source: http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2283

Seven years after years after 9/11 the ongoing confrontation between
the free world and the forces of Jihadism seems to be revealing
another broader more dangerous dimension: the emergence of an
undeclared solidarity between regimes and organizations which --
despite their enmity for each other -- come together to destroy
freedom and obstruct its spread.

This transnational brotherhood is increasingly revealing itself in
international relations, despite the assurances of Western diplomats
and academics that such a de facto web, do not really exist. While
lobbying efforts in the West are attempting to convince the public
that the ideology of Jihadism doesn’t exist and that Democracies’
foreign and economic policies are at the roots of terrorism, stunning
evidence proves the opposite. Not only Jihadism is alive and thriving,
but it is influencing a much larger bloc of countries.

Four years after identifying the Darfur drama as a genocide under
international law many around the free world are yet to absorb the
power of Jihadism in international relations. Today’s Sudan crisis
will only open their eyes to what many in the diplomatic and academic
elites are feverishly attempting to camouflage. While many have been
arguing that the free nations of the world face a cohort of regimes
that sympathize with and support the Jihadist networks, many others
-- on the apologist side- have been arguing that there is no such
thing as Transnational Jihadism.

In my last three books (*) I attempted relentlessly to make the case
that an international Jihadi lobby exists  -- or rather a convergence
of interests between regimes, organizations, and groups seeking the
confrontation with the infidels and more importantly keeping their
civil societies from pursuing natural democratic processes.
Unfortunately, bureaucrats and diplomats in the Western World have
been severely criticizing these warnings and pretending instead, that
such a “web” is a mirage. However, the public has a unique opportunity
to see otherwise with the exploding new crisis between the Sudanese
regime of General Omar al Bashir and the International Criminal Court
(ICC).

After the Darfur Genocide was identified by international
organizations (and decades after the African population of Sudan have
been submitted to oppression at the hands of the Islamist regime of
Khartoum not later than 1989 and possibly as soon as the early 1980s)
finally, the chief prosecutor of the ICC filed genocide charges
against Sudan’s President, who is chiefly responsible for the ongoing
attacks by the Janjaweed militia against black African tribes in the
West of the country. A next stage should be mobilizing the
international community and expecting the UN Security Council to
proceed with the arrest of the head of the Khartoum regime for
investigation.

The process shouldn’t be that different from the filing, arresting,
indicting and sentencing of other heads of states found guilty of
serious breaches to international law, including the highly publicized
case of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. But the Serbian leader
had no regional and international allies to stand by him. He was alone
and alone he was brought down from power and taken to Rotterdam. Omar
al Bashir isn’t “alone.” He has a large international “clan” behind
him, and of course he has natural resources to fund the war against
international justice he intends to wage.

What policy makers in the West –fed by the unhelpful advice of some of
their advisors who are oil-funded - have missed in the equation of
international relations so far, is the existence of a fault line
between blocs of countries. The line is not necessarily and purely
“civilizational” but it is highly ideological. There are leaders that
world justice cannot indict, cannot arrest and cannot try because they
are immune to peaceful compulsion. Those heads of states are part of a
“club” of authoritarian leaders of ideological or theocratic regimes
who refuse to obey any sanctions the UN and other international
organizations attempt to impose, regardless of their offense.  These
perpetrators belong to a virtual and undeclared caliphate of regimes
and organizations. The “perpetrator” may or may not be affiliated with
Jihadism as an ideology, but as soon as his opponents are themselves
preaching democracy and self determination against Jihadism and
authoritarianism, the head of the sanctioned regime will be
“protected” by his cohort. Observe the reactions to the ICC charges
against Bashir.

Naturally, the first resistance came from inside the Khartoum regime.
Opening the first salvo, Sudanese officials responded not with denial
of wrong doing, but with threats of dire consequences if the legal
actions are carried out. Sudan’s UN ambassador Abdelmahmoud
Abdalhaleem said the “prosecutor’s action would eviscerate the peace
process.” That is a very telling argument, for it shows that although
the accusation came from the ICC, the retaliation of the Islamist
regime will be aimed at the victims in Darfur, and perhaps in the
south. Otherwise how could the ”peace process” between Sudanese will
be altered if Bashir’s forces do not break it? Another official
Sudanese argument is also as revealing. “This would lead to disastrous
consequences for the entire region” said Abdalhaleem, adding that
“without a head of state, with whom are you going to talk.” If
anything this is evidence that the regime is dictatorial and worse
perhaps, that significant segments of the regime are part of the
genocide.

