Guest Editorial: 'Honor' Killings: A Tale of Two Cities

GMT 2-19-2007 15:13:37
Assyrian International News Agency
To unsubscribe or set email news digest options, visit http://www.aina.org/mailinglist.html

(AINA) -- Baghdad: Iraqi Soldiers raid the house of Luana, a 22 year-old Assyrian Christian, on pretense of searching for insurgents. Luana lives with her brother, her family having immigrated to Sweden. Her brother is not home at the time of the raid. The soldiers ask unusual questions, give her strange looks. Two days later one of the soldiers returns, enters her home, places his hand over her mouth and threatens to wait for her brother and kill him if she makes a sound. He drags her to the bedroom and rapes her. When finished, he instructs her not to file a police report else he will kill her brother.


When Luana's brother Khalil returns that night she tells him everything. He immediately brings her to the police station and reports the incident. The police are uncooperative; after two hours the brother and sister return home despondent, knowing the rapist will not be brought to justice. Luana says, "Khalil cried more than me because he couldn't believe that his sister had suffered such abuse while he was away and the rapist would not be charged." (read the story in her own words ).


Damascus: 16 year-old Zahra, a Muslim, dies at a hospital in Damascus. Having discovered that her father was involved in an extra-marital affair, a family "friend" blackmailed Zahra into running away with him, threatening to expose her father and have him killed.She agreed to go with him. Her family pursued them, but the police found them first. They arrested the man, and he faces 15 years in jail for the kidnapping and rape of a minor. Zahra was placed in a shelter for nine months, during which her family attempted to regain custody of her three times. The shelter refused on the grounds that the family could not guarantee her safety.


The family asked a cousin to marry Zahra, to "restore her honor." The cousin agreed. When both families came to the shelter to formalize the marriage, her father signed a sworn statement guaranteeing that neither he nor anyone in the family would harm Zahra. They married and moved into an apartment. One month later Zahra's brother came to visit and on the third day, when the husband was away and as Zahra slept, he stabbed her (read the full story here ).


What Civilization Do You Belong To?


I can think of no clearer example of this, the stark contrast between Christendom and Caliphate, Christianity and Islam, than the above stories. Both Assyrians, who have been Christians since 33 AD, and Arabs/Muslims, are from the Middle East, yet the diametrically opposite reactions of the brothers in these cases can only be explained by their religion.


What does the Assyrian brother do? He follows the example of his master and the teachings of his faith, he shows compassion, he loves his sister unconditionally; he loves her for who she is, as an individual. What does the Arab brother do? He follows the example of his master and the teachings of his faith, he shows no mercy, he loves her conditionally, so long as she does not bring "shame" to the family; he does not look at her as an individual, she is property of the family and can be disposed of if she becomes a liability.


The Assyrian brother takes his case to the police, trusts in the rule of the law of the State, even though it fails him. The Arab father signs an oath and breaks it, putting Islamic law and vigilante justice above the law of the land.


The basis of Western civilization is in Christianity. Jesus Christ was the first feminist. What more powerful examples can there be than that of Mary and Mary Magdalene? Jesus was the first secularist. He understood the distinction between Caeser and Heaven. Contrast that with the abject treatment of women in Islam, where a man is allowed to marry four and one half women (a black woman counts as one half), where Muhammad, at the age of 53, consummated his marriage to Aisha at age 9 (the basis of the current law in Iran that allows marrying a girl as young as 9). As for secularism, in Islam there is no such thing, the State is the religion and the religion is the State.


An Assyrian born in Baghdad will have more in common with an American, a European, an Australian, a Canadian, a New Zealander -- to wit, anyone from Christendom (the West) -- than with an Arab/Muslim, even though he comes from the same land as the Arab, because he is raised with the same Christians values that are the basis of Western civilization. We tend to take these values -- freedoms and liberties, I call them -- for granted, but we must realize that we can lose them if we allow our civilization to be overrun.


We are in a protracted struggle with Islam for our very civilization. Each one of us must ask: to what civilization do I belong? What am I willing to do to defend my way of life? Am I prepared to accept living under Sharia (Islamic law)? These are not esoteric and fanciful questions, the struggle has been hoisted upon us; the challenge has been given. Many people in the West understand what is at stake, many don't; many (particularly on the Left) are either dumb-struck, like a deer blinded by a bright light, or have a vitriolic hatred of the West and Christianity, the very civilization that gave them life and the liberty to be "above it all." To this last group I say, if you hate your civilization so much, go live in Saudi Arabia.


This is not a Republican or Democratic, Left or Right issue. If we lose our civilization, if the West falls, there will be no Republicans or Democrats, no Left or Right to speak of. This struggle transcends all ideologies within the West.


We must prevail in this struggle not only to save our way of life, but to save the Muslims from the tyranny of their religion, to bring them to a better life, to make sure that "honor" killings and all other nefarious Muslim practices (such as female genital mutilation) are never heard of again.

By Ashur Shirsha

Ashur Shirsha, an Assyrian from Iraq, is a contributing columnist to AINA. He lives in Prague.
?
Views and opinions expressed in guest editorials do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of AINA. Guest Editorial Policy .
This item is available as: html | pdf

Copyright (C) 2006, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.

Mitt Romney: Too Good to Be True?
By Jonathan Darman and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
Feb. 26, 2007 issue - There is something a little too good to be true about Mitt Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is so buff and handsome in late middle age that when a brochure from a recent campaign showed him standing, bare-chested, on a swimming float, he was accused of sexually pandering to women voters. Romney, who is still married to his high-school sweetheart, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke and doesn't swear. His wife has said that, in private, he never even raises his voice.

As a candidate, he can appear slightly overproduced, a little too smooth for the hurly-burly of the hustings. Lately, Romney has been courting the evangelical vote, key to winning Republican primaries. He knows that some evangelicals regard his religion, Mormonism, as heresy (according to the National Journal, more than a quarter of self-identified evangelicals tell pollsters that they won't vote for a Mormon). So last week, at a lackluster rally in the Bible belt of South Carolina where maybe 300 people half-filled an auditorium, Romney was trying, a bit unctuously, to show his down-home piety. As the crowd trickled out, Romney, his voice still at full decibel from his stump speech, grabbed the hand of state Rep. Bob Leach, a Baptist. "This man," proclaimed Romney, "his prayers bring down the power of the Lord!"

Romney's campaign aides like to stress that he is a "turnaround" artist. They are referring to Romney's great success at salvaging failing companies as a venture capitalist in the 1980s and '90s and his near-miraculous rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from scandal and debt. The label carries the promise that Romney could reverse the fortunes of the GOP and the nation after the Bush years. But Romney's turnaround on the burning social issues of gay rights, stem-cell research and abortion has raised questions about the candidate's sincerity—a dangerous doubt at a time when voters seem to crave authenticity. In Massachusetts, as an unsuccessful Senate candidate in 1994 and in his winning race to become governor in 2002, Romney cast himself as liberal-to-moderate on social issues. But as Romney aims for the conservative Republican votes he will need to secure the presidential nomination, he has emerged as staunchly pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Was he, his critics ask, pretending then? Or is he pretending now?

Romney says he's always told the truth. On gay rights, he says, his basic views have not changed; rather, the political and cultural landscape has shifted. He still opposes discrimination against gays, but he does not favor recognizing gay marriage. "I never in a million years thought that we would have people of the same gender being told that they have a constitutional right to marry," Romney says. On the right to life, he did experience a turning point, he says, when he had to consider directly the morality of destroying human embryos in stem-cell research. In the wake of the failed presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Romney is well aware of the risks that a reputation for flip-flopping can pose to a national candidate. Questioned by NEWSWEEK about his apparent shifts on social issues, Romney grew uncharacteristically testy and said he'd rather be talking about "jihad, Iran and China." Questions about Romney's evolving views on abortion and gay rights could be a bigger issue with evangelicals than Romney's Mormonism, says Mark DeMoss, a Christian media strategist who's done evangelical outreach for the Romney campaign. A reconstruction of how Romney changed his views does not seriously challenge Romney's account of the evolution of his thinking, but it does suggest that political timing, as much as moral virtue, may have been on his mind.

