تروريست حقيقي

2007/4/18

ü از غربزدگی می توان با خودآگاهی و دل آگاهی گذشت

ü خودآگاهي با فلسفه از اين جهت درست است، با فلسفه ببينيد فلسفه شيطان زده يعني چه

ü متاسفانه به يك اعتبار و خوشبختانه به اعتبار ديگر، زمان طرح فلسفه نيست

ü مخالفت با متافیزک بدون خودآگاهی ، دنباله اش متافیزیک است

ü در این عصر خدا هم تکنولوژیک شده است ، تکنولوژی را نمیتوان یکباره رد کرد

ü نمیشود سیاست و هنر و فلسفه را از هم جدا کرد

ü حضور خودبنیادانه عارفانه ، کمال نیست انگاری است

ü هنر جديد نيست انگاري مطلق است.

ü شعر نو ، گسستن از حقيقت ديانت مقدس اسلام است

ü حوالت چنين آمد است كه اكنون قرب شاعر و فيلسوف و هنرمند همه با خودش و اشياء است و فراتر از سوژه و ابژه نمي‌رود

2007/4/11

media terror operations ...

Peter Power's mainstream media terror operations

peter power on panorama As Peter Power claimed in the Manchester Evening News of his 7th July terror rehearsal, "It's a standard exercise and briefing that we carry out." Indeed, Peter Power had previous experience of rehearsing bombs on the Underground for he was one of a small but select panel of advisors that helped create the BBC's Panorama programme London Under Attack in May 2004, over a year before the events of July 2005.

The panel also included the former British Army and British Intelligence operative, Crispin Black, one of the first people to publish a book about the London bombings, in which he wrote:

We need an official inquiry - now. Not a whitewash inquiry like Lord Hutton's. Or a punch-pulling inquiry like Lord Butler's. But an inquiry run by plain Mr or Mrs somebody."

As a brief aside, Crispin Black's statement - in part - provided some of the impetus behind the growing group of plain Mr or Mrs Somebodies that have worked together to establish the July 7th Truth Campaign, the J7 web site, the J7 People's Independent Inquiry Forum and the J7 Petition calling on the government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that conclusively proves or disproves the official Home Office narrative.

The May 2004 edition of Panorama focused on London falling victim to a terrorist attack and, coincidentally, featured three explosions on underground trains and one explosion on a land-based transportation device, a rehearsal scenario not entirely dissimilar to Mr Power's rehearsal operation on 7th July 2005 and the apparent reality of events that day.

The BBC described Panorama's London Under Attack on their web site:

This film is a mock exercise of what might happen in London if there was a terror attack now.

In a unique fusion of drama, detailed research and expert discussion Panorama puts Britain's emergency plans to the test.

Set in the future - but only just - the city of London is thrown into chaos by a series of terrorist attacks.

The fictional day of terror unfolds through the immediacy of rolling news bringing the catastrophic attack into our living rooms.

For those that missed the documentary, the BBC has kindly provided a copy of "'How the fictional attack unfolded", a page dedicated to revealing how news of the fictional attack was presented to the world via a series of 'mock broadcasts'. The key events unfolded like this:

8.20am Tuesday 25 May: We're receiving news of an explosion in the London underground near Hyde Park. This has not yet been confirmed by the police

8.27am: There has been a 2nd explosion on the underground, this time close to Oxford Circus. Both explosions appear to have occurred on the trains as they were moving.

8.40am: Reports are coming in that a third explosion has now occurred on an underground train approaching Vauxhall station.

9am: News 24 headlines: In the past hour there have been three major explosions on the London Underground. The first at 8.10am on the Piccadilly Line between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park Corner. The second at 8.16 on the Central Line between Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus and the third at 8.27 as a train was arriving at Vauxhall station in Stockwell on the Victoria line. Emergency services have been called to all three scenes. There are no reports on number of casualties and the police say its too early to identify a possible cause. London underground is now closed and police are now urging people not to travel.

10.10: We're just getting reports that there has been a further explosion in central London in the region around Liverpool street station, we will of course bring you more news on that as soon as we can. Meanwhile traffic problems continue in central London as the full effects of the emergency police cordons are being felt.

10.41: We can now confirm that a tanker carrying chlorine has exploded at the junction of Shoreditch high Street and commercial street. Chlorine is extremely toxic in this form and police are issuing express warnings for people to stay indoors, close windows and remain there until the all clear is given.

10.44: Police are still urging people to stay indoors until the extent of the chlorine release is known. They are repeating again, chlorine is extremely toxic.

Peter Power and Panorama's 'mock broadcasts' detailed the unfolding of the fictional terror attack, along with graphics showing the fictional blast locations and simulating how news of the attack might be presented, had such an attack actually occurred.

The unfolding of the Panorama sequence of events bears an uncanny resemblance to how the initial stories of 7 July 2005 were rolled out; three explosions underground, with staggered timings, before a fourth explosion occurred some time later on a land-based transportation device. For Panorama, the land-based transportation device was a chlorine tanker. On 7 July 2005, it was a number 30 bus that had been diverted from its usual route.

A copy of the Panorama programme does not appear to be available from the BBC web site, however you can read a transcript of BBC Panorama's London Under Attack programme here . A mirror copy of the transcript can be found here.

What is interesting to note are the findings of the Panorama documentary of May 2004, as summarised below:

The programme reveals that police, ambulance and fire services communications systems are incompatible with each other in London and across the UK and that in the deep underground, Metropolitan Police radios do not work.

Radios incompatible

The communications system used by Civil Contingency Reaction Force (CCRF) - a specialist groups of reservists whose role is to help out in the event of disaster scenarios - is also incompatible with any of the emergency services.

This means that in the event of a disaster - none of the emergency services would be able to talk to each other on their own radios

These findings were passed to the Home Office by Panorama. At the time of the programme, the Home Office had refused to cooperate with the exercise, branding it as 'alarmist and irresponsible'.

Coincidentally, the findings of Panorama's London Under Attack are almost precisely the same findings that emerged from the 7 July Review Committee's investigation into the London bombings.

In fact, Peter Power had something to say about the 7 July Review Committee reports released two years after his involvement in Panorama's London Under Attack and a year after his terror rehearsal operation on 7th July 2005. In the clip from BBC News below, Mr Power, aside from plugging his Survive organisation, reveals that he was also running a 'command centre' for another organisation on 7th July 2005 and, yet again, refers to the importance of getting a casualty bureau number out when a real disaster occurs.

Note: What is particularly striking about the events of 7th July 2005 is that the first time a casualty bureau number was officially announced to the public for relatives concerned about their loved ones was at 3:24pm by DAC Brian Paddick during a Metropolitan Police Press Conference, over six hours after the first incident of the day was reported.

2007/4/11

تروریسم رسانه ای ...

نمونه های تروریسم آمریکایی

محمد حسین فضل الله

از برجسته ترین مصادیق تروریسم سیاسی که در جهان معاصر کاملا آشکار است می توان به گزارش سالانه دولت آمریکا درباره "نمونه های تروریسم" بین المللی اشاره کرد، زیرا در این گزارش که از سوی وزارت امور خارجه آمریکا منتشر گردیده، تلاش شده است برخی وقایع به صورت گزارش وار برجسته جلوه داده شود تا در نهایت در خدمت منافع و اهداف سیاسی دولت آمریکا قرار گرفته و به شمشیری آخته بر ضد کشورهایی تبدیل شود که راه مخالفت با خواسته های این دولت را در پیش گرفته اند، به ویژه آن کشورهایی که از حقوق مشروع ملت فلسطین حمایت می کنند. آمریکا همزمان تلاش می کند که این حقوق را که در قطعنامه ها و لوایح سازمان ملل متحد مورد تأیید و تأکید قرار گرفته است یا اصول ثابت و لا یتغیر تاریخی محسوب می شوند، حذف کند.

