Tag Archives: british

European children being forced to bow down to Islam…literally

European children being forced to bow down to Islam…literally

Islamization of the West

European children are being brainwashed into ‘respecting’ Islam with school-organized mosque visits and syllabuses that give undue prominence to a mythical Islamic ‘Golden Age.’

The picture below is from La Roche in France. The newspaper headline says “School pupils immerse themselves in Islam at La Roche mosque.”

Islam vs Europe
Here’s an excerpt from the British government website that provides information on the national curriculum. It describes a programme of lessons called “The Achievement of Muhammad (pbuh)” and discusses how to grade the childrens’ essays, quoting a few examples:

Over a number of lessons, the pupils had read and discussed texts about Muhammad’s (pbuh) life, covering his family’s reaction to his claims, as well as the reaction of people in Mecca and Medina. The pupils debated Muhammad’s (pbuh) achievements in groups and as a class.

As homework the teacher asked the pupils to answer the following assessment questions: Discuss the main events in Muhammad’s (pbuh) life that led others to believe he was a prophet from Allah (attainment target 1 beliefs, teachings and sources). What do you think Muhammad (pbuh) achieved in his life? (attainment target 2 meaning, purpose and truth).

Here are some excerpts from the children’s essays:

JOHN: I think the main events in Muhammad’s life which led others to believe he was a prophet were when he had a vision from Gabriel in a cave outside Mecca. Some may think that he could have made it up but I think he was telling the truth because he was so convinced and honest that it could well have happened. Also he has so much to back him up and he couldn’t have just made it all up. Personally I think Muhammad was a great man and he had much strength and courage to do what he did and he has only God to thank for that.”

ALEX: Muhammad achieved an extremely big thing in his life. Creating a religion is very hard but creating a religion that is the second biggest in the world is even harder.

LAURA: Muhammad left his country and moved to Medina. During his time there he saw how much hatred there was, so he took it upon himself to do something about it. He brought the Medinian and Meccan Muslims together, and got them working alongside each other. …He preached to people who believed in many gods ad whose lives were full of sin and united religions and differences… I believe spreading the news of what you believe in, and totally changing a country from bad to good is a great achievement in anyone’s life.

Here’s a photo from of a trip to a mosque where British female students are forced to bow down to Allah:

[Message to American parents from BNI: Your children may be subjected to the same kind of Islamic brainswashing in their schools. Make sure you know what/if they are teaching them about Islam and raise Hell with the school board at any hints of Islamic indoctrination. It has already happened in some US public schools and American parents have succeeded in getting it eliminated from the curriculum]

SOURCE

Charles Lindbergh: A Courageous American’s Prophetic Voice

Charles Lindbergh: A Courageous American’s Prophetic Voice

By Mark Weber

In May 1927, a shy, handsome 25-year-old suddenly sprang from obscurity to instant world fame when he flew a small single-seat, single-engine airplane, called the “Spirit of St. Louis,” from Long Island, New York, to an airfield in Paris. In a grueling 33-hour flight that covered 3,600 miles, Charles A. Lindbergh became the first person to fly the Atlantic ocean, alone and non-stop. His daring flight, and his aviation pioneering afterwards, made him, for some years, the most admired man in America, and the most admired American in the world.

During his lifetime he made a mark not only as a pioneering global aviator, but also as an award-winning author, environmentalist and anti-war activist. Given the scarcity of truly heroic Americans during the past century, he towers as a man of exemplary accomplishment and courage. He deserves to be remembered today not only as an authentic American hero, but also because much of what he wrote and said is relevant in our own age. Indeed, some of his remarks have proven to be prophetic.

Charles Lindbergh was born in 1902 of Swedish, English, Irish and Scottish ancestry. He grew up in Minnesota in a family that was accomplished and well educated. His father was an attorney, a writer, a publisher and a U.S. Congressman.

Lindbergh travelled widely in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as across the U.S. He met and spoke at length with many of the world’s most prominent personalities. And he carefully observed and thoughtfully remembered much of what he saw and experienced. During the 1930s he spent much time in Britain, France and Germany — three countries he admired. But he was particularly impressed by what he observed during his several visits to Germany in the years 1936 to 1939 — that is, during a period of dynamic change under the leadership of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Lindbergh did not approve of everything he saw there. In particular, he disagreed with the regime’s Jewish policy. All the same, he wrote at the time, he felt that Germany was “the most interesting nation in the world today, and that she is attempting to find a solution for some of our most fundamental problems.”

“While I still have many reservations,” he wrote to a U.S. Army officer who was also a personal friend, “I have come away with a feeling of great admiration for the German people. The condition of the country, and the appearance of the average person whom I saw, leaves with me the impression that Hitler must have far more character and vision than I thought existed in the German leader who has been painted in so many different ways by the accounts of America and England.”

In a letter to another American friend he wrote: “With all the things we criticize, he [Hitler] is undoubtedly a great man, and I believe has done much for the German people. He is fanatic in many ways, and any one can see that there is a certain amount of fanaticism in Germany today. It is less than I expected, but it is there. On the other hand, Hitler has accomplished results — good in addition to bad — which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.”

Lindbergh’s wife was Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a remarkable woman who was, in her own right, an accomplished aviator and a successful author. In a 1936 letter to her mother, she wrote: “Hitler, I am beginning to feel, is a very great man, like an inspired religious leader — and as such rather fanatical — but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and, on the whole, has a rather broad view.”

Charles Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.

The outbreak of war in September 1939 distressed him greatly, and he resolved to do what he could to help keep the U.S. out of the conflict. During the next two years — that is, until the United States formally entered the conflict in December 1941 — he spoke out in a series of public statements and speeches.

In an address given in mid-September 1939 that was broadcast on nationwide radio and widely circulated in written form, Lindbergh said: “We must keep foreign propaganda from pushing our country blindly into another war … We should never enter a war unless it is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our nation.

“These wars in Europe are not wars in which our civilization is defending itself against some Asiatic intruder. There is no Genghis Khan nor Xerxes marching against our Western nations. This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one more of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations — a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war — from the failure of the victors of that war to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or of force.

“As a result, another war has begun, a war which is likely to be far more prostrating than the last, a war which will again kill off the best youth of Europe, a war which may even lead to the end of our Western civilization.

“Our safety does not lie in fighting European wars. It lies in our own internal strength, in the character of the American people and of American institutions. As long as we maintain an army, a navy and an air force worthy of the name, as long as America does not decay within, we need fear no invasion of this country.”

A few weeks later, he spoke again to the American people in another coast-to-coast broadcast. “Our bond with Europe,” he said, “is a bond of race and not of political ideology… It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital; politics a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.”

Lindbergh laid out similar views in an article, “Aviation, Geography and Race” that appeared in the November 1939 issue of Reader’s Digest, the most widely read American monthly periodical. He wrote: “We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization … We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood …”

For many Americans today, Lindbergh’s views on race and culture may seem offensive or outrageous. But for most of this nation’s history, they were not at all unusual. They were in accord with the outlook of such prominent Americans as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Such views were also shared by the vast majority of Americans during the 1930s — although it was already becoming unfashionable to express them openly.

In his address of August 4, 1940, Lindbergh spoke about how Americans had been badly misinformed about conditions abroad. “I found conditions in Europe to be very different from our concept of them here in the United States,” he said. “Anyone who takes the trouble to read through back issues of our newspapers cannot fail to realize what a false impression we had of the belligerent nations. We were told that Germany was ripe for revolution, that her rearmament was a bluff, that she lacked officers, that she flew her airplanes from one field to another so they would be counted again and again by foreign observers … Statements of this sort have issued forth in an endless stream from Europe, and anyone who questioned their accuracy was called a Nazi agent. These examples show how greatly we have been misled about the military conditions in Europe. If one goes still farther back, he will find that we have also been misled about political conditions.”

In a much-publicized appearance before a Congressional committee in early 1941, Lindbergh testified against further U.S. measures toward war. As he had on other occasions, he voiced the hope that the conflict between Britain and Germany might be resolved through a negotiated peace, and he expressed his view that the U.S. should not “police the world.”

Active during this period was the largest and most important peace group in U.S. history. With some 800,000 members, the America First Committee was a formidable and broad-based citizens’ organization. Lindbergh was its most popular, eloquent and influential spokesman. At a large rally in New York City in April 1941, he appealed for support.

“ … We have been led toward war by a minority of our people,” he said. “This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people … These people — the majority of hard-working American citizens — are with us. They are the true strength of our country … That is why the America First Committee has been formed — to give voice to the people who have no newspaper, or news reel, or radio station at their command; to the people who must do the paying, and the fighting, and the dying, if this country enters the war.

“… If you believe in an independent destiny for America, if you believe that this country should not enter the war in Europe, we ask you to join the America First Committee in its stand. We ask you to share our faith in the ability of this nation to defend itself, to develop its own civilization, and to contribute to the progress of mankind in a more constructive and intelligent way than has yet been found by the warring nations of Europe.”

Lindbergh’s most controversial — and courageous — public address was given at a large meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941. (It was on that same date 60 years later that the World Trade Center in New York was attacked and destroyed.) In this speech, Lindbergh for the first and only time spoke publicly about just who was pushing for war. He said:

“National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany in 1939, less than ten percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

Lindbergh was careful to add these words: “I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.”

Lindbergh went on: “As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.”

With regard to Jewish efforts to get the U.S. into war, Lindbergh said: “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.” He then said: “We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own best interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

He went on to explain the deceitful measures of those who were pressing for war. “They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of, course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

“Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms `fifth columnist,` ‘traitor,’ `Nazi,’ `anti-Semitic’ were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. … Propaganda was in full swing.”

This address unleashed a torrent of scathing criticism. Lindbergh was viciously attacked — above all, for his remarks about the Jewish role in the campaign for war — even though what he has said was measured and truthful.

Ten months before the outbreak of fighting in Europe, for example, the most influential U.S. illustrated weekly magazine was already psychologically preparing Americans for war with alarmist claims that Germany threatened the United States. A major article in the October 31, 1938, issue of Life magazine, headlined “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan,” told readers that Germany and Italy “covet … the rich resources of South America,” and warned that “fascist fleets and legions may swarm across the Atlantic.”

In fact, Hitler and all other high-level German officials were eager to avoid conflict with the U.S., Britain or France. But in September 1939 Britain and France — encouraged by the U.S. — declared war against Germany.

During this period, President Roosevelt and other high-ranking U.S. officials also sought to generate public support for the administration’s war measures with frightening allegations of fantastic German plans to conquer the world.

On the very day that Lindbergh gave his controversial address in Des Moines, President Roosevelt told the American people that Hitler and Germany were seeking “to abolish the freedom of the seas, and to acquire absolute control and domination of the sears for themselves” as part of a grand German strategy that aimed at “domination of the United States … [and of] the Western hemisphere by force.” With this justification, the President went on to announce a “shoot on sight” order to the U.S. Navy against German and Italian ships in the Atlantic — a provocative and completely illegal war measure.

And in an address to the American people on October 27, 1941, President Roosevelt announced that he had a “secret map” that proved Hitler’s intention to take over all of South America and reorganize it into German-dominated states. The President also revealed that he had in his possession “another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions — Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike,” which Germany will impose “on a dominated world, if Hitler wins.”

Although millions of Americans believed these and similarly brazen falsehoods, seasoned foreign onlookers were not so credulous. One such observer was Poland’s ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki, who reported regularly to Warsaw on conditions in the United States. In a confidential dispatch of February 1938 — more than a year a half before the outbreak of war in Europe — he took note of the Jewish role in pushing for war.

“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful,” he wrote. “The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent … This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler who wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

… This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world’.”

In a confidential dispatch of January 9, 1939, the ambassador reported: “The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.”

The Polish envoy made similar points a few days later in his confidential report of January 12, 1939:

“The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world.

… The American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.”

Twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, Lindbergh published his Wartime Journals. In an introduction to the book, which prompted much discussion and comment, he looked back on the conflict and its legacy.

“We won the war in a military sense,” he wrote, “but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China – which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”

As daring as Lindbergh’s famous trans-Atlantic flight had been, he showed greater courage and devotion to principle in his bold campaign against war. “We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction,” he warned on September 11, 1941. If Americans had heeded those words, the U.S. would not have suffered the horrors of the 9/11 attack sixty years later.

— September 2011

For Further Reading / Sources

A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998)

Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and `The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown, 2008).

William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: 1950)

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (Arlington House, 1975)

Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh: A Biography (Doubleday and Co., 1976)

Walter S. Ross, The Last Hero: Charles A. Lindbergh (Harper & Row, 1968 )

Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (Chicago: 1952)

Mark Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign To Incite War in Europe.” 1982
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html )

Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” 1985/ 2010
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html )

Mark Weber, “The ’Good War’ Myth of World War II, and Why It’s Dangerous,” 2008
( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )

SOURCE

It’s not the brutality that is ‘systematic’. It’s the lying about it

Robert Fisk: It’s not the brutality that is ‘systematic’. It’s the lying about it

Iraqi prisoners held by 1QLR in 2003 in a photograph shown at the inquiry

Custom Search

It was Baha Mousa’s dad I will always remember. On an oppressively scorching day in Basra, Daoud Mousa first spoke of his son’s death, telling me how the boy’s wife had died of cancer just six months earlier, how Baha’s children were now orphans, how – not long after the British Army had arrested Baha Mousa and beaten him to death, for that is what happened – a British officer had come to his home and stared at the floor and offered cash by way of saying sorry.

“What do you think I should do?”
Daoud asked me. Get a lawyer, I said. Tell Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Let me write about it. When I called at the British base at Basra airport, one officer laughed at me. “Call the Ministry of Defence,” he said dismissively. He didn’t care.

I had spent years in Belfast, listening to the same kind of arrogant, vicious, indifferent reaction to the Army’s brutality. It was always the same. Terrorists. Terrorist propaganda. The extraordinary discipline of British squaddies under enormous pressure, etc, etc, etc. Then – when the game was up and the evidence too fresh and too overwhelming – I used to get what we would today call the “Abu Ghraib response“. A “few bad apples”. Always a “few bad apples”.

Hundreds of thousands of fine British soldiers behaving with exemplary courage and courtesy, in danger of their lives 24 hours a day – you will read this stuff in the usual newspapers today. They were the real victims of these “bad apples” – the actual victims, the 14 Catholic dead on Bloody Sunday in Derry, Baha Mousa in Basra, were the sub-victims who had somehow got in the way. They could be lied about.

Where did all these “bad apples” come from, I used to ask, along with their complacent, complicit officers? I recall the day the Gloucestershire Regiment ran amok in Belfast, smashing all the downstairs windows of a Catholic street just before they returned to Britain. Untrue, of course. Terrorist propaganda. Then a “few bad apples”. Was I on the side of the IRA? And so it went on. And on.

It wasn’t the brutality that was “systematic”. It was the lying that was systematic. In Northern Ireland, among the Americans after Abu Ghraib and Bagram and the black prisons and the renditions. Baha Mousa received 93 wounds. There was an inquiry, I was imperiously told. It was all sub judice.

Even the moment of Baha Mousa’s arrest has never been truly investigated. Colonel Daoud Mousa – for Baha’s father was a senior police officer, permitted by the British to carry a pistol and wear his blue uniform, hardly the father of a terrorist – actually saw his boy after his arrest, lying under orders on the floor of the hotel in which he worked.

The soldiers had found some weapons – perfectly normal in Basra where almost every household contained guns – but what the British didn’t want to talk about just then was that Baha had told his father that several British troops had opened the hotel safe and stuffed currency into their pockets.

That, Colonel Mousa believed, was the real reason he was killed. Baha had been a snitch. He was a witness to theft. The British officer in the hotel had told the colonel that his son would be returned to him safe and sound. Bullshit, of course. The 1st Battalion, The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment saw to that.

When I went to see one of Baha’s friends – newly released by his British killers – he appeared to have lost a kidney to the treatment he had received. He wept. His face was blue with bruises. Yes, this was my country which had done this. No comment. Call the Ministry of Defence.

Baha Mousa’s nose was broken. There was blood above the corpse’s mouth. The skin had been ripped off his wrists. According to his friend, Baha had been crying and pleading for his life from beneath his hood. “They gave us the names of footballers and cursed us with them as they attacked us,” he said.

The Brits did the same in Northern Ireland, I remember. Catholics would often tell me they were given the names of footballers before the beatings began.

A bit systematic, perhaps? “They were kick-boxing us in the chest and between the legs and in the back…” Baha’s friend said. “He kept asking them to take the bag off and said he was suffocating. But they laughed at him and kicked him more.”

And always there were screwball parallels from officers. We treat the Catholics a lot better than the French Paras treated the Algerians, an officer told me once near Divis Flats. We’re not as bad as Saddam. Nor Hitler, I’m glad to say.

My own Dad was a soldier, older than my Mum, fought in the Third Battle of the Somme, in the First World War, in 1918. He was in what was to become The King’s Regiment. Thank God it wasn’t The Queen’s.

The soldiers: Four men who ‘bear a heavy responsibility’

The 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment was handed control of Basra in July 2003. It was involved in tackling counter-insurgency and was praised for restoring order. QLR soldiers were at the centre of the first allegations of abuse against Iraqi soldiers by the Daily Mirror but the photos were withdrawn as fakes.

The inquiry identifies four soldiers who should “bear a heavy responsibility” for the death of Mr Mousa and injuries to nine other civilians.

Corporal Donald Payne was jailed for 12 months and discharged from the Army in 2006 after admitting inhumane treatment of Mr Mousa. Described as a “violent bully”, he conducted the “choir” which involved assaulting each man in turn.

Lt Craig Rodgers is held responsible for the breakdown in discipline including a “free for all” when soldiers took turns in kicking, punching, and slapping the hooded men. He did not face disciplinary action.

Major Michael Peebles was responsible for the welfare of the detainees but did not intervene. He was acquitted by the court martial.

Col Jorge Mendonca, the commanding officer, ought to have known about the violence and banned techniques being used. Charges against him were dropped at the court martial. The inquiry names 19 soldiers as responsible for inflicting violence. Those still serving could face disciplinary action; all could be subject to criminal or civil actions

SOURCE