, Obama’s trip to Israel last month as part of his world tour, was pilgrimage American politicians seemingly had to make in order to garner t he Jewish vote and financial support in this country. There, Obama visited an Israeli Synagogue a Christian Church, and, yet again, he had to show his anti-Muslims credentials by not bothering to visit a Muslim mosque. Therefore, Obama’s message to the Muslim American voters is that, “ I don’t care about you, I don’t care about your issues, and I don’t care about your vote.

Moreover, in Israel, Obama was quick to issue the now classic policy proclamation assuring Israeli politicians that if he was to be elected president he will continue America’s policy of ensuring Israel superiority and domination over the lives of all of its Arab and Muslim neighbors, a policy that defies the logic peace in the region and from the perspective America’s interests in that part of the world, it is an irresponsible policy to say the very least.

Arab and Muslim Americans should return the favor to Obama and give their support to a third candidate who albeit his or her chances of wining is next to impossible, but at least they should not support a candidate who does not care about them or about their issues.

(Ali Alarabi is an awa rd winning journalist and columnist and member of Arab writers group syndicate. You can reach him here.)

The issue of nepotism and discrimination on the basis of family relations and other non-merit criteria is not only common in the Arab World or developing countries. It is found in the most unexpected place: in the top-ranked universities in the United States

Although American leaders and academics throughout history worked hard to put an end to nepotism and other discriminatory behaviors towards human beings, such behaviors and policies still exist. One of the most common places where such policies exist are the top-ranked universities in the United States, which continue to follow the admission policy of preferring legacies and students of an alumni family over ordinary, non-alumni related students who may be more academically qualified. Such a policy is degrading to the academic standards and qualifications of well-achieved students that deserve a fair and equal opportunity to continue their education in the university which they choose, just like everyone else at their level, regardless of alumni relations, since they are not a choice which the student makes.

A student spends most of the years of his or her life studying hard, achieving high scores, reaching honor lists and receiving awards for academic achievements, hoping that when he or she reaches the doorsteps of a reputable university, the admission process would be fair enough to judge the academic achievements which this student maintained over the years. However, this is not the case in many American universities. According to Cameron Howell from the University of Virginia, legacies, who are students from an alumni family, have twice more advantage than ordinary students in getting accepted in some universities, although their SAT scores might be lower. Another example is the world-class Harvard University, which also favors children of alumni over ordinary non-alumni children that apply to its admission officers. According to an article published in The Economist magazine in 2004, there are between 10% and 15% children of alumni in every freshman class, and up to 23% in the University Of Notre Dame in the U.S. Moreover, reports from the department of education in the 1990s concluded that legacy students, in addition to being favored, they are less qualified than the average student who applies. Such a preference is not only unfair, but also damages the academic quality of the university’s students, since they would all have a common ground of coming from alumni families, but not the common ground of being academically qualified or equal enough to compete in their courses. Is this how top-ranked universities in the United States maintain the quality standards of their academic program? The university’s main priority should be academic quality, competition among students for excellence and supporting the students during and after their university years. For this to happen, academic competence should be considered as the most important criteria during admission process, because the academic achievements and scores of a student are made by his or her choice, efforts and hard work. Whereas a student being a child of an alumni is a fact not made by the student’s choice, and therefore should not be favored over academic achievements.

In spite of this discriminatory policy and the opposition against it, some universities, doctors and professors provide justifications and support for favoring legacies over ordinary students. According to the article “The Curse of Nepotism” published in the Economist magazine, fundraising is the main reason for favoring legacies. The universities are concerned for their financial continuity and since the alumni body provides great financial support for the university over the years, its children should logically have better chances of being accepted. Other reasons outlined by other authors include favoring applicants with talent, racial and physical diversity and minorities. This is because, according to the director of Communications at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Miriam Schulman, universities care about having a diverse student body from various backgrounds, races and talents that would portray a positive image of the university and improve its reputation. Being in such a position in a center for ethics, Schulman should also be aware that universities are not business companies, soccer teams or stages for beauty contests. Instead, they are a place for academic competitiveness and quality education that should remain a top priority above all other criteria.

Imagine exerting countless efforts on achieving high grades, fundraising for your tuition, depriving yourself from deserved breaks and fun activities for the sake of studying, to end up being rejected by the university that you thought would appreciate the achievements you have made. It is a depressing feeling indeed, and even more depressing to know that it has happened to many students in a country like the United States and reputable universities like Harvard, Yale and many others. Even those who have worked hard are not getting what they deserve the most, simply because they do not belong to a family that used to be in the university they chose to apply for. After all, before becoming alums, these students were at first ordinary students with competent academic achievements. This is the doorway for a fair and competitive academic student body.

Subject to final approval by the top Iraqi leadership, the exit date for U.S. troops would be December 2011, although the Americans insist on linking that target to additional security and political progress.

President Bush has long resisted a timetable for pulling out, even under heavy pressure from a nation distressed by American deaths and discouraged by the length of the war that began in 2003. But that has softened in recent weeks.

The timing has major political importance in both Iraq and the United States.

The two contenders to replace Bush as commander in chief, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, spar almost daily over the future course of the war.

