NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Showing posts with label Hezbollah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hezbollah. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012
Charles Krauthammer - November 16 -2012
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
Benghazi,
Charles Krauthammer,
HAMAS,
Hezbollah,
Israel,
Susan Rice
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
RG - Major Active Islamic Terrorist Groups - Some Supprted by Our Taxpayer Monsy
There are approximately 117 Islamic Terrorist groups World wide as designated by National Governments, Former Governments and Inter-governmental Organizations.This does not include States or Governmental Organizations, which are considered under State Terrorism, or unaffiliated individuals accused of terrorism or lone wolf terrorism.
Hezbollah is a militant Islamic group that was formed in the early 1980s, purportedly to counter the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This group holds that any land considered Israeli land is in fact Muslim territory that is simply being occupied by Israel.
Harsh Hezbollah rhetoric includes statements that Israel has no right to exist and that Israel’s destruction is part of its mission. The group has been fighting with Israel for decades and has dug into Lebanon, intermingling with its government as well as its citizenry. Many Lebanese people see Hezbollah as a protector and a provider of social services, although it is classified by Israel and others around the world as an Islamic terrorist organization.
In 2006, as Hezbollah crossed Israel’s border, killed and kidnapped a handful of its soldiers, and began raining rockets over civilian populations, Israel again entered Lebanon. As the battle ensued, many were appalled that Hezbollah hid amongst civilians while carrying out attacks. Others claimed that Israel used “disproportionate force” and intentionally went after civilians.
Hezbollah clearly defied United Nations Resolution 1559, which in previous years demanded that it disarm. Many worry that the sketchy cease-fire of 2006 will be more of the same, since such resolutions have not been enforced in the past. It is quite possible that this is merely a “time out” for Hezbollah to regroup and re-arm or wait for further instructions from its benefactors, rather than a true cease-fire. Terrorist organizations rarely pay heed to resolutions, Geneva Conventions, or any other rules of war.
Hezbollah has obvious ties to Iran and Syria and appears to do the bidding of Iranian and Syrian leaders, accepting money and arms from these states. While some see Hezbollah as an arm of these countries, a way to attack without formal declarations of war against other nations, others hold Hezbollah up as a legitimate political and military organization.
Israel is not the only enemy of Hezbollah. This group also seeks to defeat other influences in the Middle East, including that of the United States. It is believed that the suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine’s barracks in Beirut in 1983 was the work of Hezbollah. The attack killed 241 Marines. Many other suicide bombings are credited to Hezbollah as well, and several Western hostages are believed to have been kidnapped by this group over the years.
At this time the Brotherhood used terrorism within Egypt as a tool of expression, causing the Egyptian government to ban the organization for a short time. When the ban was lifted in 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood was recognized only as a religious group. In stark opposition to the policies of secularization being pursued by the Egyptian government, the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated the prime minister of Egypt in late 1948 and was responsible for future assassination attempts against President Gamel Abdel Nasser.
Additionally, they successfully assassinated Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat. After years of tension between the organization and the Egyptian government, it became permanently banned in 1954, after the first attempt on Nasser’s life. Even though the Brotherhood was banned, members of the group were still able to remain politically active in Egypt by running for Parliament as independents. In 2005, they won approximately 20 percent of total Parliamentary seats in Egypt.
After the Muslim Brotherhood was permanently banned, many of the “brothers” fled to other parts of the Arab Levant, such as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Now there are more than 70 branches worldwide. The group is also the root of other wings that have pursued a more violent role in implementing a pure Islamic society.
In an effort to end the perceived occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, the Islamic Resistance Front, more commonly referred to as Hamas, was created in 1987. Hamas and other wings of the Muslim Brotherhood have been largely seen as terrorist organizations in the West, whereas most Muslims, although they may disagree with terror as a means to political ends, agree with the agendas of these groups.
The Muslin Brotherhood gained control of Egypt during the 'Arab Spring' (beginning 18 December 2010) President Obama has long been sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. There are several influential people in his administration with Muslim Brotherhood ties like senior White House adviser Dalia Mogahed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's close personal aide and adviser Huma Abedin and U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Rashad Hussain, among others.
President Obama said concerning the Muslim Brotherhood control of Egypt: “You know, I don’t think that we would consider them an ally [Egypt] but we don’t consider them an enemy,”
The name comes from Arabic word talib, which means “student.” The organization was founded by Mullah Mohammed Omar, an extremely enigmatic individual who went into hiding in 2001 after the organization's fall from power. Members of the Taliban were originally religious students who developed a very conservative interpretation of Islam and the Sharia, or Islamic law. During Afghanistan's long and bitter civil war, members of the group began a slow rise to power, and ultimately took control of most of Afghanistan, promising to put a stop to infighting between various bands of mujahideen, or groups of soldiers led by warlords, to make the country a safer place.
Initially, the Taliban's rise to power was actually greeted with excitement by many Afghans. The group asserted that it would restore Muslim values to Afghanistan, garnering support from many Muslim nations, and it pledged to put a stop to violence. However, the regime quickly turned sour. The movement's extremely conservative interpretation of Muslim traditions and values came to be a major stumbling block for many people in the country.
Under the Taliban, women's rights were severely restricted, and “modesty police” enforced strict rules about what women could wear, study, and do. Men were expected to grow traditional beards, and cultural expression in Afghanistan became virtually nonexistent. Afghans were not allowed to play music, fly kites, clap at sports events, or to engage in a variety of other activities which are permitted in other Muslim nations. Unemployment skyrocketed under the Taliban, adding greatly to social unrest.
In addition to being extremely conservative, the Taliban also attracted global ire by supporting terrorism, either directly through training camps, or indirectly through financial assistance. The group also also contributed to the expansion of Afghanistan's opium market, exporting this agricultural product by the ton. Under the depressed economy, some Afghans turned to opium to make a living, leading Afghanistan's opium exports to account for around 75% of the global supply by the 2000s.
In 2001, the Taliban's control over Afghanistan came to an end with an invasion led by American troops. Although the organization was quickly routed, troops remained in Afghanistan to deal with insurgents and the low-level civil war which erupted after the government fell. These troops also sought out members of the Taliban to bring them to justice for human rights violations and alleged war crimes.
Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West is a documentary film that will challenge the way you look at the world.
Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination.
Click HERE to VIEW
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Michael Brown - Is the Republican Party the Party of God?
The Democratic Party Platform contains just one reference to “God,” and the inclusion of that single reference was famously booed by many delegates at the Democratic convention. In contrast, the Republican Party Platform contains 12 references to “God,” and candidate Romney has emphatically stated, “I will not take God out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation that’s bestowed by God.” Does this make the GOP the party of God?The Democratic Platform certainly stands in stark contrast with the Republican Platform. The former is radically pro-abortion, endorses same-sex marriage, and is decidedly weak on Israel. The latter is strongly pro-life, in favor of natural, organic marriage, and unashamedly pro-Israel.
All this is readily seen in Liberty Counsel’s Voter’s Guide, which contrasts 10 categories in both platforms: Abortion and Human Life; Family Values; First Amendment, Liberty, and Responsibility; ObamaCare; Gun Rights; Fiscal Reform; Israel as an Ally; Government Oversight; Judiciary; Word Use Comparisons.
Starting with the last category, as already noted, the Democratic Platform (from here on DP) used the word “God” once; the Republican Platform (from here on RP) spoke of “God” 12 times. But is this more semantics than substance? Apparently not.
The DP did not mention the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. The RP condemned them.And Romney continues to ratchet up the God talk, stating, “I will not take God out of the public square,” and “we are [a] nation under God.” But that does not mean that the Republican party is the party of God. Not by a long shot.
The DP did not mention the protection of individual conscience in healthcare; the RP explicitly supported it.
The DP did not mention the right to publicly display the Ten Commandments; the RP explicitly endorsed it.
The DP favored the so-called Fairness Doctrine; the RP opposed it.
The DP did not encourage abstinence-only education for teens; the RP encouraged it.
The DP did not mention the enforcement of laws against pornography and obscenity; the RP did.
The DP did not support a constitutional amendment that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nor did it support the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); the RP supported both.
The DP did not mention euthanasia and assisted suicide; the RP opposed both.
The DP supported taxpayer-funded/subsidized abortion; the RP opposed this.
The DP did not mention the Human Life Amendment in defense of the unborn; the RP supported it.
Both parties have more than their share of cronyism, compromise (if not outright corruption), ungodly alliances, hypocrisy, blind spots, and poor role models. It would be a terrible mistake to invoke some kind of divine sanctity on the Republicans. (For the record, it would also be a terrible mistake to think that there are no godly Democrats out there.)
To be perfectly clear, as a religious conservative, I strongly support the GOP Platform when it comes to family, life, and Israel. And I find it interesting that individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which invoke God and the Bible as authorities tend to be pro-life, pro-traditional family, and pro-Israel (which does not necessarily mean anti-Palestinian). In contrast, individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which either marginalize God and the Bible or reject the plain sense of the Scriptures tend to be pro-abortion, in favor of same-sex marriage, and anti-Israel (or, at least, not strongly pro-Israel).
And I do understand why conservative pundits have referred to the “godless Democrats” and why conservative politicians have runs ads highlighting the Democratic “booing of God.” But even if many (or most) Democrats are “godless,” that does not mean that the Republicans, for the most part, are godly, nor should we look at them as the Party of God. (For the conservative Christians reading this, do you think God would appoint a Mormon to head up his party?)
Let’s not forget how many Republican candidates have used “God language” to win the votes of conservative Christians (especially evangelicals) only to disappoint those very voters once in office.
Let’s not forget that marriage was redefined in New York State because four Republican senators caved in. (It’s true that the bill was driven and supported by Democrats, but the Republicans certainly failed to hold the line.)
Let’s not forget that the Republican Party of Massachusetts has not embraced the national platform as its own.
And let’s not forget the fundamental error we make when we exaggerate the goodness and godliness of a large and diverse political party.
Without a doubt, the Republican Platform is far closer to conservative Judeo-Christian values than is the Democratic Platform, but let’s not get carried away. The only true, political “party of God” is sitting in heaven right now. Here on earth, the political scene is mixed, and the ones calling themselves the “party of God” are groups like Hezbollah. (In case you didn’t know, that’s what Hezbollah means in Arabic.)
Dr. Michael Brown
Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)