Hasan Ali Tokuqin

At 9/11 I was at a 7 eleven Watching plowing planes on TV Two cigarets butts were buried in the ashtray before me. This two heavenly, psychic peaks This two giants brought down to their knees and made into a debris. Like in Adonis's poem 9/11 was the funeral of New York. Dust turned to dust Smoke turned to smoke. For many it was the last glimpse of the family and friends of the fax machines and coffe breaks It was the last glimpse of the World, completely. For the remainers It was a re-groupping A new schedule A new restriction, a new diet A new triumvirate. As it was a violent mark, a mile stone in human history it was also a unforgatable memory. I think by passing of this Tower archetype A global tarot deck cleared and reshuffeled. Be that what ever as it may this twin steel phoenixes will arise from their ground zero ash tray. Let us join our hands and pray for the victims of this crashed, burned and downsized autumn day. Hasan Ali Tokuqin www.poemhunter.com

MEHMED NIYAZI 10.31.2006 Tuesday - ISTANBUL 14:20 An Open Letter to Orhan Pamuk Dear Mr. Pamuk: As you know, no other novelist’s writing style has been discussed as much as yours. Some tend to portray you as the author of best-selling novels that are not widely read. Some argue it is only when your books are published that you create a commotion. Some describe your command of the Turkish language as weak, your linguistic style as stuttering and your novel technique as poor. And some regard you as a top novelist. As you know quite well, a novel as a work of art has its own limits; however, these limits are not based on units; they focus on subjectivity because they entail beauty, pleasure and harmony. Otherwise, we cannot explain why a man with great interest in the arts and culture like Cengiz Aytmatov, who boasts such works as “The White Ship,” “Jamilya,” and “The Day Lasts More than a Hundred Years,” has not won a Nobel Prize. However, no matter what they say, it is really pleasing to see you win the Nobel Prize as a citizen of the Turkish Republic. Apart from the debates about what distinguishes Nobel Prize winners from the rest of us, your being awarded this very important prize will keep you in the spotlight for at least a year. You will gradually be relegated to the list of Nobel laureates because someone else will be awarded the prize next year. But nowadays, your utterances will have wide-ranging repercussions. Those recently included on this list, which excludes the names of several literary giants such as Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Andre Malroux and Marcel Proust, have no significance today. Hence, their words have lost their impact. We sincerely wish that your name and works are never forgotten. We have no right to expect the boldness of Fedor Dostoyevsky from you or any other novelist. Dostoyevsky was a pious Orthodox of pure Russian origin. The young man fainted from excitement during his nationalistic speech upon the death of Aleksandr Pushkin, which shook the whole Russian nation. He was never afraid to speak his mind because he believed he could resist international rejection and condemnation with his outspoken nationalistic writings. As an ordinary citizen, I do not expect you to defend our nation since great nations have always had great enemies. I am well aware of the fact that it is not easy to stand up against them, but expressing the truth is the first prerequisite for being an intellectual. You certainly know that our historians, journalists and others really do not say anything when talking about the so-called “Armenian genocide.” I don’t know the circumstances under which you spoke on this issue; but it is clearly obvious that you did not do the necessary research. Of course, human beings are not flawless or faultless. We all make mistakes. Stubbornly insisting on making mistakes is tantamount to bigotry, whereas admitting a mistake and regretting it represents wisdom. Bigotry definitely does not befit an intellectual and world-renowned author. In fact, such an author does not have the right to insist on bigotry. Even if you make a superficial review, you will see that the Armenian Diaspora did not even dare to launch an initiative during the British Empire to make the so-called genocide allegations recognized because there were millions of Muslims living in that country. Instead, they opted for recognition of their allegations in the United States. President Woodrow Wilson sent the U.S. chief of staff, along with a crowded delegation, to our country to investigate the claims. The delegation comprised mostly of sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists and historians began its inquiry with Armenians who migrated to Paris from Turkey. When they asked an Armenian how the genocide was committed, they received this response: “It was awful, I was slaughtered twice.” They sensed the populist dimension of the issue and then conducted an investigation at Turkish sites where the genocide was allegedly committed. After completing the entire investigation process, the chief of staff submitted his famous report indicating no evidence of genocide. When the Armenians, unsatisfied with this report, put pressure for further investigation, Rear Admiral Marc L. Bristol was ordered to substantiate the genocide. However, he also conceded that no genocide was committed on Turkish territory. Istanbul was occupied and those suspected of committing genocide were arrested. Ziya Gokalp and those who shared the same fate were exiled to Malta. War crime tribunals were set up in Istanbul and Malta to try the suspects. All of them were acquitted. Sait Halim Pasha, the prime minister of the time, who was notified of the tribunals while he was in Italy, applied to the League of Nations and the International Court of Justice in The Hague for a trial in an effort to clarify and conclude the matter. Both replied that there was no need for a trial. It is stated in the book, on which the Armenians base their allegations, that we committed this heinous crime under instructions from the Germans. In the mid-1920s, the British government notified the German government that this was merely war propaganda. If you conduct basic research on this matter, you will discover these facts, and most probably many more. And if you so desire, I can send all of them to you by e-mail. Mr. Pamuk, your style as a novelist has come under intense discussion, but you are an enlightened person anyway. An enlightened person is someone who understands his responsibilities. These responsibilities start from his family, then the society to which he belongs and the human race at large. You are expressing this as a fact, but this does not put you in a position to criticize the promotion of Turkish nationalism because you should definitely recognize the Turks as part of the human race. After all, past unanimity among Christian countries in making all these decisions to accuse Turkey must have relieved you of your doubts that a nation was facing a Crusader mindset. It is time to speak up if you are also upset by this mindset. Yours truly, October 23, 2006 www.zaman.com

dear repliers, if you know somthng original about prophets, write it without shame !