هر چند گزارشهای پیشین دولت آمریکا نیز بر سوریه و ایران تمرکز داشت تا این دو کشور از موضع خود در قبال امور و تحولات فلسطین دست بکشند، اما گزارشی که چند روز پیش منتشر شد، اهداف دیگری را نیز دنبال می کرد که از جمله مهم ترین آنها تلاش آمریکا برای وادار کردن این دو کشور جهت پیوستن به بازی آمریکا در عراق و فراهم کردن بستر مناسب جهت حضور اشغالگران آمریکایی در این کشور بوده است تا آنکه اشغالگران بتوانند سالهای آینده نیز به حضور خود در عراق ادامه دهند و این اشغالگری را به رسمیت بشناسند و اقداماتی را که در این کشور انجام می دهند و قوانینی که در آن وضع می کنند، بپذیرند. همزمان با آنکه آمریکا به دخالت در امور داخلی ایران و جنگ تبلیغاتی و سیاسی علیه این کشور ادامه می دهد، رفتار مشابهی را علیه سوریه در پی گرفته است و آماده می شود مجازاتهایی علیه این کشور از طریق عملی ساختن قانون "مجازات سوریه" که در اصل توصیه یهودیان و مجازات رژیم صهیونیستی علیه سوریه تلقی می گردد و جرج بوش مسئولیت اعمال آن را بر عهده گرفته است، اعمال کند.

بی تردید گزارش اخیر دولت آمریکا درباره تروریسم و کشورهای حامی آن هیچ اعتباری ندارد، کما اینکه خود دولت آمریکا نیز اعتبار خود را در نزد عموم ملتها به ویژه ملتهای منطقه خاورمیانه از دست داده است، زیرا همه می دانند که این دولت به صراحت از وحشیگریهای "اسرائیل" حمایت می کند و خود نیز به تروریسم سازماندهی شده و دولتی در تمام سطوح در عراق دست می زند. این امر، فقط نظر کشورهای عربی نیست، بلکه بسیاری از کشورهای اروپایی و غربی نیز که سلسله جنایتهای اشغالگران آمریکایی علیه شهروندان بی گناه و بی دفاع عراقی و تجاوز این اشغالگران به شخصیتهای دینی، زنان، کودکان و سالخوردگان را مشاهده می کنند و اخیراً نیز تلاش مذبوحانه اشغالگران برای بی اهمیت جلوه دادن جنایتهای نظامیانشان بر ضد اسیران و زندانیان عراقی که تحت نظارت کامل ژنرالهای نظامی و با کمک سازمان اطلاعات نظامی آمریکا انجام گرفته است، درباره افشای این جنایتها به چشم خود دیده اند، چنین دیدگاهی دارند. موضوع فقط این نیست که گروهی اندک از نظامیان آمریکایی و انگلیسی به چنین فجایعی دست زده اند، بلکه این اقدام یک سیاست هدف دار از سوی سازمانهای جاسوسی آمریکاست و این سازمانها هستند که وسایل مربوط به شکنجه زندانیان را برای نظامیان اشغالگر در عراق تعیین می کنند. این امر بیانگر آن است که سازمانهای یاد شده از نظر فکری و برنامه ریزی هیچ تفاوتی با اندیشه نازیستی که صهیونیستهای اشغالگر در فلسطین و بر ضد اسیران و زندانیان فلسطینی بکار می گیرند، ندارند.

روشهای اداره امور منطقه به وسیله آمریکا که بر پایه نادیده گرفتن و بی اعتبار دانستن همه قطعنامه های سازمان ملل درباره موضوع فلسطین یا بی محتوا کردن این قطعنامه ها از طریق حذف و اضافه بندهای متعدد از آنها به نفع "اسرائیل" از جمله قطعنامه های 194 و 242 و 338 و غیره، همچنین سرپوش نهادن به جنایات این رژیم برای درهم شکستن و نابود کردن ملت فلسطین و توجیه همه اقدامات تروریستی اسرائیل علیه فلسطینیان بی گناه و اقدامات گوناگون دیگر، همه و همه در آشکار ساختن چهره حقیقی دولت آمریکا به عنوان یک دولت حامی تروریسم آن هم از نوع درجه یک و به عنوان دولتی که در طولانی تر شدن اشغالگری اسرائیل که بارزترین نماد تروریسم در جهان معاصر قلمداد می شود، موجب می گردد که مبارزه با تروریسم از سوی این کشور نیز خود بزرگ ترین نفاق سیاسی قلمداد شود، زیرا این دولت اولین و آخرین مسئول تروریسم دولتی و ایجاد کننده گروهکهای تروریستی در منطقه و جهان است.

بدون شک دولت آمریکا اصلی ترین تغذیه کننده انواع گوناگون تروریسم است. همین دولت در رشد طبیعی تروریسم به سبب سیاستهای غلطی که اتخاذ و فضایی پر تنش و تجاوز در منطقه و کل جهان ایجاد کرده، نقش محوری داشته است. این دولت به برخی گروهها کمک و آنان را تشویق کرد که به روشهای خونین و تندروانه دست بزنند. همین دولت از گروههای تروریست به عنوان وسیله ای برای فشار بر برخی از نظامهای حاکم بر کشورهای جهان، استفاده ابزاری کرده است. این گروههای تروریست که در دامن سیاستهای آمریکا رشد و نمو کردند بالاخره بر خود آمریکا نیز شوریدند و از همان روشهای آمریکا برای کشتار مردم بی گناه جهت رسیدن به اهداف خود در ایجاد تغییرات یا تلاش برای به اصطلاح طرد آمریکا از منطقه، بهره می گیرند.

هر چند که در گزارش سالانه آمریکا درباره تروریسم، نام کشور عراق به عنوان یک دولت تروریست یا حامی تروریسم حذف شده است، اما عرصه همین کشور به جولانگاه تروریسم بین المللی تبدیل شده و آمریکا هر کس را که با سیاستهای این کشور مخالفت کند، قتل عام و با هواپیما به مردم بیگناه حمله می کند و دیگران نیز مردم را با خونسردی به قتل می رسانند. این امر، چنین القا می کند که نمونه دمکراسی که بوش وعده ایجاد آن در عراق را داده بود، همین چیزی است که ملت عراق در خون خود غوطه ور است و جان و مالشان مباح اعلام شده و خانه ها و اماکن مذهبی بر اساس سیاستهای همین دولت آمریکا که حتی ملت این کشور نیز بدان قانع نشده اند، ویران می گردند. پس چگونه است که دولت آمریکا می کوشد سایر ملل جهان را به پذیرش آن قانع گرداند.

چهره آمریکا در نزد افکار عمومی جهان به یک دولت حامی و بانی تروریسم تبدیل شده است و همه بر این باورند که این دولت خون مردم بیگناه را بر زمین می ریزد و با شکنجه زندانیان بدیهی ترین قوانین بین المللی را نقض می کند و می کوشد قواعد رفتاری بین المللی را حذف کند و نیز تلاش می کند با هر روش ممکن از جمله با استفاده از تروریسم تبلیغاتی و سیاسی، رسانه های دیگر را از میدان رقابت خارج سازد همان گونه که با کانالهای تلویزیونی الجزیره و العربیه انجام داد. به همین سبب است که تمام تلاشهای این ابرقدرت برای بهبود چهره کریه و زشتش در نزد افکار عمومی جهان عرب و اسلام از طریق کانالهای ماهواره ای متعدد و رسانه های گوناگون تبلیغاتی، تلاشی نافرجام و محکوم به شکست است، زیرا همه این تبلیغاتها نمی تواند تصویر زشتی را که از دولت آمریکا در ذهن عموم جهانیان نقش بسته است، پاک کند یا نماد تروریسم را از یاد ملتهای عرب و اسلامی و همه ملتهای مخالف با تروریسم، حذف گرداند.

منبع: روزنامه السفیر چاپ لبنان

2007/3/31

این تیتر انگلیس های بیچاره است: ایران مکار بدطینت ضعیف بخونید بخندید جهت بریتیش زبانان ...

Op-Ed Contributor

Iran, the Vicious Victim

By MAX HASTINGS

Published: March 30, 2007

London

TONY BLAIR has been talking tough about Iran’s seizure of 15 British sailors and marines on the Shatt al Arab, the waterway between Iran and Iraq. Mr. Blair is deeply reluctant to apologize, as Tehran is demanding, for Britain’s alleged incursion into Iranian waters. Global positioning data shows that the British naval patrol was more than a mile inside Iraqi waters. It is gall and wormwood for a leader already politically crippled by Britain’s commitment in Iraq to find himself now also engaged in a confrontation with Iran.

As international incidents go, this is unlikely to prove a very serious one. After extracting every possible propaganda advantage, the Iranians will probably free their captives. But for the British, this is a painful lesson. It is rash to expose potential hostages to one of the most reckless and erratic regimes in the world.

Plenty of people in Washington would say that violent provocation of this kind shows that diplomatic engagement with Iran, as favored by Britain and other European nations, is wasted motion; that only harsh sanctions backed up by the threat of force can influence the wild men of Tehran, headed by the Holocaust-denying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Yet it is hard to punish masochists. The problem for policymakers is that Iran’s leadership positively welcomes Western threats. Almost certainly, the Castro regime in Cuba has lasted a generation longer than it would otherwise have because of the state of siege imposed by Washington. So, likewise, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power, and that of the clerics who rule behind the scenes, depends upon sustaining confrontation.

The United States and Britain have suffered a disastrous erosion of moral authority in consequence of the Iraq war. The Blair government has been dismayed to perceive the indifference, or worse, with which its European partners have treated the seizure of its naval personnel. Britain has been obliged to water down the draft resolution that it is circulating at the United Nations Security Council, because some members rejected its original tough wording.

What should be regarded as an unanswerable case of armed aggression by a rogue state is instead being viewed by many nations as the sort of embarrassment the British should expect, given the dubious legitimacy of their presence on the Shatt al Arab.

The Iranians know all this, of course, and it fortifies their intransigence. The game they play with considerable skill is to project themselves at once as assertive Islamic crusaders, and also as victims of imperialism. They crave respect and influence. Their only claims to these things rest upon their capacity for menacing the West, whether through international terrorism, support for Palestinian extremists, or the promise of building atomic weapons.

It is often suggested that support for President Ahmadinejad is waning amid his disastrous economic stewardship. Yet whatever Iran’s internal tensions, there is little prospect that people committed to normal relations with the West will gain power any time soon.

In assessing American and allied options, there seems only one certainty. It is entirely counterproductive to respond to Iranian provocations with military threats. It is impossible for the world, and indeed for the revolutionaries in Tehran, to believe that President Bush can either launch air strikes against their nuclear operations with a likelihood of success or take ground action.

The only realistic course, even after the latest insult represented by the British sailors’ seizure, is to sustain the policy of engagement, however thankless this seems. Privately most European governments, including the British, assume that around the end of the decade Iran will achieve its purpose of building nuclear weapons. Even the so-called moderates in Tehran are committed to this objective.

For all the hard words coming out of Jerusalem, it seems as difficult for Israel as for the United States to find credible military means of stopping the Iranians. A veteran British strategist, by no means a soft touch, said to me with a sigh this week, “It looks as though we must accept that however painful are the consequences of living with a nuclear-armed Iran, this is preferable to the consequences of trying to stop such an outcome by force, and failing.”

In the eyes of many Americans, such words represent characteristic European pusillanimity, indeed appeasement. But some of us suggested when the 2003 Iraq invasion was launched that it could result in a drastic diminution of the West’s ability to address graver threats from Iran and North Korea. So it has proved.

We must keep talking to the Iranians, offering carrots even when these are contemptuously tossed into the gutter, because there is no credible alternative. Even threats of economic sanctions must be considered cautiously. Their most likely consequence would be to feed Iranian paranoia, to strengthen the hand of Tehran’s extremists. A state of declared Western encirclement could suit President Ahmadinejad very well indeed.

No sensible Westerner, committed to the pursuit of international harmony, could welcome any of this. Iran represents a menace to the security of us all, not to mention what it must be like to live under that reprehensible regime. But, in the wake of the Iraq catastrophe, never has the overwhelming military power of the United States seemed less relevant to confronting a large, relatively rich nation that enjoys considerable grassroots support in the Islamic world for its defiance of the West.

No matter how it ends, the seizure of the British sailors is likely to be viewed by most of the world as an Iranian victory. Thus it is unlikely to be Iran’s last affront to us. It is not the American way, but only patience, statesmanship and a refusal to respond in kind to outrageous behavior offer a chance of eventually persuading this dangerous nation to join a rational universe.

Max Hastings is the author, most recently, of “Warriors: Portraits From the Battlefield.”

More Articles in Opinion »

2007/3/31

زنان محجبه روزی هزار و نهصد زخم زبان در آمریکا میشنوند مهد دمونکراسی مهد ذلت و سرخ پوست کشی ...

1,900 raped every day in America

WASHINGTON-Nearly 1,900 women are raped every day in America, according to a study released on Thursday that paints a much grimmer picture than US Justice Department figures announced earlier this week.

The National Victim Center, which promotes the rights of victims of violent crime, said 1.3 adult women are raped every minute and 683,000 US women are raped each year, based on a survey of more that 4,000 women, including 579 rape victims.

One in eight adult American women has been raped, bringing the total of rape victims to at least 12.1 million, it said.

The survey indicated that 61 per cent of all rape cases involve women under 18 and that 29 percent of all rapes occurred when the victim was less than 11 years old. - Reuters (Source: MID-DAY Bombay 25-4-92

2007/3/31

زنان موفق در این باره چه میگویند؟ ...

What successful women have to say?

It is amazing the way things changed overnight when I started on with Hijab. I can feel the extra respect coming my way. People take me more seriously; friends at college think it looks very neat and smart, and I feel protected and confident when I step out. Dr. Mrs. N.Z.Vakil (Medical Student)

The most important thing about Hijab is that it gives you an identity of a Muslim. Moreover, it is another way of obedience to Allah's (s.w.t.) command. People often gives me due respect which I would have not got without a Hijab. Travelling among men has become easy for me as it makes me feel safe and protected. It also gives me a lot of confidence and last but not the least this has brought me one step closer to Allah (s.w.t.). Therefore, I consider Hijab as a blessing from Allah (s.w.t.) and I thank him for His blessing. Reshma Qazi (Arts Student)

The Angel of Death, Azrael (A.S.) said "Obedience to Allah's (s.w.t.) Commandments is better than compassion to the earth". Initially I felt I would be looked down upon in society, but after wearing Hijab, I realized that people do not give you as much importance as you feel they should. The nearness, which I felt to Allah (s.w.t) by obeying His commandment, is beyond expression. Moreover wearing Hijab has created an aura of respectability in my environment and has enabled me to remember Allah (s.w.t.) more often. Mrs. S.A. Vakil (House Wife)

I feel that at present when demoralisation is increasing in the society, every woman should wear Hijab, It is the only thing which protects a woman and makes her feel secured. Shenaz. F. Raj (College Student)

In the modern society of today, a woman has always been looked upon as just another sexual object for the men. Why should one display one's beauty for unwanted eyes to feast upon? The Hijab protects a woman's honor and doesn't arouse unwanted passion from the opposite sex. I feel if the women were to universally adopt the Islamic code of dressing, the rate of incidences of eves teasing, molestation, rape, etc. would be negligible. Wearing the Hijab gives me more confidence in myself as a woman and it doesn't obstruct me in any way in my profession. Mrs. Salva I. Rasool (Graphic Designer)


The stylish coat can be worn in many different patterns; it loosely falls from the shoulders and reaches the knees.	A loose long coat falling from the shoulders and reaching the ankles can also be worn with a scarf covering all the hair. The scarf can also have a veil attached to cover the total face (Nakab).	A scarf covering the hair fully, can be worn along with a loose shirt falling till the knees as trousers. (Hair should not be seen from below the scarf).	This hijab commonly known as the "Chaadar" is a single piece of material which falls from head and is draped on the shoulder. A scarf too can be worn inside it, to cover all the hair.

HIJAB SUPPLEMENT
Allah (s.w.t.) states in Qur'an: "Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between! If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)." Holy Qur'an (21:16)

The above surah amply emphasizes the seriousness with which Allah (s.w.t.) created this world and everything that exists therein, including the human beings. Allah (s.w.t.) created us for a specific and important purpose and it is the duty of every Muslim to lead a disciplined life, realizing the seriousness of this purpose.

Human beings must distinguish themselves from animals by decent and disciplined behavior. But how many of us take this life with the seriousness it deserves? All of us originated from one father and one mother and belong to one big family, but it is unfortunate that many of us live without any sense of collective responsibility. We are one community and the action of one-person will not only reflect on other individuals but also the whole community.

Allah (s.w.t) states in the Holy Quran: "If anyone slew a person, unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land, it would be as it he slew the whole people."

When Allah (s.w.t) commanded our sisters to observe Hijab, it was because of the universal damages that would be caused by refusing to observe It. It is not a matter of individual behavior, as many people may think. A woman going out exposing her charms attracts men, which sets off a chain of undesirable events, causing lot of harm to several people. Thus, the indecent behavior of one person affects the community as a whole. Although the person, who originally caused the damage, is to be blamed for all the consequences, other members of the community are also responsible to some extent for allowing such a thing to happen. Therefore, it becomes a collective responsibility of all of us to ensure that such damages are not caused.

For example, some people were sailing in a boat, which they jointly owned when one of them stated making a hole in the place which was allocated to him in the boat. When others tried to stop him, he argued that it was his part of the boat and he was free to do whatever he wished. But if he was allowed to continue, the boat would sink and all of them would be drowned.

Discarding Hijab will harm not only one's own self but also millions of others. Exposure of physical charm of our women may destroy many homes and cause innumerable rapes and murders for which we all are responsible.

It is pertinent to relate one of the several heart-breaking stories caused by discarding Hijab: A young innocent man, who saw the photograph of an attractive woman, was immediately infatuated by her physical charm. Unfortunately, he had neither wealth nor position to get closer to her. To fulfill his desire, he though of getting money quickly by any means and resorted to stealing.

Finally, he ended up in prison for robbing a few people and killing one.

Who is to be blamed for all the consequences but the person who caused them? Had that woman observed Hijab and refrained from displaying her attractions, these crimes would not have taken place.

Our Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.) has said that on the Day of Judgment, such people would be brought forward for trail on charges of quasi-crimes in which they had a share of responsibility. They would plead that they did not commit those crimes, but then they would be told that they removed their Hijab and attracted this person, which made him indulge in those crimes.

"And soon will the unjust assailants know what vicissitudes their affairs will take". Holy Qur'an (26:227)

LIBERATION OR SEXPLOITATION
Today in some societies, particularly in the West a woman can walk semi-naked in public, swim topless, patronize bars and clubs, smoke, drink, dance in discos and have sex with anybody she feels like.

She can even serve her boyfriend, like an unpaid prostitute, and be free to murder her unborn baby if she falls pregnant. She can also compete in the business world by using her body to promote commercial commodities.

At the end of the day she will be regarded as a truly 'liberated' woman!

In Islam, however, Liberation of women is far more serious, noble and dignified than just the burning of bras as is done in the so-called permissive societies where the fair sex is regarded as no more than a sex object. Today the West is very quick to condemn Islamic laws, which protect purity of purpose and the intermingling of the sexes at all levels of society.

Look at the glossy cover of any magazine or advertisements on TV and newspaper, you will find that most of these advertisements have scantily dressed women in alluring poses to attract the attention of men. This proves that the Western society considers woman only as a sex symbol.

The liberation of women in Islam is far superior to Western liberation as it allows women to live with respect, dignity and equality in society.

Equality does not mean aping and behaving like men or dancing to their carnal tunes; that would be an act of inferiority in the face of one's own femininity.

A truly liberated woman always dresses decently and modestly. A true woman will never degrade her body and sell her dignity to the highest bidder. No woman is truly liberated if she is still the slave of her wayward conscience, bodily lust or infidelity.

However, in Islam, women, whatever their role as mothers, wives, sisters or daughters, command respect and have a constructive role to play in society. The Hijab itself gives an aura of freedom to the womankind, facilitating their movement and protecting them from provocation and wanton greed of the human wolves. Removal of the Hijab makes you vulnerable to the lust of men.

By removing your Hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah (s.w.t.) in all our actions. Those who refuse submission cannot be called Muslims.

WHAT IS HIJAB?
There are many sisters who have failed to understand the actual meaning of Hijab. Hijab technically means covering. Islam desires the preservation of social tranquility and familial peace. Hence, it asks women to cover themselves in their inter-actions with men, whom they are not related to.

WHY IS HIJAB NECESSARY?
The dangerous consequences of the Western culture of nakedness and permissiveness are before us. We should think twice before blindly trying to imitate Western life-styles.

HOW SHOULD WOMEN OBSERVE HIJAB CORRECTLY?
Basically, the dress of ladies should cover the whole body except the face and hands (i.e. palms & fingers). Hair should not be exposed because Islam considers it as half of the total beauty of women. The Hijab could be of any form and color, a one-piece chader or a three-piece ensemble, as long as it is not tight fitting and does not attract people's attention.

BASELESS OBJECTIONS AGAINST HIJAB:

It seeks to imprison women: Those who feel that Hijab imprisons women should refrain from living in houses because it is nearer to a prison than Hijab.
It subordinates women: In fact, culture, which promotes nakedness, takes people nearer to the culture of animals. Wearing the Hijab, on the contrary, liberates women from the trap of Western fashion and maladies. It gives them greater, rather than less freedom and mobility.
Why only women? Science has confirmed that visual stimulation plays a predominant role in the physiology of men compared to women. The fact that the sex-industry in the West is targeted towards the male-market confirms it.
Victims of Ridicule: Some of our sisters come up with the excuse that the non-believers laugh at them if they observe Hijab and they feel degraded. They may laugh for a little while but after some time they will have no choice but to respect the Muslim women observing Hijab for their discipline, which could not be shaken, by their little laughs.
Let us not forget the famous phrase: The one who laughs last laughs the longest".
Beauty is meant to be appreciated: True! But only by the husband. Hence women who truly love their husbands would never wish to be seen in public without Hijab.

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES OF DISCARDING HIJAB?

Becoming an easy target of anti-social elements.
Causing great stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands, ultimately disturbing the familial harmony.
Instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust and immorality.
Giving rise to cases of divorce, adultery, rape & illegitimate children.

WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF OBSERVING HIJAB?

Confidence in social participation as human being and not as sexual commodity.
Guarding one self from the lustful looks of men.
Not diverting people's attention from constructive social work.
Improving the moral character of the society.

In conclusion, women can achieve true dignity and experience true emancipation by observing Hijab and not by discarding it.

HIJAB ALSO FOR MEN
Say to the believing man that they cast down their glance. Allah (s.w.t.) is aware of the things they do. Holy Qur'an (24:30) To cast down one's glance, means not to look in a fixed way, not to stare. The sentence means, "Tell the believers not to stare at or flirt with women."

Allah (s.w.t.) has given equal rights to both men and women; He forbids either sex claiming supremacy over the other. Allah (s.w.t.) states in the Quran: "The most honored of you in the sight of Allah (s.w.t.) is (he who is) the most righteous of you." Holy Qur'an (49:13)

2007/3/31

چرا حجاب واجب است؟ ...

Until the Imperialists invaded Muslim Countries and the Muslims started mixing with non-believers, all our Muslim women walked in this world with great respect and dignity. The non-believers were finding it very difficult to come anywhere near the border of our Muslim sisters purity. The Hijab did not only protect them from those evil eyes of non-believers but also gave them freedom and independence from being misused by them.

The non-believers planned to destroy their barrier through removal of Hijab and unfortunately, many of our sisters, without realizing what shame and destruction they were bringing to themselves, removed the Hijab and exposed themselves.

When imperialists invaded China, they were not faced with Hijab but were confronted with other obstacles and the Chinese refused to co-operate with them. In order to crush this resistance, the imperialists flooded China with opium and made it available to the Chinese free of charge. Once the Chinese were addicted, free distribution of opium ceased and it was given only to those who fulfilled their demands.

Hijab Removal of the Hijab had exactly the same effect. At one time, you were independent and lived with dignity, but now you are nothing but a slave of your evil desire and behave worse than a kafir. By removing your Hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah (s.w.t.) in all our action. Those who refused submission cannot be called Muslims. Allah states in Qur'an: "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss." Holy Qur'an (24:31)

Also, Imam Jaffer Sadiq (a.s.) says: Modesty is the symbol of faith and whoever has no modesty (Hijab), has no religion.

There are many sisters who have failed to understand the actual meaning of Hijab.

To observe proper Hijab is to dress up oneself modestly and appropriately covering all parts of body except face and forearms, without showing one's figure or curves and without using any sort of make-up.

Allah (s.w.t) has given equal rights to both men and women; He forbids either sex claiming supremacy over the other.

Allah states Qur'an: "Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you." Holy Qur'an (49:13)

Hijab is one of the righteous deeds and it is a sign of honor and equality with men and stands as a shield of protection against evil man.

The woman in Islam is bestowed with respect and honor and a Muslim gives great importance to his wife. Our Prophet Muhammad's (s.a.w.) Hadith says the best of you are those who are best in resting their wives.

The status of wife is so respectable that she is not bound to do any house-hold work unless she does it willingly and with affection; but if her husband forces her to do any work, he will have to answer to Allah for his conduct. Also, she is not bound to earn and maintain the house of her husband. Her work shall always conform to the laws of Shariat. Unlike the Western world, the Muslim wife is a queen in her husband's house. The first thing a husband does for his wife is to provide a servant and a cook according to his ability and when she becomes a mother, she receives greatest respect from her husband. Contrary to this, is considered a sin by Allah (s.w.t.)

One of the most common phrases in Islam is the 'Paradise lies at the feet of the mother'. And Allah (s.w.t) states in Qur'an: Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. Holy Qur'an (17:23)

Allah (s.w.t.) has given great impedance to women and for that reason He orders their children to address them in terms of honor.

What kind of dignity a non-believer has by the way they conduct their life and expose themselves. They have removed the shield of protection, that modesty of Hijab and left themselves unprotected and that is the cause for the assault, which takes place once every ten seconds in rape and murder around the world. But those true Muslims who observe proper Hijab are protected from such assaults and not one ease or this type is ever heard of.

Moreover Hijab also gives the women an air of authority, dignity and respect, which a non-believer can never claim to possess. Only those who are well behaved can expect admiration and high esteem from others and definitely, those who try to attract men can never be called a well-behaved person.

Those who reject Hijab and wish to attract men are suffering from inferiority complex. They believe men are superior and in order to overcome this feeling, they use their feminine charms. But why should a Muslim woman have such a feeling when she is fully aware of her equality with men?

Hijab, therefore, has such benefits as a guard against any assault, equality with men, air of respect and honor and most important of all, obedience to Allah (s.w.t.) which is equivalent to blood of martyr. Hijab requires women to avoid any sort of attraction to men.

We have many Muslims sisters who are more concerned to please themselves and their non-believer friends than Allah (s.w.t.). Let us not forget the purpose of our existence, which is to cultivate love and affection for Allah in our heart and not for anything else. How can we create that love when we disobey Him? Adoration and affection come from the heart and those who truly love Allah (s.w.t.) will not do anything contrary to this.

Some of our sisters come up with the excuse that the non-believers laugh at them if they observe Hijab and they feel degraded. They may laugh for a little while but after some time, they will have no choice but to respect the Muslim women observing Hijab for their discipline and principles which could not be shaken by their little laugh.

Let us not forget the famous phrase: He who laughs last laughs the longest.

A Muslim sister lives for the future and not for the day; we can all look forward to be in Heaven for believing and obeying Allah (s.w.t.)

Hijab is one of the commandments of Allah (s.w.t.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said that those women who do not observe proper Hijab are blatantly defying the commandment of Allah (s.w.t.). Ahl-e-bait (a.s.) suffered hardships and offered unparalleled sacrifices to bring original Islam to us. Discarding Hijab puts their sacrifices in vain. And the pleasure of Allah (s.w.t.) is the greatest bliss. But for those who disobeyed, what punishment is awaiting them but Hell-Fire

2007/3/31

ترس انگلیس مکار از حجاب ...

For Multiculturalist Britain, Uncomfortable New Clothes

By ALAN COWELL

LONDON

RARELY has Britain’s struggle to define its relationship with a disaffected and diverse Muslim minority seemed so fraught as it was last week, with the debate fixated on where a woman can wear a flimsy, kerchief-size item of Islamic dress called the niqab, the full-face veil.

The discussion, intensified by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s calling the veil “a mark of separation,’’ is not simply about dress. It seems to signal a broader shift as non-Muslim Britons set new limits of tolerance, not just for recent immigrants but for a younger, home-grown generation of more assertive British Muslims.

Among some of those who have long favored tolerance for individual choice, there is a ginger step toward the notion that the right of the group might trump the right of the individual under more circumstances, even as they are hard-pressed to say exactly why they are drawing the line at the niqab, beyond its being a matter of “communication.”

For 40 years, Britain has nurtured a policy of multiculturalism celebrating ethnic diversity and its emblems. That policy evolved in the 1960’s, at a time when Muslim immigrants, largely from Pakistan, arrived to take menial jobs. Now, Britons are confronted with the sometimes alienated descendants of that first generation — like three of the four London bombers last year — people born in the country, raised in its schools and newly drawn to a re-examination of their ancestors’ faith.

A blame-game question is emerging: Who is responsible for the widening gulf between majority and minority?

Along with Mr. Blair’s comment, a Conservative opposition figure, David Davis, said some British Muslims had set themselves on a course of “voluntary apartheid,” leading parallel lives outside the mainstream. The inference was that multiculturalism had failed.

The counterargument emerged at a labor tribunal in Yorkshire where Aishah Azmi, 24, a teaching assistant, challenged a school board’s decision to suspend her from teaching because she wore the full veil.

“Muslim women who wear the veil are not aliens,” Mrs. Azmi said at a news conference after the tribunal found that she had not been discriminated against or harassed, though it concluded that she had been made to feel like a victim. This split ruling left her ultimate return to the school, veiled or not, uncertain. “Integration requires people like me to be in the workplace so that people can see that we are not to be feared or mistrusted,” she said.

But those who have opposed the wearing of the niqab, like Jack Straw, the Labor Party veteran who is leader of the House of Commons, argue that it prevents communication. They point out that, while the Muslim head-scarf — the hijab — allows the face to be seen, the niqab reveals only the eyes. In school, opponents of the niqab argue, particularly in language lessons, students cannot see the face of the teacher to follow what she is saying.

Of course, the niqab is not the only item of clothing used to express a distinctive notion of piety. There’s the Sikh turban, the nun’s wimple, the Hasidic Jewish man’s black hat and side curls. None of those — not since the battle of Sikhs to wear their turbans at work in the 1970’s — has been so singled out.

But the niqab is the only item that completely masks its wearer. In much of the Muslim world, it is part of a pervasive culture dictating that women show their faces only to other women, or to men in their families. In Britain, it has come to offer an emblem by which Islamic separation may be criticized without challenging the right of 1.6 millions Muslims — fully 3 percent of the population — to practice their faith.

The debate opened this month when Mr. Straw complained that in his constituency office in Blackburn, he felt unable to communicate with women wearing the niqab. “There is a wider issue here,” he said. “Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers, people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able to pass the time of day. That’s made more difficult if people are wearing a veil.”

His remarks drew broad support among non-Muslims, prompting suggestions that he had used the issue to raise his profile as Labor Party figures maneuver for position after Mr. Blair steps down. Only 22 percent of Britons surveyed in an opinion poll taken afterward said they thought Muslims had done enough to integrate, while 57 percent said Muslims should do more to fit it.

For some it is an uneven debate.

“It’s not a neutral conversation,” said Salma Yaqoob, a Muslim city councilor in Birmingham. Non-Muslims start from a perception that “ ‘we have all been victimized as a majority by this awkward minority’; they start from a hostile stance and the Muslims start from a defensive stance.”

The full veil, she said, is worn by a “tiny, tiny minority” of Muslim women, some of whom have taken to it after concluding that Islam provides “a sense of identity that gives a framework for their lives.” Indeed, it is the very intensity of the debate about Islam, Ms. Yaqoob said, that propels their embrace of it.

“As the context now is so highly politicized, and the Muslims are so much in the headlines, people ask, ‘What is this thing we are being demonized for?’ ” she said in a telephone interview.

Shahid Malik, a Muslim Labor legislator from the same area of Yorkshire as Mrs. Azmi, said he welcomed the debate over the full veil. “If we don’t talk about these things, they are stored up for the future,” he told reporters in Yorkshire.

“As individuals, all women have the right and freedom to wear what they wish, and rightly so,” he said. “However, in certain occupations there are dress codes which employees are expected to adhere to while at work. All right-minded people — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — will agree that in asking a classroom assistant not to wear a veil while in contact with children because it hinders their learning is perfectly acceptable and just common sense. But when your style of dress limits your ability to carry out your role, then the welfare and education of the children must come first.”

The paradox is, of course, that Muslims born and raised in Britain are an integral part of the society that seems to reject them. To be accepted, they need to assert their presence, yet in doing so, they fall afoul of pressures to conform to the standards of the non-Muslim majority.

The debate may also exact a toll on that majority. In an interview, David Edgar, a British playwright, said Britain risked losing the “Voltaire principle, which is: I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

“We are slipping very quickly from saying something I agree with — that the veil is a separatist gesture — to something I profoundly disagree with, which is that it should be banned,” he said.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim who is a columnist for The Independent, sees it a little differently. “What any of us does in our own lives is a private matter — a precious and inalienable right,” she wrote. “But once we enter the job market or national and local authority domains, or tread into places where there is interaction with different citizens, privacy and individual choice become contested — quite rightly, for there is such a thing as British society.”

2007/3/31

Is US like Germany of the '30s ...

By Andrew Greeley - Chicago Sun Times

Racism Last Chapter

I can understand, my German friend said, why Germans voted for Hitler in 1933 -- though he did not receive a majority of the vote. The Weimar Republic was weak and incompetent. The Great Depression had ruined the nation's war-devastated economy. People were bitter because they thought their leaders had betrayed them in the war. They wanted revenge for the humiliation of Versailles. Hitler promised strong leadership and a new beginning. But why did they continue to support that group of crazy drug addicts, thugs, killers and madmen?

The historical question remains. I leave aside the question of the guilt of the whole German people (a judgment beyond my competence because I am not God) and ask what explanations might account for what happened. Hitler turned the German economy around in short order. He was crazy, of course, a demagogic mystic sensitive to aspirations of the German spirit. He appealed skillfully to the dark side of the German heritage. Anti-Semitism was strong in Germany, as it was in most European countries, but not violent until Hitler manipulated it. He stirred up the memories of historic German military accomplishments and identified himself with Frederick the Great -- thus placating the Prussian ethos of the German army. He promised glory to a nation still smarting from the disaster of 1918. Germany was emerging from the ashes, strong and triumphant once again. He also took control of the police apparatus. The military might have been able to dump him till 1937. After that he was firmly in power. The path lay open to holocaust.

Can this model be useful to understand how contemporary America is engaged in a criminally unjust war that has turned much of the world against it, a war in which torture and murder have become routine? Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instructions come from God unleashed the dark side of the American heritage?

What is this dark side? I would suggest that it is the mix of Calvinist religious righteousness and "my-country-right-or-wrong" patriotism that dominated our treatment of blacks and American Indians for most of the country's history. It revealed itself in the American history of imperialism in Mexico and after the Spanish-American War in the Philippines. The "manifest destiny" of America was to do whatever it wanted to do, because it was strong and virtuous and chosen by God.

Today many Americans celebrate a "strong" leader who, like Woodrow Wilson, never wavers, never apologizes, never admits a mistake, never changes his mind, a leader with a firm "Christian" faith in his own righteousness. These Americans are delighted that he ignores the rest of the world and punishes the World Trade Center terrorism in Iraq. Mr. Bush is our kind of guy.

He is not another Hitler. Yet there is a certain parallelism. They have in common a demagogic appeal to the worst side of a country's heritage in a crisis. Bush is doubtless sincere in his vision of what is best for America. So too was Hitler. The crew around the president -- Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, the "neo-cons" like Paul Wolfowitz -- are not as crazy perhaps as Himmler and Goering and Goebbels. Yet like them, they are practitioners of the Big Lie -- weapons of mass destruction, Iraq democracy, only a few "bad apples."

Hitler's war was quantitatively different from the Iraq war, but qualitatively both were foolish, self-destructive and criminally unjust. This is a time of great peril in American history because a phony patriotism and an America-worshipping religion threaten the authentic American genius of tolerance and respect for other people.

The "real" America is still remembered here in Berlin for the enormous contributions of the Marshall Plan and the Berlin airlift -- America at its best. It is time to return to that generosity and grace.

The strongest criticism that the administration levels at Sen. John Kerry is that he changes his mind. In fact, instead of a president who claims an infallibility that exceeds that of the pope, America would be much better off with a president who, like John F. Kennedy, is honest enough to admit mistakes and secure enough to change his mind.

Ed. note: As promised, Tom Engelhardt delivers a Modern Day Nazi Picnic, after up 'til now being very cautious in venturing about in this real obvious area of socio-political reality. Tom wrote, "The 'Nazi analogy' is making its slow way into the critical mainstream. Of course, since at least 9/11 this analogy has been alive and well at the wilder fringes of the Internet. (There, people have long been asking: Are we already in the Nazi era, or are we at the desperate end of the Weimar Republic? Were the attacks of 9/11 another Reichstag burning?)" and "Now, variations on this Nazi analogy are suddenly thriving -- and not in obscure political websites either. (I've always avoided the analogy myself because it's such a minefield and tends to send everyone flying in strange and unfruitful directions.)" See Water-boarding in the White House

2007/3/29

گزارش انتقادي روزنامه بلژيکي از فيلم ۳۰۰ ...

روزنامه‌ بلژيکي‌ «لوسوار» با انتشار مطلبي‌ انتقادي‌ درباره‌ فيلم‌ ‌300‌ به‌ قلم‌ «آلن للمان‌» با اشاره به موضوع فيلم نوشت: ‌گويي‌ تاريخ‌ را با سم‌ بازنويسي‌ کرده‌اند. وي‌ واکنش‌ ايران‌ به‌ نمايش‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ کاملا بجا و از نظر سياسي‌ صحيح‌ است.
‌ ‌
‌نويسنده‌ مقاله‌ با ارائه‌ خلاصه‌اي‌ از داستان‌ فيلم‌ ‌300‌ نوشته‌ است:‌ اگر لئونيداس‌ براي‌ شما مانند پادشاهي‌ دلپذير و گردنه‌ ترموپيلس‌ نشان‌ دهنده‌ يک‌ سيستم‌ هوشمندانه‌ باشد، شايد درک‌ اينکه‌ چرا ايران‌ به‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ هاليوودي‌ اعتراض‌ کرده‌ است‌ برايتان‌ سخت‌ باشد‌.

وي مي افزايد: در قرن‌ پنجم‌ پيش‌ از ميلاد اسپارت‌ و آتن‌ نيروهاي‌ خود را متحد مي‌‌کنند تا در برابر اوجگيري‌ امپراتوري‌ هخامنشيان‌ و پارس‌ بزرگ‌ که‌ گستره‌ آن‌ از ليبي‌ تا افغانستان‌ را دربر مي‌گرفت‌،‌ ايستادگي‌ کنند.
امروز ايران‌ فرياد اعتراض‌ به‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ سر داده‌ است‌، هر چند در اين‌ فيلم‌ ارتش‌ هخامنشي‌ مانند سپاهي‌ عظيم‌ با نيرويي‌ خيره‌ کننده‌ معرفي‌ شده‌ است،‌ ولي‌ ايرانيان‌ بر اين‌ باورند که‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ بسيار نژادپرستانه‌ بوده‌ و مملو از تباهي‌‌هاي‌ کليشه‌‌اي‌ منتسب‌ به‌ امپراتوري‌ ايران‌ است‌ که‌ به‌ عنوان‌ لشکري‌ خطرناک‌ دنياي‌ آزاد و متمدن‌ را تهديد مي‌کند.

ايران‌ همچنين‌ مي‌گويد، شايسته‌ است‌ بررسي‌ کنيم‌ که‌ چرا اين‌ فيلم‌ حتي‌ به‌ حداقل‌ واقعيات‌ نيز احترام‌ نگذاشته‌ است‌ و مسير نمايش‌ چهره‌‌هاي‌ اهريمني‌ از ايرانيان‌ را در پيش‌ گرفته‌ است‌.

روزنامه‌ «لوسوار» با اشاره‌ به‌ اينکه‌ شوراي‌ امنيت‌ تحريم‌ها عليه‌ ايران‌ را تشديد و ايران‌ تفنگداران‌ انگليسي‌ را دستگير کرده‌ است‌،‌ اين‌ سوال‌ را مطرح‌ مي‌کند که‌ ايا ممکن‌ است‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ تاثيري‌ فاجعه‌بار داشته‌ باشد.

به‌ نوشته‌ اين‌ روزنامه،‌ واکنش‌ ايران‌ به‌ نمايش‌ اين‌ فيلم‌ نياز به‌ هيچ‌ تفسيري‌ ندارد، حتي‌ شايد اين‌ اعتراض‌ ايراني‌ها را تمجيد کنيم‌ که‌ گفته‌‌اند مخدوش‌ کردن‌ وجهه‌ ايراني‌ها نبايد به‌ عنوان‌ ابزاري‌ براي‌ فروش‌ بليت‌هاي‌ ورودي‌ مورد استفاده‌ قرار گيرد؛‌ اين‌ همچون‌ بازنويسي‌ تاريخ‌ با سم‌ است‌.

2007/3/29

مصرف مواد مخدر، ‌مشكل حاد دانشگاه‌هاي آمريكا ...

بنا بر يافته‌هاي تحقيقاتي جديد، نزديك به نيمي از جمعيت 4/5 ميليون نفري دانشجويان تمام وقت آمريكا، دست كم، ماهي يك بار از مواد مخدر يا الكل استفاده مي‌كنند؛ اين امر، نشانگر مشكل حاد در سطح دانشگاه‌هاي اين كشور است.

به گزارش سرويس بين‌الملل «بازتاب» به نقل از «يو.اس.اي تودي»، مدتهاست كه الكل، ماده مورد علاقه دانشجويان است، اما استفاده از مواد مخدر و ماري‌جووانا نسبت به اواسط دهه 1990، افزايش غم‌انگيزي داشته است.

مركز ملي اعتياد و مصرف مواد (CASA) در دانشگاه كلمبيا ـ كه اين تحقيق را انجام داده ـ خواستار برخورد شديد با استفاده از اين مواد در ميان دانشجويان شد. اين مركز كه براي نخستين بار در سال 1993 دست به اين تحقيق زده بود، براي دومين بار اين كار را انجام داده است.

به اين ترتيب، تحقيقات نشان داد كه ميزان مصرف دانشجويان نسبت به مردم عادي بيشتر است؛ 9/12 دانشجويان به رغم تأثيرات منفي اين مواد از آنها استفاده مدام مي‌كنند كه اين ميزان در ميان مردم عادي بالاي دوازده سال، 5/8 درصد است.

همچنين تحقيقات نشان داده است كه دانشجويان متعلق به اقليت‌ها و دانشجويان حاضر در دانشگاه‌هايي كه به طور تاريخي متعلق به سياهان بوده‌اند، مصرف كمتري دارند.

اين امر در حالي است كه بيشتر مسئولان دانشگاه‌ها، اقدامي در برخورد با اين پديده انجام نمي‌دهند و مسئوليت حفظ سلامت و ايمني دانشجويان را به گردن خود نمي‌دانند.

نيمي از دانشجويان مورد تحقيق «CASA» گفته‌‌اند كه از اين مواد براي آرام شدن، كاهش استرس و فراموش كردن مشكلات استفاده مي‌كنند.

در همين حال، به گزارش «آسوشيتدپرس»، اين مسئله باعث بروز پيامدهاي منفي مانند بازداشت دانشجويان و رفتارهاي خطرناك جنسي شده است.

نكات مهم اين تحقيق:
• دانشجوياني كه به سوءاستفاده از مسكن‌هايي مانند Percocet، Vicodin و Oxy contin اعتراف كرده‌اند، از كمتر از 1 درصد در سال 1993 به 1/3 درصد در سال 2005 افزايش داشته است.

• درصد دانشجوياني كه به استفاده سنگين از ماري‌جووانا مي‌پردازند (دست‌كم بيست روز در ماه گذشته) از 9/1 درصد در سال 1993 به 4 درصد در سال 2005 رسيده است.

• درصد دانشجوياني كه از ديگر مواد مخدر مانند كوكائين و هروئين استفاده كرده‌اند از 4/5 درصد در سال 1993 به 2/8 درصد در سال 2005 رسيده است.

• تعداد افراد كه مرتب الكل مي‌نوشند، تغيير چنداني نداشته و از 70 درصد در سال 93 به 68 درصد در سال 2005 رسيده است.

الكلي‌هاي سنگين نيز تقريبا در همان 40 درصد ثابت بوده‌اند. هرچند تعداد كساني كه در دو هفته گذشته، سه بار يا بيشتر به طور سنگين الكل مصرف كرده‌اند، از 7/19 درصد در سال 1993 به 8/22 درصد در سال 2005 افزايش يافته است. تحقيقات نشان داد كه 83 درصد ميزان بازداشت‌ها در دانشگاه‌ها، مربوط به مصرف الكل بوده است.

2007/3/29

اعتراض شديد مدافعان حقوق كودكان به آموزش همجنس‌گرايي در انگليس ...

به تازگي رسانه‌هاي فارسي‌زبان بيگانه اقدام به ترويج روابط جنسي غيرشرعي كرده‌اند و با انواع ترفندها، سعي در تبليغ آن دارند. اين امر در حالي صورت مي‌گيرد كه نتايج به دست آمده از رفتارهاي جنسي در غرب، مورد اعتراض جوامع حقوق بشري به ويژه حامي كودكان و نوجوانان قرار گرفته و نيز اين رفتارها نتايج زيانباري از جمله شكستن هنجارهاي جامعه و خانواده‌ها را براي اين جوامع به دنبال داشته است.

به گزارش سرويس بين‌الملل «بازتاب» به نقل از «رويترز»، كودكان انگليسي ـ تا حدود چهار ساله ـ با استفاده از داستان‌هاي جن و پري و كتاب داستان‌هايي كه داراي شخصيت‌هاي همجنس‌گرا هستند، آموزش‌هايي را در مورد همجنس‌گرايي مي‌بينند.

به اين منظور، طرحي همه‌جانبه در چندين مدرسه انگلستان براي آشنايي كودكان با مسائل همجنس‌گرايانه شيوع يافته است كه داستان‌هايي مانند «پادشاه و پادشاه» و «تانگوي سه نفره» به ترتيب در مورد يك شاهزاده همجنس‌باز و سه كبوتري كه عاشق هم مي‌شوند، به كودكان آموزش مي‌دهند.

اين طرح 12/1 ميليون دلاري به نام پروژه «غريبه‌اي نيست» مورد حمايت وزارت آموزش‌وپرورش انگلستان نيز بوده و به اين منظور طراحي شده تا به مدارس كمك كند قواعد جديدي را براي معرفي همجنس‌گرايي به عنوان يك شيوه زندگي ترويج كنند.

اما اين مسئله، باعث خشم و ناراحتي بسياري از گروه‌هاي مذهبي شده است، چراكه آن را تبليغي در راستاي روابط همجنس‌گرايانه مي‌دانند.

به گفته مديران اين پروژه، دانش‌آموزان يكي از مدارس مجري اين طرح، از محور داستان «پادشاه و پادشاه» (در مورد شاهزاده‌اي كه عشق سه شاهزاده خانم را رد مي‌كند و سپس با يك شاهزاده ديگر ازدواج مي‌كند) براي نوشتن داستان‌هايي در جايگزيني «سيندرلا» استفاده كرده‌اند.

در مدرسه ديگري در لندن هم بچه‌هاي چهار تا يازده ساله براي اجراي نمايشنامه‌اي آماده مي‌شوند كه درباره علاقه مردان به آشپزي، نظافت و هنر است.

در سال 2003 انگليس قانون ممنوعيت مقامات محلي از تبليغ و ترويج همجنس‌گرايي به عنوان يك شيوه زندگي را لغو كرد و پروژه «غريبه‌اي نيست»، نخستين تلاش براي وارد كردن مسائل همجنس‌گرايانه به زندگي مدارس ابتدايي است.

بازرسان دولتي مدارس، متوجه رفتارهايي مبتني بر تمايلات همجنس‌گرايانه نيز در كلاس‌هاي درس و زمين‌هاي بازي شده‌اند.

مسئولان اين پروژه، اين طرح را ملهم از سخنان «دزموند توتو»، برنده نوبل ادبيات از آفريقاي جنوبي مي‌دانند كه در فوريه 2004 گفته بود: «همه مردم خودي هستند، هيچ غريبه‌اي نيست؛ صرف نظر از اعتقاد، رنگ، جنسيت و يا تمايلات جنسي آنان».

«اليزابت اتكينسون»،‌ مدير پروژه به راديو «بي.بي.سي»، گفت: «اين كتاب‌ها تنها نشان‌دهنده جنبه‌اي از زندگي هستند. كاري كه ما مي‌كنيم، ارايه واقعيت است؛ اين امر، جزيي از تجربيات زندگي بسياري از كودكان كشور است».

«طاهر علام»، سخنگوي بخش آموزش شوراي مسلمانان انگليس، مي‌گويد: اين پروژه نوعي از زندگي خانوادگي را ترويج مي‌كند كه مخالف آموزه‌هاي اسلام و بسياري مذاهب ديگر است.
وي مي‌گويد: «چرا بايد چنين ايده‌هايي را به كودكان معرفي كنيم؟ و چرا بايد والدين به شدت نگران باشند؟ اين خلاف اعتقادات و ارزش‌هاي آنان است».

«استفان گرين»، مدير گروه مذهبي «صداي مسيحيت»، مي‌گويد: «اين نقض حقوق كودك است. اين پروژه تنها تبليغي براي همجنس‌بازي است كه با عادي نشان دادن اين روابط، مي‌تواند كودكان را به افراد متجاوز تبديل كند. اين كار باعث شده كه آرامش ذهن والدين نيز به هم بخورد، چراكه اينامر، خيانت به اعتماد والدين به مدارس به عنوان محلي امن براي كودكانشان است».

2007/3/29

عيدي سربازان گمنام امام زمان به مردم سيستان و بلوچستان ...

پس از اصلاحات شجاعانه چند روز پيش نيروي انتظامي جمهوري اسلامي در سیستان و بلوچستان و دستگيري 5 نفر از تروريستها، مردم اين استان امروز خبر خوش ديگري را شنیدند و سربازان گمنام امام زمان(ع) در عملياتي موفق به دستگيري سه تن از عوامل گروهك تروريستي موسوم به جندالله و كشف محموله بزرگ مواد منفجره شدند.

به گزارش خبرنگار بازتاب از زاهدن، سربازان گمنام امام زمان(عج) در اين عمليات كه شب گذشته انجام شد، موفق به دستگيري سه تن از تروريست‌ها و كشف محموله بزرگ مواد منفجره در سراوان شدند كه تروريست‌ها قصد استفاده از آن براي ايجاد اغتشاش و ناامني در استان سيستان و بلوچستان را داشتند.

گفتني است، گروهك تروريستي موسوم به جندالله تاكنون با چندين عمليات تروريستي دست به قتل مردم بي‌گناه اين استان زده‌ است

Peter Power's mainstream media terror operations

Iran, the Vicious Victim

درباره من

آرشیو وبلاگ

مطالب اخیر

لینکستان