I don't even agree with the Guardian when it comes to softdrinks.

CocaCola is the company that can take the health market as well... it just won't be CocaCola BRAND.

The Guardian is predictably slow on the punch with that analysis.
Are they right about anything?
Photograph Christian Hartmann/Reuters

Consumers opting for healthier drinks has hit Coca-Cola's brand value.

Coca-Cola has dropped out of the top 10 brands for the first time as consumers opt for healthier drinks and new technology companies enjoy an increase in their brand values.  via guardian.co.uk

to be a health drink under the CocaCola label of companies is not a marketing problem.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

The Plot to Destroy the US Military

The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin's purges of the Russian Army's commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.
A congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience. The report calls on the military leadership to "better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society". Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn't have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they're the best at what they do.
...Such dramatic overhauls of the military usually take place because it is culturally out of step with the government. Would be tyrants, such as Turkey's Erdogan, go after the military because it represents a barrier to absolute power. Others because the military is a barrier to their agenda. Sharon destroyed the once great IDF, purging its commanders and replacing them with political generals in order to push through his ethnic cleansing of the Jewish communities in Gaza, leading to the disastrous performance in the Second Lebanon War. The Democrats may not have anything as ambitious in mind, but they are determined to bring it culturally into line with their agenda. And that will destroy the military as anything other than a politically correct corps that will occasionally show up for UN peacekeeping missions. This did not begin yesterday. The left has hated the American military because it is a vehicle of national exceptional-ism. A strong military gives the country a sense of independence and confidence that many European countries have lost. During the Vietnam War, the Anti-War movement targeted the military as an institution and the soldier as an individual, in order to destroy America's ability to take independent military action. Despite the abolition of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the left has continued its vocal opposition to an ROTC presence on campus. When a wounded Iraq War veteran spoke at Columbia, he was booed and jeered. Their excuse is that the military "discriminates" against transsexuals. And when that barrier too is dismantled, then there will be something else. It's not about gays or transsexuals, it's about a deep rooted ideological hostility to the military. Not because of any specific policy, but because of what it represents as the defenders of a country and an order that the left would like to see destroyed.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Could Gadhafi be used as a precedent against Israel?

Frank Gaffney lays out the scenario.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Does US Military Action Against Qaddafi Require Congressional Authorization?

This has been bouncing around over the weekend, but somehow I missed it until now. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, December 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

So Obama agrees with Dennis Kucinich that his authorization of military action against Libya was unconstitutional. Presumably he disagrees with Kucinich's suggestion that he should therefore be impeached.

Still, as we have noted a couple of times, it is very odd that Obama did not seek Congressional approval of the Libya mission. He certainly could have gotten it. And Obama's statement that "military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch" is one with which most people--George W. Bush, for example--would agree. So why did Obama launch a military action under circumstances that he himself describes as unconstitutional and unwise?

Maybe he just couldn't be bothered. One gets the feeling that Obama doesn't want to invest any more time or energy than necessary in his presidential duties (as opposed to his presidential perks). Otherwise, I'm stumped.

via powerlineblog.com


...Several liberal Democratic members of Congress are claiming that President Obama’s decision to use force against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi requires congressional authorization:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses....
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

Andrew McCarthy, a prominent conservative legal commentator, makes a similar argument here.
This is another of those rare cases where I agree with Dennis Kucinich though I would not go so far as to advocate impeachment, . Unlike Kucinich (and Andrew McCarthy), I tentatively think that Obama has chosen the right policy on Libya. But whether right or not, military action on this scale surely does require congressional authorization under the Constitution.

interesting point, but I disagree that going into Libya was prudent.

Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the president, the “power... to declare War.” The Founding Fathers sought to avoid a situation where one man had the power to commit the nation to war on his own initiative.
It’s arguable that some small-scale uses of force don’t rise to the level of a war and therefore can be undertaken by the president acting alone under his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. President Reagan’s 1986 airstrike on Libya might be an example, as were Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile strikes against Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan. If all the Obama administration intends is to launch a few Tomahawk missiles, perhaps this action would fall in the same category. However, it seems highly likely that the president plans to go well beyond this. Military operations are likely to continue for some time, perhaps until Qaddafi has either been overthrown or at least compelled to leave the rebel-controlled parts of Libya unmolested. If so, it seems quite clear that congressional authorization for military action on that scale is required.
Congressional also might not be needed if all the president is responding to an ongoing or imminent attack. However, Qaddafi has not attacked the US in recent years (though he did sponsor numerous anti-American terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 90s) and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he had any immediate intention of doing so.
As Andrew McCarthy recognizes, congressional authorization need not specifically use the words “declaration of war.” It is enough that it clearly authorize large-scale military action against the enemy in question, as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban did in 2001.
For all the hoopla about the supposedly overwhelming growth of presidential power, presidents have in fact gotten advance or nearly simultaneous congressional authorization for almost every major military intervention the United States has undertaken since World War II. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, the two Iraq wars, and many other cases. Bill Clinton’s 1999 military action in Kosovo was the one time during that period when a president entered into a major conflict in the face of actual opposition by the majority in Congress. In part for that reason, Clinton strictly limited the scale of American involvement, avoiding the use of ground forces and ensuring that US troops didn’t suffer any combat casualties. Perhaps Obama plans to do the same thing with Libya; but if so, he will be in a difficult position if more coercion is needed to succeed.
In addition to constitutional reasons, presidents also have strong political incentives to seek congressional support for military action. Without it, the president will have to take the sole political blame if anything goes wrong.
In this case, I have little doubt that Obama could get congressional authorization if he tries to do so. There is considerable Republican support for the Libya intervention, and Obama can also count on the support of most of his fellow Democrats. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate is backing him, despite the opposition of some House liberals.
For both constitutional and political reasons, the administration should seek a congressional vote as soon as possible.

via volokh.com

image via roguejew.blogspot.com

Helen Thomas to Playboy: Let Me Clarify: Jews Control White House, Congress, Financial Markets

The wicked witch of Beirut nowadays talks to anyone who would listen. Literally, anyone.
On a side note, Playboy must be in REAL need these days, to engage a beauty of Helen Thomas' caliber.

(Haaretz) Helen Thomas, former dean of the White House Press Corps, reportedly told Playboy in an interview for their April issue that Jews have power over the White House and Congress, who are in the pockets of the Israeli lobbies.
Thomas left her post at the White House after she publicly made anti-Israel comments last May, telling the Jews they should "get the hell out of Palestine."
The former reporter told Playboy that the Israeli lobbies "are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control."
When asked about her comments that ultimately cost her her job, Thomas told Playboy that "everybody knows my feelings about the Palestinians," adding "sure, the Israelis have a right to exist—but where they were born, not to come and take someone else’s home. I’ve had it up to here with the violations against the Palestinians. Why shouldn’t I say it? I knew exactly what I was doing—I was going for broke. I had reached the point of no return. You finally get fed up."
Thomas also clarified that when she said the Jews should go back to Poland,Germany and America, that she was not referring to the concentration camps, but rather that "they should stay where they are because they’re not being persecuted—not since World War II, not since 1945."
However, when asked about the Holocaust, Thomas told the magazine that "there’s nothing wrong with remembering it [the Holocaust], but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault."
She then launched into criticism of Israel and its alleged oppression of the Palestinians, accusing the Jews of lacking introspection.
"Do the Jews ever look at themselves?" asked Thomas, "why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate."
The former reporter told Playboy that she is not anti-Jewish, just anti – Israel, saying she thinks Jews are wonderful people. :I’m not anti-Jewish," clarified Thomas, "I’m anti-Zionist. I am anti Israel taking what doesn’t belong to it. If you have a home and you’re kicked out of that home, you don’t come and kick someone else out."

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

sigh

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

BBC's Katty Kay: Obama Doesn't Want Media To Report Bahrain Rebellion

we can see strings from the Saudis now

Despite our air attacks in Libya this weekend, most Middle East experts view the growing rebellion in Bahrain as being far more important to America.
Yet according to the BBC's Katty Kay, who was a guest on the syndicated "Chris Matthews Show," the Obama administration doesn't want the press reporting what's going on there (video follows with transcript and commentary):

KATTY KAY, BBC: Chris, we spend a lot of time on the program talking about Libya, but what’s happening in Bahrain is more violent and of much more strategic interest to the United States.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because of oil.

KAY: Because of oil, and because of the 5th Fleet is stationed there. What happens in Bahrain is really critical to America, but it’s in Washington’s interest and the White House’s interest that we don’t report this story very much. They would like that one to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shiites.

MATTHEWS: And not reporting it helps how? How does not reporting it help?

KAY: Because they just don’t want too much attention focused on what’s happening there because they don’t want to be having to be pushed into a position of helping the Shiite rebels there.

So what's so important about protecting the rebels in Libya, especially as we're really not sure who they are or what they stand for?
The Jerusalem Post reported last Sunday that an al Qaeda commander is backing the Libyan rebels. The perilously liberal Huffington Post reported Saturday that some of these rebels are radical Islamists with strong anti-American sympathies.
But the Obama administration wants the news media to ignore what's going on in Bahrain because they don't want to help Shiite rebels there?
Now, in fairness, there has been no media blackout of the Bahrain rebellion up to this point.
However, it's fascinating that a British Washington correspondent is aware that the White House wishes there was one, and it will be very interesting to see if they get their wish now that we've begun fighting in Libya.
Stay tuned.

via newsbusters.org

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

OMG... I agree with Nader too... but hey this Obama is your GUY. I was saying that the whole time

Nader: Impeach Obama for War Crimes or Something....

Obama has now joined some of the most notorious war criminals of our era, the vil Bush and Cheney.
Get Ralph some decaf.

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says that President Obama should be impeached for committing war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The consumer advocate and former presidential candidate said in an interview that aired Friday that Obama has committed "war crimes" on the same level as President Bush.
"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.
Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.

via jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Déjà vu: Air Strike Destroys Building of Gaddafi's Residence

An air strike has destroyed the building of Gaddafi's residence, according to reports.

TRIPOLI: A missile totally destroyed an administrative building of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli, an AFP journalist saw Sunday.

The building which was about 50 metres (165 feet) from the tent where Gaddafi generally meets guests was flattened.

The administrative structure was hit by a missile, official Libyan spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told journalists who were taken to the site by bus.

Tripoli was rocked by powerful explosions late Sunday, of which one was heard coming from the area around Gaddafi's residence.

Smoke billowed from the residence and barracks at Bab el-Aziziya in the south of the Libyan capital as anti aircraft guns fired shots.

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending the evening there. Gaddafi's plan was intercepted by Western intelligence. More detailed information was retrieved years later in Stasi archives. Libyan agents who had carried out the operation from the Libyan embassy in East Germany were prosecuted by the reunited Germany in the 1990s.^[58] On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers. Gaddafi then spread propaganda how it had killed his "adopted daughter" and how victims had been all "civilians". The campaign was successful as large portions of the Western press reported the regime's stories as facts.^[2][59]

via en.wikipedia.org

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I: Understanding the Threat

It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success.

Does anyone wonder how it is the U.S. military is crushing the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) daily, yet not winning the strategic war? The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world. At the FBI, the focus is on preventing the next attack. While this is important, “attacks” are not the main focus of effort for this enemy. Local and State Police are also focused on preventing attacks, the physical security of office buildings, critical infrastructure, and the safety of important public figures. When the subject of an investigation is found NOT to be involved in a plot to cause “violence” that case is closed and the investigator goes on to the next one in the stack. This is where we are losing the war. While preventing a school bus bombing or the take-over of a bank by Jihadis should be taken seriously by our law enforcement officers, from the enemy’s perspective, these are tactical engagements, not strategic.

Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.
One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad? In fact, authoritative Islamic Law does exist. There are not “a thousand interpretations” as the Muslim Brotherhood advisors tell our leadership. Islamic Law does define “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad. Islamic Law as defined by those using it to kill us and overthrow our government necessarily becomes the “Stated Enemy Threat Doctrine.” As a 4-star general told me a few months ago when I asked him what he thought about the fact that when Al Qaeda quotes Islamic Law they are always accurately quoting Islamic Law: “Well, if that’s true, it completely changes the nature of the way we are fighting this war.” Exactly.

Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.

Our enemy has no intention of defeating us on the battlefield. The kinetic war being waged by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the many other jihadi groups is meant to bleed us, fix us in place, and create a strategic distraction while the real war they are fighting is won in the information battlespace. While AQ fixes us in place, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) presses the U.S. – and the West at large – into a corner with a stated foreign policy mirroring that of Al Qaeda. Who is the OIC? The OIC is the umbrella organization for every Muslim nation in the world – 57 states (they count Palestine as a state). At the Head of State and King level the OIC seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law. They have a 10-Year Plan in English on their website that may begin shedding light on who they are and what they intend for the West. In 1993, the OIC served an official treaty to the United Nations called the “Cairo Declaration” stating the OIC defines “Human Rights” as Shariah (Islamic Law) – this is significantly different from the International Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the reason the International Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the death of Qaddafi is because he is “killing Muslims without right,” a capital crime under Islamic Law, and an act defined as “terrorism” by the OIC – that means the Head of State and King of every Muslim nation in the world has a parallel foreign policy from the one they are discussing with our State Department, and our State Department does not have clue one about it.

The International Muslim Brotherhood, the “vanguard” of the global Islamic Movement, is the leading edge of the enemy’s assault on the United States and the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, like the OIC and Al Qaeda, seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law (Shariah). You do not need a SCIF or a “secure space” to pull this information up on a classified government system. All of the enemy doctrine can be found on the worldwide web, in books, in speeches, in their training curricula, and coming out of their mouths on a daily basis. We just need to listen. The Muslim Brotherhood’s creed includes the the phrase “…Jihad is our Way, and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” The MB assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948, and the Egyptian security service killed MB founder Hassan al Banna on the streets of Cairo in 1949. Violence is inherent to MB operations, manifested in the “Special Section.” The “Special work” of the MB is “Military work” – violence and warfare. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood as the result of international MB meetings. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. Recordings obtained by the FBI of MB meetings in the U.S. reveal they have had weapons training camps here as early as the mid-1980’s. When the MB says they have “renounced violence” they are – hold onto your hats – lying.

From several major terrorism trials in the United States, and other information, we now know nearly every major Muslim organization in North America is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative group. We know many are support entities for Hamas, and all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government are controlled by the MB. These include: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Hamas support entity; the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas organization; the Muslim Students Associations (MSA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); the Interntional Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Hamas support entity; and many other. We also know that the objectives of the MB mirror those of Al Qaeda.

The MB’s doctrine is crystal clear on their objectives. The means for achieving these objectives is to wage a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a “grand jihad” – to destroy us from within. They seek to co-opt our leadership in all areas of our society – political, military, intelligence/law enforcement, media, religious. Civilization jihad by our hands. When we see that the Islamic advisor to President Clinton was a Muslim Brother and an Al Qaeda operative currently in federal prison, or that the MB runs the Shariah Compliant Financial programs for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or that senior policy advisors to Secretary Napolitano are Muslim Brothers, or that the Assistant Director for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate is an Iranian-born

Muslim, we see that there are catastrophic security issues within the U.S. government and that - just maybe – the MB means what they say.

During this series, we will go into painful detail to identify and describe the primary Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States, especially those working with U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and national security organizations. We will also detail some of the individual within the U.S. system who are aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least unwittingly assisting them. The utter and complete catastrophic failure of the very agencies charged with protecting us will be detailed over the next several weeks. If facts are upsetting to you, please don’t read.


Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty Infantry/Reconnaissance Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and a former Special Agent of the FBI in Washington, D.C. for over 12 years. He currently advises the government on a variety of issues.
The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part II: MB History & Their Arrival in America

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part III--'The Settlement Process'

 

Sadat and Mubarak were against the Muslim Brotherhood

BENTLEY [American journalist]: What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war [World War One]?

LAWRENCE: They hope to gain their freedom.
BENTLEY: They hope to gain their freedom? There's one [sucker] born every minute!

LAWRENCE: They're going to get it, Mr Bentley. I'm going to give it to them.
--From "Lawrence of Arabia"

An Egyptian Christian (Coptic) group has put up a superb six-minute video of a speech by the late (more on why he's dead in a moment) President Anwar al-Sadat about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is very timely.
Sadat makes clear why this group is so radical, dangerous, and inevitably at some point violent. He ought to know.
Some ironies: Of course, Sadat was the leader who let the Brotherhood operate again after two decades of being banned. Even then, in the 1970s and until just about today, it has remained illegal but the group still operated and even ran candidates in elections albeit not under its own name. (Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Syrian, and Iranian dictatorships didn't let their opponents run under any name, which tells something about the comparative harshness of dictatorships.) I haven't seen a single mention in the Western media as to the reason given by Egyptian governments for keeping the Brotherhood from running candidates in the past. It was this: no party should be allowed to claim a monopoly on "proper" Islam. Remember that point because it is going to be important in future, although the Brotherhood's new party--to make itself less scary--doesn't have the word "Islam" in its name either.The second irony is that Sadat was assassinated by Islamists. It is important to correct an error many have made recently. The terrorists were not Brotherhood people. But many of those terrorists who killed Sadat, joined al-Qaida, or carried out massive terrorism in Egypt in the 1990s (people now being released from prison to renew their activities) are former Brotherhood members. Radicalized and learning Islamist ideology in the Brotherhood they then went on to form or join separate radical Islamist groups.
The Brotherhood has not committed terrorism within Egypt directly (though it has, at times, endorsed terrorist murders of those deemed to be too secular) but it has been the cradle of terrorism in Egypt and even (al-Qaida; Hamas) abroad.
Finally, if you watch the brief film, keep in mind one poor piece of translation. At just before the two-minute mark, Sadat refers to the Brotherhood as viewing governments and societies as pre-Islamic. The significance of this--not explained--is that "pre-Islamic" societies are viewed by Islam as pagan and evil.
While that standpoint is definitely mainstream Islam, political Islamism's has also produced a dangerous concept of its own at variance with traditional Islam: It claims the right to declare pious Muslims as heretics and then kill them. That is precisely what it did to Sadat, who was a very pious Muslim personally, and is the basis for their overthrowing every government (including that of Saudi Arabia) that doesn't meet their interpretation of Islam.
Part of the problem with the Islamists is that even when they deviate from mainstream Islam, their positions may become popular and change Islam as it is practiced by many or most people. Thus, twenty years ago if you had told a mainstream Muslim cleric in the Middle East that suicide bombing was martyrdom he would have thrown you out of his office saying that such an idea was obviously heretical. Today, many mainstream clerics endorse this standpoint.
A legalized, large, and active Muslim Brotherhood (especially if it gains control of the key religious posts in Egypt, Jordan or--through Hamas--among the Palestinians) redefines mainstream Islam in a more extremist and radical direction. Sadat knew that also.
[PS: Note that the Enlightenment and Renaissance began in Europe precisely because very pious Christians there were ready to incorporate pre-Christian Classic Greek and Roman culture and philosophy into their societies. ]

By RubinReports via docstalk.blogspot.com

Let us not forget the assassination of Anwar Sadat, Egyptian Islamic Jihad

The Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring have long been rearranging the deck chairs on the Middle East Titanic. Unfortunately they are trying to sink the rest of the world with them. [Mooserider]
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Arabic: الجهاد الإسلامي المصري ý; also formerly called simply Islamic Jihad, الجهاد الإسلامي , "al-Jihad," a"the Jihad Group", "the Jihad Organization," ("tanzeem al Jihad) is a violent Islamist terrorist group dedicated to world Jihad and to overthrow of the Egyptian government, establishment of an Islamic state in Egypt and eventually world domination by Islam in a renewed Caliphate. It was closely allied to, part of, or father to, the Gamaa al Islamiya and shared with it for many years basic ideology, leadership and participation in various terrorist activities. (see here for a detailed account of some of the interrelationships)
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded in 1979 or 1980 by a merger of a group founded by Mohammed Abd al-Salam Farraj in Cairo and a Saidi (Upper Egypt) branch under Karam Zuhdi. In the 80s, the groups may have split apart again, with one branch becoming theGama'a al Islamiya (see here). Ayman Zawahiri is a member or leader of both groups .
The charter or founding manifesto of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad was written by the group's founder Mohammed Abd al-Salam Farraj. It is called "al-Faridah al-Gha'ibah." - the neglected duty. Farraj begins by stating that "Jihad for God's cause...has been neglected by the Ulema of this age." He goes on to expound the interpretation of Jihad as violent struggle (Jihad by the sword) - a duty incumbent on all Muslims. This theology is familiar from the writings of Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic Jihad can be viewed as nothing more than the continuation of the original Muslim Brotherhood ideology, after the Ikhwan Muslim brotherhood in Egypt had renounced violence.

Islamic Jihad's initial terrorist operation was the murder of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in October 1981. Sadat was ostensibly murdered because he had reneged on his promise to institute Sha'aria law, because he had made peace with Israel and because of his ties with the United States. In fact however, the assassination was to have been the prelude to an Islamic takeover of Egypt, just as previous attempts on the life of Gamal Abdel Nasser had attempted to achieve. The Egyptian police rounded up a great many leaders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Gamaa al Islamiya including Ayman Zawahiri, Farraj, Colonel al Zuhour who apparently had plotted the takeover of the government, Khaled Istambouli who carried out the assassination and roughly 300 others. They were tried in civil and military courts. Farraj, al-Islambouli and his fellow assassins were executed in April 1982, while al-Zumor,

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Ayman al-Zawahiri and others were given lengthy prison sentences. However, al-Zawahiri won an appeal, and was released and subsequently traveled first to Saudi Arabia, and then to Peshawar Pakistan where he and Osama Bin Laden formed a dilletantish group of Arabs who more or less vicariously participated in the struggle against the Soviet backed government in Afghanistan. Zawahiri became actual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or "al Jihad") about 1991.
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad had a blind-cell structure, like that of the Leninist Communist party. Members in one cell did not know the identities or activities of those in another, so that if one member were captured they would not be able to endanger more than a few people. However, Egyptian police captured the membership director of EIJ. The database in his computer listed every member's address, aliases, and potential hideouts. Al-Jihad leader al-Zawahiri bitterly lamented "the government newspapers" elation over “the arrest of 800 members of the al-Jihad group without a single shot being fired."
-continues at the above link-

Islamic Jihad Terrorist Ayman Al-Zawahiri

In 1980, al-Zawahiri returned to Cairo where he began work as a recruiter for jihad. After Egypt's President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by a radical group in 1981, al-Zawahiri and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested. ^[4]. While in prison, he and his fellow jihad friends faced frequent torture under Egypt's inquisition, Intelligence Unit 75. Through interrogation and torture, al-Zawahiri gave information which led to the arrest of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In one instance, he was forced to call a suspected terrorist, who Zawari know closely, to tell him to meet him at a location, Egypt's security officials arrested the suspect at the location and placed him in the same prison cell as al-Zawahiri^[5]. Essam al-Qamari, the suspected terrorist and friend of al-Zawahiri, was sentenced to ten years in prison and later shot dead in an attempted escape.
After three years, al-Zawahiri was released from prison and traveled to Saudi Arabia and later to Jeddah, where he claims he first met Osama Bin Laden.^[6] In 1998, the two Jihad leaders announced the joining of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda to form the World Islamic Front for the Jihand Against Jews and Crusaders^[7]. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzaria were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation, the United States lunched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.
Occasionally appearing on tapes claiming responsibility for attacks on the United States, al-Zawahiri has become the main spokesperson for the terrorist network. al-Zawahiri was sentenced to death by an Egyptian court in 1999 for his role in organizing variety terrorist attacks, and the United States State Department has offered a $25 million award for information leading to his apprehension after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon^[8]. Although information on his location is not well known, al-Zawahiri, who is fluent in English, is suspected of being located in Afghanistan after traveling around Europe looking for refugeCite error: Closing missing for tag.
On November 19, 2008, Al-Zawahiri released a video referring to President-elect Barack Obama as a 'house negro,' and stating that Obama was "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans."^[9]

Muslim Brotherhood ready to use Egyptian army to attack Israel

ArtCreative Design and Custom coding


Mohammed Ghanem one of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt called on his country to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army to wage war against Israel.In an interview on the Iranian television station al-Alam, Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting President Hosni Mubarak's regime but warned that neither the Egyptian police or army will be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood.The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the country and criticized Mubarak in the latest parliamentary elections of rigging the votes. While they have not come out vocally in the recent wave of anti-government protests, many believe they are purposely maintain a low profile until the time is right to attempt to take over the government.

For ElBaradei the turnaround happened almost overnight. He was the Brotherhood's front man but...broke with them over the referendum. And now they want to break him.

via Barry Rubin

The only thing surprising to me is that the Islamists have been emboldened so fast. I thought they would be cautious a while longer in their pretense at being moderate and pro-democracy. But revolutionary Islamists quickly become arrogant when people make concessions to them and they conclude that they are strong and victorious. 

via oyetimes.com

and via mooserider123.blogspot.com
image via weaselzippers.us and via ns1763.ca
and via blogs.e-rockford.com

Facebook makes its first acquisition in Israel

Facebook has announced its first acquisition in Israel, buying startup Snaptu for $60-70 million.

Snaptu's application allows mobile phones, even those less advanced than an iPhone or Android phone, to access mobile Internet.
Just this past June, Snaptu raised $6 million from venture capital firms Carmel Ventures and Sequoia Capital. Sequoia had already invested in the company.
Snaptu was founded in 2007 by CEO Ran Makavy, VP engineering Micha Berdichevsky, and CTO Barak Naveh.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

will they allow Israel to use credit cards now?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Spectator being investigated because of Melanie Phillips?

It’s a funny old world. I have now been contacted by two journalists informing me that Bedfordshire Police are investigating The Spectator. Why? Because of the Melanie Philips blog where she referred to the “moral depravity” of “the Arabs” who killed the Fogel family in Israel. CoffeeHousers can judge for themselves if they agree or disagree with her language and views – but should this be illegal? The Guardian has written this story up, claiming The Spectator is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission. This is untrue. The PCC tell me that a complaint has been lodged, but that’s as far as it has gone. They investigate only if they believe there is a serious prospect that their code has been breached, and it hasn't. Our blogs, as well as the magazine, adhere to the PCC code.

...
PPS: CoffeeHousers should go easy on the Bedfordshire Police, they have probably filed this complaint in the same drawer as UFO sightings. But it's interesting to see how easily the media is manipulated. Here's how it goes:
1) Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, gets angry about what he reads on Melanie's blog.
2) Complains to the PCC.
3) Complains to the police.
4) Phones up The Guardian and says "The PCC are investigating The Spectator!! Story!! Police too!!
5) The Guardian duly writes it all up, on its website.
6) The Independent follows up The Guardian.
7) An inverted pyramid of piffle is thus constructed.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

More protests in Syria. The WORLD is too busy attacking Libya... WTF!?!?

In Daraa, in southwestern Syria, protests against Bashar al-Assad's regime continued for a third day.

Dara'a. Demonstrations continue in the city and witnesses speak of more killings today. Appeals on Facebook for more medical supplies to the Midani Hospital and the al-Omari Mosque, turned into a hospital. The city is closed shut to any outsiders. People from the region are sending urgent messages that Assad's Security Forces are using a version of some tear gas and people are dropping to the ground like flies. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MUST RESPOND TO PROTECT SYRIANS FROM THE SAVAGERY OF ASSAD BECAUSE HE IS EMBARKING ON ANOTHER HAMA.
Damascus. Syrian officials are claiming that unknown ASSAILANTS, wearing stolen military outfits, are behind the killing in Dara'a. It said the government is investigating the matter urgently. They still think Syrians are stupid.
Damascus. According to Razan Zeitouneh, human rights lawyer, Assad's security forces have contained a large demonstration in the center of Damascus.

I would bet that the Assad regime is using mustard gas. Anyone want to bet that despite its going after Gadhafi this weekend, the 'international community' will not go after Assad? More on that soon.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

oh noes... I agree with Kucinich

John Larson wants the president to seek approval on U.S. enforcement of a 'no-fly' zone. | AP Photos Close

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.” “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation. they are right here. what are we doing. who are we defending? what is our goal. this is crazy. the Democratic party has no grounding or reason. They one an election as pacifists and they are entering Libya with less reason then Iraq.

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

they are right here. what are we doing? who are we defending? what is our goal? this is crazy! The Democratic party has no grounding or reason. They won an election as pacifists and they are entering Libya with less reason then Iraq?

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa

via politico.com
By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 3/19/11 4:27 PM EDT