Read poem carefully.

Jesus And Mohamad Every one knows Jesus and his tragic life He was king of the kings, lord of the lords A cool guy endured severe hardships. Mohamad was a cool guy too like Jesus I think every prophet is a cool guy Like Isaaha and Ezikiel. Islam banned all visual arts It considered to idoltary and object of whorship So there is no image of Mohamad by any means. But he was not vulgar and ugly He was handsome, gentle and sweet Like Jesus. He was rightous and mercifull He did'nt endured the hardships of Jesus But he waged great wars againts infidels. He was in camel busniess first He was a rich and well -to-do guy He lived a frugal life in his late years A family man, then he fell sick and died. There has been a contervsey on his sex life He was not a pedohopile or any kind of sexual pervert He was a strong man with vigours stamina He loved his all his wifes by all means. He was a very good politician, a public leader too Who looked always after Destitute maids, orphans, poor and the sick. As a gentile I write these lines Jesus or Mohamed and be it other prophets They were the seeds of Abraham The Holy Grail, Rosline, God's divine grace on earth They are the brightest stars in the Kingdom Of God. Have god their blessings on us Amen! you can find other poems of Hasan Ali Tokuqin at: www.poemhunter.com

Nobel Academy is not dumb.They are political.....

I am Kurdish my self But all comments miss the point he doesn't give any shit about Kurds or Armenians.He used the case for Noble Prize.He looks for fame nothing else.I don't hate him.He is misarable.

Orhan Pamuk Strikes Again Orhan Pamuk took the Nobel Prize and hefty monetary award as a Turk I am very elated This is a great honor for Turkey etc etc. This was a political set-up This Nobel prize given Orhan Pamuk This is first and last Nobel prize given a Turkish citizen.It will never happen again. Orhan Pamuk is a scam bag a bank attorney's idle son who ended up in fiction after dabbling in drawing and architecture. His family ushered their fortune from state banks to make rail way transactions at the nascent years of the Republic Of Turkey. He went American Robert Academy a elite high school in Istanbul which produced many head aches for our nation like two political disasters ex prime ministers, Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller. He leisured a long time in New York City-his spirtiual home in his late twenties and produce ambitious works like: The Silent House, Mr Cevdet And His Sons, The Black Book The White Castle. Now he lives there and teaches at Coloumbia. He became a ghost in Turkey. I think he only thinks his career ambitions not his plight for any noble cause. If he likes Kurdish people so much he can bestow the monetray award to me I am a poor Kurdish guy my self. Like his bleak novels he is a dark shadow hanging over on our literary landscape his rich and powerful, he is untouchable even Turkish jurisdiction aquittied him unguilty at the first setting. He is a literary mob. The pro-westren media band-wagons him zealotly The number of books sales are convulted and inflated The back covers are filled of praises By such and such people to boost his image Every novel garnerd the top prizes Translated into foreign languages. I think guys in Nobel Academy made a grave mistake on timing.They should wait for a decade at least. Now people say: -Aha you see! He insulted Turkish identity and they awarded him with Nobel prize. Although he has a correction and editting team all his books are full of lingustic errors. He takes themes from qabbalistic tradition from his Jewish background make frequent quotes from Holy Quran peppered with esoteric taste. He considers himself and try to make others to think an artful mediator on East and West par excellence with Umberto Ecco. He is English is better than his Turkish I read his articles in New Yorker magazine He could write his novels in English But for Noble prize he wrote them in Turkish. I won't be suprized if his next book will be in English Maybe he will be a contender for Pulitzer prize too. Once he said: - My novels are very hard.They are not Danilee Steel novels.You must be very smart and sophisticated to understand them.You must unearth the hidden gem in them. I went his speech about Daily Usage Of Turkish he was like a retarded clown audinece mocked him. He has the symptoms of all the Turkish intellectuals seeing inferior of their own folk. Aziz Nesin for example: - %60 percent of Turks are dumb. A word from Ahmed Althan: -Turkish males are hairy vulgar apes, smelling sweat and kebap. In his novel 'The Black Book' there is a short story called 'The childeren of Master Bedii' His Turkish stereo types are disfigured and inferior creatures. Turks are like beggars, hoi polloi waiting at the gates of Europe to get into the golden land, the Eldarado. Some people my ask why is that personal fuss? isit a vendeta, an unsettled account a deeply felt class resentment? what is this all about mr Hasan? why are you bothering your self? what is the matter with you? All I can say: - I don't know. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my first thread on Orhan Pamuk: I don't like Orhan Pamuk and his novels.He doesen't know anything about Turkey as a naive westrener.He thinks that Europe is golden land for Turks and Turks don't fit into it.He is too polemical than as a author.Like Salman Rushdie who insulted Holy Quran in his Satanic Verses, he looks for fame and prestije. Westren circles like him, because he went American Robert Academy in Istanbul.This academy- always been a head ache for Turkey- produced political nightmares like Bulent Ecevit and Tansu Ciller.The Academy produced Pro -Westren columinsts, translators, scholars, scientists, politicians and all of them were harmfull for Turkey.I think this academy must be abolished.It hurts our nation deeply. The most significant support to him came from Salman Rushdie, his spiritual counterpart who wrote an article on 14 October 2005 for The Times. I want to point some similarities of Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie here: Both belongs a wealthy family. Both went English speaking missionary schools. Both had no regular jobs. Both had a westren lobby behind themselves. Both became modern day Fausts, Both caused a