296-Human Shields In Gaza | View Thread

Hezbollah leader urges Arab League to withdraw its ME peace process initiative; "Palestinians have only resistance to achieve liberation."

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that recent speeches by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered a knockout blow to the Arab peace initiative.

He urged the Arab League to withdraw its initiative for Middle East peace. “What have Obama and Netanyahu left for the Palestinian people, Palestinian Authority and Palestinians factions?” Nasrallah asked in a live speech via video link to a rally celebrating Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000.

“The Palestinians have only resistance to achieve liberation,” Nasrallah said.

For the first time since antigovernment protests began in Syria, Nasrallah urged Syrians to back President Bashar Assad’s regime and called on the Lebanese not to interfere.

Nasrallah, who had praised popular uprisings that overthrew the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year, said the fall of the Syrian government would “serve American and Israeli interests” since it would be replaced by a regime “ready to sign any peace, meaning surrender with Israel.”

Nasrallah said he believed Assad was serious about making reforms, in response to prodemocracy protests that have gripped the country for nine weeks and which have presented the gravest challenge to Assad’s 11-year rule.

“All indications and information until now still affirm that the majority of the Syrian people support this regime and have faith in President Bashar Assad and are betting on his steps towards reforms,” Nasrallah said.

“I personally believe... based on discussions and directly listening to President Bashar Assad, that he believes in reforms and is serious and committed...and is ready to take very big steps towards reforms.”

More critical analysis from the nation's leading legal mind on sharia law in America, David Yerushalmi.

New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States CSP

Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."

Key Findings:

• At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.

• At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.

• The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.”

• The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:

“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.

“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	Hezbbollah's Nasrallah: "Speeches By BHO & Netanyahu A Blow To Peace" 5/31/2011 2:35:26 PM
	Hello Friends, PM Benjamin's speech before the joint session of Congress caused great consternation in the PA and more of the same rhetoric we're used to from Abbas. First of all he demanded that Israel accept B Hussein's proposal (demand?) that the pre 1967 cease fire lines be the basis for the borders of the Palestinian state. When Netanyahu made it clear that the indefensible borders aren't part of the equation as far as Israel is concerned Abbas said that's the end of the peace talks. Yeah, B Hussein you did "good". Since then the Arab league is backing the PA and resolved that an independent declaration of a Palestinian state will be declared via the UN General Asembly. Not so easy a task since the security council has to approve any declaration and the United States most probably will veto the proposal. B Hussein won't have much choice after seeing the reaction of both houses during Netanyahu's speech even though doing so will go against the grain for him and be diametrically opposed to his Islamic agenda. The Iranian Mullah's are praising all the revolutions in what B Hussein calls the Islamic Spring and say that this is the start of the future caliphate. What is missing of course in their many announcements are any condemnation of the uprising in Syria. No mention whatsoever. Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah stated that Netanyahu's speech is the end of any chance for peace talks. What's even more amazing is that he includes B Hussein's speeches in the same basket. Even though B Hussein proposed/demanded that the pre 1967 cease fire lines be the basis for the borders of the Palestinian state and by doing so stab Israel in the back and throw her under the bus Nasrallah thinks he's being pro Israel rather then simply following through with his pro Palestinian stance and Islamic agenda. Another interesting part of his speech before the Hezbollah terrorist organization is his advice to the Syrian people to stand by Assad. This is simply a continuation of the Iranian support for Assad and his regime. The fact that both Hezbollah and the Iranian military forces were there and still are there assisting Assad is more proof that anything goes with this axis of evil. We saw the wholesale butchery and slaughter of the Iranian revolutionaries two years ago and again just recently and all B Hussein has to offer are sanctions that aren't very affective. The same thing is happening with Syria. B Hussein and other Western leaders are threatening them with sanctions and the killings continue. So much for the effectiveness of these so called sanctions. Yep, we're certainly seeing the "Islamic spring". The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining more power every day in Egypt. Al Qaeda is controlling parts of Yemen and Tunis. Al Qaeda forces are amongst the rebels in Libya and NATO and the US are in fact supporting them with arms and the air attacks. Just yesterday B Hussein said he might send in ground forces so the American military might end up fighting along side Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Sounds more like an Islamic h*ellhole then an Islamic spring and B Hussein is doing what he does best. Misread what's staring him in the face or even worse doing it all intentionally knowing very well what he's doing. Shalom, Peter Photo by: reuters Nasrallah: Speeches by Obama, PM are a blow to peace By JPOST.COM STAFF AND REUTERS 05/25/2011 19:17 Hezbollah leader urges Arab League to withdraw its ME peace process initiative; "Palestinians have only resistance to achieve liberation." Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that recent speeches by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered a knockout blow to the Arab peace initiative. He urged the Arab League to withdraw its initiative for Middle East peace. “What have Obama and Netanyahu left for the Palestinian people, Palestinian Authority and Palestinians factions?” Nasrallah asked in a live speech via video link to a rally celebrating Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000. “The Palestinians have only resistance to achieve liberation,” Nasrallah said. For the first time since antigovernment protests began in Syria, Nasrallah urged Syrians to back President Bashar Assad’s regime and called on the Lebanese not to interfere. Nasrallah, who had praised popular uprisings that overthrew the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year, said the fall of the Syrian government would “serve American and Israeli interests” since it would be replaced by a regime “ready to sign any peace, meaning surrender with Israel.” Nasrallah said he believed Assad was serious about making reforms, in response to prodemocracy protests that have gripped the country for nine weeks and which have presented the gravest challenge to Assad’s 11-year rule. “All indications and information until now still affirm that the majority of the Syrian people support this regime and have faith in President Bashar Assad and are betting on his steps towards reforms,” Nasrallah said. “I personally believe... based on discussions and directly listening to President Bashar Assad, that he believes in reforms and is serious and committed...and is ready to take very big steps towards reforms.”
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	HSIG - Geert Wilder's Final Remarks At His Trial In Amsterdam 6/1/2011 6/2/2011 4:50:09 PM
	Hello Friends, The below video with Geert Wilders and the video I'll be posting in my next post with Wafa Sultan show in different ways the dangers of Islam but they both come to the same conclusion . Sultan is an ex Muslim from Syria who is now living in the United States. She is a brave fighter against Islam and speaks all over the world explaining the many dangers of Islam to the Western world. Geert Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands for "hate speech". The prosecutors didn't think the case should be brought to trial but the courts thought differently after being pressured by Islamic groups in Holland and progressive left wing politicians. Just in the past few weeks the the prosecutors stated Wilder's should be acquitted. The trial was wrought with injustice when the court didn't allow Wilders to bring many witnesses to testify on his behalf proving that he was speaking only the truth and not hate speech (unless in the new order the truth is hate speech). The President of the court was heard at a private function speaking against Wilders. This was documented and reported in different online media and in the Dutch media. This alone shows that the court and its judges decided in advance that Wilders was "guilty" and that this a political trial backed by Islamic organizations and the progressive and radical left in Holland whose only objective is to destroy the freedoms of the people and protect Islam from those willing to speak out against this hate filled "religion" whose objective is world domination and restoring the Caliphate. I've posted many of Wilder's speeches in this thread and those of you that bothered to read and listen to them are aware that he is a courageous man and fighting for the freedom and liberties not only of the Dutch people but Western civilization as a whole. Freedom of speech is what's in danger of becoming a thing of the past and it's being felt in the United States as well. Below is Wilder's last words to the judges in his trial and below the text of his speech before the court. Shalom, Peter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjZEZggkkA Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, June 1, 2011 Mister President, members of the Court, I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I. I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers. All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle. Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today. We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom. That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak. The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted. Mister President, members of the Court, I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older. Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine. I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason. That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak. Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain. I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts. Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial. This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents. My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun. Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.” Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands. Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation. Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society. Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen. Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.” That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak. Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation. Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian ideology. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.” Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom. I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak. Thank you.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Wafa sultan - The Problems With Islam 6/2/2011 5:06:58 PM
	Hello Friends, In my previous post I mentioned Wafa Sultan who is a former Muslim and fled from her native Syria and now lives in the United States. She is a courageous fighter against Islam and warns in all her speeches about Islam's quest for world domination. She with many other ex Muslims who have the courage to speak the truth knowing that their lives are in danger are to be admired and all of us would be wise to heed their message. The below video has French sub titles but is in English. I would recommend that you listen to her and heed her warnings. Shalom, Peter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFN8ahYN1b0
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Andrew Klavan's "Klavan On The Culture's" Middle East Solution 6/4/2011 3:43:26 PM
	Hello Friends, Most of you already know I love good satire and in many case it shows the true situation in ways that your normal reporting either fails or totally ignores. The truth of the matter is that MSM does no reporting at all but deals in their personal views and commentary. The majority of us no longer even bother listening to some of the network greats (note the past tense) who've become the batboys of corrupt politicians and the progressive leftwing ruling party (at least for now). Many of us are depending more and more on alternative news sources and I stress the word NEWS to find out what is really happening in the world and locally. At least I am. Below is an interesting satire clip with Andrew Klavan that I think you might enjoy and by gleaning the points raised withing the clip understand the Middle East a little better. Shalom, Peter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Peter 1470 7259 Lod	RE: HSIG - Stealth Jihad More Dangerous Then Terrorist Jihad In The Long Term 6/4/2011 4:59:04 PM
	Hello Friends, In the past I've written about the different forms of Jihad. Many think that Jihad is only the actions of the terrorists but it goes much deeper then that and we're seeing the long term results of the different forms bearing fruit for extreme Islam. Part of jihad is the behind the scenes actions of the different Islamic organizations (like CAIR, MAS and others that are fronts for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood) that in the end cause those criticizing Islam and jihad to be called racists and Islamophobic. Nothing can be further from the truth but that's the imprint and atmosphere their lies are creating in our society unfortunately with the help of B Hussein, his administration and his lackey MSM. Stealth Jihad is one of the more dangerous forms of Jihad for the simple reason that it creeps up on you and you don't even know it's happening until it's to late. The fact that a person like Keith Ellison was elected and swore his oath of allegiance on the Koran means nothing since it's his right according to the Koran to lie to all of us non believers. It's taqiyyah and permissible. Even more important it's his duty as a devout Muslim to use it against all non believers. Brigitte Gabrielle explains it very well in the below video. Another form of stealth Jihad is the way the Muslims are force feeding the United States shariah law. We've already seem cases where judges used shariah law in order to pass judgment rather then the law of the land and the Constitution. I wonder if any of you truly understand how dangerous this is? If not think about it and decide whether you want to live in a country that treats women as chattel, kills gays, kill Christians, burns churches and the list goes on and on all in the service of Islam and the Koran. David Yerushalmi one of the leading legal minds on Shariah law in America did an analysis and found that there are 23 states in which Shariah law is involved in court cases. That my friends is frightening when you consider that the law of the land is not what will determine the fate of litigation but the primitive shariah law in its stead. Full details below. Thanks Atlas Shrugs. This is all happening in your back yards as I've been warning for years. Take heed and start voicing your disapproval before it's to late. Shalom, Peter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3P_2laSous David Yerushalmi: New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States More critical analysis from the nation's leading legal mind on sharia law in America, David Yerushalmi. New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States CSP Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases. Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections. On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed: "These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded." Key Findings: • At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level. • At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level. • The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct “Categories” of dispute: 21 cases dealt with “Shariah Marriage Law”; 17 cases involved “Child Custody”; 5 dealt with “Shariah Contract Law”; 3 dealt with general “Shariah Doctrine”; 2 were concerned with “Shariah Property Law”; 1 dealt with “Due Process/Equal Protection” and 1 dealt with the combined “Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody.” • The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina. Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases. Mr. Gaffney added: “This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country. “Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.” The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.
	Peter Fogel Babylon 7
	+0

Menu

Forums

Nasrallah: Speeches by Obama, PM are a blow to peace

Hezbollah leader urges Arab League to withdraw its ME peace process initiative; "Palestinians have only resistance to achieve liberation."

David Yerushalmi: New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States

Like us on Facebook!