Although al Bashir has many opponents in the region, the “brotherhood”
of resistance against human rights laws manifested itself quickly.
From Cairo, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmad abu Ghais
warned from “the dangers of irresponsibility in dealing with Sudan
considering that the ICC action will create insecurity and political
instability in general and in Darfur in particular.” In other words,
international actions in support of civil societies endangering
members of the “club” will be rejected and resisted. From the Arab
League, the permanent delegate of the organization to Sudan said the
International Court’s action is a strike against peace in Darfur, and
accused “international quarters” of being behind the decision.

In other words, peace is threatened if perpetrator regimes are
sanctioned not if civil societies are brutalized. From Yemen,
President Ali Abdallah Saleh said his regime will stand by the
Khartoum regime. Sanaa’s Foreign Ministry said the ICC decision is “a
meddling in the domestic affairs of that country.”

Addressing the issue from Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood organization
condemned the court demand, accusing the ICC of putting Sudan under
pressure to solve “the oil prices crisis.” In view of the
Brotherhood’s international role in penetrating the West, such an
argument reveals even more the grand background of the solidarity with
Sudan: other oil producers with Jihadi inclinations are concerned to
see that one “of them” may have to back off from anti Western economic
pressures.

From Tehran, the other center of Khomeinist Jihadism, the regime’s
minister of Foreign Affairs Manushahr Muttaki also attacked the
“selective decision.” And from Asia, the Chinese Government, a
financial partner of Khartoum understandably “expressed concerns.”

Taking the lead in the offensive against the “ICC decision” al
Jazeera’s commentators framed it as a “campaign against the region,”
and its panels heated the debate. Writing on the Qatari-funded
outlet’s site, Abdel Salam al Jamuhi said “Allah is with us and our
swords are ready.” Al Tayyib al Ameen said “Bush and his European
tails are waging a third war after Afghanistan and Iraq. Yahya asked
if the ICI prosecutor belongs to (pro Israel US based lobbying group)
AIPAC. Munzer writes “O brother al Bashir all Arabs and Muslims are
with you.”  Mohammed Ali Fadl al Sayyed write: “First they controlled
the Eastern gate to the Arab world in Iraq and now they are moving on
the Western Gate in Sudan.” Ahmad Badawi said this is a conspiracy
against all Muslims and we “need to stand together as such.”

An old proverb in the Arab world, used frequently by contemporary
Jihadists says: “Unsur akhaka zaliman kana am mazluma” (support your
brother, should he be oppressor or oppressed). The rush to support
President Bashir’s regime in Sudan as soon as he was accused of
genocide is a bright example of how solidarity mechanisms work between
the forces belonging to or influenced by the dominant ideology in the
region. And that is the real deep end of the crisis of human rights
and democratization, let alone terrorism, which awaits the
international community in the years and decades ahead.

“Unsur akhaka” is not being applied in Bashir’s case only. A thorough
reinterpretation of many confrontations over the past few years,
particularly as of 2001 shows clearly that solidarity with oppressors
is a real force in world politics. Jihadism’s ideological forces,
including many al Jazeera commentators, frames it as “anti-American
attitude” and attempts to coin it as an –anti-Bush wide alliance. But
reality is that this aggregation against freedom is deeper, wider and
more diverse than any other coalition on Planet Earth. Indeed, the web
comes to the surface every time a “brother dictator” or a “sister
ideology” are being pinned down by the international community. This
brotherhood of doom manifest itself each time one of the “brothers” is
caught wrong doing. When the international consensus is high, the
brotherhood is low, and when the latter feels it can counter attack,
it does so with all of its strengths.

Take for example the international campaign against al Qaeda since
2001. Few stood by the Bin Laden movements worldwide, but the “clan”
refused to take on the ideology of al Qaeda, meaning the Jihadi roots
of it. “Al Qaeda is criminal but Jihadism is innocent” claim many
doctrinaires in the Arab Muslim world, as well as their apologists in
the West. Hence, the world’s “Brotherhood of Jihadism” was able to get
away with saving the doctrines that produced Bin Laden in return of
indicting him, not his ideology as Terrorist.

Iraq: When the United States and their allies decided to remove Saddam
Hussein, a clear perpetrator of mass murder against his own people, a
vast cohort of brothers in destiny opposed the move, even though
sympathy for the dictator wasn’t widespread: Not only the Syrian,
Iranian, Libyan and Sudanese regimes rose against it, but also Cairo,
Riad, Algiers and Qatar advised against it and tried to delay it.
Stunningly, both Salafists and Khomeinists stood against the downfall
of Socialist Saddam. Automatically, the Western friends of the petro-
regimes followed suit.

Lebanon: It took the brutal assassination of Sunni leader Rafiq Hariri
in Lebanon to force  Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Arab League and the
Organization of the Islamic Conference to not oppose UNSR 1559 calling
on Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon. But none of these
governments and organizations helped the Cedars Revolution obtaining
UN support to disarm Hizballah in accordance with that resolution. In
May 2008, when the pro Iranian militia invaded Beirut and the
Mountain, the “regional brotherhood” put pressures on the
democratically elected Government of Lebanon to make exorbitant
concessions to Hizballah. When the price of disarming the fascist
militia was to allow for liberal democracy to rise geometrically, it
was judged best to keep the Lebanese crisis “inside the family.”

Iran: Tehran’s regime is perceived as the most dangerous power
menacing the Arab Peninsula and beyond, yet when the United States
mobilized the international community to go beyond economic sanctions
and trigger pressures against the Mullahs, the bureaucracy of the OIC
rushed to warn that such an action would be perceived as aimed against
the other 50 members of the organization. Evidently many in the
region, despite their fear from Tehran’s Pasdaran, still fear more the
installment of a democracy in Iran.

Examples abound about this “brotherhood against Democracy.” Sudan’s
current crisis is only one in a long chain. But the real problem that
democracies will have to face in dealing with Darfur may not be the
intentions of the “Jihadi club” inasmuch as it is the counter-
productive trends we are witnessing inside the Washington Beltway over
the past few months. Many of our bureaucrats and academics are racing
backward to downplay the seriousness of the Jihadi global trend.
Reacting to the ICC belated statement a former US envoy to Sudan (who
was nevertheless among the first diplomats to raise the Darfur issue)
criticized the indictment of Bashir. Now a professor at Georgetown
Andrew Natsios’ main concern was about “who will negotiate a
settlement with the Sudanese Government,” leaving us to wonder if the
issue is save the regime or save Darfur.

However more serious failures in our national security and foreign
policy estimate are the rising statements made by former intelligence
officials that “no such thing as an international Jihadi influence
exist,” and the bureaucratic literature negating the existence of the
very ideology which in Sudan is behind the genocide

simple..simple...simple....simple

227 lines of trash.....not bad but than you have done better before.

Strain yourself more troll to really impress other members of your
Islamophobic-hate Usenet hobby group.
Unfortunately these are the only people you'll ever impress here, sad
little Polish hate monger.

Amazing how much time and energy you invest in achieving absolutely
nothing.

Ördög
(The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Trolling terminated, trash removed and follow up set!

Whoredog is a muslim pig who wants everyone else to
wallow in his sty of Islamonazi persecution, oppression
and murder of people of other faiths. His mother was a
whore and he's just carrying on the family tradition.

"Ördög"  wrote in message 
news:cbb2ba9c-66e3-44ca-91a6-8ba64ba5e946@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
simple..simple...simple....simple

227 lines of trash.....not bad but than you have done better before.

Strain yourself more troll to really impress other members of your
Islamophobic-hate Usenet hobby group.
Unfortunately these are the only people you'll ever impress here, sad
little Polish hate monger.

Amazing how much time and energy you invest in achieving absolutely
nothing.

Ördög
(The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Trolling terminated, trash removed and follow up set!

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:53:50 -0700 "üDoug±Ç" <noünen@now.com> wrote:

> Ördög
> (The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
> Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Ordog, the Quisling poster and forger.

> 
> Trolling terminated, trash removed and follow up set! 

Off you go!

Blah!!! Blah!!!!

Dough-nut had a fit:
> Whoredog is a muslim pig who wants everyone else to
> wallow in his sty of Islamonazi persecution, oppression
> and murder of people of other faiths. His mother was a
> whore and he's just carrying on the family tradition.

C'me on! Bite me!

Amazing how much time and energy you invest in achieving absolutely
nothing.

Ördög (The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and
Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Sock-Parrot AKA Little John Vomit said

> ......

Bella Oxmix makes all the right noises:
> Blah!!! Blah!!!!

You've got that right!
Unfortunately the raging and trolling morons above don't see it that
way.
ROTFLOL

Ördög
(The friendly Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter." 
Winston Churchill

"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher,  Der Stürmer, #34/1939.

"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in 1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little more of the gist of his message. I quote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life." -
end of quote -

I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of
others always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It
is not for nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as
they were in the time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose
Bernays' book to quote is that it provides a more concise and clear
summary, in a few quotable paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in
modern life than most other
books on the subject.

If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of
life, but it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment
the thinking of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only
lead us to greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the
question of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.

If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater
honesty than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most
obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:

"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --

To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that
the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the
votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's
like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.

This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.

And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that
we have a greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up
our own minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we
still have some degree of individual freedom in the United States
today because more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far
more aristocratic than democratic in the modern sense of the word were
willing to go to war against their legitimate government in order to
secure that freedom for us, and people with a truly democratic
temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.

Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in
maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It
is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read
in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious
and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're
still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."



http://www.ihr.org/      http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org     http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html