international controversy. Wikipedia says :Faust or Faustus is the protagonist of a popular German tale that has been used as the basis for many different fictional works. The story concerns the fate of a learned gentleman named Faust, who in his quest for forbidden or advanced knowledge of material things, summons the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles, often also referred as Mephisto), who offers to serve him for a period of time, at the cost of his soul. In this case, Orhan Pamuk is Fausts and West is Mephistopheles. Novels of Orhan Pamuk merely frauds, masonic plots, esoteric mumbo-jumbo in oriental sense.There is a racsist tinge in them.Turkish storeotypes are ugly, vulgar, unfair and backward.But west thinks his novels deal with the clash between past and present and the values of East and West from the point of view of a bourgeois intellectual.The truth is that, Orhan Pamuk says the same thing what Samuel Huntigton says in 'Clash Of Civilizaitions- West is good East is bad. I can pinpoint a similarity between him and Umberto Ecco: The best known work of Ecco is: The Name Of The Rose.If the rose is red, it points a famous Rosicurican archtype. My name is Red, a previous novel by Orhan Pamuk contains a plot on murders of book copiers, caligarphers in Ottoman times.Both books have a plot wise affinity. He is too narcist .He considers himself a man of thought and stance, a artfull mediator and convice others so.But too many readers find his novels obscure, boring and inconsistent.The critics don't like his books.His Turkish is awfull.He speaks English better than Turkish.I think he has writer and correction team for his books.The westren lobby behind him used every marketing tool to boost the selling of his novels. Pro western media made remarks like that : foremost novelist, renowend writer, a great story teller etc etc. Maybe he is most known, but he is not the best writer in Turkey.But he has westren media bandwagoning him . He faces charges for telling a Swiss newspaper in February that : -30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it." This declarations on Armeninas and Kurds are baseless and biased.Orhan Pamuk is a great liar.He using this topic for his own interset not his plight for democracy, free speech, human rights etc etc.He sees himself as a contender for Nobel prize. His ostensible aim is to receive the Nobel Prize for literature. He was aware it would not suffice to write only a good novel or to create a good work of art to win this prize. This case has a open modus operandi :to fool and fuddle Turkey and Turks. So our nation acted collectively. This week Turkish press and media divided on his trial, some defending him as a victim and some blaming him as traitor.He made a havoc at the heartland of our nation. Turkish Armenians divided by our bloody foe, British army against the state.British had set attrocities among Turks, Greeks, Kurds and Armenians.Like other minorites, Armenians were reach, peacefull and skilled citizens.They had high ranking positions in goverment and state .They omitted military service.They were the most pampered segement of our society when most of Turks were poor and illitirate.Most city names in eastern provinces still in Armenian.They are still part of Turkey instead of our bloody foes. I am sure jurisdiction will not punish Orhan Pamuk .He is powerfull, he is rich.He knows West will support him.He considers Turkey as a banana republic and subservient to Western demands on any ground.So his case will not be a litmus for foreign pressure. Turks are not beggars like any Third World country.Only rootless and rich people like Orhan Pamuk wants to join homosexual and sodomite EU. Eu is not a dream for Turks.She was and is a nightmare for many people. The last incindents in France showed Western ideals: democracy, freedom, and equality were mere illusions. The western nations procured this ideals for themselves only not for the third world. The Western goverments and instutions think there is a inherent biological cause. The third world is not compatible racially with Europeans. So, they want to deport them back to their countries or send them to prisons to rot. Only rich people from third world gained access to education and good living conditions. The West served like large shopping mall for rich all around the world Orhan Pamuk is not the first writer insulting Turkish identity.Aziz Nesin, after his books translated into English, had said '60% percent of Turks are dumb.', Ahmet Altan another charlatan said ' Turks are vulgar people.' That is main tactic of prolific writers in Turkey: insult Turkish identity, gain fame, money and prestije world wide.A lot of Turkish writers who carved for fame and money and who had nothing to say became lackeys and mouthpieces of West. Orhan Pamuk fell prey to the trap West way layed for him.The West will back clap him, applause him, maybe give him Nobel prize.But he will not have a homeland, like Salaman Rushdie.He will stroll aimlessly at the cold streets and oppulent sky of west like Marcel Proust.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. BY MARK STEYN Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West. One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare. Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services. The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam. Speaking of which, if we are at war--and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don't accept that proposition--then what exactly is the war about? We know it's not really a "war on terror." Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even "radical Islam." The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally. Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default. That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug. Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn't, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don't know why he didn't. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn't fit it into his hectic schedule. Ontario's citizenship minister did show up at a mosque, but the imams took that as a great insult, like the Queen sending Fergie to open the Commonwealth Games. So the premier of Ontario had to hold a big meeting with the aggrieved imams to apologize for not going to a mosque and, as the Toronto Star's reported it, "to provide them with reassurance that the provincial government does not see them as the enemy." Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us. Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In "The Survival of Culture," I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen's Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage "Islamic fundamentalists." "We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves," she complained. "We don't look at our own fundamentalisms." Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? "One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I'm not sure that's true." Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people's intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you're nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda. For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as "al-Kanadi." Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda--plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they're on the wrong side (if you'll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren't in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren't doing our bit in this war! In the course of the fatal shootout of al-Kanadi, his youngest son was paralyzed. And, not unreasonably, Junior didn't fancy a prison hospital in Peshawar. So Mrs. Khadr and her boy returned to Toronto so he could enjoy the benefits of Ontario government health care. "I'm Canadian, and I'm not begging for my rights," declared the widow Khadr. "I'm demanding my rights." As they always say, treason's hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr. Khadr's death it seems clear that not only was he providing "aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies" but that he was, in fact, the Queen's enemy. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree." That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that's the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife's got away with it. Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him. That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off. We spend a lot of time at The New Criterion attacking the elites, and we're right to do so. The commanding heights of the culture have behaved disgracefully for the last several decades. But if it were just a problem with the elites, it wouldn't be that serious: The mob could rise up and hang 'em from lampposts--a scenario that's not unlikely in certain Continental countries. But the problem now goes way beyond the ruling establishment. The annexation by government of most of the key responsibilities of life--child-raising, taking care of your elderly parents--has profoundly changed the relationship between the citizen and the state. At some point--I would say socialized health care is a good marker--you cross a line, and it's very hard then to persuade a citizenry enjoying that much government largesse to cross back. In National Review recently, I took issue with that line Gerald Ford always uses to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Actually, you run into trouble long before that point: A government big enough to give you everything you want still isn't big enough to get you to give anything back. That's what the French and German political classes are discovering. Go back to that list of local conflicts I mentioned. The jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis, the Russians, the Indians and the Nigerians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Danes and New Zealanders? So the jihadists are for the most part doing no more than giving us a prod in the rear as we sleepwalk to the cliff. When I say "sleepwalk," it's not because we're a blasé culture. On the contrary, one of the clearest signs of our decline is the way we expend so much energy worrying about the wrong things. If you've read Jared Diamond's bestselling book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," you'll know it goes into a lot of detail about Easter Island going belly up because they chopped down all their trees. Apparently that's why they're not a G-8 member or on the U.N. Security Council. Same with the Greenlanders and the Mayans and Diamond's other curious choices of "societies." Indeed, as the author sees it, pretty much every society collapses because it chops down its trees. Poor old Diamond can't see the forest because of his obsession with the trees. (Russia's collapsing even as it's undergoing reforestation.) One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying. You know the classics of the genre: In 1968, in his bestselling book "The Population Bomb," the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993. None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We're pretty much awash in resources, but we're running out of people--the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia's the most obvious example: it's the largest country on earth, it's full of natural resources, and yet it's dying--its population is falling calamitously. The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." And even though none of the prognostications of the eco-doom blockbusters of the 1970s came to pass, all that means is that 30 years on, the end of the world has to be rescheduled. The amended estimated time of arrival is now 2032. That's to say, in 2002, the United Nations Global Environmental Outlook predicted "the destruction of 70 percent of the natural world in thirty years, mass extinction of species. . . . More than half the world will be afflicted by water shortages, with 95 percent of people in the Middle East with severe problems . . . 