Obama wants all U.S. combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, saying they are needed more urgently in Afghanistan. McCain says recent security improvements in Iraq show that decisions on the timing of further pullouts should be determined by circumstances on the ground rather than by prearranged timetables — a position the White House has vigorously held until recently.

The administration has inched toward the Iraqi view that setting at least a target date for withdrawal would make it politically palatable for Iraq’s government to accept a substantial U.S. troop presence beyond this year.

The rationale for the pullout is that Iraqi security forces will be ready to stand on their own, although it remains possible that some U.S. military training role would continue. In Iraq, provincial elections are supposed to be held later this year, followed by national balloting in 2009.
In one key part of the draft agreement, private U.S. contractors would be subject to Iraqi law, unlike at present, but the American side held firm in its insistence that U.S. troops would remain subject exclusively to U.S. legal jurisdiction, officials said.

Immunity remains the main point of contention between the two sides in finalizing the agreement. The Iraqis are reluctant to allow U.S. military contractors to have free rein when outside U.S. bases and without any Iraqi legal authority over them, according to a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe delicate negotiations.

There is an additional sense of urgency to complete a deal because the U.N. Security Council resolution that sets the legal basis for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of this year.

Asked about withdrawal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday in Baghdad, “We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement.” Her use of the term “aspirational” suggested that the timetables would be linked in some undisclosed way to the attainment of measurable progress in the security, political and perhaps economic fields.
Other U.S. officials said the deal includes agreement that by June 30, 2009, U.S. combat forces would be out of Iraq’s cities, set up elsewhere in the country in what the military calls an overwatch role — available to assist Iraqi security forces as needed, while continuing to train and advise Iraqi troops.

At a joint news conference, Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the two sides had accepted the draft agreement and would await a review by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top Iraqi leaders — some of whom oppose some parts of the deal — as well as the Iraqi parliament. The next step is consideration by al-Maliki and his executive council Friday.

Rice’s visit was meant to push al-Maliki so he would take the draft agreement to Iraqis for approval, U.S. officials said.

In the Sadr City section of eastern Baghdad, more than 500 followers of the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr held a rally Thursday evening to denounce the Rice visit and the proposed security arrangement. Marchers carried flags and al-Sadr’s picture, chanting, “No to the agreement.”

Saleh al-Mutlaq, leader of the second-largest Sunni faction in parliament, issued a statement saying the Americans should not depend on any agreement signed with the Shiite-dominated government. He called on the government to put the deal to a popular referendum rather than simply submit it to parliament.

U.S. officials in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because the deal is not final, said Bush administration acceptance of the arrangements was not in doubt unless Iraqi leaders insisted on changes. The administration has pledged to inform Congress but not submit the agreement for formal approval.

In Baghdad, Rice met with Zebari, al-Maliki and other officials on a brief visit intended to push the Iraqis toward agreement.
Said Zebari: “This agreement determines the principal provisions, requirements to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission, of U.S. forces.”

Bush has stood firmly behind al-Maliki, and the U.S. resisted pressure last year from its Sunni Arab allies elsewhere in the Middle East to dump the Shiite prime minister in favor of a more secular leader.

But al-Maliki has apparently taken a tough stand in the negotiations to refurbish his nationalist credentials and avoid the label of “America’s man” ahead of coming elections.

The Shiite political establishment is also anxious to run the country without U.S. constraints, believing it has the right as leaders of Iraq’s largest community, which had been marginalized politically since the modern Iraqi state was established following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

Rice spoke optimistically of completing a deal but stressed that it still needed top-level Iraqi approval. She also said it was made possible by security improvements.

“I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger,” she said.

Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: “This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. … There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this.”

A State Department transcript of Zebari’s remarks said he added that Iran had been advised of that provision.

Since 9/11 her life and the lives of many innocent Arabs, Muslims, Afghans and Pakistanis within the USA changed for the worse, when the USA began shamelessly discriminating, arresting, and even torturing innocent civilians under the false premise of “national security.” Innocent people were undergoing severe torture simply for being “suspects” of terrorism.

According to a BBC article from earlier this month:

Research at the time refused to turn up anything on the status of Aafia Siddiqui - she was not listed as wanted by any federal or Pakistani agency.

At that point, it seemed she had vanished off the face of the earth.

Siddiqui comes from a very well established and educated family, and from what I have been reading, she is seemingly open minded. She even wanted her children to be raised and educated in the USA, which led to disputes with her husband, also a Pakistani who was arrested and questioned by the FBI for buying goggles and some military manuals. Here is her familial background:

Her brother is an architect based in Houston, while Fauzia [her sister] is a neurologist who used to work at Mount Sinai hospital in New York.

Aafia Siddiqui went to school in Karachi and graduated with a biology degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US.

Keep in mind that the claims below are nothing but that; baseless claims, and has yet to be evidenced by something other than FBI gossip. Comments within brackets are my own:

In 2004 then-FBI director Robert Mueller announced at a press conference that Aafia Siddiqui was wanted for questioning.

She was later named as part of an alleged al-Qaeda diamond smuggling operation in Liberia. [Because an established neurologist with an MIT degree and three children has enough free time on her hands to organize terrorist movements in Liberia.] Publications such as Newsweek quoted the FBI as saying this was to finance al-Qaeda’s biological and chemical weapons programme.

