End of Issue #33 |

Any Questions?
Editorial and Rants
Eurosavage Logic: Club Gitmo = Bad, Throwing People Into the Sea = Good
Greece Denies Dumping Illegal Immigrants into the Sea
September 28, 2006 - From: www.spiegel.de
Illegal migrants rescued by the Turkish Coast Guard in the Aegean Sea claimed Greek officials had thrown them overboard. If their story is true, it's an international scandal. It also calls attention to another hotspot for immigrants trying to reach Europe.
Greek authorities have denied knowledge of an alleged incident in which Greek officials threw illegal immigrants into the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey. On Tuesday morning, some 31 illegals were plucked out of the sea near the Turkish coastal city of Izmir. They claimed that the Greek Coast Guard had thrown them into the water. They did so, said one survivor, "without even asking if we could swim," according to Turkey's state-owned Anatolia news agency. Six people have reportedly drowned; three are missing.
Greek officials denied the charges in general terms. "We never throw people into the sea," said Haris Bournias, a Greek Coast Guard commander on the island of Chios. Turkey's coastline is a major transit area for illegal immigrants trying to reach Europe, and Bournias said smugglers regularly set immigrants adrift in little boats without lights. "Many people drown that way in the straits," said Bournias, and in fact early reports in the Turkish media claimed the survivors had washed ashore after their boat sank off the Turkish coast.
Still, on Wednesday Turkey's Foreign Ministry lodged an official complaint through diplomatic channels in Athens. "Greek authorities have been increasingly dumping some groups of illegal migrants in Turkish waters in violation of a bilateral agreement to return them," said ministry spokesman Namik Tan in a statement, adding that "the mentioned practice cannot continue."
According to reports, the survivors included Palestinians, Lebanese, Tunisians, Iraqis and one Algerian. Residents on the coast of Izmir had called the Turkish Coast Guard on Tuesday morning after being awakened by barking dogs and cries for help. The suvivors claimed that they had set off from Izmir province in a boat and landed on Chios. But they were captured by uniformed Greeks who placed them on a Coast Guard ship that carried them back toward Izmir, where they were tossed into the sea. "Two of our friends drowned in front of our eyes," Muhammedi Alti, a Lebanese national, told the Anatolia news agency. "I still can't believe what we have lived through ... We had thought that human rights would be more valuable in Europe."
I hope the Muslims destroy Eurosavage-Land.
Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center
October 11, 2006 - From: www.nytimes.com
By Dan Bilefsky & Ian Fisher
BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 -- Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.
"You saw what happened with the pope," said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. "He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.
"Rationality is gone."
Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.
His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.
For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates -- ordinary people as well as politicians -- are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a "visible statement of separation and difference."
When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam "evil and inhuman," it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.
The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.
Whatever the motivations, "the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme," said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. "It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable." Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.
The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.
In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested "repatriation" for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.
The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day -- or at least a debate on the topic -- may be a terror attack away.
"I think the time will come," said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, "We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes."
Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe's colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.
Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.
The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans -- even those who generally support immigration -- have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims' deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women's rights and homosexuality.
"A lot of people, progressive ones -- we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right -- are saying, `Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60's and 70's,' " said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.
"So there is this fear," he said, "that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again."
Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.
Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.
Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.
So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.
Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.
In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad "a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist." In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad's severed head was canceled because of security fears.
With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. "Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam," Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera's cancellation. "It makes no sense to retreat."
The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. "There's no nice way of saying this," he told a Muslim group in East London. "These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others."
Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized "citizenship and human rights," the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.
"Then someone comes and says it's different than that," said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. "You have to dump your culture and religion. It's a different deal now."
Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: "Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate." She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.
Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.
When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. "I am trying to be optimistic," she said. "But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can't be."
Words can't express how incompetent these people are.


The United States and North Korea Reach Agreement on Nuclear Program
US Department of State Dispatch, Oct 31, 1994
Statement at a White House briefing, Washington, DC, October 18, 1994.
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a long-standing and vital American objective - an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear weapons spreading in the region. It is a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.
I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador-at-large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he had had any sleep - since he is going to answer all of your technical questions about this agreement - and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.
The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea has been developing nuclear weapons since the 1980s. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The United States has an unshakable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow demurest - South Korea. A total of 38,000 American troops stationed on the peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.
Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept internal inspection of all existing facilities.
This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each others capital. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation.
From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, Japan, and other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.
Throughout this Administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we have made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today, all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our nation will be safer, and the future of our people more secure.
Now I will ask Ambassador Gallucci to come up, make a statement, and answer your questions. Robert Gallucci.
I would like to make a few comments about the agreement itself. The President put it in a broader strategic context of our national interests in non-proliferation and regional security. I want to say a word or two about the substance of the agreement and then try to answer your questions.
The agreement addresses concerns we have had about the North Korean nuclear program with respect to past activities, current activities, and future activities. The question of what North Korea did in the past - how much plutonium it separated - is the issue that arose between the IAEA doing its inspections and DPRK finding that it would not accept what they called special inspections. That was brought to the Security Council, and that resulted in a number of Security Council presidential statements and resolutions.
The question of what North Korea did in the past can be resolved by the IAEA only if the IAEA has access to the information in sites it needs. Under the terms of the agreement, that access will be provided. The DPRK will agree to the implementation of its full-scope safeguards agreement and whatever is required by the IAEA - whatever the IAEA deems necessary to resolve the questions of the past.
The implementation of that portion of the framework document takes place over a period of time. The implementation must be completed before significant nuclear components of the first nuclear reactor that would be constructed in North Korea are delivered.
The agreement envisions the provision of two light-water reactors - and the first point I am making is that in the course of the delivery of component for that reactor, before any nuclear components are delivered, the question of past nuclear activities and the full compliance of North Korea with its IAEA safeguards obligations will be taken care of - will be addressed. That is the question of the past. With respect to the present, North Korea has an operating, small, five-megawatt reactor that produced the plutonium - however much plutonium they now have - produced the spent fuel that is now in the storage pond which contains 25 to 30 kilograms of plutonium. North Korea has also a reprocessing facility that they have expanded in capacity. These are the most significant components of the current nuclear program. Under the terms of the agreement, the current nuclear program is frozen. That means that the five-megawatt reactor will not restart. That means that the reprocessing facility will be sealed and will not be operated again. That means that the fuel that is in the pond will stay in the pond. All of these provision will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as the President said. That addresses the current problems of both further separation of plutonium from spent fuel and further production of plutonium in a nuclear reactor.
With respect to the future, the North Korean nuclear program includes two large gas graphite reactors. One rated at 50 megawatts electric; the other at 200 megawatts electric. If these reactors were to be completed, they would produce hundreds of kilogram of plutonium a year.
The spent fuel, as I said, that is in the pond - if that were to be reprocessed - would right away be a source of plutonium for four or five nuclear weapons. This is the future problem that we are seeking to address, and under the agreement, the facilities that are under construction would be frozen. Under the agreement, all the facilities the ones under construction and the ones currently existing in North Korea - would be dismantled over the course of the construction of the light-water reactor project.
The spent fuel that is in the pond not only will not be reprocessed, according to the terms of the framework document, but the North Koreans will agree to cooperate in the shipment of that spent fuel out of North Korea so that there is no source of plutonium in North Korea. This is the way we propose to address our concerns, as I said - grouping them into past, present, and future.
The agreement, of course, provides that the North Koreans receive assistance from the international community in achieving legitimate energy objectives. A light-water reactor project roughly on the order of 2,000 megawatts or two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors will be provided over a period of years. We would hope in the near term to move to a contract phase and then for construction to begin.
As I think you know, the United States has been consulting with a number of governments about the financing of this project. We envision the Republic of Korea and Japan playing essential roles in the financing and construction of that facility.
In addition to the light-water reactor project, the framework document provides that the energy needs of North Korea that arise from the freezing and ultimate dismantlement of the nuclear reactors that would have produced energy - that those energy needs be addressed by the international community. Again, the United States will take the lead in supplying heavy oil over the next 10 years, or that period of time between now and when the light-water reactors might be expected to come on line. So we will, with other countries, attempt to meet the North Korean energy needs that they forego - energy that they forego as a result of the freezing of the reactor either extant or under construction In addition, the framework document provides for what we call negative security assurance, assuring that the United States, with respect to a party - North Korea - to the Non Proliferation Treaty will not, in essence, suffer the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
At this point I will stop. I will say with respect to the status of the agreement again, so you will understand we are in ad referendum posture with respect to the agreement. As the President said, I will return on Friday for the purpose of signing the agreement
Bawahahahah!!! You ungrateful bastards deserve this.
I can only hope you start killing each other ... again!
German Population Plunge Irreversible, Federal Stats Office Admits
November 9, 2006 - From: www.lifesite.net
By Gudrun Schultz
BERLIN, Germany, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Germany's downward spiral in population is no longer reversible, the country's federal statistics office said Tuesday. The birthrate has dropped so low that immigration numbers cannot compensate.
The fall in the population can no longer be stopped, vice-president Walter Rademacher with the Federal Statistics Office said, reported Agence France-Presse.
Germany has the lowest birthrate in Europe, with an average of 1.36 children per woman. Despite government incentives to encourage larger families, the population is dropping rapidly and that trend will continue, with an expected loss of as much as 12 million by 2050. That would mean about a 15 percent drop from the country's current population of 82.4 million, the German news source Deutsche Welle reported today.
The low birthrate will cause the German population to age dramatically over the next 40 years--last year there were 144,000 more deaths than births, and that number could increase to 600,000 by 2050, the FSO forecast stated.
With a 22 percent reduction in the workforce and increasing costs for senior assistance and medical care, the drop in population is expected to have a radical impact on the nations economy, along with the welfare budget.