25 percent of all species of mammals and 10 percent of birds will be extinct . . ." Etc., etc., for 450 pages. Or to cut to the chase, as the Guardian headlined it, "Unless We Change Our Ways, The World Faces Disaster." Well, here's my prediction for 2032: unless we change our ways the world faces a future . . . where the environment will look pretty darn good. If you're a tree or a rock, you'll be living in clover. It's the Italians and the Swedes who'll be facing extinction and the loss of their natural habitat. There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it. In a globalized economy, the environmentalists want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. Yet, insofar as "globalization" is a threat, the real danger is precisely the opposite--that the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World. Pigs are valued assets and sleep in the living room in rural China--and next thing you know an unknown respiratory disease is killing people in Toronto, just because someone got on a plane. That's the way to look at Islamism: We fret about McDonald's and Disney, but the big globalization success story is the way the Saudis have taken what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins of no fixed abode and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Rotterdam, Manchester, Buffalo . . . What's the better bet? A globalization that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalization that exports the fiercest aspects of its culture? When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common? Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans. As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so. If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. The Scottish executive recently backed down from a proposal to raise the retirement age of Scottish public workers. It's presently 60, which is nice but unaffordable. But the reaction of the average Scots worker is that that's somebody else's problem. The average German worker now puts in 22% fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable will propose closing the gap in any meaningful way. This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam. There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%. Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified. And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%. And by 2020? So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week. Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there's something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe's track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they're flying planes into buildings for they're likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock 'em over? The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don't notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there's a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan--like Bill Clinton's "It's about the future of all our children." We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton's tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can't even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future. Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an "amiable dunce" (in Clark Clifford's phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts' position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself. Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations--as a prominent EU official described his continent to me--are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining "the great majority" in "the unseen world." But if secularism's starting point is that this is all there is, it's no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it's ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it's suicidally so. To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA's got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what's left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it's populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it's populated by Algerians? That's a trickier proposition. Best-case scenario? The Continent winds up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates. Worst-case scenario: Sharia, circa 2040; semi-Sharia, a lot sooner--and we're already seeing a drift in that direction. In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?" Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today--Australia, India, South Africa--and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People's Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go. A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the "what do you leave behind?" question is more urgent than most of us expected. "The West," as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying. What will London--or Paris, or Amsterdam--be like in the mid-'30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character? This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense. I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving "Keep your Bush off my bush" placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a "woman's right to choose," Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their "reproductive rights" still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting "Hands off my bush!" Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake: "Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body," she advised Oprah's viewers, "then you should vote." Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn't even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D. But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book "The Empty Cradle," Philip Longman asks: "So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism--a new Dark Ages." Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there. Mr. Longman's point is well taken. The refined antennae of Western liberals mean that whenever one raises the question of whether there will be any Italians living in the geographical zone marked as Italy a generation or three hence, they cry, "Racism!" To fret about what proportion of the population is "white" is grotesque and inappropriate. But it's not about race, it's about culture. If 100% of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are. But if one part of your population believes in liberal pluralist democracy and the other doesn't, then it becomes a matter of great importance whether the part that does is 90% of the population or only 60%, 50%, 45%. Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"? Not good. "What do you leave behind?" asked Tony Blair. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the midpoint of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters. Mr. Steyn is a syndicated columnist and theater critic for The New Criterion, in whose January issue this article appears.