After that, her name remained on the list of disappeared - until she surfaced last month in Afghanistan in US military custody.

[…]

“It is always believed one is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round,” her sister, Fauzia, told reporters in Karachi on Tuesday.

She added that every time she had met US officials, they had said they had never formally accused Aafia Siddiqui of being a terrorist [but arrested and tortured her anyways!]

The article concludes with what is pretty much her only crime:

The answer may lie in her relationship with the family of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Aafia Siddiqui is said to have married Ali Abd’al Aziz Ali, one of his nephews following her divorce. Although her family denies this, the BBC has been able to confirm it from security sources and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s family.

It is an open secret in Karachi, that any member of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s family deemed to be “a 1% threat to US security” is in American custody.

That may be the only “crime” that Aafia Siddiqui has committed.

No evidence of anything else but a romantic link. No record of terrorism or abuse. No proof of her “terrorist activities” whatsoever. She is from an educated family, she has never harmed the USA, she has never committed a crime, and her only supposed link to “terrorism” is her marriage to a “nephew” of whom the USA considers to be a terrorist.

Shame on the U.S government, and to all U.S officials who knew about the injustice of this but remained silent.

This is one of MANY hypocracies when it comes to the USA preaching “democracy and human rights” to countries like Pakistan and the greater Muslim world, especially under this disgusting administration which has ruined and ended the lives of millions of innocent people.

Free Aafia Siddiqui right now, and all your other innocent “suspects.”

To solve this ethnic problem, Georgia decided to unite the two separated parts of South and North Ossetia, but region was never part of post-Soviet Georgia.

As long as Georgia was a part of the Soviet Union, all ethnic conflicts within the Soviet zone of “interests”, were not international issues. Yet, the issue emerged à la une after the dissolution of the USSR, when first in 1995 the two regions — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — became involved in conflicts with local separatists supported by Moscow. The issue ended in a de facto independence of South Ossetia from Georgia.

Yet, with a pro-US president in office, Georgia launched an assault earlier this month with artillery and rocket attacks on the separatists. Russia immediately reacted and showed the sharp claws of a polar bear. A much larger Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian assault. It is believed that the United States knew or even encouraged the Georgian attack. With the support of the US, Georgia hoped to annex the region.

If this conflict is to be resolved, only an international institution like the UN must intervene, not the US or NATO.

The US should now stay away from a new regional conflict, which is thousands of kilometers away from Washington. Because of its bad reputation in Iraq, stirring up internal problems in other countries, and its hunger for national resources of other countries, the Bush Administration does not have any lesson to teach to this part of the world with a totally different history and socio-economic background. Furthermore, there is nothing like “weapons of mass destruction” in this area.

In actuality, it is time to solve international problems through firm and reliable UN resolutions, rather than the bogus actions of world super-powers. It is obvious that the US, being the only power today with hegemonic desires, could generate further tension. The world is not going to sit and watch those self-baptised Yankee liberators in the Bush Administration try to impose their long outdated principles of “democracy” and “freedom”.

The world has not forgotten that in 1961 the US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war when the USSR was determined to set up atomic missiles in the US’ backyard in Cuba. The Soviet move was in retaliation against US basing nuclear missiles in Turkey. Now we have the US — via NATO — again trying to further its military alliance in the Caucasuses.

It is not unreasonable to expect that Russia, rather than allowing events to continue down that road again, would act swiftly in self defence — probably in the same way the US would react. I wonder what the Russians would do if a similar thing happened in their backyard. While they are still a major powerful and have the legacy of once being the strongest military superpower, they would say and do almost anything and get away with it.

There is no evidence that Russia intends to occupy Georgia, overthrow its government and install a puppet government. The Western media has not been reporting properly and honestly about the issue, rather they are exaggerating the conflict just like during the Cold War. Georgia is not Poland of 1939-40, divided by a German-Soviet pact, nor have we the same monsters like Hitler and Stalin in the East and West.

There is a much stronger ground for Germany and France, with their relatively better tradition of democracy and a lesser ambition of hegemony, to act as intermediaries to help bring about a ceasefire and reduce tensions until both sides with the help of the UN can achieve the best resolution. Despite failure to form a united stance on how to respond to Russia’s military action in South Ossetia, Germany and France, because of their close relations with Russia, can play an important role to impede further escalation of violence.

You might remember her from our previous podcast here.

Go to our podcasting site to listen to this interview!

Look at the world, and what do you see? A lot of good things, that’s for sure. Beauty surrounds us wherever we choose to look. But increasingly we are also facing a gathering perfect storm in the form of three types of threats: the Extremism, the Environment, and the Economy. We’ll call these the 3-E’s for short. Since these three threats are inter-related, and inextricably linked, like spaghetti and tomato sauce, it makes sense that a solution can be found which solves all three in one shot.

How are the 3-E’s related to one another? In all sorts of ways: Extremist ideologies prevent people from coming together to tackle environmental and economic problems. The degradation of the environment can spur extremist thinking and economic woes. A declining or unjust economy can become fertile ground for extremist thinking and can push people to further degrade the environment. And the list of inter-connections between the 3-E’s goes on and on.

Since the threats we face are closely connected, it makes sense that a solution can be found which addresses all three in one shot. What would such a solution look like? Well, at least part of the solution could be to revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East, and to neutralize some of the ideological extremism that is found there, by investing to create good paying jobs, jobs which are geared toward the protection of the environment. In short, invest in the Middle East to create jobs which protect the environment.

Conditions on the ground seem to be ripe for such a solution: Rising oil prices have made it possible for green technology and renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind power, and geothermal, to become competitive and even profitable. There is also, as we speak, a gathering consensus with respect to the threats we face, as a species, from Global Warming. It is becoming increasingly possible, for example, that by the year 2050, if we do nothing, the sea level may rise some 20 feet, thus flooding 60% of humanity. Or at least, the risk of such an outcome may be great enough to warrant decisive action now, even if we’re not completely sure. At the same time, the threat from ideological extremism has been perceived, experienced, and acknowledged, worldwide, and the world seems poised to adopt solutions which will curb such threats.

So how do we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution? Let’s start by focusing on what resources and motivations we have available to us as we speak. Oil producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, have untold billions to invest, but as yet have not invested their funds to create thriving economies, and are themselves beset by the threat posed by ideological extremists. Israel is on the cusp of cutting edge green technology, and is enjoying a thriving economy, but has not as yet come to enjoy the security that can only come from peace. America and other Western nations have plenty of public and private investment dollars, as well as business and technological expertise, but they feel insecure in a world threatened by extremist ideology, environmental harm, and economic uncertainty. The West may also be overwhelmed by the amount of investment that is will take to switch over to green, especially as it faces current economic realities on the ground.

So how do we make it all work? How do we move the immoveable? We start by convincing the world at large that change is in the air. And we do it not just by talking, but by creating facts on the ground which speak louder than words. We build a project, a special project that resonates with hope, a project for all to see, and for all to follow.

Start with a single solitary project in the West Bank, a very unique place in the Middle East, a place that resonates with symbolism. Use Israeli technology, Arab and Israeli management, Palestinian workers, and Saudi financing, to build a factory that produces a green energy product which is technologically significant in some innovative way. Promote the project around the world to attract more such funding, for more such projects, for more such jobs, for more such environmental protection, for more such neutralizing of extremism, using funds from the West, and from the Arab world as well. Pretty soon, if everything goes as it should—stranger things have happened—your project won’t just be a project anymore, but rather a movement for change. Your project will say to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people simply choose to make it so, one project at a time.

How would you convince America and the West? You would say that the writing is on the wall with regard to Global Warming. You either change, or you’re all going down. And the economy is not in such great shape either. You need to create some good paying jobs, both here and abroad. But even if you go green, and even if you fix the economy, those things by themselves won’t be enough, not if you continue to have ideological extremists on your back. So the answer for America is to go for the complete package: Create good paying jobs here and the Middle East, jobs which will protect the environment, jobs which will help to neutralize ideological hate, and jobs which help to cure your economic woes.

How would you convince Israel? Israel is a coastline country, and if the sea level rises 20 feet, by 2050 no less, what will become of your country? It’s time to make something happen with regard to Global Warming and with regard to peace. Skirting around the issues with empty talk will not do. Use your technological prowess and your economic drive to help revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East. Help to design and build projects in the West Bank, and throughout the Middle East, which protect the environment, and which help quell the ideological fervor of extremist thinking. Your ultimate security rests in brokering a peace, a peace based on fulfilling mutual needs and creating mutual economic interdependence.

How would you convince Saudi Arabia and other nations of the Middle East? The current model that has been put in place will not hold. We all know that. Sooner or later, the oil will run out. And even before then, the West will be forced to find new sources of energy given the pressure of climate change. Global Warming weighs heavily on us all. Why not dare to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true? Why not create a new model, a model based on a Vision of Hope. Have the foresight and the courage to diversify your investments by becoming a big player in going green. Get in on the ground floor of the world wide demand for renewable energy. Convert oil profits into green profits, by creating jobs which protect the environment. Use good paying jobs to revitalize your economy, and to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. Inspire a sense of hope in your people, and restore a sense of pride in the Arab world.

Is any of this possible? You’re asking me? In all honesty, no one can know for sure. But my sense is that there is no alternative. We either confront the threats we face head on, or we’re going down. It’s that simple, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance. Confronting all these three threats—the Extremists, the Environment, and the Economy—in one shot, makes a lot of sense, because: each threat is related to the other two, a solution for one can be part of a solution for all three, and a solution for one will not work unless it is tied to a solution for all three.

We find ourselves in a fix of immense proportions, a fix we’ve created for ourselves. We’re in a real pickle, so to speak. If we are to survive, and that is quickly becoming an open question, we will have to aspire to the wisdom of God, as we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution, not unlike how He has put together all of the pieces of His creation. Only then could it truly be said of us that we were created in “the image of God,” which is perhaps what He is waiting to see in us.

If you are at all interested, or if you have a rich Saudi uncle, please visit us at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

For some reason I cannot believe that we are still condemning this and demanding that Gitmo gets shut down. The U.S government doesn’t respect this international outcry and its own laws. And because of that, here we go again:

Omar Khadr is a 21 year old Canadian citizen who was only 15 years old when he was arrested by the U.S military in eastern Afghanistan for supposedly killing a U.S medic. What child would do that? A troubled child who should not be left to rot in a torturous illegal prison. Normally, he should have been regarded as a child combatant, recognized as a victim. This is a young boy who grew up in an extremist family and was caught in urban warfare, which should lead us into thinking that he is in need of serious psychological help due to the trauma that he must have suffered throughout his childhood. Is that the concern of the U.S military? No. Why? He’s not American. The American government should not be left to do what it wishes to citizens of other countries. He should be sent to his native Canada to face Canadian justice. Frankly he is the responsibility of the Canadian government and should be dealt with there and not in the hands of the U.S military.

A video of Khadr’s interrogation has recently been released by his lawyers after a lengthy legal struggle. He was 16 at the time the video was shot.

If any other organization was doing what the U.S government is doing today, people would have declared it a terrorist organization working in what is beyond illegal by international law. But again, there is no equal treament today of such things. If America commits the crimes, they get away with it. Anyone else is a terrorist.

There are many innocent prisoners suffering without them having any form of outside interaction or legal rights, thus the horror stories we hear today of the grave crimes committed by the hypocritical U.S government are just a few of thousands. Remember Sami, Al Jazeera’s Sudanese cameraman, who was abused and imprisoned for 5 years at Guantanamo? I did not hear a public apology, or any activism in America on his behalf, especially considering the fact that he was never charged with anything but being a mere “suspect.” The guy was just doing his job when he was brutally arrested and left to suffer in a disgusting prison cell. For years no one cared. Had this kidnapping and abusive imprisonment been committed by a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, we would be reminded of it every split second. But it was America who committed this crime, and it was an Arab Muslim who was being abused, so no one cared.

Dear U.S government, do not preach human rights to us, until you take care of your own human rights abuses. Release Omar Khadr from your illegal terrorist operation and allow him to face Canadian law and be allowed a fair trial and sufficient access to him by his lawyers. Otherwise, to us, you will forever be the terrorists that you love to complain about and you will forever inspire extremism against you.

Here at MEY we consistently condemn human rights abuses by our governments or any extremist elements within our society. The U.S government is no exception. A crime is a crime, regardless of your rank or worldwide reputation.

Fix this despicable crime.

One of the hurdles that John McCain will have to overcome is that of credibility. The Iraq War was sold to the American people on dubious grounds, some of which have since been proven to be untrue.

It now seems likely that Saddam Hussein was not sitting on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, even though he had previously used such weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. It now seems likely that Saddam Hussein was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda has since penetrated the conflict. And while the Bush administration has touted the idea of spreading freedom and democracy throughout Iraq, as a model for the whole Middle East, such an outcome, considering present realities on the ground, is far from being realized.

Despite these setbacks, one thing that John McCain has going for him is the intuitive wisdom of the American people. Americans are not stupid. Between the lines, Americans have come to the realization that the Iraq War, despite all that has been said, is mostly about oil. There are plenty of hot spots around the world where America could choose to fight, and to spread democracy, but she chooses, not coincidentally, to fight in the Middle East, where so much of her oil comes from. It is not the case that the U.S. was after Iraq’s oil. It is more about wanting to secure that region to assure an uninterrupted supply of oil, because for now, at least, oil is the lifeline of the engine that drives the American, and Western, economies.

And now, with $5 a gallon gas in the offing, Americans can easily see that what happens in the Middle East directly affects their pocketbooks, and their way of life. And with 9/11, Americans could also see that the threat of ideological extremism is real, and that there are people out there plotting the demise of America in particular, and of the West in general; people who are emboldened by ideological conviction, and who are not particularly deterred by the prospect of death.

And yet, even though most Americans perceive what John McCain perceives: the need to secure their oil supply, the need to switch over to green energy, and the need to deal effectively with extremism, still, this realization, in an of itself, is not exactly the best way to move the electorate to your way of thinking. More is needed to close the deal. When you’re asking people to put blood and treasure on the line, you better have something more to say than, “We’re fighting a war on terror,” or even worse, “We’re fighting a war to keep oil prices in line.”

So in effect, there is currently a disconnect between our real reasons for being in Iraq, and the pronouncements being made by our leaders. And the reason for this disconnect is that saying the truth may not be palatable to the American mind, or so it is assumed, even though Americans know full well that a lot of our preoccupation with the Middle East is about oil, and the need to secure our access to it, at a reasonable price; because in a very real sense, our way of life depends on the availability of oil.

John McCain often takes pride in his reputation for “talking straight” to the American people. It’s time to do just that, and to level with the electorate, but to do it in a way that inspires a sense of hope in things to come. John McCain could say, for example, that while he remains committed to weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil, by promoting green technology and domestic energy production, that until this is achieved, we need to secure our oil supply in the Middle East, because a failure to do so will threaten our way of life. It is straight talk to say that we need oil to live as we do, and that we have no choice but to protect our interests in that regard.

John McCain could also point out that the ideological extremists have their agendas in full working order, and that it becomes incumbent on us, therefore, to oppose them with all our strength, and with all our might. The writing is on the wall, so to speak, that they are fully committed to our demise. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose. If the ideological extremists win, it will be at the expense of giving up our way of life, the life we have fought so very hard for, so many times before.

