Captured video shows Iranian involvement in Syrian civil war

Syrian rebels captured a video camera from an Iranian cameraman embedded with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, revealing the deep involvement of Iran in the fighting.
The authenticity of the video was confirmed by BBC experts and posted on their website.

The video was captured by the rebels in September and it shows an interview of an Iranian commander named Esmail Heydari saying that what is happening in Syria is not a civil war, but “one of Islam against the infidels. A war of good against evil.”

The Iranians are shown training a pro-Syrian government militia called the National Defense Force. These fighters were trained in Iran and thus they work together well since they understand each other, said the commander in the interview, adding that the Iranians also take part in the actual fighting as well.

One of the things the Iranians are doing, is setting landmines or roadside bombs along routes that the rebels use, said Heydari.

The video also shows a rapid reaction to a rebel advance as around 40 fighters are quickly mobilized and drive quickly to the point of contact. 

However, much to their surprise, the oncoming rebel forces outnumber them and the video goes silent as the sound of shooting approaches.

Two days after the battle, Iranian commander Heydari was buried in Tehran with military honors, according to the BBC report.


Jerusalem Post

EU Proposal to Monitor "Intolerant" Citizens

"Welcome" to Islam Europe


"There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant" — European Framework National 
Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, Article 4

"The supra-national surveillance that it would imply would certainly be a dark day for 
European democracy." — European Dignity Watch

While European leaders are busy expressing public indignation over reports of American espionage operations in the European Union, the European Parliament is quietly considering a proposal that calls for the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being "intolerant."

Critics say the measure -- which seeks to force the national governments of all 28 EU member states to establish "special administrative units" to monitor any individual or group expressing views that the self-appointed guardians of European multiculturalism deem to be "intolerant" -- represents an unparalleled threat to free speech in a Europe where citizens are already regularly punished for expressing the "wrong" opinions, especially about Islam.

The proposed European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance was recently presented to members of the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the only directly-elected body of the European Union.

The policy proposal was drafted by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a non-governmental organization established in Paris in 2008 by the former president of Poland, 

Aleksander Kwasniewski, and the president of the European Jewish Congress, Moshe Kantor.

The ECTR -- which describes itself as a "tolerance watchdog" that "prepares practical recommendations to governments and international organizations on improving interreligious and interethnic relations on the continent" -- includes on its board more than a dozen prominent European politicians, including former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar.

The ECTR first presented its proposal for a Europe-wide Law on Tolerance to the European Parliament in November 2008 as part of the European Week of Tolerance that marked the 70th anniversary of theKristallnacht, a night of anti-Semitic violence that began the Jewish Holocaust in Germany.

After five years of lobbying in Europe's halls of power, the ECTR proposal appears to be making headway, as evidenced by the European Parliament's recent decision to give the group a prominent 45-minute time slot to present its proposal to the Civil Liberties committee on September 17.

Also known as the "Model Statute for Tolerance," the ECTR's proposal was presented as part of the EU's ongoing work towards a new "Equal Treatment Directive" (ETD) that would vastly expand the scope of discrimination to all sectors of life in both the public and private spheres.

Critics of the ETD, currently being negotiated within the Council of the European Union, say the directive seeks to establish an ill-conceived concept of "equal treatment" as a horizontal principle governing the relationships between all and everyone, thus interfering with the right of self-determination of all citizens.

According to European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog based in Brussels,

The principles of freedom of contract and the freedom to live according to one's personal moral views are in danger of being superseded by a newly developed concept of 'equality.' It would undermine freedom and self-determination for all Europeans and subject the private life of citizens to legal uncertainty and the control of bureaucrats. It is about governmental control of social behavior of citizens. These tendencies begin to give the impression of long-passed totalitarian ideas and constitute an unprecedented attack on citizens' rights.

When viewed in the broader context of the ETD, the ECTR document is so audacious in scope, while at the same time so vague in defining its terminology, that critics say the proposal, if implemented, would open a Pandora's Box of abuse, thereby effectively shutting down the right to free speech in Europe.

According to Section 1 (d), for example, the term "tolerance" is broadly defined as "respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group." Section 2 (d) states that the purpose of the statute is to "condemn all manifestations of intolerance based on bias, bigotry and prejudice."

An explanatory note to Section 2 states: "Religious intolerance is understood to cover Islamophobia" but it provides no definition at all of "Islamophobia," a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s. If taken to its logical conclusion, Section 2 would presumably ban all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law, a key objective of Muslim activist groups for more than two decades.

The document also declares that "tolerance must be practiced not only by governmental bodies but equally by individuals." Section 3 (iv) elaborates on this: "Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the government to ensure that intolerance is not practiced either in vertical or in horizontal relationships."

According to Section 4 (f) (i) of the document: "There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned." Section 5 (a) states: "Tolerance (as defined in Section 1(d)) must be guaranteed to any group, whether it has long-standing societal roots or it is recently formed, especially as a result of migration from abroad."

Section 6 states: "It goes without saying that enactment of a Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance does not suffice by itself. There must be a mechanism in place ensuring that the Statute does not remain on paper and is actually implemented in the world of reality."

An explanatory note to Section 6 (a) states: "Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State." Another note adds: "The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance."

Section 6 (b) demands that every one of the 28 member states of the EU "set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute." An explanatory note adds: "The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility)."

Section 6 (c) calls for the establishment of a "National Tolerance Monitoring Commission as an independent body -- composed of eminent persons from outside the civil service -- vested with the authority to promote tolerance." An explanatory note adds: "The independent Commission will be empowered to express its views regarding implementation of the Statute by all concerned. Implementation in this context includes (but is not limited to) the imposition of penal sanctions."

Section 7 (a) states: "The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes: Incitement to violence against a group and group libel. "Group libel" is broadly defined as: "defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group or members thereof with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges."

Section 7 (b) states that "Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance." Paragraph 7 (e) states that "victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a) will have a legal standing to bring a case against the perpetrators, as well as a right to redress." Paragraph 7 (f) states that "free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity."

Section 8 states that "the government shall ensure that (a) Schools, from the primary level upwards, will introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity and promoting a climate of tolerance as regards the qualities and cultures of others." An explanatory note adds: "It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational program, i.e. in elementary school. Yet, these courses must be offered also at higher levels of education, up to and including universities."

Section 9 (a) states: "The government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their program to promoting a climate of tolerance." Section 9 (b) adds: "The government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance." Section 9 (c) states: "The government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission."

The document, if adopted by the European Parliament in its current form, would -- among other problems -- establish a right to a freedom from hurt feelings at the expense of the freedom of speech and expression. In practical terms, critics say, the highly subjective definition of terms and concepts such as "tolerance," "discrimination," "vulnerable," and "disadvantaged," amounts to a legal straitjacket that would encourage frivolous litigation aimed at silencing individuals and groups, or at finding circumlocutions that appear to avoid violating these principles.

"Faith-based groups and schools, adherents of a particular religion or even just parents who want to teach their children certain moral values would all be put under general suspicion of being intolerant," according to European Dignity Watch.

"Even worse, if enshrined as EU policy, such language also could lead to the possibility that charges are brought on unclear or even without legal grounds. The chilling result of this would be the dramatic diminution (and possible disappearance) of the fundamental freedom of expression -- individuals and groups would censor themselves, afraid that they might be prosecuted for expressing their own personal moral views," the NGO argues in a statement.

"The authors of this proposed statute -- under the aegis of an international NGO for tolerance and reconciliation -- have invited the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee to endorse it as a legal project. But not only would an adoption of this statute at the national level of the European states be a significant step backward," the statement concludes, "but the supra-national surveillance that it would imply would certainly be a dark day for European democracy."

source
----------

Egypt's Challenge: Writing a New Constitution

 "Egypt is now a real civil state. It is not theocratic, it is not military. It is democratic, free, constitutional, lawful and modern." — Former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, after his election.

Democracy is unfathomable because it allows the doctrine of Islam, and its followers, to co-exist equally with other religions and doctrines -- a societal demotion. That outcome cannot possibly be the one desired by those now drafting Egypt's constitution.

As Egyptians wait for the constituent assembly to produce the country's new foundational document, the world can only speculate as to how well the new draft will distinguish Egypt's future from its past. Article 2 of Sadat's 1971 constitution is the controversial point today. If its wording is written into the draft of Egypt's new constitution, all hope is lost for a modern renaissance sought by the uprising of January 2011. Article 2 spells out two critical foundational points which clash with the formation of democracy. Even if these Islamic measures are accompanied by words promoting liberty, equality and human rights elsewhere in the same writing, the use of Article 2 will present a huge problem for the liberal, secular, pro-democracy freedom movement.

Egypt is likely to receive a draft of the constitution, due before the end of this year, comprised of both liberal elements and Article 2 (or its essence). The explicit language of Article 2 states, since 1980, that the religion of the state is Islam and Sharia (Islamic religious law) is the source of state legislation. This substantiates a religious state. If Article 2 is transferred to the current draft, it will mean that the draft of the constitution draft is unsuccessful for the third time since Egyptians rebelled against authoritarianism and religious supremacy. Would this be a signal for the continuance of Egypt's already two-year old revolt against a political class using religion to accrue power?

The greatest contributor to the making of Article 2 and its formation of the deeply rooted Islamic state was former President Anwar Sadat. While Sadat's constitution promised free markets, individual freedom, democratic procedures and safeguards for an independent judiciary; other buried clauses granted his presidency complete power, and he used it to appropriate exclusive ownership of the state for Islam. In 1971Sadat replaced Egypt's 1954 constitution, moving the country away from the policies of socialism enacted by his predecessor, Nasser. Sadat used the help of Islamists who influenced the populace against socialism in accordance with Islamic beliefs. In return, Sadat added pro-Islam clauses to Egypt's constitution, making Islam the state religion, Arabic the official language and Sharia a source of Egyptian law (later changing "a source" to "the source"). As such, Sadat encouraged Islamists to lay claim to Egypt.

The key to Sadat's success was "Islamic duality" -- a political doctrine of deception based upon the Hadith [tales of the life of Muhammed] and the Sira [Mohamed's biography] in which the Prophet teaches that to advance Islam, it is permissible to lie in three cases: to a wife, to a friend and to an enemy. We shall likely see this again with the forthcoming constitution. Envision the following scenario. Upon receiving the draft, Egyptians will wait for constitutional experts in the media to fully explain and challenge it in the period of time between its issuance and the popular referendum vote to approve it. The populace will be incapable of comprehending the full implications of the extensive fine print inside the sugar coating of human rights and freedom-sounding words. Meanwhile, assembly committee members assigned to write separate draft sections will hawk their special wares to the country, selling Sharia and selling democracy.

Egyptians have no reason to believe that democratic words written into their constitution will not as readily be written out or abrogated by articles within the same text. But dissatisfaction will be delayed; the draft will come to a vote and be approved. Disillusionment will set in sometime after the draft becomes official and the new constitution is in use. The reality of another wave of civilization jihad will hit Egyptians when they face serious roadblocks to equality and human rights. The populace, no longer illiterate and trusting as in the time of Sadat but now fearless and determined, will fill the streets and squares; clashes will continue to keep the revolution alive. This is the real miracle for Egypt -- the transformation taking place in the hearts and minds of the people sustaining an ongoing rebellion. Egyptians are no longer infected with the indoctrination of "democracy equals evil" transmitted by the policies and propaganda of past dictators which bonded the populace to the rise of the Egyptian Islamic state. Nor will Egyptians any longer be dragged along by the stick and carrot – this barrier has been broken.

Over decades Egypt's presidents – Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak – systematically created today's culture of Islam's embedded power and privilege. Egypt's interim government and constituent assembly is derived from the permanent and prosperous institutional state. Democracy is unfathomable because it allows the doctrine of Islam, and its followers, to co-exist equally with other religions and ideologies -- a societal demotion. That cannot possibly be the desired outcome of those now crafting Egypt's constitution. The two extreme viewpoints of the assembly's 50 appointees are provided by ultra-conservative clerics and pro-democracy liberals. But the majority of members will aim for the status-quo and to salvage and sanitize the face of Islam ruined by the Morsi regime's push toward Sharia.

Islam's image is damaged due to the regressive religious politics of the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] and Morsi's terrorist administration which left a sour taste. Ousting Morsi and his regime, the masses spoke loud and clear regarding the Islamiists' experiment in Egypt. Intolerance will not be tolerated.

Representatives from the Coptic Church make up about five percent of the constituent assembly and include bishops. The invitation from the interim government to the church illustrates that Egypt continues to play up the importance of religion as opposed to equality and freedom of religion. In a country where religious identity cards are carried by every citizen and double standards and discrimination throughout society are based on it, it is disappointing to see the same game being played now at the critical moment of laying the foundation for expunging these prejudices. So far, the bishops in the assembly have been concentrating on protecting church doctrine, sensing that Islam will remain supreme at the completion of this "democratic" constitution.

The cultural mindset is inescapable. The system and its corruption must also be defeated. Freedom fighters must be vigilant for years to come, develop a strong leadership and continually stage protests to keep the momentum. Gradualism, at best, will be the method of democracy-building in Egypt for generations to come.

The major achievement of the January 2011 freedom uprising has been to force the writing of Egypt's constitution before presidential and parliamentary elections take place – a huge feat for the Egyptian freedom movement. After more than two years of sacrifice, bloodshed, various false starts, and a surprising alliance with Egypt's military, a coalition of 30 million individuals in the name of freedom matures daily in the process -- equipping themselves with ever greater courage and the tenacity required for the long-term.

by Ashraf Ramelah
source

Report: Holocaust memorabilia found on eBa

LONDON - EBay has removed from its listings around 30 items of memorabilia from the Nazi Holocaust, including clothes worn by concentration camp victims, after a newspaper investigation discovered they were on sale on the e-commerce website, Britain's Mail on Sunday said.

The newspaper said its reporters found a range of items on the site over the past week, including what was presented by the vendor as a complete Auschwitz uniform worn by a Polish baker who perished in the Nazi death camp.

The Mail on Sunday said it had alerted eBay and that the online auctioneer had removed 30 items from sale and offered to make a donation of 25,000 pounds ($40,000) to a suitable charity.

In a statement, eBay said: "We are very sorry these items have been listed on eBay and we are removing them. We don't allow listings of this nature, and dedicate thousands of staff to policing our site and use the latest technology to detect items that shouldn't be for sale.

www.jpost.com

Sounds Israeli: Tom Jones – Delilah – Tel Aviv – BDS Fail

Well done. Tom Jones, thank you for singing in Israel

Tom Jones shrugged off an especially anemic BDS campaign, and performed in front of a packed house at the Nokia Stadium in Tel Aviv last Saturday, fifteen years after his last show in the Jewish state.

Here’s the ‘Welsh wizard’ performing his hit, Delilah. 

Just for fun, here’s the original recording of his song in 1968:

 




source

DHS Adviser Tweets: America ‘an Islamic country’

 

A member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Advisory Council is under fire for tweeting on Thursday that America is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”

Mohamed Elibiary, a member of DHS’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), made the controversial claim on Thursday while arguing on Twitter.

A Twitter user who identified himself as Tim Lee asked Elibiary to “show me just ONE example of an Islamic country where non Muslims are treated with equality.”

Elibiary responded: “America and yes I do consider the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution. Move On!”

The online argument began after Elibiary accused America’s “right wing” of having an issue with Muslims and advised conservatives to “evolve.”

Elibiary went on to say that “sociologically speaking” the Christian right is “similar” to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is not the first time that his tweets, which he says are his personal opinions, have become the subject of controversy.

Elibiary argued earlier this month that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat to the United States, according to the nonprofit Clarion Project, which has tracked and documented Elibiary’s online activity.

He also has called former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi “Egypt’s Mandela,” a reference to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela.

Elibiary has expressed great support for the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming in a recent interview with Clarion that the organization is “pragmatic” and “non-violent.”

Supporters of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood have been cited for a range of violent crimes before and after the fall of Morsi, including the desecration of churches and other abuses.

“I believe that MB and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, has by and large acted responsibly, if not always effectively, during the democratic transition period that Egypt is in the very early stages of,” Elbiary told Clarion.

Elibiary has served on the DHS’ “Countering Violent Extremist Working Group,” as well as its “Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.”

Elibiary’s critics say that someone with his views should not be advising DHS, the country’s chiefcounter-terror agency responsible for advising local governments across the country.

“This isn’t just a foreign policy issue,” said Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for the Clarion Project. “Elibiary’s beliefs are reflected in DHS training guidelines that leave counter-terrorism personnel unaware that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood even exists.”

Neither Elibiary nor a DHS spokesperson responded to a Washington Free Beaconrequest for comment.

DHS was engulfed in controversy earlier this year when an employee was put on administrative leave for operating a website promoting race wars.

Media reports showed that Ayo Kimathi, formerly an acquisitions officer at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, was the proprietor of “War on the Horizon,” a website that trafficked conspiracy theories and criticized the mixing of races.

This entry was posted in National Security and tagged DHS, Muslim Brotherhood, terrorism. Bookmark the permalink.

The Washington free Beacon 

Iran: 'Death to America' is Still our Slogan

As annual "Grand Day of Death to America" approaches, Revolutionary Guards say US is still the "Great Satan."

Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and a prominent cleric say that the slogan "death to America" will be sounded on November 4, the country's annual "Grand Day of Death to America," which coincides with the anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

The "Death to America" slogan has been chanted for more than three decades at state events, including Friday Prayers.

There have been calls to refrain from the chants, in view of Iran's recent attempts to convince the world that it has become more moderate, and the thawing of relations with the US. However, Tehran's Provisional Fridayprayers leader, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, said on Friday that the Islamic Republic would continue talks with the US, while simultaneously using the slogan "Death to America."

"The representatives of the European Union say they pursue talks and [exert] pressure at the same time, [so] we too [will] push ahead with talks and the 'Death to America' slogan at the same time," Ayatollah Khatami was quoted as saying by state media.

News agency Fars quoted an official statement by the IRGC that said, "The slogan 'Death to America' reflects the Islamic doctrine of resistance to imperialism, and also symbolizes Iran's strength."

The statement, which appears on the official IRGC website, says that the slogan "Death to America" will continue to reflect Iran's world view for a long time to come, and that it will be used during the "Grand Day of Death to America."

The IRGC explained that the statement still holds true because the US "is still the Great Satan and the first enemy of the Iranian nation."

Arutz 7