you are right .

I sure there must be enough stock of nubiles down there.So dont worry.Stay and work at home. The numbers are small not the incidents.

Ourselves And Islam By John Tyndall, Founder of British National Front www.spearhead.com At a time when almost the entire national focus is on terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists and the Western response to it, we make no apologies for devoting a large part of Spearhead this month to that topic. In a way, this issue has much broader ramifications than just those involving national security; it informs our attitude to a whole range of political, social and moral questions. The killing of thousands of innocent people in the attacks in the United States using hijacked aircraft was an outrage of monstrous proportions - in our eyes. That is to say, it was monstrous by all ethical standards known to Western, Christian peoples. But in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists it was seen as a necessary and justified act. We say this, not to excuse or mitigate such an attitude, only to state it as a fact. It is a fact with which we have to live in this very complex world, however much we may deplore it. Liberals have great difficulty in coming to terms with this; believers in realpolitik, on the other hand, recognise it while not liking it any the more. There is of course a certain underlying hypocrisy in the liberal attitude. Liberals will repeatedly condemn the slaughter of innocent people in the attacks in New York and Washington, but they are ready to look the other way when it comes to the innocents now being killed in the raids on Afghanistan, just as they did when innocents were wiped out in the raids on Yugoslavia a short time ago - and as their predecessors did when German cities were fire-bombed in World War II and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, were fried to death. Liberals are just as prepared as anyone to embrace realpolitik - when it suits them and when it does not go against "fashionable" opinion. Then liberals will protest that such killing is necessary and justified - a principle they would abhor when Islamic fundamentalists invoke it. Why they hate and despise us It is held in the mainstream media that Islamic fundamentalists hate the West, resent its prosperity and despise its values of "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights". All this is to a great extent true, but we should be careful about doing battle over these things. Resentment over other people's wealth and high living standards is an ignoble sentiment in itself; but when those who enjoy such wealth and standards are seen to be obsessed with them to the extent that most modern Westerners - particularly Americans - now are, and when there is evidence that such people are woefully lacking in any moral or spiritual dimension to their lives, it is easy to despise them for that. And so they should be thus despised. As for "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights", we have to understand, again, that the vast majority of Muslims belong to cultures that see things very differently, just as they see differently questions of life and death which determine attitudes to terrorism. To most Muslims, not just the most "extreme" or "fanatical", the Western Christian obsession with such things as the "right to life" is a strange and alien concept - just as the obsession with the "rights" of the individual as against the needs of the community. Muslims practise comparatively little birth control because they regard it as an obligation to posterity to breed children and continue the race, though of course "race" is not a concept they would accept in terms we understand - perhaps an indication that hypocrisy is not a Western liberal monopoly. To Muslims, at least, there are greater things than the right of the individual to do as he or she likes. Is their attitude to these things superior or is ours? There is no moral yardstick by which such matters can be judged because they and we live in wholly different moral worlds. Ultimately, human evolution will decide these questions by the verdict of who survives and who does not. At the moment, Westerners' prospects in the survival stakes do not look too rosy - not that most Westerners care; to them, survival is a purely personal thing - an individual thing, devoid of any national, racial or evolutionary obligation. Kipling knew Kipling understood these things, as best expressed in his lines saying that "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." But today's liberals think they know better than Kipling. To them, the world is a gigantic parish and they its parish priests. People not benefiting from the glories of "democracy" must be force fed such things until they understand what is good for them. Women who believe it necessary to posterity that they give birth to children must be liberated from such out-of-date superstitions. This is the mission that the United States has taken upon itself, with Britain, as ever in the post-war world, scuttling along like an obedient poodle in its wake and at its bidding. We are constantly told by our lords and masters that, now that the menace of global communism is no more, it is militant Islam that threatens us, and that is why we must be ready to wage war against it. But does militant Islam threaten us because the Islamic militants seriously imagine that they can invade and occupy the whole West and impose their way of life on its peoples? Their leaders (if not all their multitudes)are much too intelligent for that. Men who can organise operations like the recent attacks on the targets in the US are not likely to suffer from such delusions. Or is current Islamic hostility towards us essentially a defensive response, that is to say a response based on a strategy that is defensive even if it employs tactics that are offensive, as often happens in war? We touched a moment ago just fleetingly on race, but it is at our peril that we leave the racial factor out of the equation. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi caused a furore recently when he said that the world of Islam was "inferior" to the West. What Signor Berlusconi did not say - perhaps because he preferred for diplomatic reasons not to say it - was that it is primarily racial differences between the Islamic and Western worlds that account for those contrasts in standards that prompt such arguments about superiority and inferiority. In other words, if Western standards are superior it is not because liberalism, democracy and Christianity are superior, but because the peoples comprising the West have the greater racial aptitudes in the way of achieving the standards that they - that is to say we - deem important. Which leads us to the bottom line of this message: that the twain should not meet, that we should keep out of their world and keep them out of ours.