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

KGB Holocaust Files To Be Opened

In a modest ceremony, with no media presence, a trailblazing agreement was signed last month between Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Authority and the archives of the Ukrainian KGB. The agreement is expected to upgrade historical research on the fate of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were persecuted and murdered during the Holocaust in the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian security services will supply Yad Vashem with invaluable World War II documents, including lists of deported and murdered Jews, the minutes of meetings held by officials of the Ukrainian security forces following the liberation of the concentration and death camps, and information on the trials of those involved in killing Jews.
"This is a real breakthrough; it is a major event of outstanding importance," Avner Shalev, chairman of the Yad Vashem directorate, told Haaretz.
In the next few months, the institution's researchers will visit the archives in Kiev to begin photocopying documents. Afterward, back in Jerusalem, they will catalog and process them, in an attempt to identify as many names as possible of Jewish Holocaust victims. These names will be added to Yad Vashem's database, which still lacks the names of some two million Jewish victims, most of them from Eastern Europe. Additionally, Yad Vashem is hopeful that the new documents will enable Holocaust researchers to retell the personal histories of other victims who up until now were identified only by a name.
"The new agreement," explained Shalev, "is part of our efforts to dramatically increase our knowledge of the annihilation of the Jews of the Soviet Union during the Holocaust."
....The opening of the archives in the former Soviet Union and the use of advanced software are enabling Yad Vashem to reconstruct family trees and to tell the stories of families whose existence was unknown up until now.

via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com

image via The History of Russia & Eurasian Republics Timeline

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Chavez is pissed... but he is right here. WTF are we doing in Libya?

Venezuelan President Hugo is condemning the United States and its European allies for their military intervention in Libya. Chavez said in a televised speech that the U.S. and its allies simply want to "seize Libya's oil," saying that the United Nations has "infringed on its fundamental principles" by backing the no-fly zone in Libya.

Chavez has long-standing ties to Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi and had been calling for mediation to help bring a negotiated solution as rebels have been fighting government troops. Chavez said in a televised speech Saturday, "We know what's going to happen: bombs, bombs, war." He said foreign powers are wrongly meddling in Libya's "internal conflict," and called Western actions sad and "disgusting."

via israelnationalnews.com

China's Foreign Ministry on Sunday expressed “regret” over the allied attacks on Libya.

In a statement, Chinese officials said that "China has noted the latest developments in Libya and expresses regret over the military attacks on Libya. We hope Libya can restore stability as soon as possible and avoid further civilian casualties due to an escalation of armed conflict.

via israelnationalnews.com

I'm not the only Conservative against Libyan Intervention. 
Apple Juice and Cookies Served on my blog

As I’ve noted before, Libya is NOT our country’s battle, and we should have stayed out of it. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom or American honor. On the contrary, it has everything to do with pointlessly forcing out the dictator with whom the U.S. had an agreement, a rapprochement, and from which the oil companies extract a lot of what eventually becomes our gasoline, and replacing that with Islamic extremists who are far worse than the Qaddafi devil we know.  There isn’t even a purpose or plan in place.

via debbieschlussel.com

wow… we are on the same wavelength. I thought I was out there when I said Libyan intervention was a bad idea. I was looking in the mirror and wondering if I was becoming Noam Chomsky… and wow Debbie… that would make you Norman G. Finkelstein or something.
We have nothing to gain by going into Libya. Just like what happened in Iraq… Europe, Russia and China will get the spoils. There are no WMDs in Libya (and I think there were those in Iraq).
-thanx for saying the way it is

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Neturei Karta Condemns Megillat Esther

I'm almost 85% sure this is a joke, but these NK guys have written crazier things.

Rabbi Immanuel Kapowitz, Chief Rabbi of Neturei Karta issued the following statement at the al Iqwa Mosque in Teheran during an ecumenical dinner with Imam Faisal Shelahmazal this morninng, March 20.

On behalf of the entire membership of Neturei Karta, comprising the overwhelming majority of one tenth of a quarter percent of all Jewish people in Monsey, we wish to condemn in the strongest terms the reading of the so called Megillas Esther, a controversial book that was included in many editions of Tanach, and considered a gratuitous provocation to the peace loving people of Iran and their honestly elected President Mahmoud, Ahmadinejad, who has graciously paid for our tickets to Teheran, as well as a number of other expenses in our struggle.
This book, the Book of Esther, deals with a beauty contest winner who married a gentile, and calls for the slaughter of peace loving Iranians rather than relying upon proper Iranian government authorities. The book condones Jewish militancy and armed aggression when we are guests in a land not our own. Throughout the ages, this book has offended the leadership of nations within whose borders we have lived. Indeed Germany, a country in which Jews lived in peace for hundreds of years, banned the reading of this provoicative book during a troubled 12 year period in our history in that country.
We call upon all Jews not to provoke our gentile neighbours and rulers such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by hoooting derisively at his esteemed ancestor Haman Haagagi, who was as great a man in Iran as Henry Kissinger was in our time.
It is well known that Mordechai HaYehudi, the uncle of Esther, did not wear a shtreimel or even speak Yiddish, making his pronouncements in the “Book of Esther” extremely suspect. Additionally, the laws and customs of modern day Iran bar the consumption of alcohol, making the drunkenness associated with this so called holiday unthinkable.
We hope that all Jews will follow our psak, endorsed by no less an authority than the Cheeseburger Rebbe, Rabbi Shaya Gatz. The proper way to observe this day is to stay home, drink a glass of tea and donate money to pay for the Israeli flags that we burn regularly at our mass demonstrations.
Sincerely,
Immanuel Kapowitz
Shaya Gatz
Degel Brenner
Supreme High Rabbinical Allied Council of Khareidim (S.H.R.E.C.K.)

via globetribune.info

is this a joke?  I really don't know 

What Mondoweiss has to say about Purim

This is from a post, not a comment:

In short, the Jews faced real danger, but they managed to survive, and then they lashed out in an orgy of vengeful violence at people they considered enemies, even though, on the evidence, the victims had nothing to do with the original threat. Sound familiar?

Not in the way you think, darling.

via judeopundit.blogspot.com

image via The Punishment of Haman by Michelangelo at artinthepicture.com

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 - Samuel Chapter 15

via mechon-mamre.org

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

the head of Hadasah in 1948 is Julian Schnabel's MOM!?!? that has got to be a sign of something? feminist Purim is a lie, not the real Purim that says to kill your enemies.

HAPPY PURIM FROM XERXES

...YES IT IS TRUE... Xerxes= Ahusuerus....

(the king in “300“) gets rid of his queen, Vashti, (legend has it, he beheads her) because she refuses to go to his party and put herself on display for his male partiers. The king’s advisors tell him that if he doesn’t get rid of her, then all the other wives in the kingdom will disobey their husbands because the queen disobeyed hers. And who wants a feminist nation full of shrews? These men were ahead of their time on that one. To replace his deposed queen, Xerxes holds a beauty contest for his next queen from all the nations in his kingdom. Not exactly Betty Friedan/Gloria Steinem stuff. And, again, that’s part of why I like this politically incorrect story of Jewish survival.

read the rest at debbieschlussel.com

"No. Remember the Bismarck Archipelago. No overt
homosexuality. A functioning police state needs no po-
lice. Homosexuality does not occur to anyone as con-
ceivable behaviour.... Homosexuality is a political
crime in a matriarchy. No society tolerates overt re-
jection of its basic tenets. We aren't a matriarchy here,
Insh'allah. You know the experiment with rats where
they are subject to this electric shock and dropped in
cold water if they so much as move at a female. So they
all become fruit rats and that's the way it is with the
etiology. And shall such a rat squeak out, 'I'm queah
and I luuuuuuuuve it' or 'Who cut yours off, you two-
holed freak?' 'twere a square rat so to squeak. During
my rather brief experience as a psychoanalyst -- spot of
bother with the Society -- one patient ran amok in Grand
Central with a flame thrower, two committed suicide
and one died on the couch like a jungle rat ( jungle rats
are subject to die if confronted suddenly with a hope-
less situation). So his relations beef and I tell them, 'It's
all in the day's work. Get this stiff outa here. It's a
bring down for my live patients' -- I noticed that all my
homosexual patients manifested strong unconscious
heterosex trends and all my hetero patients uncon-
scious homosexual trends. Makes the brain reel, don't
it?"

Naked Lunch a novel by William S. Burroughs originally published in 1959 via lib.ru

image via en.wikipedia.org

Esther (Hebrew: אֶסְתֵּר, Modern Ester Tiberian ʼEstēr), born Hadassah, is the eponymous heroine of the Biblical Book of Esther. According to the Bible she was a Jewish queen of the Persian king Ahasuerus (traditionally identified with Xerxes I). Her story is the basis for the celebration of Purim in Jewish tradition.

According to the Esther 2:7, Esther was originally named Hadassah. Hadassah means "myrtle" in Hebrew. It has been conjectured that the name Esther is derived from a reconstructed Median word astra meaning myrtle.^[4]
An alternative view is that Esther is derived from the theonym Ishtar. The Book of Daniel provides accounts of Jews in exile being assigned names relating to Babylonian gods and "Mordecai" is understood to mean servant of Marduk, a Babylonian god. "Esther" may have been a different Hebrew interpretation from the Proto-Semitic root “*?aθtar- ‘morning/evening star’”,^[5] which descended with the /th/ into the Ugaritic Athtiratu^[6] and Arabian Athtar.^[7] The derivation must then have been secondary for the initial ayin to be confused with an aleph (both represented by vowels in Akkadian), and the second consonant descended as a /s/ (like in the Aramaic asthr "bright star"), rather than a /sh/ as in Hebrew and most commonly in Akkadian.
Wilson, who identified Ahasuerus with Xerxes I and Vashti with Amestris, suggested that both "Amestris" and "Esther" derived from Akkadian Ammi-Ishtar or Ummi-Ishtar.^[8] Hoschander alternatively suggested Ishtar-udda-sha ("Ishtar is her light") as the origin with the possibility of -udda-sha being connected with the similarly sounding Hebrew name Hadassah. These names however remain unattested in sources, and come from the original Babylonian Empire from 2000 BCE,^{[citation needed]} not the Chaldean Empire or Persian Empire of the Book of Esther.^{[citation needed]}
The Targum^[9] connects the name with the Persian word for "star", ستاره setareh, explaining that Esther was so named for being as beautiful as the Morning Star. In the Talmud (Tractate Yoma 29a), Esther is compared to the "morning star", and is considered the subject of Psalm 22 because its introduction is a "song for the morning star."