Arabs urged to invest in image-building in US
By Shakir Husain, Staff Reporter

Dubai: An influential American Muslim group on Monday urged Arab businesses to invest in image-building in the US to secure their long-term interests.

"If the image of Islam and Muslims is not repaired in America, Muslim and Arab business interests will continue to be on a downward slide in the US," said Parvez Ahmad, chairman of the board of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The political backlash against DP World taking over management of six key US ports was "really an issue that gets to the core of this problem," he said.

Referring to the volatile nature of politics on Capitol Hill, Ahmad said it is "very easy for one person to create the hysteria and have a backlash."

The public firestorm over DP World began after New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said he was against an Arab company managing US ports.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2017

Posted by: storagemanager at June 19, 2006 1:11 PM

Islam is Islam. It does not know borders,Islam in America is the same as Islam in Saudi Arabia. CAIR must be doing a very good job if people cant see this.

Posted by: storagemanager at June 19, 2006 1:25 PM

I'm not afraid of getting my nose and ears cut off," she said, all dressed up in a long purple dress and headscarf. "I want to keep studying."

Schoolgirls need that kind of courage in Afghanistan. Unable to win on the battlefield, the Taliban are trying to discredit the Kabul government by blocking its efforts to raise Afghanistan out of its long dark age. They particularly want to undo one of the biggest changes of the past four years: the resumption of education for girls, which the Taliban outlawed soon after taking power in 1996.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13392086/site/newsweek/

Posted by: storagemanager at June 19, 2006 2:04 PM

Of course Muslim groups, including CAIR, are eager to obtain Saudi and other Arab money, beyond what is already funneled directly or, more likely, indirectly. Nothing surprising about this appeal. What is surprising, however, is the way in which the Congress has failed to hold hearings on the influence of Arab, especially Saudi money, and the use of that money to promote hostility toward Infidels.

What would it take for members of Congress to insist on such hearings? Where is the money coming from for all those glossy mosques, and then for their upkeep? Who is paying? How much? What would an ordinary attender of such a mosque be exposed to -- what written materials, what khutbas? Surely there are agents recording this kind of thing, at this point -- aren't there?

And what is the role of Saudi and other Arab money in the estabalishment of "centers" (two right at Georgetown, in important-to-influence Washington), subventions to university departments of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Islamic studies, adn individual professorships of the well-known King-Abdul-Aziz or Guardian-of-the-Two-Noble-Sanctuaries type?

And when will Congress investigate the former diplomats to those counties, and former intelligence agents, and recognize that the problem has not gone away, and will not gone away, until the usefulness of such agents of Saudi and therefore of Muslim influence are exposed to public view, mocked on Leno and Letterman and Steward, made the stuff of editorials, and their take, as "consultants" and as deliverers of lectures and dispensers of advice to "companies" that "do business" in the "Arab world" (what delicacy, all way round), is toted up, and then the contents of their Op/Ed articles, Letters to the Editor, and other disinterested promotion of the Saudi, Arab, Muslim point of view is set out for public inspection before Congress.

In 1973, the American government might not have relied on Saudi Arabai, that staunch ally, for its energy policy. It might have recognized Saudi Arabia as necesarily, deeply, truly, madly hostile to Infidels, to Infidel laws, ways, customs, understandings, to everything that Infidels are or might be just because they are Infidels (so that Infidels of different political or economic or social views are all lumped in, hated for being Infidels, and not for their particular slant on things). It might then have put a tax on gasoline, a tax guaranteed to steadily rise, in foreseeable increments. And the government might have taken that money and applied it to subsidizing research in solar and wind energy, in building nuclear reactors beginning then (France did, and now France gets 70% or more of its electricty from such reactors), and not still dithering about it now. And the mere assurance that the price of gasoline would never go down (for if you were the oil minister of Saudi Arabia, you would want to jerk the price down occaisonally, in order to discourage any would-be investors in other forms of energy -- which is exactly what the Saudis have done) would make a world safe for private investors, in the absence of the government, to invest in alternative forms of energy.

The story needs to be told, in full view of the public. They need to know such names as Raymond Close, James Akins, Eugene Bird and many others. Because if their names and the way in which they have earned their livings after their often early retirements, are not known, then others will still follow the same path. Is that somehting one wishes merely to observe with equanimity, or to prevent?

Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2006 2:06 PM

The open islamization of Iraq's Arab areas, Sunni and Shi'a, was predictable, was even inevitable. The Americans cannot be blamed for this; it was not Rumsfeld's fault, for "not sending enough troops." It was not Bremer's fault, for "disbanding the Iraqi army." It was inevitable because Islam's hold on Muslims is tenacious -- look at Turkey after 80 years of systematic constraints imposed by Kemalism -- and until Muslims are forced to comprehend the ways in which the contents of Islam itself, and its habit of mental submission, explain the failures of Islam, nothing will change -- and even then, perhaps too little will change to make a difference for Muslims. But Infidels need not wait for that change; they can cordon off, or at least keep to a minimum, their entanglements, including entangling phony alliances, they can stop paying the Jizyah of foreign aid, they can stop worrying about how to create viable nation-states out of impossible material (impossible either because, in Iraq, the sectarian and ethnic divisions are too deep and too deep-seated to be uprooted) or as in the territories now ruled by those lords of misrule, the "Palestinians" of either the PLO Abbas wing (the Slow Jihadists) or the Hamas wing (the Fast Jihadists), an attempt to make a viable state out of people who have no skills, no industry, no entrepreneurial sense, and who have been raised up in a society suffused with hatred and the encouragement of violence. There is nothing Infidels can or should do for these people after so much money and so many years of trying. We need to save ourselves.

And that requires the recognition that most peole, in most places, are primitive in thought, word, and deed. Only in some, over centuries of development, do they begin to behave otherwise. Islam primitivizes people, and actively discourages thought. Thought is not good; Allah knows best. Some escape mentally, but cannot admit to this publicly, for fear of violent retribution. Saddam Hussein, a Muslim in the same way that Stalin was a Communist -- not a real True Believer but rather someone interested in his own o'erweening power and sense of self, but not an Unbeliever either -- and when he was deposed, first the Shi'a expressed their new sense of Islamic freedom, freedom that is for the more primitive and more devout and more fanatical to force changes in the less primitive, the less devout, the less fanatical, changes in outward behavior, examples of which are noted in Khalilzad's telegram above.

Inevitable. Not our mistake or mistakes. But our mistake is in failiing to recognize the inevitability of these developments, which comes from a failure to fully understand the hold of Islam on the minds of men, and the ways it keeps coming back, and cannot be shaken. And then there is the other, complementary failure, which follows upon the failure to see Islam as the menace. And that is the failure to define "victory" in Iraq as "ending with a situation in which the camp of Islam will be weakened by what happens in Iraq, will be divided and demoralized." And that result can only come not from remaining in Iraq in an attempt, through further squandering of resources, to make Arab and Kurd, Sunni and Shi'a, lie down like so many lions with so many lambs (depending on which part of Iraq one is thinking of), to create a harmonious, prosperous nation-state that, in some carefully undefined way, is supposed to serve as a Light Unto the Muslim Nations.

This is nonsense, and those in charge of this runaway regime had better come to their collective senses soon.

Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2006 2:18 PM

There is a grim side benifit of our long Iraqi adventure as we continue in the tunnel of darkness. I'm almost ashamed to point out the obvious because the benifit is derived on dead and maimed Americans, and, frankly, no freaking price is worth it.

Polls are done showing the US opinion on Islam is worsening--in fact--much lower than after 911 when many of us were willing to 'give 'em the benifit of the doubt,' even appluading W's seemingly good natured visit to the Mosque. Europe's opinion on Islam is also dropping, for similar but also their own 'home-grown' reasons: riots of youths, beheadings, local terror, honor killings, lack of integration ect.ect.ect.ect.ect.

But the biggest factor for the changing opinions of the 'folks' is Iraq. Despite Karen Huges and John Espisito's plans(or Pat Buchanan's hopes) and to the utter horror of leftists anti-semites like Justin Raimando, opinion is dropping of Muslims and not turning against Israel. The opinion of Palestinians is dropping in France as well. How will the home-grown Jihadis 'influence' opinion in tolerant Canada?

Raimando, Bob Novack and many others expressed shock and awe at the demise of the Dubai Oil Deal and the public fury against it. Talk about the Israel lobby is encouraged of course--but not against Dubai, or 'arabs,' Saudis et al.

A knowledge of Islam is not really required, and we have exhibit a. the monsterous experience of the US in Iraq to 'thank' for this. Any fool knows what a monster Sadaam was.

But, why are we 'treated' the way we are? and, more important, why do Muslims treat one another the way they do? The lying, honor killings, and murderous intra-Islamic killings tell us not only are our well intentioned, naive efforts doomed, but also inform the public of what Islam is, what it does and what it hopes for. No Espisito or Hughes or Novack or Zogby can scoopy up the wet, sticky toothpaste molding up over the ground, and stick it back into the tube: that dog will no longer hunt.

Posted by: biorabbi at June 19, 2006 2:24 PM

I don't mean to sound tacky, but wasn't their constitution based on islam and the koran? Maybe I'm confused. Doesn't islam cancel out any type of democracy? I feel for the people living without basic services, women having to cover themselves and lie about their jobs. When are THEY going to connect their own dots that their choosing laws based on islam is what is causing the havoc?

And why is Sadr still alive?

Posted by: freewoman at June 19, 2006 2:47 PM

Well what do we expect? The US goes in, deposes Saddam's Ba'ath dictatorship and arrests all his secularist generals and Christian ministers like Tarik Aziz. Then Bush appoints an Afghan-born Muslim Zalmay Khalilzad as ambassador (satrap?) and then establishes an Islamic Shari'a constitution in Iraq for the first time ever.

Now, the Christians are fleeing in mass to Alawite ruled Ba'athist Syria while Iraq fights a civil war to determine if it will be a Muslim fundamentalist version of Iran or Saudi Arabia. God help us all!

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 19, 2006 3:07 PM

Freewoman asks And why is Sadr still alive?

Because the Shia World would explode if he was killed. Iraq would be thrown into the chaos Mahmoud wants so bad.

Posted by: storagemanager at June 19, 2006 3:13 PM

I think seriously the time comes ever nearer when we have to infiltrate, not invade.
For many days already I think about it, and if it were not for my obvious white man looks I probably would already work on it... but who can you trust, apparently no-one.

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at June 19, 2006 6:39 PM

The only ones complaining in (Muslim) Ambassador Khalilzad's worried note seem to be what the average faithful member of the Ummah would consider "bad Muslims".

Maybe that'll teach them to be honestly non-Muslims.

And admit that Islam brings the same thing as bubonic rats: chaos, madness, terror, torture, darkness and death.

Inshallah, with a vengeance.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 19, 2006 10:26 PM

Hugh writes: "In 1973, the U.S. Government....might then have put a tax on gasoline, a tax guaranteed to steadily rise, in foreseeable increments. And the government might have taken that money and applied it to subsidizing research in solar and wind energy, in building nuclear reactors beginning then (France did, and now France gets 70% or more of its electricty from such reactors), and not still dithering about it now."

In 1973, President Nixon was preoccupied with the Watergate affair, and he would remain that way till his resignation in the summer of 1974. He was unable to propose any major bipartisan energy legislation (any long-range plan has to have bipartisan support or it will be canceled as soon as the opposition party wins a future election).

President Carter made numerous attempts to get an energy program through Congress, but it went nowhere. Vice President Al Gore had proposed an energy tax, and that went nowhere too. The public hates high gasoline prices, and won't accept any proposed tax increase that would raise the price of gasoline. The public actually wants the U.S. Government to find a way to lower the price of gasoline. And public opinion polls over the last 30 years show that the public believes that energy shortages and high prices are due to collusion by the oil companies to make big profits. They don't even blame OPEC. They blame ExxonMobil.

Comparisons with foreign countries, like France, are worthless. The U.S. is a huge, sprawling country, roughly 9 million square kilometers in area; France is only 545,000 square kilometers. The U.S. is much more dependent on highway and jet travel; Amtrak is nearly dead. Whereas France has an extensive rail system, even for passenger rail. Again, that's partly due to the smaller size of the country. Even if we had high-speed bullet trains at 180 mph nonstop, nobody is going to take 24 hours to go from New York to California by train when they can get there in 6 hours by plane.

And the U.S. lifestyle is much more geared to suburban sprawl, whose low population density makes mass transit impossible and the only means of getting around is the family car. Which can only be powered by gasoline at this time.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 19, 2006 11:24 PM

>>>>>>>>>>I'm not afraid of getting my nose and ears cut off," she said, all dressed up in a long purple dress and headscarf. "I want to keep studying"

Storagemanager,let us not forget a paki architect was plotting a terrorist attack.What good came from the flight lessons jihadists underwent? The diabolical creatures ought not to be empowered,period.

The burkhaed and non burkhaed womenfolk would only spawn forth jihadists.Literacy/education is not going to metamorphose them into humane beings.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at June 19, 2006 11:45 PM

There was no hope for either afghanistan or iraq. They were on sharia, and they are now constitutionally on sharia. THAT is the only difference between then and now.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 19, 2006 11:51 PM

arjun.sevak,
Actually there was virtually no shari'a law at all in Iraq under Saddam who followed he Ba'athist system. Divorce and family law was completely secular and regarding what few rights anybody has in a dictatorship, women were officially guaranteed equality and more girls were in school than boys. In fact, Saddam had women in his cabinet.

Of course, there was always some shari'a in rural/tribal areas far away from government control but in Iraqi cities women went unveiled, movie theatres, discos, and even bars were not uncommon. I'm not defending Saddam as such. He was a blood-thirsty dictator but the Ba'athist system was a hell of a lot better for women, for Christians and for other religious minorities, than the system they live under now.

As for Afghanistan, it was always a primitive society with both local Shari'a and tribal customs. However, back when Zahir Shah was king, at least in the cities women could go unvieled, get an education, serve in parliament, and go to the doctor. The king also protected minorities such as the few Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians as well as the Ismaili followers of the Aga Khan who have no shari'a. This enlightened policy continued under Daoud.

Then the Soviets invaded and the US followed Pakistani and Saudi advice to empower the Islamist resistance and cut off leaders like Ahmed Shah Masood or anyone else that wasn't under the control of the Pakistani ISI. It appears the US is continuing this foolhardy policy.

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 20, 2006 7:49 AM

Threats of kidnappings, intimidation of female embassy staff into wearing abayas, sectarian tension within families, and more...

Then, if anyone defends themselves by killing the enemy before they are kidnapped, tortured, and murdered -- we will courtmarshall them back home and threaten them with the death penalty!

If you have troops in a war zone; and you have trained them for war; then either let them do their jobs or get out!

Posted by: witness at June 20, 2006 10:01 AM