Not so fast Junior.Turkish men are very jealous.We have the largest murders for adultry on the world.So dont change your summer plans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice things you said, only possible by body.If there is no phsyical existence, they are only words.Not the real thing.I think LUST is a good ingredient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

When we see a nice car -we say how nice its.But without car, or material existince how can we say its nice.We can dream or picture it.But its is not the real thing. If we love some one, we love he or she for his or her appearnce.Touching, hugging, making love are real things.You can not replace it with a picture or image.It is not the real thing. when we die our bodies die too.Our material existence pass away.If there is spirit, you cannot feel it, or touch it.We always want the body with the spirit.Body makes the spirit possible, spirit cannot build body. When human brain dies, concsiouness dies too.All of is blank, without any surge, empty space.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ra is the sun god.Typhon is the winter god.Anubis is underworld god. Zeus is top most greek god.Eros is love god.Mars is war god. odin, freya etc etc.So there is hiearchy. About Hinduism god is, fire, earth, air, water ;a combination. semitic god reveals himself by revelation with words.he is invisible and can not be portrayed.And defies all deites in other faiths.semitic god claims himself superior from others. I think god is a political invention.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turkish writer still faces charges Associated Press Originally published December 30, 2005 ANKARA, Turkey // Turkish prosecutors decided yesterday not to file new charges against the country's best-known novelist that allege denigration of Turkey's armed forces, but the writer still faces charges that he insulted "Turkishness," said lawyers who sought his trial. Nationalist lawyers had petitioned prosecutors to file criminal charges against Orhan Pamuk for reportedly telling the German newspaper Die Welt in October that the military threatened democratization in Turkey. European officials have criticized the trial and called on Turkey to do more to protect free speech. Some have warned it may jeopardize Turkey's efforts to join the European Union. Prosecutors decided there were no grounds to try Pamuk for insulting the military, said nationalist lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz. The prosecutors based their decision on a European human rights convention protecting free speech and on a section of Turkey's penal code that says remarks made within the spirit of criticism are not a crime. The law draws a distinction between criticism and insult. Die Welt quoted Pamuk as saying, "I don't see [the ruling] Justice and Development Party as a threat to Turkish democracy. Unfortunately, the threat comes from the army, which sometimes prevents democratic development." The novelist still faces charges for telling a Swiss newspaper in February that "30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares to talk about it." On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul acknowledged that charges brought against Pamuk had tarnished the country's image abroad and said laws that limit freedom of expression may be changed. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also said laws could be changed if there were serious flaws.

Europe’s Male Snow Whites and the Others... The date is December 16, 2005. The venue is the Sisli courthouse building. Orhan Pamuk appears at the first hearing in the case he is accused of saying, “a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had been killed in Turkey,” in an interview that was published in a Swiss newspaper. Under the eyes of the local and international media, the trial still goes ahead despite constant disruptions from the angry mob inside and outside the court building protesting and attacking Pamuk and his supporters. The crowds shouted, “Love it or leave it!” at Pamuk, who asked British Labor Party MP Denis MacShane who had come to offer his support: “Should I go into exile?” MacShane concluded his article published in The Observer newspaper with the following sentence: “Turkey will not join Europe unless Voltaire wins, and the ayatollahs -- secular and religious -- lose.” This was a reference to Voltaire’s famous saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” MacShane, naturally, was not the first person to compare Turkey’s rulers to ayatollahs regarding their handling of the Pamuk case. On the day the trial was being held in Sisli, people on the other side of the Atlantic were reading an article in The New York Times, entitled, “Secular Democracy Goes on Trial,” which stressed the similarity between Orhan Pamuk and Salman Rushdie. Is Pamuk the Salman Rushdie of Turkey? Let’s first start with Rushdi. An Indian boy, who emigrated from Bombay to London many years ago, completed his mental and cultural transformation by passing through modernity, making the people and values in his homeland the object and adding an eccentric color to his novels. Rushdie’s fame peaked with his novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and in a sense, with the pandemonium that ensued, the novel that included insults against Prophet Mohammed, sparked widespread and large protests around the world. The incident was politicized when Ayatollah Khomeini issued the “death sentence” on Rushdie and turned the situation into a likeness of the ancient East-West war. Many writers, artists and intellectuals -- local and recruited -- from the West, Edward Said in particular, supported Rushdie against “Islamic fanaticism” and defended his freedom of expression. There may be some similarities between Rushdie and Pamuk. First of all, they are both novelists whose fame goes beyond the countries in which they live in and both are bestselling authors. Their political views bear a number of similarities, and both are known as “left(ist) liberals.” They are both the children of the Enlightenment intellect; and both are also close to post-modern literature. One of them was damned for “belittling the sacred values of Islam,” the other was taken to court for “openly belittling Turkish identity.” However, there is no similarity in judicial terms between the case of Rushdie and that of Pamuk, as is thought to be. Rushdie was not tried as a “thought criminal.” In fact, he could not be tried. The cases instigated by Muslims living in the UK against Rushdie on the grounds that “their religious values were insulted,” failed because of the discriminative character of the Blasphemy Law which prohibits insults against sacred/religious values. This law is still in effect in Britain and only punishes insults directed against the sacred values of members of the Anglican Church, but does not protect other religions against blasphemy and insolence. What is more interesting, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim that this discriminative law is against the European Convention on Human Rights, and allowing “The Satanic Verses” to be published violated the freedom of religion and conscience which is protected by Article 9 of the Convention. Hence, Rushdie could not be registered as a “thought criminal” in the judicial sense. The date is February 25, 1998. The venue is the Paris Court of Justice. The presiding judge of the three-judge court, Jen-Yves Montfort, announces the court’s decision to the curious crowds waiting in the hall outside: “The accused is ordered to pay 240,000 French francs ($40,000) for contravening the definition of “crime against humanity” and for discussing the Holocaust openly and systematically.” The person sitting in the defendant’s chair was none other than Roger Garaudy, one of the most widely known French Marxist philosophers, who later converted to Islam. Best example of double standards: Garaudy Garaudy had defended himself in his book titled, "Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne,” by saying that he brought the number of Jews killed and the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps into question, and also emphasized that the legend, "six million Jews were massacred," is used to justify the cruelty of Israel in Palestine. After the session, there were some protests at the entrance of the court building, and members of a Zionist Organization called "Betar," shouted slogans like "Nazi Garaudy!" and "Garaudy to Prison!", attacking those who came to support Garaudy and injuring an old man. The Garaudy case was later taken to the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR); however, on July 7, 2003 the court decided that an appeal in this case was unacceptable. The Strasbourg court investigated the book, which was the subject of the case, and decided there was no violation of the freedom of expression, referring to Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits exploitation of rights. According to the court, "The writer adopted revisionist theories in his book and discussed the existence of crimes against humanity that Nazis committed against Jews in a systematic way." The following statement by the court, which emphasized all cases relating to Article 10 of the Convention, including thoughts which offend a particular group in society, is quite interesting: "Discussing the existence of historical events like the Holocaust, which is clearly proven, cannot be accepted as a historical study in the search of reality. The real aim of these kinds of studies is to re-establish a national-socialist regime, and as a result, to accuse the victims of Holocaust of distorting history. Consequently, discussing the existence of crimes against humanity is one of the most serious types of racist slandering and is tantamount to inciting hatred against Jews." What Voltaire said is fine, but… Neither the Council of Europe nor the European Union reacted in the aftermath of Garaudy's conviction. The European clerisy; leading newspapers and magazines of the EU, which defend freedom of speech at almost every given opportunity, also failed to react. In short, almost all the institutions of the "free world" kept silent against this and similar convictions in Voltaire's country. It can be understood that there may be some extremist sensitivities towards particular issues in Turkey and Europe, which experienced serious historical traumas in the first half of the 20th century; however, it is unacceptable trying to create a "truth monopoly" about historical events or stigmatizing the people questioning these truths as "betrayers" and/or "anti-Semitists"; or even trying them and sentencing them to jail. Europe should first think twice about the difficulties it experienced in gaining the freedom of speech before it criticizes in a conceited manner. Europe should also open its taboos to discussion, as free thinking cannot develop in an atmosphere where prohibitions exist. Hypocrisy, not Voltaire, will win in lands where free thinking cannot develop. Associate Professor Zuhtu Arslan 30.12.2005 Zuhti Arslan http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt