The Quiet Death Of Freedom

[Chinahand]

Rog, I think an awful lot of people think you have one huge blind spot on this issue.

 

There are two ways of looking at it as far as I'm concerned.

 

Either:

 

1 Your conception of Islam as a monolithic block with a single belief that both the Koran AND the Hadith can never be altered and where all believers have a single agreed interpretation of these texts is incorrect.

 

Or

 

2 This conception of Islam is correct, but large numbers of people are only partially "infected" with this belief system. The most recent example you've given of this is good old General Pervez Musharraf president of Pakistan ... a person you accept is a Muslim, but who you believe is a good person trying to do the right thing ... I think you believe this is true DESPITE his beliefs in Islam.

 

If either these contentions are correct ... and I think you agree that 2 is definitely correct given your recent posts ... and I have to say only an imbecilic cretin with no understanding of Islam would attempt to claim 1 isn't correct ... Rog are you an imbecilic cretin? ... then your rantings about Islam are simplistic bombast of very little value.

 

Islam has to adapt to the modern world ... the idea that it hasn't adapted to vastly changed circumstances over the last 1300 years is so much bull ... and I cannot comprehend why given these past adaptions why you'd claim it can't adapt now.

 

How Islam reacts and embraces the modern world ... or if you want to keep your contention ... the way rational people infected with the Islamic meme are able to resist its influences ... is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century ... But to claim there is no compromise within Islam is so simplistic as to be untrue ... You are obsessed with Arab Islam in the 10th century and segements of its modern renaisance ... You totally ignore Mhugal Islam, or Ottoman, or the Islam of South East Asia ... WHY? It makes you sound like a crank ... or is this just an accurate reflection of what you are?

[Rog]

Case #1 is mostly incorrect except that it is absolutely 100% fact that neither the koran nor the hadiths may be changed in any way whatsoever and that ALL devout mohammedans MUST accept that the koran is the perfect word of their god.

 

What does vary is the interpretation that is put on these and the amount of credence given to the hadiths across the sects, but the bottom line remains that although there are different sects within the yoke of islam the commonality between the sects is far greater than within the different sects of Christianity or even our lot.

 

Nonetheless it is a religious duty of all mohammedans to work toward the conversion of the whole world to islam.

 

As regards islam changing – that is what so many people assume will or must happen and yet simply can’t get their mind around the FACT that it CAN NOT - and still remain islam.

 

The assertion that islam has changed one iota in 1300 years is false.

 

People have grouped into sects that follow the demands placed upon them by islam in various ways, some to the extent that what they practice in reality is no longer islam, but islam per se has NOT changed in 1300 years and what’s more unless the predictions come true WILL NOT change in the next 1300 years.

[Dr x]

People ask: Can this be happening in Britain? Surely not. A centuries-old democratic constitution cannot be swept away. Basic human rights cannot be made abstract Those who once comforted themselves that a Labour government would never commit such an epic crime in Iraq might now abandon a last delusion, that their freedom is inviolable. If they knew.

 

The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of ambition of the prime minister and his political twin, the treasurer, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.

 

Presented by the government as a simple measure for streamlining deregulation, or "getting rid of red tape," the only red tape it will actually remove is that of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation, including this remarkable bill. It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street. Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power in his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass parliament in going to war and in dismissing landmark High Court judgments, such as that which declared illegal the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands, now the site of an American military base. The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the bill of rights.

 

Those who fail to hear these steps on the road to dictatorship should look at the government's plans for ID cards, described in its manifesto as "voluntary." They will be compulsory and worse. An ID card will be different from a driving license or passport. It will be connected to a database called the NIR (National Identity Register), where your personal details will be stored. These will include your fingerprints, a scan of your iris, your residence status and unlimited other details about your life. If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to £2,500.

 

Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to "prove who you are." Each time you swipe it, a record is made at the NIR. This means that the government will know every time you withdraw more than £99 from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licenses (liquor stores) will demand that the card is swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution. Private business will have full access to the NIR. If you apply for a job, your card will have to be swiped. If you want a London Underground Oyster card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a telephone line or a mobile phone or an Internet account, your card will have to be swiped.

 

In other words, there will be a record of your movements, your phone records and shopping habits, even the kind of medication you take.

 

These databases, which can be stored in a device the size of a hand, will be sold to third parties without you knowing. The ID card will not be your property and the Home Secretary will have the right to revoke or suspend it at any time without explanation. This would prevent you drawing money from a bank. ID cards will not stop or deter terrorists, as Home Secretary Charles Clarke has now admitted; the Madrid bombers all carried ID. On 26 March, the government silenced the last parliamentary opposition to the cards when it ruled that the House of Lords could no longer block legislation contained in a party's manifesto. The Blair clique does not debate. Like the zealot in Downing Street, its "sincere belief" in its own veracity is quite enough. When the London School of Economics published a long study that effectively demolished the government's case for the cards, Charles Clarke abused it for feeding a "media scare campaign." This is the same minister who attended every cabinet meeting at which Blair's lies over his decision to invade Iraq were clear.

 

This government was reelected with the support of barely a fifth of those eligible to vote: the second lowest since the franchise. Whatever respectability the famous suits in television studios try to give him, Blair is demonstrably discredited as a liar and war criminal. Like the constitution-hijacking bill now reaching its final stages, and the criminalizing of peaceful protest, ID cards are designed to control the lives of ordinary citizens (as well as enrich the new Labour-favoured companies that will build the computer systems). A small, determined, and profoundly undemocratic group is killing freedom in Britain, just as it has killed literally in Iraq. That is the news. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken," said Blair at the 2001 Labour Party conference. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."

 

April 14, 2006

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger39.html

not just that my friend,the next blow is THE DEATH OF THE INTERNET,you can probably guess in the USA congress is abandoning net neutrality,it means the government is withdrawing our right to internet freedom,beware there is a storm coming

[ans]

not just that my friend,the next blow is THE DEATH OF THE INTERNET,you can probably guess in the USA congress is abandoning net neutrality,it means the government is withdrawing our right to internet freedom,beware there is a storm coming

 

[Lovenotfear]

Friday, 12 May 2006

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

 

 

 

'A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. The document says information is "critical to military success".

Bloggers beware.

 

As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.'

 

Click here to read the document in full ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

 

 

 

"Ridicule is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius"

[VinnieK]

Not entirely sure how a document pertaining to attacking hostile nations' computer networks through the internet spells the death of the internet, or the emergence of a shadowy regime that will control our thoughts, etc.

 

This is hardly a new or sinister development. One of the first acts of war is to try and destroy your adversary's communications networks. What they propose is simply a more efficient alternative to the traditional method of blowing up network hubs and the like with expensive cruise missiles and bombs.

 

It might be fantastically naive, but I think the US is looking for ways to disrupt new methods of communication within military and paramilitary hostiles (i.e. mobile phones, the internet, etc). I don't think that they're about to declare total war on Myspace or Blogspot.

[Rog]

If the US really wanted to cause mayhem all they would need to do would be to shut down the GPS network or introduce error into the signals.

 

There are so many services now dependent on GPS that all hell would break loose and alternatives such as Decca have long gone.

[Chinahand]

The Pentagon reserves the right to scramble the GPS signal at a moments notice.

 

They also insisted the EU agree to do the same thing with its Galileo system which is being set up at the moment. Coming to an agreement delayed the project for a considerable time.

 

The Pentagon doesn't want to help a hostile power use its own technology against it. I don't think they've ever thrown the switch ... infact quite the opposite it used to be partially scrambled to reduce the accuracy for non military users, but that was abandoned a few years ago.

[Chinahand]

Talking about using the internet to wage war ... this is a major field of study in China studies.

 

There is quite alot of evidence that China has developed quite sophisticated techniques to take down computer and communication systems.

 

Just the cracker community in China has been able to create chaos on Japanese, Taiwanese and US sites at various times and there have been persistent rumours that there's been PLA involvement.

 

The philoshopy behind it fits in with Mao's asymetric warfare ... if there is ever a conflict between the US and China, China has made it clear that it will attempt to disrupt the US economy and bring the War home to US citizens. The pentagon is fully aware of this and is working on counter measures and responses ... that's basically what Lovenotfear's latched onto, and added in the civil liberties debate that the US government is using its expertise to gather information etc ... they probably are.

[Dr x]

Case #1 is mostly incorrect except that it is absolutely 100% fact that neither the koran nor the hadiths may be changed in any way whatsoever and that ALL devout mohammedans MUST accept that the koran is the perfect word of their god.

 

What does vary is the interpretation that is put on these and the amount of credence given to the hadiths across the sects, but the bottom line remains that although there are different sects within the yoke of islam the commonality between the sects is far greater than within the different sects of Christianity or even our lot.

 

Nonetheless it is a religious duty of all mohammedans to work toward the conversion of the whole world to islam.

 

As regards islam changing – that is what so many people assume will or must happen and yet simply can’t get their mind around the FACT that it CAN NOT - and still remain islam.