Romney is not the sort of person who reveals inner doubt. Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, who has worked closely with Romney in business and politics, talks about Romney's "calmness" and "serenity." Over more than a decade, says Weld, "I've seen him laugh nervously a couple of times, maybe." Romney can be stiff. "He's a terrible joke teller," says Weld. "He thinks he's funny but he's not." And yet Weld, a moderate Republican who disagrees with Romney on abortion and gay rights, backs him for president: "I take him at his word. He is a straight shooter."

Romney is hardly the first Republican presidential candidate to be accused of expediency on social issues. Both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush moved to the right on abortion. A successful politician knows when to make compromises without appearing to abandon his or her dignity or moral compass. Romney's lifetime shows a history of getting along and going along—but also a capacity for boldness and an almost ruthless willingness to force change.

Romney grew up in the privileged, WASPy bastion of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., where he attended an elite prep school, Cranbrook; he matriculated to Stanford. His father, Gov. George Romney, played speed golf in the morning (shades of George H.W. Bush) and otherwise projected a comfortable, country-club Republicanism. But the father could be unusually blunt: he was driven from the 1968 presidential campaign when he admitted that he had been essentially "brainwashed" by the military on Vietnam. Young Romney always said that he never felt pressure to become a politician; on the other hand, when he was 14, his father would drive him to crowded parking lots and then sit in the car and watch his son gather signatures supporting his dad. After his freshman year at Stanford, Mitt left sunny California to do his Mormon mission in a grimy, industrial suburb of Paris, where he converted very few secularized Roman Catholics. He then transferred to Brigham Young University to marry his high-school love, who was attending the school, and whom Romney had been zealously pursuing since they were teenagers.

At Harvard Business School, not a few of Romney's peers tagged him—and not another classmate, George W. Bush—as a true politician. Romney went off to make a fortune as a businessman, but he showed the kind of drive and enormous self-confidence that would suit him well as an aspirant for higher office. When one of his partners at Bain Capital in Boston went to Romney with frightening news—that the partner's teenage daughter had vanished after a rock concert in New York—Romney swung into action. He closed down the company for a few days and put his partners and staffers on a chartered plane to New York, where they organized a massive search. The missing girl was soon found.

Romney has never been dogmatic. In the business world, his method was to remain open-minded, study the facts—and then do whatever it took. "He's not unwilling to have his mind changed," says Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay and a Romney friend who worked with him at Bain in the '80s. "He's very comfortable with blurry, gray areas." When he took over the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, he immediately cut out the lavish meals and travel boondoggles. "We're going to have pizza and it's a dollar a slice," he announced. He charged executives 25 cents for a soda and had meals served on paper plates. Romney himself worked without a salary. The message got through: the organization went from deep in the red into the black by the close of the Games.

Romney was probably not thinking all that hard about controversial social issues when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994. His attitude seemed to be, "You want me to talk about abortion? How about mergers and acquisitions?" says Democratic operative Tad Devine, who worked on the Kennedy campaign. (At the time Romney said he'd taken the abortion issue seriously since his 20s, when a relative had died in an illegal abortion.) Romney was influenced by Rich Tafel, then the executive director of the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans. At a three-hour meeting early in the '94 campaign, Tafel tells NEWSWEEK, he suggested that Romney be even more supportive of gay rights than Kennedy. Romney did so, writing letters and talking publicly about his support for selected gay issues. "No one supported gay marriage then," says Tafel.

Romney can place a date on the moment he took a stand against gay marriage. On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld gay marriage in the commonwealth. Romney's chief counsel, Daniel Winslow, recalls printing out the decision and carrying it to the governor's corner office. "It was as though he'd been punched in the solar plexus," Winslow tells NEWSWEEK. "I think he was stunned—and it was genuine, too, because it was in private." Romney was reacting against liberal judicial activism as well as taking a position against gay marriage, say his advisers, who do not wish to be identified discussing the candidate's thinking. The gay community is skeptical, as gay-activist blogger John Aravosis puts it, that Romney could go from claiming "he's better than Teddy Kennedy on gay rights" to being "right of Jerry Falwell." "You don't get to be both of those unless something wild happened in your life," says Aravosis. "But Romney doesn't have anything to point to. If the Virgin Mary came down and spoke to him, maybe."

Romney had a "Road to Damascus moment" on stem-cell research, says his son Taggart, 36. As Romney himself has described the incident in interviews, in November 2004 he met with a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. The scientist told him, "Look, you don't have to think about this stem-cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days." (The scientist, Dr. Douglas Melton, has disputed Romney's account; a Harvard spokesman says "the words 'kill' and 'killing' are not in Dr. Melton's professional vocabulary.") Taggart tells NEWSWEEK his father "had a genuine change of heart" that pushed him from tolerating pro-choice laws to wanting to change them. Though Romney had long been "personally pro-life," says Taggart, Romney had always told his son, "Listen, I don't want to impose my values and beliefs on other people." But after the Harvard stem-cell meeting, Romney became a true believer on trying to protect all human life from the moment of conception. "He felt so strongly that Roe v. Wade was a having a negative impact on the country, and cheapening life, he said, 'You know what, this is something that has to change'," Taggart says. Romney promptly came out against stem-cell research and vetoed a July 2005 bill making available Plan B, or "morning after" contraception.

Romney's timing was, at the very least, fortuitous for his political ambitions. In November 2004, the Republicans lost three seats in the Massachusetts Legislature, making even steeper Romney's uphill climb against the Democratic-dominated state house. Some foes, as well as a few friends, speculated that Romney was beginning to eye a grander stage. By early 2006, he was openly talking about running for president—and beginning to emphasize his rightward tilt on the social issues.

Romney may ultimately win over doubters on the right. "There is a subtle prejudice in that flip-flop charge," says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. "People who are liberal can't understand why someone might move from a more-liberal position to a more-conservative position. Conservatives don't see it that way. They see it as someone who has seen the light." Christian media strategist DeMoss notes that evangelism is all about conversion, so, he says, "we accept an evangelical's conversion if he told us it happened this morning."

Romney's reputation as a family man with a wife of 37 years and five proud sons will also help with conservatives. Among top-tier candidates, Romney is more appealing to the Christian right than John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Romney is beginning to get some important backers, too: he has the political machine of former Florida governor Jeb Bush behind him, an immensely important asset if, as predicted, Florida moves up its primary. (Bush's parents, George H.W. and Barbara, are said to be fond of Romney.) Romney may not be a funny man (though he loves "The Three Stooges"), but he can be a deft debater. When his opponent in the 2002 governor's race, Shannon O'Brien, accused him of pandering to pro-choice voters, she quoted Ted Kennedy's crack that Romney's not "pro-choice, he's multiple choice." He hit back by calling her "unbecoming," i.e., unladylike. "He did a masterful job of turning me into the overly aggressive female who couldn't get off that point," says O'Brien. But most important will be Romney's capacity for working through difficult challenges. Bill Weld recalls that as a businessman, Romney would come into a failing company "and turn everyone upside down and shake their pockets until all the facts came out." Romney, who dislikes running even a minute late, will bring the same relentlessness to his campaign operation. He will not hesitate to change personnel—or policy positions—in his search for a winning formula.

With Daniel McGinn and Samantha Henig in Boston and Holly Bailey, Eve Conant and Eleanor Clift in Washington

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17202400/site/newsweek/

February 14, 2007
Sunni vs. Shi'a: It's Not All Islam
By Ralph Peters

Among the worst members of the it's-all-a-conspiracy pack are those who insist that every Muslim is in on a vast Jihadi conspiracy to make Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks wear a chador (not a bad idea, aesthetically speaking). But those most anxious to condemn Islam in its entirety skip over annoying facts: Overwhelmingly, the victims of Islamist terror have been other Muslims; even the Taliban or the Khomeinist regime never rivaled the Inquistion's ferocity; and Europeans, not Muslims, long have been the heavyweight champions of genocide (with the Turks a distant runner-up).

All monotheist religions have been really good haters. We just take turns.

But the biggest obstacle to establishing the Caliphate in California is that Shi'a "Islam" never bought into the Caliphate at all. At bottom, it's a different religion from Sunni Islam. They're not just different branches of a faith, as with Protestantism and Catholicism, but separate faiths whose core differences are more-pronounced than those between Christians and Jews.

Technically, Sunni militants are correct when they label the Shi'a "heretics." Persians and their closest neighbors, with long memories of great civilizations, were never comfortable with the crudeness of Arabian Islam--which the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss aptly called "a barracks religion."

The struggle has never ended between the ascetic, intolerant Bedouin faith of Arabia, with its fascist obsession on behavior, and the profound theologies of Persian civilization that absorbed and transformed Islam. While Shi'ism only prevailed in Persia within the last millennium (nudging out Sunni Islam at last), "Aryan" Islam had long been shaped by Zoroastrianism and other ineradicable pre-Islamic legacies.

Persians made the new faith their own, incorporating cherished traditions--just as northern Europeans made Christianity their own through Protestantism. It's illuminating to hear Iran's president rumor the return of the Twelfth Imam, since the coming of that messiah figure is pure Zoroastrianism, with no connection to the Koran or the Hadiths.

Even the rhetoric of Iran's Islamic Revolution, condemning the U.S. as the "Great Satan" divided the world into forces of light and darkness--Zoroaster again, as well as Mani, the dualist whose followers we know as "Manicheans." Iranians excitedly deny such pre-Islamic influences--then worship at the ancient shrines of re-invented saints, celebrate the Zoroastrian New Year, and incorporate fire rites into social events.

The Prophet's attempt to discipline Arabian hillbillies produced a faith ill-fitted to Persia's complex civilization--or to Mesopotamian Arabs, who despised the illiterate desert nomads. Islam was bound to change as it occupied this haunted real estate.

What we've gotten ourselves involved in today is an old and endless struggle between the desert and the city, between civilization and barbarism. Long oppression may have made Shi'ism appear backward, but it's inherently a richer faith than Sunni Islam. With its End-of-Times vision, founding martyrs and radiant angels, its mysticism and wariness of the flesh, Shi'ism is closer to Christianity than check-list Sunni Islam ever could be.

Further confounding the strategic situation, there are other, parallel struggles within Shi'ism and Sunni Islam. Over the centuries, both faiths developed sophisticated urban classes that are now under assault, as they periodically have been, by intolerant simplifiers preaching the reform-school Islam of seventh-century Arabia.

Simultaneously, there's been some bizarre cross-fertilization: Osama bin Laden, a Sunni who hates the Shi'a more fiercely than he does Americans, has grafted a Shi'a End-Of-Days vision onto Sunni Islam. Meanwhile, the mullahs who locked down Iran obsess about behavior--a Sunni approach to faith--at the expense of Shi'ism's tradition of inner luminosity (in the Sunni world, the persecuted Sufis were the mystics).

We're a fringe player in multiple zero-sum struggles: Persian Zoroastrianism in Muslim garb vs. Bedouin fascism; multiple insurgencies within the Sunni global campaign to re-establish the Caliphate; an interfaith competition to jump-start an apocalypse; an old ethnic struggle between Persians and Arabs; and a distinctly Zoroastrian struggle between good and evil (alert the White House).

Many will reflexively reject this interpretation of Shi'ism and Sunni Islam as two separate faiths with profoundly different inheritances. Blog Bedouins and "scholars" alike will feel threatened. That's part of our problem: We're often as close-minded as our enemies. The greatest power in history thinks small.

As I remarked to an Arab-American friend last week, faiths are like bad neighbors--they borrow a great deal, then deny it. There is no such thing as a pure faith today. All have been influenced by their predecessors and peers, by internal evolutions and their historical environments. But even individuals who reject such a view when it comes to their own faith do themselves no favors by refusing to contemplate Islam's complexity.

What does all this mean to us? First, wherever there are irreconcilable differences, there are strategic opportunities. Second, our insistence on seeing the Middle East through the eyes of yesteryear's failed statesmen has been disastrous--we need to reinterpret the Muslim world.

Third, we've entered a new age when all the great faiths are struggling over their identities. As the religions most-immediately besieged, Shi'ism and Sunni Islam are the noisiest and, for now, the most-violent. But all faiths are in crisis--even as every major faith undergoes a powerful renewal.

In my years as an intelligence analyst, I consistently made my best calls when I trusted my instincts, and I was less likely to get it right when I heeded the arguments around me. Today, those surrounding arguments damn Iran.

My instincts tell me our long-term problem is with Arab Sunnis, whose global aspirations have veered into madness. We have a problem with the junta currently ruling Iran, but not with Persian civilization. Meanwhile, the Bedouin fanaticism gripping so much of the Middle East has no civilization.

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Never Quit The Fight.”
© 2000-2007 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

The big question being debated today in the US Congress is a resolution to oppose President Bush's SURGE strategy to bring a sense of security in the sectarian/civil war torn captial of Iraq. Whether or not this is sustainable is open to debate depending on who one talks to.

My military sources who are on the ground or have direct contact with them, have a common theme that the Iraqi Army continues to be sub-par in terms of quality and simple will.

Recently a friend of mine, who served in Fallujah, shared with me the ethos isn't about iraqi patriotism when an Iraqi signs up (for the most part), it is all to often about a recruiter waving money in front of his face.

So much for planning for contingencies at the outset of this war!

I was perplexed to hear Joint Chief Pace talk of the Baathist Army 'disentigrating' when I PERSONALLY interviewed Iraqi General Georges Sada who told me that he offerred to call up 40,000 Iraqi military to secure the streets of Baghdad from the looting which took place in front of the passive eyes of US military who said it wasn't there mission to provide police protection. Go figure... an Iraqi carrying a bag of stolen cash from a bank and standing by.

So i digress.

There is a bigger question that we need to consider in the debate. Personally I HOPE, I really hope that the current SURGE works! I hope the Iraqi army can stand up and that they don't run in the face of danger and gunfire. I hope that General Patreaus is successful in his reconstruction efforts to employ the Iraqis and keep the electricity on.
YES I HOPE ...

However as I have written before, the Iraqi leadership is more persuaded by their PERSONAL SECURITY and the threat of withdrawel is a strong incentive for them to either VOTE FOR A PARTITION, whether it is a soft one or a constitutionally voted one, is less important than separating violently opposed groups.

The withdrawel may CREATE THE NEED for IRAQI'S TO PUT DOWN SECTARIAN DIFFERNCES and fight the increasing influence of IRAN which is PERSIAN. There is a long standing hatred between Arab and Persian that goes back to the conquest of Iran with Islam. I know, its very complicated, but there is great animous between the two ethnicities.

The question that is often brought up and little debated is the inevitable killing... even to genocidal proportions. I wrestle with this idea as I continue to have the position that taking down Saddam was a GOOD thing, especially considering the likely 1 million of his own countrymen that he murdered.

The difference is that Saddam's regine represented about 3-5% of Iraq who reigned over 97&. AT LEAST NOW the killing is more fair play. Now that may sound barbaric, but the reality in this culture is REVENGE. In essense if we leave, it will speed up what many have called INEVITABLE... as sad as that may seem.

Now to the Vietnam example. Here we are 30 years later and since the USA pulled out and betrayed the South Vietnamese with funding for arms and training, the communist forces overtook the country and neighboring Cambodia experiences a genocide to the tune of 1 million by the infamous Pol Pot.

However it works itself out, that regions is now coming into the global community with emerging growth in light industry and tourism. yes a long ways to go, but it is going in the right direction.

So there are reasons for a pull out. I don't think it is time to pull the plug, it would betray our historical models of nation building and maintaining forces in country as we have done since WW2 with Japan, Korea, and thru out much of Europe.

I simply think it is important to realize that the solution IS NOT IN A SHINING PACKAGE OFF OF COSTCO'S SHELF!

Subject: Australia Now, America Tomorrow
 
 
Excerpts from an on going debate in Australia.
This is true and can be checked at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Shari law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.  Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament  "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false.  If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Shari law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.  Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off.  Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia."  "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."  "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"
"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"
"Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."
"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.  All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
 "If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.  We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't  care how you did things where you came from.  By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.  But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."
"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE.  We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here  So accept the country YOU accepted."
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths!
This could apply to all of our Immigrants' both Legal and illegal
If you agree, please SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW!
If you disagree hit the delete button!