300 Fake Tombstones Removed So Far at Jerusalem Muslim Cemetery

The Jerusalem Municipality has thus far removed 300 false tombstones that were built in the course of the past few weeks at the Mamilla Muslim cemetery in central Jerusalem. The tombs were built by Muslim elements who took advantage of the fact that the Jerusalem Municipality's Health Department granted them a permit to clean up and fix existing tombstones. Instead of just cleaning graves, however, the Muslims hired workers to try and grab land from the adjoining Independence Park

via israelnationalnews.com

creepy, spooky... golly jeepers

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Each new tombstone is dismantled only after an expert from the Antiquities Authority inspects it and confirms that it is indeed a new tombstone.
The new tombstones had no graves or human remains beneath them. Plastic bottles, cigarette packs and irrigation pipes were found beneath some of them. Others were built atop a sewage pipe.

 

Shocking Images of Dead Kurdish Fighters:

Turkey Accused of Using Chemical Weapons against PKK - Turkish Logic: a Blockade against rocket attacks is wrong, Chemical Weapon are fine as long as it is a Muslim that does it and the Muslim used Taqiyya afterwords

Turkish soldiers on patrol in a Kurdish area of southeastern Turkey:

German experts have confirmed the authenticity of photographs that purport to show PKK fighters killed by chemical weapons. The evidence puts increasing pressure on the Turkish government, which has long been suspected of using such weapons against Kurdish rebels. German politicians are demanding an investigation.
It would be difficult to exceed the horror shown in the photos, which feature burned, maimed and scorched body parts. The victims are scarcely even recognizable as human beings. Turkish-Kurdish human rights activists believe the people in the photos are eight members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) underground movement, who are thought to have been killed in September 2009.

In March, the activists gave the photos to a German human rights delegation comprised of Turkey experts, journalists and politicians from the far-left Left Party, as SPIEGEL reported at the end of July. Now Hans Baumann, a German expert on photo forgeries has confirmed the authenticity of the photos, and a forensics report released by the Hamburg University Hospital has backed the initial suspicion, saying that it is highly probable that the eight Kurds died "due to the use of chemical substances."

Did the Turkish army in fact use chemical weapons and, by doing so, violate the Chemical Weapons Convention it had ratified?

Repeated 'Mysterious Incidents'

German politicians and human rights experts are now demanding an investigation into the incident. "The latest findings are so spectacular that the Turkish side urgently needs to explain things," said Claudia Roth, the co-chair of Germany's Green Party. "It is impossible to understand why an autopsy of the PKK fighters was ordered but the results kept under seal."

The politician said there had been repeated "mysterious incidents of this type that are crying out for an independent investigation." Roth demanded that Turkey issue an official statement on the possible use of chemical weapons "in order to nullify further allegations."
Ruprecht Polenz, a member of the German parliament with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union and the chairman of the Bundestag's Foreign Relations Committee, sees it the same way. "Turkey needs to urgently look into these accusations," he told SPIEGEL ONLINE, adding that an international investigation would be the best approach.

Turkey has been suspected of using chemical weapons for years, points out Gisela Penteker, a Turkey expert with the international medical organization International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. "Local people have said that again and again," she explained. Finding proof is difficult, however, she said, because bodies were often released so late that it was hardly possible to carry out a thorough autopsy.

'PKK Propaganda'

 In Turkey, human rights advocates have long demanded an investigation. The army, however, has refused to comment on the issue. Similarly, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been stubbornly silent or tried to portray the accusations of war crimes as "PKK propaganda.

"The prime minister is not interested in human rights violations," says Akin Birdal, a member of the Turkish parliament whose pro-Kurdish BDP opposition party has repeatedly questioned in parliament if Erdogan's war in the southeast of the country is really being conducted legally. In Birdal's view, the only thing that matters to Erdogan is that the army eradicates the PKK problem once and for all "by any means necessary."
The Turkish Foreign Ministry has rejected the accusations, according to the Berlin daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, which reported on the case Thursday. Turkey is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and its armed forces do not possess any biological or chemical weapons, the ministry reportedly said.
The newspaper also reports that it has obtained additional, shocking pictures in the meantime, supposedly autopsy photographs of six other killed Kurds. These images, too, have now been submitted to the Hamburg-based experts.

via   spiegel.de 
By Daniel Steinvorth and Yassin Musharbash
photo: REUTERS

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Russia Refuses to Turn Over Lubavitch Manuscripts to US

Russia has rejected a U.S. court ruling to turn over a Jewish library to Chabad in New York. A U.S. judge last week ruled against the Russian government for its refusal to return thousands of manuscripts that once belonged to the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. The library was seized by Red Army in Nazi Germany as war booty.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said late Wednesday that the ruling is a “rude violation” of international law.
It said the library was nationalized because its owner, Rav Ysoef Yitzchok Isaac Schneersohn, had no heirs. Rav Schneersohn was forced to leave Russia in 1927.
The ministry said the library is available for scientific study and worship.
Chabad-Lubavich said it feared some manuscripts were headed to the black market.
{Matzav.com Newscenter/AP}

via matzav.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative passing in Polls 50 to 40 percent

Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in California and allow it to be regulated and taxed, continues to be supported by voters according to the poll.  Results show Prop. 19 passing 50 to 40 percent, unchanged from the CBS 5 poll conducted a month ago.

via cbs5.com

Voting on Marijuana

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired.

via ballotpedia.org

Marijuana news

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani confession to murder on Iran state TV

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Her lawyer said she was tortured for two days before she agreed to appear on TV. Photograph: AP

The Iranian woman whose sentence to death by stoning sparked an international outcry is feared to be facing imminent execution, after she was put on a state-run TV programme last night where she confessed to adultery and involvement in a murder.
Speaking shakily in her native Azeri language, which could be heard through a voiceover, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani told an interviewer that she was an accomplice to the murder of her husband and that she had an extramarital relationship with her husband's cousin. Her lawyer told the Guardian last night that his client, a 43-year-old mother of two, was tortured for two days before the interview was recorded in Tabriz prison, where she has been held for the past four years.
"She was severely beaten up and tortured until she accepted to appear in front of camera. Her 22-year-old son, Sajad and her 17-year-old daughter Saeedeh are completely traumatised by watching this programme," said Houtan Kian.
He added that there were now fears that the Iranian authorities would act quickly to carry out the death sentence, which was reportedly commuted to hanging after an international outcry last month. The sentence was initially for "having an illicit relationship outside marriage" but some Iranian officials have claimed she was also found guilty of murdering her husband and should still face death by stoning.
The interview was broadcast on a show called 20:30, a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Tehran to honour treaty obligations to respect the rights of citizens and halt executions.
Observers suggested one of the signs she was speaking under duress was that in the interview she blamed the western media for interfering in her personal life.
In an interview last week with the Guardian through an intermediary, Mohammadi Ashtiani accused the Iranian authorities of lying about the charges against her to confuse the media in order to pave the way to execute her in secret. "I was found guilty of adultery and was acquitted of murder," she said.
Amnesty International condemned the "so-called" confession and said the independence of Iran's judiciary was "tattered" by the broadcast. "This makes a complete mockery of the judiciary system in Iran," said Drewery Dyke of Amnesty's Iran team. "Iran is inventing crimes ... it is an unacceptable practice that flies in the face of justice."
Mina Ahadi of the Iran Committee against Stoning (ICAS) said: "It's not the first time Iran has put an innocent victim on a televised programme and killed them on the basis of their forced confessions – it has happened numerously in the first decade of the Islamic Revolution."
Iran's state-run TV suggested international attention over Mohammadi Ashtiani was "western propaganda" aimed at forcing Iran to release three American hikers who have been held since last year.

via guardian.co.uk

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Zaytuna College Berkley California: CLASSES BEGIN AT AMERICA’S FIRST ISLAMIC COLLEGE ON AUGUST 24

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.
Classes commence at America’s first Islamic college on August 24.
Zaytuna College, which has attracted applications from Muslims throughout the world and substantial financial support from Saudi Arabia, is located in Berkley, California.
With the motto “Where Islam Meets America,” Zaytuna upholds the goal of cultivating Islamic scholars.
What kind of Islamic scholars?
The examples have been set by the three Islamic radicals, who serve as founders of the college. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf , one of the founders, was born in Washington state and raised in northern California as Mark Hanson, became he converted to Islam in 1977. Writing to an Islamic group, Sheikh Yusuf said: “America is a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society… Fundamentals of Islam are being compromised… Convention resolutions are meaningless Masonic exercises (sic) devised by men who desire to engage people in forums that would insure nothing changes… There should be no voting or debate… We have no room for ayes or nays.”
Imam Zaid Shakir, another founder, serves as an adviser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and is a frequent speaker at CAIR gatherings. On one occasion, Imam Shakir ruled that Islamic law permits Muslims to attack C-130 military transport planes carrying the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. “Jihad,” he said, “is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.” He added that acceptable targets of jihad are U.S. military aircraft.
Hatem Bazian, the third founder of the new college, holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the University of California. He is ardent supporter of intifada (the militant uprising of Muslims) not only in Palestinian territory (in which he was born) but also throughout the United States. He addressed a cheering crowd of fellow jihadists by saying: Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream… giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton, every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every– They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!”
The incoming students at Zaytuna College must pass a proficiency exam – - not in English – - but Arabic. Those who fail must enroll in the school’s “Arabic Intensive Program.”
The courses at the college consist of Islamic History, Islamic Theology, Arabic, Islamic Law, economics, and composition. No classes are offered in English/American Literature, U.S. History, European History, foreign languages (other than Arabic), chemistry, biology, physics, psychology, philosophy, earth science, sociology, anthropology, or mathematics.
At the completion of their Islamic training, students, who specialize in Islamic theology, must pass an exit exam in tajwid – - the proper recitation of the Koran.
The founders of the school have applied for accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. As soon as the accreditation is approved, students at Zaytuna will be eligible for federal and state aid.
Jan Markell, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries, says the new college is unfortunately symptomatic of a nation drowning in political correctness.
“And it [political correctness] will kill America,” Ms. Markell maintains.
She adds: “As long as the left controls all of the media — except for Fox News and talk radio and some Internet sites — this kind of evil will continue to prosper…particularly in light of this current pro-Islamic administration.”
Tags: Creeping Sharia, Homegrown Jihad, Islamic Conquest, Post-America, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, Zaytuna College
13 Responses to “CLASSES BEGIN AT AMERICA’S FIRST ISLAMIC COLLEGE ON AUGUST 24”
1.
Kim Bruce says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:33 am
“I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society… Fundamentals of Islam are being compromised… ”
Did this guy, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, share a room with Barack Obama in college or university?
Just wondering. He seems to be on the same wavelength as the President.
2.
bonni says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:42 am
my dear kim bruce . you look like you are confused.please re read your post. then ask yourself if you are making any sense.the thing that amazes me is how there are so many adherents to islam.if i were to invent a religion i would do the same your sister in CHRIST bonni
3.
Ralph says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:25 pm
This will answer everything about Islam and Muhammad…
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
4.
AmericatheBrave says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:16 pm
My friends, here is a list of quotes from the Koran or Q’uran. Use this when you debate the idelogogies of Islam. Ask yourself, is this a religion or a social way of life = cult.
1. Muslims CANNOT doubt the Koran (2:1)
2. Non-Muslim sex slaves are OK (Koran 4:23-24)
3. Non-Muslims are sworn enemies of Muslims and Islam (Koran 4:101)
4. Muslims are forbidden from having non-Muslims as friends (Koran 5:51)
5. Muslims have the holy duty to kill non-Muslims (Koran 9:5)
6. Only GUARANTEED way to enter “heaven” is to kill non-Muslims (Koran 9:111)
7. Muslims MUST terrorize non-Muslims (Koran 8:12)
8. Muslims can lie to non-Muslims to help Islam (Koran 3:28, 16:106)
9. Non-Muslims pick one: 1. Die, 2. Convert, 3. Pay Extortion Money to Live (Koran 9:29).
10. Non-Muslims are vile creatures deserving no mercy (Koran 98:6)
11. Wife beating is OK (Koran 4:34)
12. Marriage and divorce of children is OK (Koran 65:4)
13. Rape is OK, need 4 male Muslim witnesses for proof (Koran 24:13)
14. Robbery and theft of non-Muslims (Koran: Entire Chapter 8 called Booty)
15. When Koran conflicts, later verses cancel out earlier verses (Koran 2:106)
16. Mohammed at 51-years old married his child bride Aisha (6-years old).
17. Mohammed didn’t deflower her until he was 54 and she was 9.
18. In one day, Mohammed help behead (Koran 47:4, 8:12) between 600-900 Qurayza Jews in Medina in 627 A.D.
19. Only Mohammed had permission from Allah to marry as many wives as he wanted to (Koran 33:50).
20. To prove rape in Islamic law or Sharia law, Muslim females need four male Muslim
witnesses in good standing (Koran 24:13).
21. The Koran has 114 Chapters called Surahs and is not presented in chronological order,
but chapter length order, from longest (Chapter 1) to shortest (Chapter 114).
22. Many verses in the Koran conflict, so the concept of abrogation (Koran 2:106) applies. This means, later occurring verses make cancel out the earlier verses.
23. The last chapter written in the Koran, Chapter 9, is extremely violent., nullifying ALL earlier peaceful passages.
24. Robbery and Theft of non-Muslim property is OK (The entire Chapter 8 of the Koran
is known as Booty or Spoils).
25. Muslims that leave Islam (apostacy) MUST be killed. (Bukhari 4:52:260) Quoting
Mohammed: “…if a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.”

via docstalk.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

The NY Times Tries and Fails to Explain The Israel-Palestinian "Peace Process"

Forget about The Onion, The National Lampoon, Mad Magazine, and Saturday Night Live (sorry for all those American cultural references). When it comes to satire nobody can beat a New York Times editorial!
Well, this one is funny because the Times is--sort of--trying to praise the Israeli government and criticize the Palestinian Authority (PA) but you can't help but laugh at the contortions they go through.
Here's the first one:
"After three months of American-mediated proximity talks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has agreed to direct negotiations on a two-state solution; the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is stubbornly resisting. It is time for him to talk."
Now is this dishonest or what? The implication is that finally, just now, at the very last minute, and after three months (12 weeks,  about 90 days) the U.S. negotiators can wipe the sweat from their brow and say that Netanyahu has agreed to direct negotiations.
But guess what? He publicly agreed to direct negotiations during a visit to Washington about 16 months (64 weeks, about 480 days) ago! So to avoid giving Netanyahu credit for being ready to talk all along the Times pretends that thanks only to a tremendous battle has the Obama Administration landed the big fish.
Ok, though, but at least they have praised Netanyahu and pointed out that Abbas is the barrier to progress? Not exactly. Keep reading:
"There are understandable reasons for Mr. Abbas’s reluctance. We also don’t know whether Mr. Netanyahu, a master manipulator, really wants a deal or whether his hard-line governing coalition would ever let him make one."
Yeah, Abbas, that Netanyahu is one evil dude! We can hardly blame you for refusing to make peace. I can imagine Abbas saying: "Sorry, I cannot negotiate because Netanyahu is untrustworthy. I read it in the New York Times so it must be true."
Might one wonder if Abbas is a "master manipulator" or whether his "hard-line government coalition would ever let him make one?" (See below on that point.) In fact, why throw into question Netanyahu's credentials? What has he done in the last 14 years, during which he has accepted a two-state solution, to make one conclude he is insincere on the issue, rather than just a tough negotiator?
Moreover, his coalition is not "hard-line" at all. Let's give the Times a little lesson in Israeli politics. The coalition includes six parties with a total of 72 seats, 12 more than is needed:
--Likud, 27 seats. While this is the main conservative party, and includes parliamentarians who would be against concessions, Netanyahu has a firm hold on the party.
--Israel Beitanu, 15 seats. While this party is headed by Foreign Minister Lieberman, it is not the "far-right" party that is the stereotype. It is, in fact, a Russian immigrant party. In some ways, Lieberman is rather dovish, proposing far-reaching territorial swaps (even if he does so to get rid of Arab citizens of Israelis the effect is not hard-line on negotiations). He is certainly capable of populist posturing but he is not, as such, an impediment to a peace deal.
--Labour Party, 13 seats. This is the leading party of the dovish left. Enough said.
--Two religious parties: Shas (11) and United Torah Judaism (3). These parties are mainly interested in patronage. They would fight tooth and nail on the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and perhaps over the whole eastern part of the city. But on most of the issues they are not so intransigent. Shas's mentor has in the past said that giving up the West Bank can be justified if that saves lives.
--National Union (3). Aha, here's a hardline, right-wing party that would walk out of government. It represents only 4 percent of his coalition and Netanyahu doesn't need them.
Moreover, Netanyahu could replace any defectors if he wished by bringing in Kadima (28).  While one could debate some of the details of my analysis the idea that the Israeli coalition would never countenance a two-state solution is absurd.
What is really astonishing is that, to protect the Palestinian Authority, the Times is even willing to bash its idol, President Obama, in a flagrant miswriting of history:
"Mr. Abbas also is wary of Washington. After Mr. Obama demanded in 2009 that Mr. Netanyahu halt all settlement construction as a prelude to negotiations, Mr. Abbas did the same. When Mr. Netanyahu forced Mr. Obama to back down and the Israeli leader implemented a more limited and temporary building halt, Mr. Abbas was left clinging to the maximalist position."
What? Obama made the demand and Netanyahu complied. He gave a one-year freeze to see what would happen in talks. Was that a case of Obama "backing down?" And when Obama retroactively added Jerusalem outside the 1967 lines, Netanyahu again complied.
Here's the truth: Obama demanded, Netanyahu agreed, and Abbas still rejected direct talks. This has been going on for one year. So I'll stand up for Obama against the Times on this point.
Then there's the way the Times deals with Arab politics. True, it points out that the Arab League backs direct talks. So here's my question for you: What does the Times leave out?
Answer: Palestinian Authority politics, Hamas, Iran, and Syria. Why can't the Times mention that this is the real prime motive for Abbas? It isn't mainly that he doesn't trust Netanyahu (if he were certain Netanyahu was eager for peace it would make it harder, not easier, for Abbas to enter talks!) or he is "wary" of Obama.
The fact is that Abbas knows:
--He has no control or authority over Fatah, a group in which he has almost no direct followers, but is the real power behind the PA. This is the group that would never let its nominal leader make a two-state solution. Most of the Fatah leadership is hardline. Some don't want to make any deal that would block them from trying to destroy Israel in future. Others are afraid to do so. The number one problem is PA politics.
--Palestinian public opinion tends to be hardline. And why should that be surprising? It is conditioned by years of indoctrination to be that way on top of what existed beforehand. The PA has been pumping out hardline propaganda now for 16 years.
--Then there is Hamas which enjoys somewhere between 25 and 30 percent support in the PA-ruled areas. Even the tiniest concession, merely holding direct talks, will be used by Hamas to claim Abbas is commiting treason. And joined with some elements in Fatah this hardline coalition would be deadly for the PA, and perhaps for Abbas personally.
--Moreover, Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. This little detail seems to be left out a lot, as if the PA's making an agreement was in any way binding on almost half the territory it is claiming to control! It would be like making a deal with South Korea or West Germany and claiming it applied to all of Korea or Germany.
Incidentally, it is almost never pointed out that Abbas's term in office ended in January 2009 and he keeps extending it without elections. Why? Because if elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were held Hamas would win them. This shows how unstable is the regime with which Israel is supposed to make a peace based on massive unilateral concessions. If elections were to be held after a two-state agreement was implemented, Hamas would win, immediately reject the agreement, and return to war. This is rather significant for any discussion of Israel-Palestinian peace, don't you think?
--Then there are the external forces like Iran and Syria that are dead-set on making anyone who makes with Israel just plain dead. If Abbas were to negotiate a deal they would do everything in their power (in line with Fatah hardliners and Hamas) to destroy that agreement and overthrow Abbas.
Doesn't all of this seem a bit significant? Isn't it ridiculous to discuss the issue as if Abbas was some independent actor who could do whatever he wished, while Israel's leader (whose public opinion is eager for a negotiated peace, generally willing to make concessions, and flexible on many of the issues) is enchained?
I'm writing about this editorial not because I think the Times is so important in itself. Rather, these are precisely the ideas that dominate Western debate on the issue. What we have here is a failure to engage accurately with the basic facts on what is persistently (if wrongly) touted as the world's most important issue.

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous