Thursday, May 26, 2011

A number of hate groups including pro-Israeli occupation group Order of the Dragon

       'Muslim Leaders Define and Clarify Meaning Of Shari'ah In Dearborn' 

Tomorrow, Friday May 27th, the Young Muslim Association will host a panel discussion focusing on the meaning of shari'ah, how it is applied in America and misconceptions being advanced about it in the American public, particularly in Dearborn.

The panelists will include:

Sayyid Mohammad Baqir Al-Qazwini
Dr. Saeed Khan - Wayne State University
Dawud Walid - CAIR-MI

A number of hate groups including pro-Israeli occupation groups, Order of the Dragon, ACT! for America led by anti-Muslim bigot Brigitte Gabriel and David Horowitz's Freedom Centers Palestinian Wall of Lies plan on protesting, de facto, the 1st Amendment rights of American Muslims this Saturday in Dearborn.

 Another Protest of Radical Islam' Planned Saturday in Dearborn

SEE:Backgrounder on Brigitte Gabriel and ACT! for America 

SEE: Another Protest of Radical Islam' Planned Saturday in Dearborn

"Friday's panel will not only present the harmony of Islam's spiritual teachings with the U.S. Constitution for young Muslims but will provide an educational opportunity for the broader public to learn about misconceptions currently propagated by some regarding shari'ah," said CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid.

WHAT: Panel Discussion on Shari'ah
WHEN: Friday, May 27 at 7:30 p.m.
WHERE: Islamic Center of America, 19500 Ford Rd, Dearborn

Panel will be available live streaming at www.ymaonline.org.

Hamas: Unity does not mean we take on Fatah's platform

 
 
BEIRUT, Lebanon (Ma'an) -- In an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar set out the compromises the party was willing to make for a unity deal with Fatah, and made clear that unity would not change the party's platform.

"Reconciliation does not mean Hamas has changed its agenda," the leader was quoted as saying in the Tuesday report, adding that nor was Fatah bending its own goals to those of Hamas when it signed the document.

Unity would simply set out the framework for a functioning governance structure, Zahhar said, adding that the platforms of each party would be determined by Palestinians, and would be put to the test at the ballot box when elections are called.

In 2006, Zahhar said, "Fatah did not accept the outcome" of the elections, and cautioned against a similar reaction to the results of the vote expected to take place in 2012.

The paper asked if Hamas feared the coming popular vote, prompting the Hamas hardliner to answer:

"We wanted to protect elections from expected fraud. The parliamentary elections in 1996 were completely counterfeit and everybody knew it. Some elected candidates were brought down the next day and later on they were shot.

"We have a thousand pieces of evidence that show the presidential elections of 2005 should also be suspect, while local elections in the same year which Hamas won were righteous, though somehow Fatah managed to throw them out through judiciary committees.

"Thus, we want the [newly formed] Central Elections Committee to be able to have the final word, and there should be consensus over this committee."

The Gaza-based Hamas leader said that while the movement's leader in exile Khalid Mash’al had agreed to give the PA time to negotiate with Israel, he was "speaking on his own," in a decision that had more to do with the unity deal than with Hamas' political position.

Zahhar said the issue was being "seriously reviewed," hinting that Mash'al was out of touch with the priorities of Hamas supporters in the West Bank and Gaza.

Asked if he was hinting that Mash'al should return to Gaza, Zahhar said he made no such intimation, but offered that he believed all those who wished to return to the coastal enclave should do so, including Fatah supporters so long as they were not "involved in the crimes of 2007," he said, referring to the infighting that cemented the division between the factions and led to separate governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Unity deal came when it was time

While other Hamas officials have said clearly that changes in the region prompted the signing of the unity documents, prompting speculation that an unwelcome Syria was pushing Hamas out, Zahhar denied the allegations, saying it was ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who prevented the unity deal.

Zahhar said Mubarak's regime had refused to meet with Hamas leaders in the 14 months following Fatah's signing of the 2009 papers, despite Hamas insistence that changes would have to be made before they would agree.

"Abu Mazin [President Mahmoud Abbas] impeded reconciliation when he refused to build the central election committee and the higher security committee by consensus," Zahhar added.

"When the negotiations pool dried out and its content evaporated," Zahhar said of what he hinted was a farcical unity process, "they [Fatah and Egypt] accepted Hamas’ suggestions."

The amendments Hamas sought to make to the deal, Zahhar said, were to "fortify reconciliation through consensus rather than giving Abu Mazin an opportunity to jeopardize the process."

Officials from Hamas and Fatah are currently in Cairo, where delegates are cobbling together a transitional government of technocrats, setting out a government platform, creating a mutually-acceptable Central Elections Committee and a mandate for the preparation of a vote by March 2012. Progress has thus far been slow, but Fatah officials Tuesday said the process is being carried out with trust and care, and is on schedule.

The delegates are also set to form a plan for the reintegration of security service in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Zahhar said that for the mean time, "the status quo will continue," estimating that it would last for approximately one year.

Following the lag period, Zahhar said the technocrat government's minister of interior would coordinate between both sides, and help form a higher security committee.

"We will not allow the return of [the PA] preventive security and its notorious leaders, and I advise them in public to avoid coming to both Gaza and the West Bank. That is much better for them," Zahhar warned.

September move at UN 'misleading'

"The September entitlement [the PLO move to seek state recognition at the UN this year] is misleading; such terminology has been used before and it was a waste of time and effort," he said of the Arabic catchphrase Isthiqaq Ayloul (September entitlement) which underlines the stance that Palestinians will go to the UN seeking recognition of the state they are entitled to.

"Suppose all the UN member countries agreed on a Palestinian state, the result will be zero. In 1988, Yasser Arafat got 100 countries to recognize the state he announced. On which land will this state will be built?" he told the daily.

"He [Abbas] is talking about the 1967 borders with land swaps. This will eventually mean the Al-Aqsa Mosque will go, and who is ready to accept that? It is not about swapping land on 1:1 basis. No Muslim or Christian will agree to swap Jerusalem no matter how small it is area is," Zahhar added.
 
 
 
 

Gene Simmons Schools Obama on Israel! ~ Video

By admin

 


The demon of KISS has sent a clear message to Obama…

WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE



America needs more like you Mr. Simmons!




http://loganswarning.com/2011/05/25/gene-simmons-schools-obama-on-israel-video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Loganswarning+%28Loganswarning%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

Failed State Colonization - The Greatest Threat of Our Time



Let's compare two countries side by side. Country A has a sizable middle class and economy, social welfare benefits and a low birth rate. Country B is a failed state where thugs run amok in the street, a few families control the economy and the birth rate is off the charts.

Country A's citizens are taught that nationalism is evil and that everyone should get along. Country B's citizens are taught that they are the greatest people that ever lived and would be running the world if not for Country A. But despite all this, Country B's citizens all want to move to Country A. And Country A wants to let them. Because Country A needs new workers to subsidize its welfare state and voters who will vote for pro-social welfare parties.

Since Country B's workers want the social welfare benefits, they move to Country A. Country A ends up with a huge failed state population and dramatically increases its social welfare spending for them. Bankruptcy threatens, but change is almost impossible because the pro-social welfare benefits party has become very hard to beat. The pro-reform parties no longer tackle immigration, but try to get the immigrant vote. Their reforms turn into band aids. Country A slides toward the abyss. Country B continues shipping more immigrants every year who remain loyal to its culture and religion.

Country B is a failed state. But Country A is also turning into a failed state as it imports Country B's surplus population, along with its criminality, its political culture and its ignorance across the border.

Look at a map of the world, and what you see are successful states and failed states. This is a map that transcends ethnicity and race. It is not dependent on resources or the starting level of technology. It's not even dependent on wealth, or its level of distribution, Gulf petro-states with small populations can have rich subsidized per capita incomes, but they are still failed states dependent on a single resource and a vast army of foreign workers.

It was thought once that success would spread from the successful states to the failed states. That it was only a matter of passing along certain techniques, educating their leaders in modern universities and starting them off with some World Bank loans. But instead the reverse has happened. Rather than failed states becoming successful under the influence of successful states, successful states are failing under the influence of failed states.

Migration from failed states to successful states is leading the way to utter ruin. The Pakistanization of Europe and the Mexicanization of America are two examples of the phenomenon. But there are others. Cote d'Ivorie, one of the more prosperous African countries, has been taken over by Muslim migrant workers, with the armed backing of the UN. What happened resembled events in South Africa, but this time both sides were black. The difference was not racial, but religious. It is another example of an ongoing phenomenon. Failed State Colonization.

Failed State Colonization is the greatest threat of our time. It marks a major shift from the old era of colonization where successful states colonized unsuccessful ones. Now failed states are colonizing successful ones. Failed states have become a global plague through their population migrations, which spread terrorism, crime and bankrupt the social systems of successful states. And as the migration wave continues FSC is turning formerly successful states into failed states.

Failed states have higher birth rates and stronger group loyalties. That combination weaponizes their migrations into successful states with lower birth rates and weak group loyalties into a takeover. Failed State Colonization uses the disunity, tolerance and democracy of successful states to destroy them from the inside. It's not always a conscious act, but that doesn't make it any less destructive.

The grey squirrels didn't intend to wipe out the red squirrels in the forests of England. But the populations are incompatible and though the red squirrels may be a nobler breed, those very qualities that make them admirable, also make them less able to resist an incursion by a rougher breed. The high ground moralizing of successful states may also be admirable, but it is equally doomed in the face of an incursion by cultures whose only morality is the success of their own group.

Liberal immigration advocates cheer the destruction of our worthless culture as they look forward to a world state without borders. But there will be no world state without borders because the only people who believe in such a thing are wiping themselves out by importing migratory populations that don't think nationalism and patriotism are evils. Muslim and Mexican immigrants are not ashamed of their history. They don't think borders are a bad idea, so long as they're the ones who control where those borders are set. The left is destroying the West, but it is only the West that ever believed in a world without borders.

Conservative immigration advocates insist on a cultural exceptionalism that will absorb immigrants because of our innate superiority. And that can work in the proper ratios. Done correctly the host society ends up with some new ethnic foods, a few immigrant communities and some more loanwords. Done incorrectly, entire cities become no go zones and go bankrupt providing social welfare for all.

The difference isn't just in the numbers, though those are important, but selectivity. Immigration will almost always spike crime rates, but those go down as absorption takes hold. (So long as productive absorption is possible.) What you never do is import mass populations who think of your country as their own and want to take it over. In such a scenario the absorption will go the other way and then you end up with the likes of Taliban Terry, a former altar boy who goes around Dublin, with son Osama in tow.

The Western left has committed itself to multiculturalism, the Western right has committed itself to free enterprise-- and both positions make it hard to choke off the flow of migrants. The social welfare left and the anything for a buck right need more immigrants because there are jobs that the natives just won't do, like work without under the table without benefits while putting eight kids and two wives on the welfare rolls. The irresponsibility of corporations and social welfare lobbies inflates budgets and increases crime, while the blame gets passed around. And then you end up with cities that are No Go Zones, Imams preaching Jihad and Mexican flags waving at protests-- all because companies wanted cheap labor and left wing politicians wanted to build a constituency.

Failed State Colonization isn't an invasion by armed force. But then colonization by successful states often wasn't either. The natives lacked the will and unity to mount an active resistance, they didn't see the scale of what was happening until it was too late, the invaders took advantage of native hospitality and many of the natives collaborated with the colonists to gain some personal advantage. All three of these factors exist in Failed State Colonization. The West has failed to learn the lessons of its own conquests. And now it is falling victim to many of those same tactics.

The West is divided, the migrants are united. The scale of what is happening can only be seen on the ground or in a few mostly hidden statistics, but neither show the full scope of the phenomenon, and even if they did, most natives are conditioned to think of their countries as nearly invulnerable. When they learn otherwise, the shock is too much and they default to appeasement and collaboration. That's something the Incas could tell you about. Hospitality is lavishly extended to the migrants, but it's repaid with treachery and violence. Again something the Incas could tell us about. If their civilization was still around.

The difference between the successful state and the failed state is cultural. Successful states are successful to to the extent that they are democratic in that the agenda of the government mirrors that of the people. Failed states are successful only to the extent that their tyrants are competent, and even such competence has to be filtered through the culture of a failed state.

The successful state is dynamic, the failed state is static. The successful state is always getting things done, the failed state is just struggling not to fall apart. Where the successful state uses its resources and wealth to advance, the failed state locks them up or uses them to bribe its people. And when that fails it guns them down in the street. The successful state believes that hard work will give it a better future. The failed state believes that a turn of the wheel will put it on top of the world. The successful state blames itself for its failures. The failed state blames wicked conspirators who undermine it at every turn.

The greatest error of immigration advocates is the failure to understand that immigration does not just import a population raw for the mixing, but entire cultures with their own political culture. The migrating population of a dominant state imports its culture. The very element that made it into a failed state. 

The people of a failed state may work hard, but they don't believe that hard work will move them forward because the system is corrupt and rigged against them. Instead they either work mechanically or look for ways to beat the system. The black market is ubiquitous. Everyone cheats everyone else. Political leaders are not representatives, but patrons, linking the people at the bottom to the top, who can provide favors and make things happen. You don't vote for a political to reform a system, but to get in on the good side of his party and his family, who may then help out when you have to deal with the tangle of bureaucracy. Nothing works without a bribe. Not even the simplest things.

The people love and hate their country at the same time. They go from wanting to tear their leaders to pieces with their bare hands, to proclaiming them as gods in the space of a day. They distrust all leaders and yet they worship them. They fear the secret police and are its eagerest informants. The only injustice they protest against is personal injustice. They don't mind when the regime puts a thousand people to the wall, so long as one of them isn't their relative. They talk amongst themselves of whom the regime should really be shooting instead. "Ah, if only I were in charge. I would line them all up against the wall." That is the flavor of their democracy.

As successful states take on the political culture of failed states, their ability to reform their way out of the situation declines. Their welfare states might function if they could hold a steady native birth rate in a population that was steadily employed. But the companies of a post-modern country in a global economy feel no loyalty to remain and give up the profits they could make by outsourcing production. And a population for whom life begins after getting their second degree and where two family incomes are the norm is not going to have the birth rate necessary to sustain the next generation of the whole setup. Pouring a migrant population into the mix is like trying to fix a structural defect by setting the building on fire.

The more the ruling party responsible for the mess alienates the working class population it depended on, the more it needs immigrants to replace them as a voting base. The liberal parties become foreign parties. The conservative parties abandon their constituencies and chase after the immigrant vote. After all who are the natives going to vote for, the feckless leftist atheists or the good traditional conservatives who are busy observing Ramadan and learning to deliver speeches in Spanish.

As the system breaks down, the leftist parties pretend that nothing is wrong and the rightist parties go for slash and burn reforms that ignore the root of the problem. Scrap the military, nuke Medicare, cut funding to this office and that office. As if the root of the problem is the amount of money being spent, rather than the way it's being spent. Failing companies often try to cut expenses, but ignore that the underlying problem is not in the budget, but in its culture. The company isn't going under because it's spending too much money, that is a symptom of its fecklessness. It's going under because it has lost all sense of mission, it has lost touch with its old program and its new program is a dead end, and no one at the top can think of a reason for it to exist, except to keep them employed.

Take an honest look at Western governments and that's what you come away with. Massive bureaucracies that exist to provide compulsory services run by people who can't honestly provide a reason for the continuing existence of these countries except as an interim phase until the EU or the UN comes to take over for them. They mouth the rhetoric of exceptionalism, but they don't really believe it. They have more in common with their counterparts in other countries, than they do with the people whose lives they mismanage. Like most collapsing companies, the executives are obsessed with the minutiae of bureaucracy, enforcing rigid control in between attending lavish cocktail parties. They fiddle, Rome burns.

Failed State Colonization would not be a threat, if the successful states had not locked themselves into this mess. As the successful states fail, they lack the two elements that would repel the invaders. A high birth rate and a nationalist leadership. Those are elements the failed states do have. And so the showdown is an uneven one. The disparity is not of force, but of a willingness to use it.

Successful states attempt to avert the catastrophe by trying to police failed states, sending planes to bomb Libya to keep the migrants out, trying to shore up the Mexican government with aid and advisers. But those are all dead ends that lead to further entanglement and migration. American efforts in Somalia, Iraq and Yugoslavia have accomplished one indisputable thing. They have increased the numbers of Muslim immigrants coming from those countries. Practicing Nation Building on failed states won't stop them from colonizing us. It only accelerates the process.

Failed State Colonization is the greatest threat of our time, but it too is a symptom of the intellectual failures of the successful states. As failed states continue their prolonged collapse, they send out migrant populations which accelerate the collapse of the formerly successful states. This colonization means there will be no gradual decline. That we will not sink into the sunset like Japan, instead we will be brutally overrun. There will be no decline, but a fall.

Scarecrow Empires and Broken Alliances


Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to congress was less about the contents of his speech and more about the familiarity. Like Tony Blair, he was startlingly at home here. His presence an instinctive reminder of an alliance based on commonality and fellowship, weighed against the realpolitik of multinationalism. The warmth in his tone countering the cold counsel of foreign policy hands demanding more pressure.

The chilly reception that Gordon Brown and Benjamin Netanyahu received on their visits from the Obama Administration are post-modern fracture points in the old friendships. The instinctive kinship that Blair and Netanyahu called on are completely alien to Obama who feels far more warmth toward Egypt or Indonesia, than England and Israel. But Obama's foreignness to the old traditions is only a small fracture point in the larger break.

The US and EU have become empires without an empire, obsessively trying to maintain a world order based on multinational alliances and international law. The transition of Russia and China to capitalist states has eliminated any need for the order as a counterweight to Communism. Instead through such  organizations as the United Nations, where the majority vote means global mob rule, the blade of the order is turning against the alliance of nations that founded it.

The obsession with creating a Palestinian Arab state, in a region already chock full of Sunni Arab states, is not about peace with Israel. It's about pacifying restive Muslim populations around the world and inside Europe. The countries that are most bent on breaking up Israel, have sizable Muslim minorities, business interests in the Middle East and concerns about terrorism.

The British Empire went full circle from endorsing a Jewish state, to fighting against it tooth and nail, even using its own commanders as mercenaries on the Arab side. The reasoning was the same then as it is now. Maintaining British influence in the region would be easier without having a Jewish state there to upset the Dar Al Islam.

Every Western foreign policy apparatus is dominated by the same view, that to consolidate and stabilize the Middle East, the 'one problem country' in the region must go. Or at least be diminished. Kissinger demanded that Israel lose a war to the Arabs in order to boost their self-esteem. Then Carter demanded that Israel give up the land in exchange for a treaty that the current Egyptian government has torn up. Since then presidents have pushed Israel to create a Palestinian Muslim state. Now that it has been all but created, more concessions are being demanded. And when the negotiations inevitably fail-- Israel is held to blame.

Very little of this has to do with 'peace' in the popular understanding. There are global conflicts going on all the time. Most of them far bloodier than anything in Gaza or the West Bank. These conflicts rarely make it to the front pages of newspapers or lead to boycotts and protests. Compared to the actions of Indonesia or Turkey-- nothing that goes on in Israel should get this level of attention. That it does is really not about Israel. It's about the Muslim world.

The global hegemony needs regional stability, even as it has less ability to enforce it. Armed assaults to remove governments in Iraq and Libya have stretched the resources of the US and the EU. And such nation building projects have been shown to be futile. The current push for digital democracy is even more hopeless, rewarding insurgent factions at the expense of established governments, without breaking the cycle of violence and tyranny in any way.

The US and the EU can't force the Muslim world to behave itself. Instead they pursue stability the mirage of regional stability by doing their bidding. Cracking the whip over Israel is cheap. All it requires is political and economic pressure on a single country. Which is a lot easier than applying pressure to the 57 Muslim states of the OIC to rein in terrorism and give their people a better life. Given a choice between untying the Islamic knot or chopping up Israel, the choice is simple enough.

The same worldview that demands Israel partition itself, also calls for a Ground Zero Mosque, enforced Ramadan fasting for non-Muslims and a thousand other 'accommodations' all in the name of peace. Sooner or later we will ban burning the Koran, not because there's any Constitutional basis, but because we're still trying to keep all the pieces of a sprawling angry world together. And individual freedoms and alliances don't matter in the face of that urgent chaos.

While Netanyahu came to Washington D.C. to remind Americans of friendship-- that friendship is mostly unwanted here except around election time. American and European leaders have been focused on reaching out to the Muslim world and convincing them that we are their friends. And that they should be our friends. This pathetic show of appeasement is an attempt to build links and avoid the inevitable conflict with an ascendant Islam. Even though such a Clash of Civilizations remains unavoidable.

The US and EU, without their old military and economic might at their disposal, are falling back on the goodwill of the Muslim world. Pity the Muslim world doesn't have much of that. The entire farce of Pakistani cooperation in the War on Terror fell apart in a single day. It might just as easily have been Saudi cooperation or that of half a dozen other Muslim states. None of them are committed to fighting terrorism beyond the point where it threatens them.

While the Western multinational alliance dreams of a stable world order, the Muslim world knows that stability is an illusion. That violence is constantly present and has to be directed and channeled. The paradoxical relationship between Muslim governments and Muslim terrorists is defined by this need of regimes to channel the violence away from themselves. It's a Push-Pull relationship as governments offer limited support for the terrorists to carry on their war somewhere else, while the terrorists pull back home to overthrow the government. The closest Muslim countries can come to stability is to maintain a balance of terror between all the internal factions. And that balance can only be met through ruthless repression or international terrorism.

The view of Israel as a disruptive force in the region has always been wrong. It has actually helped stabilize its enemies by giving them an outlet for their violence. This is a role that Jews have played for thousands of years as regional minorities. Whipping boys in popular uprisings and political instability. That is the role that Israel now plays for both the Muslim world and the West. But the whipping boy is a proxy for abuse. Beating him is a way to avoid dealing with the real problem. The Muslim world remains incapable of dealing with its problems. And Western political elites continue to live in denial about their own dream of a united world order.

But the foreign policy model of the US and the EU focuses on creating stability by removing destabilizing forces. But their attempts to damage Israel and remove Arab dictators actually bleeds away whatever regional stability existed, and replaces it with chaos. That is an apt description of the aftereffects of such experiments in Cairo, Baghdad or the Palestinian Authority. The US and EU cannot stabilize the Muslim world. They can only destabilize it further.

American politicians may talk the pro-Israel talk when running for office, but once they get elected, they find themselves walking in the pro-Islamic direction of a foreign policy establishment which blames Israel for disrupting the prospects for peace, radicalizing Muslim populations and impeding an East-West alliance. But this view is not only false, it's based on an unnecessary need to maintain a global order.

The end of the Cold War means that there is no longer a practical need for this scarecrow empire that the US and EU foreign policy establishments insist on maintaining. If the UN and the IMF and the rest of the tawdry bureaucracy wants to maintain a global order based on greed and mob rule, they're welcome to it. But there is no need for the United States or England or Germany to provide them with the backing to do it. The fiction of international law has unraveled a long time ago. Human rights exist only in countries where they are enforced by local laws, not international ones.

Communism could be checkmated by an international alliance, but no international alliance that includes Muslim countries and their enablers can checkmate Islam. They certainly can't checkmate that boojum known as radical Islam, which is an expression of political and religious factions within the Muslim world that has always been there and will always be there.

The left insists on shattering the old alliances, but they have nothing to replace them with. Their war on Israel is equally misguided. Their post-American order is already rotten through and through. Like Blair's speech to congress, Netanyahu's address is a reminder of a different road that is being abandoned. Alliances based not on global orders, but on friendship and the fellowship of kin cultures. A warmth that is lacking in the hollow charades of the UN and the endless peacekeeping and aid missions to the hopeless. The vision of a global order is already dead. If such an order emerges it will not be based on liberal values or international law, but on Islam.

It's time to take down the scarecrow empires, forget one world governments and international laws, and rebuild the old alliances once again.

May Christians Preach Outside a Philadelphia Mosque?

You drive, I whip: Saudi men warn women

New male campaign on Facebook warns women against driving cars

Saudi men threatened to use their head dresses as a whip to prevent women from driving cars as part of a new Facebook male campaign in response to another campaign by women.

A new Facebook page also threatened men against helping women in their campaign to drive cars, saying these the Iqal (headgear) would  be waiting for these men. Women quickly hit back by threatening to use blade weapons to defend themselves.

Saudi newspapers said the men’s campaign launched on Facebook is dubbed “The June 17 Iqal campaign to prevent women from driving,” adding that it is in response to a women’s campaign launched on Facebook and Twitter under the slogan “I will drive starting June 17,” which has gained massive female support.
Male campaigners urged support for their drive and said on the page:”attention is to prevent women from driving with all our strength…….the Iqal will be waiting for any woman or man supporting the campaign for women to drive cars.”

According to the reports, more than 11,500 women and men in Saudi Arabia have joined the female drive while around 1,400 have so far joined the men’s counter-campaign. “We warn women against adopting Western attitudes and concepts and against a large increase in road accidents in case women are allowed to drive cars,” the men’s site said. The warning was met by a similar threat from women, who said on the page that they could use “bladed weapons in case they are intercepted by any one while they are driving.”

The women’s June 17 drive follows growing calls to end a long-standing ban on driving cars by women in the conservative Gulf kingdom.  Many women have already been reported to have defied the ban over the past few months. On Saturday, Saudi police detained one of the leading women in the June 17 campaign for driving a car in the streets of a key city. But they set her free three hours later following a gathering by other women near the police centre in the eastern town of Khobar.

Police said they interrogated Manal Al Sharif after she was spotted by many people driving her car through the streets of Khobar. A Saudi newspaper carried a film showing Manal driving her car in Khobar as she wore black glasses and a black scarf. “Manal drove her car through Khobar streets in defiance of the kingdom’s social traditions which prevent women from driving,” 'Sharq' said.

Last week, another women defined the ban by driving her car for four days without being stopped. Najla Al Hariri, a housewife in her mid-30s, said she drove non-stop for four days in the streets of the Western Red Sea port of Jeddah "to defend her belief that Saudi women should be allowed to drive."

"I don't fear being arrested because I am setting an example that my daughter and her friends are proud of," Hariri said, adding she was offering driving lessons for women.

In addition to being banned from driving, Saudi women cannot travel abroad without authorization from their male guardians, and are also not allowed to vote in the municipal elections, the only public polls in the absolute monarchy. When in public, they are obliged to cover from head to toe.

Hariri ridiculed the social belief that Saudi women are treated "like queens" as they are driven around by their male relatives or drivers, saying "this is a big lie." "We are always under their mercy to give us a lift," she said.


http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/you-drive-i-whip-saudi-men-warn-women-2011-05-23-1.396159