 

The assertion that islam has changed one iota in 1300 years is false.

 

People have grouped into sects that follow the demands placed upon them by islam in various ways, some to the extent that what they practice in reality is no longer islam, but islam per se has NOT changed in 1300 years and what’s more unless the predictions come true WILL NOT change in the next 1300 years.

well just what we need another religeous nut,just have a look back through history,and you will not have to look very far,the amount of violence,torture,death,and destruction,all in the name religion,and that has certainly not changed,all religion should be banned altogether,because from what i have seen over the years,we cannot get along on this planet with it,so maybe its time we tried without

[VinnieK]

well just what we need another religeous nut,just have a look back through history,and you will not have to look very far,the amount of violence,torture,death,and destruction,all in the name religion,and that has certainly not changed,all religion should be banned altogether,

 

The key phrase being "in the name of religion". Without religion people would have fought pretty much the exact same wars in the name of something else.

 

I myself am planning a war in the name of full stops. I suggest you convert immediately and start using them.

[Lovenotfear]

People ask: Can this be happening in Britain? Surely not. A centuries-old democratic constitution cannot be swept away. Basic human rights cannot be made abstract Those who once comforted themselves that a Labour government would never commit such an epic crime in Iraq might now abandon a last delusion, that their freedom is inviolable. If they knew.

 

The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of ambition of the prime minister and his political twin, the treasurer, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labour MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope.

 

Presented by the government as a simple measure for streamlining deregulation, or "getting rid of red tape," the only red tape it will actually remove is that of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation, including this remarkable bill. It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street. Blair has demonstrated his taste for absolute power in his abuse of the royal prerogative, which he has used to bypass parliament in going to war and in dismissing landmark High Court judgments, such as that which declared illegal the expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands, now the site of an American military base. The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the bill of rights.

 

Those who fail to hear these steps on the road to dictatorship should look at the government's plans for ID cards, described in its manifesto as "voluntary." They will be compulsory and worse. An ID card will be different from a driving license or passport. It will be connected to a database called the NIR (National Identity Register), where your personal details will be stored. These will include your fingerprints, a scan of your iris, your residence status and unlimited other details about your life. If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to £2,500.

 

Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to "prove who you are." Each time you swipe it, a record is made at the NIR. This means that the government will know every time you withdraw more than £99 from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licenses (liquor stores) will demand that the card is swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution. Private business will have full access to the NIR. If you apply for a job, your card will have to be swiped. If you want a London Underground Oyster card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a telephone line or a mobile phone or an Internet account, your card will have to be swiped.

 

In other words, there will be a record of your movements, your phone records and shopping habits, even the kind of medication you take.

 

These databases, which can be stored in a device the size of a hand, will be sold to third parties without you knowing. The ID card will not be your property and the Home Secretary will have the right to revoke or suspend it at any time without explanation. This would prevent you drawing money from a bank. ID cards will not stop or deter terrorists, as Home Secretary Charles Clarke has now admitted; the Madrid bombers all carried ID. On 26 March, the government silenced the last parliamentary opposition to the cards when it ruled that the House of Lords could no longer block legislation contained in a party's manifesto. The Blair clique does not debate. Like the zealot in Downing Street, its "sincere belief" in its own veracity is quite enough. When the London School of Economics published a long study that effectively demolished the government's case for the cards, Charles Clarke abused it for feeding a "media scare campaign." This is the same minister who attended every cabinet meeting at which Blair's lies over his decision to invade Iraq were clear.

 

This government was reelected with the support of barely a fifth of those eligible to vote: the second lowest since the franchise. Whatever respectability the famous suits in television studios try to give him, Blair is demonstrably discredited as a liar and war criminal. Like the constitution-hijacking bill now reaching its final stages, and the criminalizing of peaceful protest, ID cards are designed to control the lives of ordinary citizens (as well as enrich the new Labour-favoured companies that will build the computer systems). A small, determined, and profoundly undemocratic group is killing freedom in Britain, just as it has killed literally in Iraq. That is the news. "The kaleidoscope has been shaken," said Blair at the 2001 Labour Party conference. "The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."

 

 

 

Iran eyes badges for Jews

Law would require non-Muslim insignia

 

National Post | May 19, 2006

By Chris Wattie

 

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

 

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

 

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

 

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

 

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

 

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

 

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

 

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

 

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

 

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

 

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

 

"We are not here to answer such questions."

 

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

 

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

 

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

 

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

 

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

 

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

 

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but Tehran believed by Western nations to be developing its own nuclear military capability, in defiance of international protocols and peace treaties.

 

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.