But how would you convey such a message to Americans who are war weary, and who are fed up with the past several years? The answer for John McCain is not unlike the answer for Barack Obama: you have no choice but to sell America on a Vision of Hope.

He could say something along these lines: “The global threats we face: from ideological extremism, from the destruction of the environment, and from the repercussions of extreme poverty, are best handled by selling each other on a Vision of Hope. We will not allow the extremists to set the agenda for our future as a nation. We have better ideas than they have, and more resources to put on the table. We will beat them at their own game and marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. We will use a new ideological framework, an Ideology of Common Sense, to speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. We will invest in one another to create good paying jobs which inspire a sense of hope, which protect the environment, and which neutralize extremist thinking. We will use Ideology and Investment to sell people the world over on a Vision of Hope. We will sustain the hope with a serious commitment to Public Diplomacy. And when necessary, and it will be necessary my friends, we will fight, and fight hard, against the forces of extremism, but we will also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We will raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We are not fighting a “war against terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.”

Just as Selling a Vision of Hope could give substance to Barack Obama’s call for hope and change, by moving him a little bit to the right, so too could it give substance to John McCain’s call to stay the course, by moving him a little bit to the left. The American people, for their part, continue to remain somewhere in the middle, somewhere between extremes, somewhere where truth resides, and common sense holds sway.

It’s not a matter of individuality, rather it’s public opinion that dictates to each of us what we can be for and what we can be against. Any other deviations will get you slapped with some label that automatically assumes all your opinions for you. It’s a lot like socialism where the Government tells you which college to go to and which field you will study, its all planned out for you.

These cookie cutter labels include, “racist”, “sexist”, “fascist”, “misogynist”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “chauvinist”, “Islamaphobe”, “homophobe”, “xenophobe”, “anti-Semite”, “anti-American”, “anti-establishment”, etc. The list goes on and on and be assured that if there isn’t a name for your specific type, someone will create one.

But for every type of hatred society scorns there is an often greater number of hatreds that society celebrates openly and publicly, from movies all the way to the classroom. In reality most of the fashionably OK types of hate are no more righteous than other hate, they’ve just become accepted. Here’s a list to help you understand what I mean.

Fashionably Wrong
Hating…..
-Blacks.
-homosexuals.
-women.
-Jews.
-Israel.
-minority religions.
-poor people.
-fat people.
-Muslims (sometimes)
-police (sometimes)
-foreigners (sometimes).
-the Government (sometimes).
-Arabs (sometimes).

Fashionably Right or OK
Hating…..
-white people/ Europeans.
-Americans and America.
-men.
-rich people.
-liberals.
-religion.
-conservatives.
-yuppie’s.
-the Catholic Church.
-the French.
-George W. Bush.
-Muslims (sometimes)
-police (sometimes).
-foreigners (sometimes).
-the Government (sometimes).
-Arabs (sometimes).
-Palestinians (sometimes). Interesting, this one is sometimes fashionably right but never fashionably wrong.

In the culture of the Middle East this list can look very different.

Fashionably Wrong
Hating….
-religion.
-conservatives.
-men.
-Turkish and Arab imperialists.
-light skinned Arabs
-Palestinians (sometimes).

Fashionably Right or OK
Hating…..
-homosexuals.
-women.
-Jews.
-Israel.
-minority religions.
-poor people.
-rich people.
-fat people.
-police.
-foreigners.
-the Government.
-white people and European imperialists.
-America not Americans.
-George W. Bush.
-dark skinned Arabs
-Persians (unless you are Shi’a)
-Gulf Arabs. (in places other than the Gulf)
-Palestinians (sometimes)

I think we’re all guilty of some of these but you cant win, to be fair either all hatred is unacceptable (keep dreaming) or all hatred is acceptable, sometimes I think that would make things easier in a sick twisted way.

Tori was an active author at Mideast Youth for a long time and you may read her previous posts here (under a pseudonym.)

Generally it’s the conservative members of society that attract and harbor the most intolerant and bigoted elements of society. The Jerry Falwell’s of the world, the Al Qaeda’s. (Yes I’m referencing Jerry Falwell parallel to Al Qaeda). The ignorance and bigotry that streams from the pulpit or the politician, the one that stirs fear over immigration or minority religions is one that’s loud, in your face and more often than not, inciting by design.

The most ignorant of bigotry is one that flies under our radar, that appeals to our sensitivities and one we so often invite and encourage to further our agenda’s. The Liberal voice that sits comfortably at home and looks down on the world through text books and national geographic.

I’ve encountered it so many times in my life but it first blindsided me when I was approached by an American friend eager to share what they recently learned in class about Egyptian society. That day I was shocked to hear, 90% of Egyptian children have fly eggs laying in their eye lids, you know like those African kids you see in documentaries and charity drives with big, parasite infested bellies and dying of starvation.

A complete shock to me. Maybe I was ignorant myself, maybe I was too blind to ever see that in Egypt before or maybe some Liberal fruit cake college professors, looking down on the poor, poverty stricken masses of the world decided that all children living outside of the wealthy and prosperous Western world have flies hatching in their eyes. I hear garbage like this all the time and I’ve probably been conned into believing it a few times too. Like the “statistic” that 95% of Egyptian women are circumcised, wow really?! 95%?! Seriously?!

The Irony of information like this is that the people providing it mean no harm. They genuinely believe that every country without a Starbucks suffers from some various array of strange cultural backwardness and always at astronomically high percentages. Sometimes I wonder if the 3rd world was put there simply to garner their sympathies, something to talk about over espresso with friends or a cause to put on fliers and post in University hallways.

It’s kind of like when I meet someone new and they ask me where I’m from and as soon as they hear Egypt I get a line of questions that sadly…I’ve heard a million times.

“Do they have running water in your country?” or “Do people speak English there?” and my favorite implication question, “It’s not safe for Americans to go there, right?”

I really hate to break their hearts and ruin their dream of Egypt , it’s better to go with the flow. “Yes, Americans are killed on site by rebel death squads that roam the streets searching for infidels“, “Water is scarce, sometimes you must drink your own urine to survive“. What can I do?

Today I stumbled into a photo caption stuffed with more ignorant and racist Liberal garbage than I could stomach.

The caption reads.

What has happened to humanity when we can watch children begging to Americans in a tour bus for food and money. Where have our souls gone as we watched in curiosity yet doing nothing to help them. I wonder now if these children still live in Egypt after all the turmoil of 9/11 for this picture was taken in 1993. Are they in a militia now? Are they fighting for Iraqi’s freedom? Here I wonder yet sit in my cushioned bed, watch my 52″ television and sleep in peace every night. So who am I to wonder?

God help me, where do I begin? Ok lets do this line by line…

…begging to Americans in a tour bus for food and money.

First of all, the whole thing is inundated with self gratification, a list of material possession’s and privileges. Being American, as if not to be is less fortunate, being in a tour bus etc. and continues throughout the paragraph all the way down to the 52 inch television.

Second, considering the general ignorance of the whole paragraph I doubt the “artist” understands Arabic at all let alone enough to recognize begging for food and money. Any person with two eyes and a functioning brain can see those kids are holding stacks of paper, probably post cards (in Egypt kids and adults alike selling post cards or anything with ancient Egyptian pictures, go where they know tourists are.) They’re not begging, they’re working!

…we watched in curiosity yet doing nothing to help them.

Watched in curiosity?! Where do you think you are, the zoo?! There’s nothing to be curious about, hasn’t anyone ever tried to sell you something on the street before? These kids aren’t looking for charity, they’re looking for customers!

I wonder now if these children still live in Egypt after all the turmoil of 9/11 for this picture was taken in 1993.

I wasn’t aware that 9/11 caused the massive exodus of Egyptians or anyone else out of their countries, where would they go? Why would they leave? What the *$#@&! does 9/11 have to do with it?

Are they in a militia now? Are they fighting for Iraqi’s freedom?

Why, why and WHY!!!??? It gets more offensive and outrageous as you read. I didn’t even know we had militias! I love the assertion that Egyptians have been collectively fanaticized by 9/11 and are all armed and marching towards Iraq to fight and kill American soldiers. It’s impossible for the “artist” to imagine they’ve graduated from college and work to support a family. No, they must be in Iraq with bombs strapped to their chests because thats just what Arabs do.

Here I wonder yet sit in my cushioned bed, watch my 52″ television and sleep in peace every night.

Besides the poor grammar this is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing rant to establish wealth, privilege and success. Liberals do this all the time, they make bold statements about their own material possession while simultaneously casting the subject of inquiry into a lower class. As if these kids are laying awake somewhere in their hard, un-cushioned beds, fantasizing about 52 inch TV’s and desperately wondering what rich Americans do in their spare time. It reminds me of a professor I once had who used to sit back in his desk, kick his feet up and say, “Sometimes on Sunday mornings I sit in my gazebo, overlooking my 2 acre pond and I think to myself…I wonder what poor people do for fun.” The writer is having a similar moment of reflection here.

So who am I to wonder?

An ignorant Liberal bigot named Kimberly DeMoss who’s trying to push her garbage for 39.99, poor grammar and all.

My speaking copanelist was Jens Kutcher, a young German doctoral student who was impressed at our collaboration with Zuender. He talked about his research on online fatwas and websites like Ask Imam and Islam Question and Answer.

I lectured about Mideast Youth both during a conference panel and also in an Ethics course at the university. I started by telling people that it was a lie for me to stand in front of them and represent Mideast Youth, firstly because most of us only interact online and not in person, and secondly because one person cannot hope to represent the diversity of voices we see here daily. Many people nodded their heads when I mentioned the Free Kareem campaign, and one professor from Roger Williams college said that the top administrator of his school was a huge supporter.

I have to say I learned a lot about my reasons for being committed to this site. In articulating what we are, I explained that the old paradigm of virtual/real doesn’t apply anymore; the real binary is virtual/physical. Today, “imagined communities” become real communities with real interactions online, and communities that couldn’t exist suddenly take on the shared values, practices and goals of real communities. Mideast Youth is no less real than a community group that meets together in the same space - and our activism is no less effective. In fact, because our mode of interaction is already the internet our campaigns by default virtual and viral and therefore cutting edge and in some cases very successful. Our commitment to help bloggers who experience oppression and repression signifies that we feel we have a responsibility to one another and are indeed a real community.

There were some other interesting presentations about use of the internet; Boston professor Solomon Schimmer talked about Orthodox American Jews blogging anonymously to criticize their religious establishments. Tomorrow, Sarah Whedon from UC Santa Barbara will talk about “Fundamentalist Mormon polygamous women and the internet as a site of resistance.”

I showed the Bahai rights/Egyptian tourism video, and one student asked a banal yet provocative question. “If your campaign was successful in getting the Egyptian government to allow every religious affiliation to obtain an ID card, why is the video still on Youtube? How will people know the campaign was a success?”

She does have a point. Nevertheless, people think what we are doing is cutting edge, brave, and outrageous.

Not long after Iraq was discovered to be a colossal blunder, war drums began to pound for Iran. A not so democratic place with an oppressive regime who’s a danger to its neighbors and the U.S. as well as being a state sponsor of terror, blah blah blah, etc etc. Well I’ve heard this story before and I didn’t like how it turned out.

Who really wants war with Iran? Pat Buchanan once answered that question with…”Only Dick Cheney, Senator Joe Lieberman and the Israeli Lobby”

But what are the reasons for wanting war with Iran? You’ve heard it an endless number of times, nuclear weapons, desire to wipe Israel off the map, funding Hezbollah, working with Syria, etc. Somethings off about that though, there are many countries who hate Israel, fund terrorism and probably wouldnt mind if Israel didnt exist anymore. Ironically the U.S. wants to give them a nuclear program. One being Egypt and the other, the biggest terrorist state in all the world…Saudi Arabia.

So why would the U.S. and Israel feel so comfortable allowing these countries to have nuclear energy while threatening Iran’s destruction over it? There are two reasons.

First, a good share of Israeli ministers and Knesset members are crazy, bold and brazen, much more than Ahmadinejad. They believe they can fight the whole world, they want to punish people who dont like Zionists and who dislike Israel and they would like the U.S. to do the job for them. They are nuts! Even in the U.S. which is so heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby, these guys are pushing their luck and wielding more power than they poses. On top of all that the most staunch “bomb Iran” members of Israeli Government are Iranians themselves. Jews born and raised in Iran or whose parents immigrated from Iran and who desperately want revenge on a country they feel bitter towards. In short, they have an axe to grind.

The most recent and loudest anti-Iran mouth piece in Israel is Shaul Mofaz an Iranian Jew born in Tehran in 1948. His words, “”If Iran continues its nuclear arms program — we will attack it”, buzz like a fly in my ear.

The U.S. has its own reason which comes in two parts. First because Israel is crying in their ear about it and they feel obligated to comply but two because of something monetary, surprise surprise. In actuality the U.S. will give Nuclear power to anyone, on one condition, that they buy the enriched uranium from them. Ah, now this smells familiar. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and India all have to buy enriched uranium from the U.S. which is extremely expensive as you can imagine. Iran however wants to enrich their own uranium, thats a big no, no and when you are siting on an oil gold mine, thats enough to go to war over. Its not hard to understand or believe. We already know that Iran hasn’t had anything close to a weapons program since 2003, we know that the enrichment of Iran’s uranium is not enough for weapons use and we know that we’ve been sold this type of fear mongering and propaganda before, so don’t look so surprised.

Is punishing an oppressive government reason for war? No, if the U.S. is feeling so heroic they can stop ignoring the rest of the world transgressions.

Is Iran a severely oppressive regime…Yes! Is Iran a supporter and funder of groups deemed terrorists by much of the world…Yes! Is Ahmadinejad a little crazy…Yes! (even though I think hes more stupid and antagonistic than crazy). Is Iran going to attack Israel unprovoked…No! Don’t think for a second that the leaders of Iran would dare threaten their own power by attacking Israel.

However if Israel doesn’t want to wait for the U.S. to attack Iran and they want to do it themselves I say go ahead. Fight your own war, see if you can handle it, see if your people will put up with it, see if it doesn’t threaten your existence more than Iran’s nuclear program ever did. I don’t believe Israel has much hope against Iran unless they intend to use a nuke of their own.

Remember that Iran is a country with half a million active troops, 350 thousand reserve and 11.4 million paramilitary. Making them the largest military force in the world. So go ahead, show them what you got, keep talking the tough talk and fight your own battles.

TRUE CRIMES: THE UNTOLD STORY BEHIND THE DEVASTATION OF IRAQ

With Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian

Join bestselling author JEREMY SCAHILL, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer CHRIS HEDGES, journalist LAILA AL-ARIAN, and The New Yorker’s SEYMOUR HERSH, as they go behind the headlines to tell the untold story of the occupation of Iraq, the daily plight of Iraqi civilians, and the ongoing role of private mercenaries in America’s “War on Terror.”

The event is a dual book launch for Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian, and the updated paperback edition of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill.

The conversation will be followed by audience questions and a book signing.

Town Hall | 123 West 43rd Street
New York City
June 3, 7 p.m.
$10/$15/$20

Tickets are available at the Town Hall Box Office (www.the-townhall-nyc.org) or at  Ticketmaster (212-307-4100 / www.ticketmaster.com)
Co-sponsored by The Nation, Public Concern Foundation, Democracy Now!, The Indypendent, CERSC, Democrats.com, Peace Action New York, Alternet, Tricycle, The Armenian National Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights and Veterans for Common Sense.