I wouldn't like to use the word bankrupt because its a major challenge for the social insurance systems, thats for certain, Radermacher said in an interview with DW-Radio. But the first thing is to reform the social insurance systemsWe can learn from other countriesIn every case, you need someone who has to work and give you some earnings.
The projections tell us the development of demographic trends will be even more dramatic in the eastern part of Germany, Radermacher said. This is because of the fertility rates in the eastern part of Germany, because of internal migration with the borders of Germany and many other demographic factors.
While immigrants are increasingly relied upon to compensate for low birth rates in European countries, Radermacher said even factoring in a projected annual influx of 100,000-200,000 migrants wont prevent the population plunge.
Even those people who are immigrants adopt after a couple years the lifestyle and the number of children per family. So the assumption that immigrants will stick to their habits is simply not true.
Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.
The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today--that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.
The population losses faced by Germany reflect a trend occurring across Europe--The European Unions statistics agency Eurostat has predicted an overall drop in Europes population of 7 million people by 2050.
The demographic decline coincides with a dramatic drop in Christian religious belief and a consequent rejection of Christian morality and emphasis on the benefits of family life and children.
Arrested for telling the truth ... in a school!
Teacher Arrested, Accused Of Anti-Islam Tirade
September 13, 2006 - From: www.thedenverchannel.com
GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- A Maryland substitute teacher was arrested after an alleged anti-Islamic tirade in front of high school students.
Carol Joan McVey, 49, was charged with resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.
Police said McVey became upset when she heard some students at Gaithersburg High School, who were being assisted by another teacher, practicing a speech and using some Arabic words.
The Washington Post said she reacted after overhearing the group utter an Islamic greeting of peace.
Charging documents allege McVey shouted, "Islam doesn't mean peace, it means killing everyone for peace" and "Because of you, our families died in New York!"
It's not known if anyone who heard the alleged remarks is Muslim.
Authorities said McVey went to the school office to express her displeasure about the speech and the assisting teacher and was told by the principal that her services were no longer needed at the school.
Police said she refused to leave and was escorted from the school by the educational facilities officer.
While being escorted from the building, McVey allegedly yelled at a Hispanic teacher about the inappropriateness of speaking to students in languages other than English.
Once the substitute teacher was outside, police said, she tried to re-enter the school and the school's educational facilities officer attempted to place her under arrest, but she resisted and an additional officer was called to assist.
Police said McVey was released on her own recognizance.
No! This can't be true!
Nigerian Leaders 'Stole' $380bn
October 20, 2006 - From: news.bbc.co.uk
More than $380bn has either been stolen or wasted by Nigerian governments since independence in 1960, the chief corruption fighter has said.
Nuhu Ribadu told the BBC that Nigeria has "nothing much" to show for the missing money.
He said the worst period for corruption was the 1980s and '90s, but currently two-thirds of governors are being investigated by Mr. Ribadu's agency.
Nigeria is Africa's biggest oil exporter but most people are poor.
The country is regularly ranked as one of the most corrupt by graft watchdog Transparency International.
President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Ekiti State on Thursday after the governor was found guilty of siphoning state funds into personal bank accounts and receiving kickbacks.
Political Corruption
Mr. Ribadu said he had come up with his figure of $380bn stolen or wasted since independence "easily" through records kept by the Nigerian central bank and the ministry of finance.
"Basically, this money has gone to waste, nothing much to show for it," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme.
"Of course, probably part of it will have gone to outside stealing."
Mr. Obasanjo's critics say the fight against corruption is being used to victimise his opponents ahead of next year's elections.
Mr. Obasanjo is not standing after an attempt to let him seek a third term was defeated.
But Mr. Ribadu denied he has a political motive in his fight against corruption.
"When you are doing this kind of work, you will always be accused of one thing or another."
Last month, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar was indicted on charges of corruption, which could stop him from running for office.
He denies allegations he diverted $125m into personal business interests.
Mr. Ribadu has led Nigeria's battle against corruption as chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The EFCC says in the past two years it has recovered more than $5bn and has successfully prosecuted 82 people.
Money Laundering
Mr. Ribadu told the BBC that $140m had been recovered from one unnamed former Nigerian leader and that nearly $400m of illegally gained assets had been identified in the possession of a former governor of Bayelsa State.
Last year, Nigeria recovered $458m found in Swiss bank accounts linked to the country's late military ruler Sani Abacha.
Mr. Abacha was in power from 1993 to 1998 and is thought to have embezzled billions of dollars.
Last year his son, Abba Sani Abacha, was charged with money laundering and fraud after being extradited to Switzerland.
Despite the missing money Nigeria has managed to pay off its multi-billion dollar debt to the Paris Club of major lenders, thanks to high oil prices.
About $5bn is still owed to other lenders including the World Bank and the private sector.



What liberal bias?
Debunking Newsweak's Article on Afghanistan:
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/correct-record/documents/20061005.html


