Thursday, December 10, 2015

Gun Control is not about Controlling Guns its about Controling the People

GUN CONTROL IS THE LOGICAL STEP

TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE

DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIGHT BACK


This is the Classic way it has been done at the dawn of every clamp down on the way to a Totalitarian Regime/Oligarchy:

Control the PEOPLE's FIRE POWER = Gun Control
Control the PEOPLE's Health Care provisions
Control the PEOPLE's Travel and Communication
Control the PEOPLE's right to assemble

Control the PEOPLE's Right to information

GETTING THE IDEA ??? ITS ALL BEING DONE NOW...



SO READ ON..... here are some of these issues analyzed .. Read and share to educate other PEOPLE!


Does Gun Control Reduce Crime? – Emphatically no. Never once did it ever do that.
Below are several studies that can be researched on the Internet yourself that document the fact that gun control never reduces crime.
New Jersey – In 1996 New Jersey passed what was considered to be the most stringent gun laws in the USA. Two years later their murder rate went up 46% and their robbery rate about doubled.

Hawaii – In 1968 Hawaii passed harsh gun laws. At the time of the legislation their murder rate was 2.4 per 100,000 per year. Nine years later their murder rate had tripled to 7.2 per 100,000.

Washington, D.C. – In 1976 they passed a major gun control law. They even stopped people from owning guns in their homes. Their murder rate went up 134% while the USA rate for murder dropped 2%.

New York City – They have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world. All sales of any sort of gun are restricted and tightly controlled. 20% of all armed robberies in the USA are committed in New York City and they do not have anywhere close to 20% of the population. This is what happens when the criminals know a certain population is unlikely to be unable to defend themselves.

Chicago, New York City, Detroit and Washington, D.C.- Each of these cities has accomplished a virtual ban on the private ownership of guns. The Washington D.C laws are being fought out in the appellate courts at present. These four cities have 20% of the homicides in the USA yet they only make up 6% of the USA population. This means that restrictive gun control leads to a tripling of the homicide rate. Some one is going to say wait the population in these areas is why the murder rate is so high. Fine we can look at Arlington, Virginia which is a city right across the Potomac River from Washington D.C with sensible gun control laws so the population base should not be that different. Their murder rate is 10% of Washington D.C. (7.0 murders per 100,000 people versus 77.8 murders per 100,000 people in Washington D.C). We can also look to Virginia Beach, Va. a nearby city of 400,000. They have sensible gun laws allowing for easy access to firearms and their murder rate is 4.1 per 100,000.

Other Effects Non-Restrictive Gun Laws have on Crime – In the USA in a given year law abiding citizens kills 2,000 to 3,000 criminals. They also wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals a year. This is a reduction in the load of violent crimes the government must arrest, detain, prosecute and imprison. It also sends a strong signal to the other would be criminals. Criminals worry far more about an encounter with an armed law abiding citizen than a policeman. Police are most likely going to be polite about asking the criminal to drop their weapon and submit. The citizen in fear of protecting himself and his family is going to be much more prone to firing his weapon than a police officer. Criminals’ greatest fear is running into an armed victim when committing a crime. This was based on a study of 1874 felons from 10 states. In this study 38% of these felons said at least one time they had been scared off, shot at or wounded by an armed victim. Only 1% of the time do criminals take a gun away from a victim, yet 10% of the police officers that are shot, are shot with their own guns. Police officers are slow to shoot and the criminals know this and thus are more fearful of an armed citizen. Private citizens kill three times as many criminals as police do. Remember if someone is assaulting you or robbing you or your house the police will likely only be taking a report not encountering the criminals. It is the citizen who needs all the help and assistance of weapons to survive the criminal encounter.

Why Do Governments Seek Gun Control? – Fear! They are afraid of losing control over the population. The prefect state of affairs for a police state is the confiscation of all privately owned firearms. Then the possibility of an overthrow of the government goes down by about 99.9%. They never want partial gun controls like only machine guns or “assault type weapons” to be banned. They want all the privately owned guns gone. The partial gun control is the Salami theory. You keep cutting a slice away until there is nothing left. The only reason for gun control is to make room for a totalitarian government, nothing else. Sometime there are people ignorantly confused who support gun control thinking it will do something to make the world a safer place to live. Play with these people and say when the government disarms then you will. Tell them to chase the government and tell them to have the government give up their guns for police leaving only the military armed. Use the British Bobbies who used to be unarmed as an example. Tell them the Cayman Island and Nassau police are unarmed. Have them call for the disarming of the police. Play with them. Have fun. Every time the police shoot someone accidentally tell them to call for the disarming of the police.



How Would Gun Control Happen – Well Obama showed it to you recently. They were starting to introduce gun control bills again. We do not know how aggressively they will push them this time. Nothing in these bills will do any practical good in terms of reducing crime, not a single thing. They also increase the penalties each time. So if it would happen what would it look like. OK there would be a bill that say banned all assault weapons. The bill would say the attorney General can add any gun to the list he wanted. Over time he would keep adding guns to test the public response. The banned guns would be prohibited from being sold at first. They would leave .22 caliber single shot rifles and single shot shotguns until the end to satisfy the call for hunting guns. Then the banned guns would become illegal to own even if they were grandfathered in, registered whatever. This would be something like turn them in or face 20 years in prison for each gun plus a $100,000 fine for each gun. I am serious on the penalties.
No one would be coming to anyone’s house to collect the guns for a long time. They would wait for someone to get shot with a .22 caliber gun and then say these too need to be banned. They always love to call for new restrictive laws after a shooting crime. Do that back to them. Every time you see the police abuse a person with a taser call for them to be banned and not used by the police. They will soon stop when their own tactics gets turned on them. Now the people have their guns and they can run around quoting Charleston Heston and his out of my cold dead hands slogan. The next stage is anytime the local police get into a house like to respond to a burglary, a domestic abuse call, a noisy party anything and they see the guns then someone gets to go to jail for a long time. The word soon gets out. If you think the people that own guns are going to like get together, carry guns and march on Washington D.C. armed to the teeth to demand gun laws be repealed you need to get some counseling. You will never see this. If anything like this were ever going to happen it would have happened in 1968 with the first serious federal gun control law. This came on the heels of the Kennedy assassination. What did that have to do with gun control laws anyway?
I am going to say some things about how it used to be. If any of you find this too wild to be true verify it. Find old issues of Guns and Ammo magazines and read the ads. You were able to buy guns mail order across state lines before 1968. There were a few states that prohibited this but that was it. You were able to buy machine guns fairly easily. You were able to freely buy what they call destructive devices. Boys ant-tank rifles (Boys was a manufacturers name) were being sold for $99.00 with bipods and all. The ads used to say for the jackrabbit that got away. This rifle fires a .51 caliber round that is effective on lightly armored tanks. Bazookas were a mail order item as were mortars. Armor piercing ammo was freely available until the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. They had lovely armor piercing fully jacketed .45 auto rounds that would pierce engine blocks, let alone bullet resistant vests. Guns were not registered except for a few states and cities that did this. Those yellow forms came along with the 1968 gun control law. This was when guns were fairly well available and by mail order. An armed society is a polite society. Criminals are not polite.

Response To New Restrictive Gun Control Laws - We will now address how the people will be likely to respond. This is hypothetical and based on speculation only. No one can predict what the people will do with any accuracy including the government. There are many mitigating circumstances that will come to bear on the hearts and minds of those affected.
In this hypothetical scenario the people in our opinion are going to not physically resist new guns laws instead just sort of go with the flow and verbally oppose them only, for the most part. They will bury their guns and ammo in the woods. They will hide them inside the walls, under the floorboards etc. They will say things like well when the time comes etc. Eventually the local police will start arresting people when they discover the guns in vehicles, in houses, informants (the maid, the plumber, the cable TV guy, the alarm company guy) tell them about them and so forth. These people will be arrested and get probably 10 years for each gun plus massive fines like $100,000 for each gun. There will be calls for amnesty asking people to just turn the guns in and walk away free. Many will do this out of fear. There will be no revolutionary forces to join and resist. After a year or two there will be raids on houses. They will use devices to see images behind the sheetrock. They will use metal detectors in the yards and land.
When they find a gun after the owner does not turn it over when they show up they will throw the book at the person. They will take his family as accomplices. All will be in jail for many years. The fines will cause them to lose their homes, cars and assets. They will be destroyed completely. Only thing worse would be to kill them. Those with guns hidden in the woods will be questioned as to where their guns are. They will probably be charged with some crime for not reporting a stolen gun within 72 hours, which is found in HR 45 the latest gun control bill (not law yet). So when they say the guns were lost or stolen they get charged with the crime of not reporting this and get serious jail time for each gun. Gun registration is the prelude to the confiscation, nothing else.
The reporting the lost and stolen guns in 72 hours is the fix against you saying you lost the guns when they come to take them away. Those with unregistered guns will be able to hide them in the woods. There are many ways to do this securely and preserve the firearm. If the weapon is wiped free of prints and any blood like from getting pinched by the slide (think DNA) then this person should be safe if the weapons are found and not traceable to him in any way. What good is it doing them to have the guns buried in the woods? It is just a psychological game they are playing with themselves. Once a man came to Confucius and said I had a jar full of money buried in the woods. I went to dig it up to check on it and the money was gone. What should I do? Confucius said put rocks in the jar, bury it again and make believe the money is still there. It would be very dangerous for these people to even go and check on their weapons and they probably never will. I do not think there will be any rising up of gun owners. They are not going to engage the police in active firefights to keep their guns. The guns will just go away and the police state will be in full swing.

What the Police Are Missing – Police do not see their role in the police state correctly or even close to it. They miss the bigger picture. To them it is a status job, the pay is good and the perks are big. Police and their families get out from traffic tickets. Ask any law enforcement officer you may know well. This includes spouses, children, brothers, sisters, and parents. In many departments they even have little gold and silver courtesy badges they give their relatives. The police and their families get favorable treatment with accident reports, ouch if you are the other driver. They have a lot of favorable treatment letting them get away with things regular people do not get away with. They usually cannot get away with major crimes. Police carry guns all over the USA without a carry permit. They can carry on airplanes if they are Federal Officers. They can carry guns in government buildings, in stadiums, schools etc.
If they are in their own jurisdiction they can get away with anything short of major felonies with victims. Police like this treatment. It gives them status and pride. It teaches them there are only three classes of people. The ruling class to them is not the Federal Reserve Bank; they would not know what that is. It is the senators, congressmen, mayors, supervisors, judges etc. They know these people can exert their power and influence and make their life miserable in many ways. They leave these people alone. Then there are police, which they always leave alone. Then come you the citizen. You pay their salary and they have no respect for you. You do not matter in that you have no power to do anything against them and you cannot retaliate. They are there to control you. The Taser is the latest police state tactic to be adopted. If a person doe not verbally snap to and respond to a verbal command of a police officer like get out of the car, stand here, sit down, move here etc they taser them.
The police do not know they are conditioning the populace to respond to the police blindly without thinking or face painful consequences. I do not really know what they think. I guess they think it is proper to demand such respect and control over those they are supposed to protect. Most people that get tasered are involved in a victimless non-violent crime. This makes it worse. The police are not aware of any of this. They are in their own little world. They do not worry too much about the financial crisis in that they think there will always be work for them. Wait until the layoffs sink in later this year. Their attitude will change for the worse. They will do anything their handlers ask to keep their jobs. The police do not think they are there to protect and serve. They are there to control the populace and protect the ruling class and each other. Can you remember when police had nice government service looking uniforms, revolvers, long wooden sticks and helped people change flat tires. Now they look like storm troopers, wear black uniforms and masks, never help anyone with anything, have high tech weapons and strike fear and terror into the hearts of those that have contact with them. This is not being done by chance it is planned to strike fear into you of the police who used to be there to serve you. The police used to be hard on armed robbers, rapists, burglars, muggers and real criminals. Now most of the people in the prisons are there for crimes that are victimless. A government statue is not a victim.

When the Police State Flourishes What Is It Like For The Police? – Well this is something they do not consider. Let us say gun control has been accomplished and private ownership of guns is historical. So the people are no longer a threat. Who will the paranoid rulers fear next? They are always paranoid because they do not rule by popular support. Ever see the army of bodyguards they have now, this is nothing. You got it, the police and military is what they will fear the most. They have the weapons, the access, the association potential to organize etc. Imagine police leaving their guns in their lockers when going off shift. This is how it will be. No private guns for police anymore. Internal security investigations will become a lifestyle.
There will not be any more lawsuits against the government. The Internal Security Forces will be super cops trained to resent the police, take advantage of them and rule them by fear and harshness. What the police do the population now, is what the internal security forces will do to the police then only worse since there will not be any consequences for their actions. There will be mandatory polygraph exams. Long interrogations. Police homes and cars being searched. Their phones and email being tapped. They will be followed. Other police constantly being questioned about their colleagues. The role model is the SS Hitler had. Remember who tried to kill Hitler, the military on several occasions. The military will also be handled harshly but they are much more easily controlled due to the nature of the military but their internal security forces will constantly be engaged in a war of terror against them.
The internal security forces will have to get results or else they will be considered ineffective so one way or another they will be discovering sedition, spying, attempts to revolt, steal, commit criminal acts etc. The police will be policed very harshly. They will in turn be harsh towards the population. The police do not see any of this coming. The Federal Police are in the same boat as the local police. They will become more and more entrusted to police the police and protect the state as time goes on. There will not be much point in protecting the state from an unarmed populace so guess who they will focus on – the others who can have access to guns – the military and police. The internal security forces the federal police have will rein terror on them as well. They will have to uncover plots to keep their jobs and show they serve a purpose. Doom and gloom.

THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES!!! THE SOCIALIST WANT THIS DO YOU ??

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Patriots. IMPORTANT. Difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Please read and share!

PATRIOTS: KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIAN SIKH WITH A TURBAN & ISLAMIC/MUSLIM HEADGEAR:

Please take the time to read and Understand the differences. During active duty in the Corps I have had the honor to fight in Specops alongside these brave loyal men.

I know of and vouch for their integrity.

Sikh headgear.jpg1 

Most Americans mistake Sikhs for Muslims due to their turbans, which often makes Sikhs targets of attacks meant for Muslims.
Sikhs are not MUSLIM and are mortal enemies of Muslims. Islam has been trying to destroy Sikhs for hundreds of years. Read up!

Please learn the differences in Sikh and Muslim headgear below. You might be able to save a Sikh’s life one day or maybe he will save yours. 

 

I urge all those who read this to find a Sikh person with a Turban and let him know that you appreciate him for being a loyal American. He may not sound like you, but 99.9% of them are 100% loyal to America. In 130 years there has never been a Sikhs act of Terror against America.
Sikhs have been a part of the American populace for more than 130 years. Near the end of the 19th century, the state of Punjab of British India was hit hard by British practices of mercantilism. Many Sikhs emigrated to the United States and began arriving to work on farms in California. They traveled via Hong Kong to Angel Island, California, the western counterpart to Ellis Island in New York Harbor.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_the_United_States

If you see a man walking down the street wearing a pointed turban, there is 99.9% chance that he is a Sikh, a follower of a monotheistic religion that started in the 15th century in India. Sikhs proudly wear the turban as part of their religious and cultural heritage. Sikhs are often mistaken for Muslims or Arabs. They are neither. Sikhism is an independent religion and is in no way related to Islam.



turban_sikhSIKH MEN commonly wear a peaked turban that serves partly to cover their long hair, which is never cut out of respect for God’s creation. Devout Sikhs also do not cut their beards, so many Sikh men comb out their facial hair and then twist and tuck it up into their turbans along with the hair from their heads.  

 

Sikhism originated in northern India and Pakistan in the 15th century and is one of the youngest of the world’s monotheistic religions. There are an estimated 18 million Sikhs in the world, with some 2 million spread throughout North America, Western Europe and the former British colonies.

About Sikhism and Islam

Sikhism, founded in fifteenth century Punjab on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev and ten successive Sikh Gurus (the last one being the sacred text Guru Granth Sahib), is the fifth-largest organized religion in the world. This system of religious philosophy and expression has been traditionally known as the Gurmat (literally the counsel of the gurus) or the Sikh Dharma. Sikhism originated from the word Sikh, which in turn comes from the Sanskrit root śiṣya meaning "disciple" or "learner", or Sikshameaning "instruction".

---- "SIKHS WILL NEVER BOW TO ISLAM !! -

Pictures shows...Sikh women Martyrs of Punjab (1752) -----

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!

March 6, 1752 A.D., Muin-ul-Malk, Governor of Lahore (now Pakistan), also known as Mir Mannu; ordered the extermination of Sikhs in his area & had the men-folk beheaded publicly, with the younger unmarried girls sold or distributed among the jihadis. The women and children had a different fate and were taken captives & keep hungry in the Lahore jail. Starving women were forced to operate heavy wheat grindstones and were given the option of conversion to Islam or suffer consequences. They unanimously chose to remain steadfast to their faith in the face of certain death, upon which the Muslim guards gruesomely massacred over 300 infants and children, IMPALING them on spears. Chopping their limbs, bodies of babies were RIPPED open to take out Internal Organs which were then garlanded around their mothers necks. One by one many Sikh women suffered such brutal atrocities but they all chose to remain steadfast to their Sikh faith instead of embracing Islam.

Miraculously though, before the Womens' turn came to be slaughtered, the surviving Sikh women were rescued by the Akalis (Sikh horsemen) sometime after the death of Mir Mannu on November 4, 1753. One can guess, that similar barbarity must have befallen on Sikh babies at other prisons where their mothers could not be rescued to tell their part of tragedy.

Incidents like these run in thousands if not more, and were spread over entire Punjab region, the evidence for many such gruesome atrocities come not from the survivors such as these women, but interestingly from the Muslim chroniclers themselves who very proudly mention these infidel slayings as a "service to Islam ". Such as one account by Nur Ahmad Chishti who recorded that Mir Mannu “killed thousands of Sikhs” daily. Once, on the day of Muslim festival, he beheaded 1100 Sikhs” in public.

Even today, 200 years later, Islamists are doing the same Islam barbarity upon the Yezidi women and children in Iraq, at the time of writing this article.

Could anything be more painful for Sikh women than to watch and witness the gruesome butchery of their own sons and husbands? These women maintained strong conviction in their Sikh faith in the face of extreme atrocites. In those days Sikhs were persecuted because they were considered infidels by Muslims & today Sikhs become victims in the United States because they are confused with Muslims. Its my hope that readers will share & help avoid such confusion.

Some people may wonder why didn't these women convert for a moment to save their children & themselves, be released & when free then go back to worshipping your old religion again? this way atleast they could save their & their babies life and go on worshipping your old religion like before once you have appeased the Muslims by fake-converting to Islam ?

-- the important thing here is that the Sikh resistance shown by these women was not a fight to worship in "Sikh way" rather than "Islamic way", the reader should not mistakenly consider this heroic resistance of Sikh women as some blind intoxication with Sikhism so much so that they sacrificed their children but foolishly refused to abandon Sikhism. The Sikh women here were not being obstinate about "being a Sikh to the last moment of breath". This sacrifice shown here is the highest epitome of fight for principles in Sikh history, for which life had to be given. This Sikh resistance here, was primarily to stop the spread of Islamic ideology in India at all costs; instilling a blind faith & a cult like commitment to die for Sikhism was NOT the objective here as it might seem to some. The Sikhs of that time understood very well the dangers of Islam & the hate it perpetuates towards humanity. If Islam was just another peaceful religion, then the Sikhs could just as well have converted to Islam if it was just a spiritual & peaceful religion like any other religion; meaning why die for Sikhism if all religions are same? The only way to stop the hateful ideology of Islam, was not to give in to forced Islamic conversion at all costs. Infact this was the only option available to them, today Islam has a very weak chance against the advent of internet and democracy in many powerful nations; but in those times many powerful civilizations were rapidly collapsing in the face of Islamic jihad. In India in one generation, either all infidels would be dead or would have converted to Islam.
Converting to Islam to save ones' neck was already common place & the 'logical thing' to do during this time in the spread of Islamic rule in India. Many infidels in India who were forced to convert to Islam to save their necks, actually did indeed convert to Islam, and then went on to practice their old Hindu / Buddhist religion secretly inside their homes; but outwardly they put on a Islamic name, Islamic rituals/circumcision, Muslim beard just to save their necks. Over a few generations, they became more Islamic, more radicalized and started to feel a connection with pan-Islamic pride and anti-infidel mindset radicalized them and within a few generations, the descendants of once forced-converted-closet Hindus had turned into the same monster, their ancestors had tried to save themselves from. Today their descendants are called "Pakistani's", the world's finest producer of ongoing terrorism and a nuclear contributor to Muhammads' 1400 year old legacy of jihad. The ancestors of present day Muslims were all Closet-Hindus at one time. They practiced ancient Hindu festivals like Holi upto 2 or 3 generations even after converting to Islam.Even today some of Pakistani's keep their old Hindu surnames.

This Sikh resistance as shown here, was the fight against Islamic ideology and its spread across human minds, and for this sacrifices such as that of these brave women had to be made, not because they were careless about their babies life, nor that they were intoxicated with Sikhism as is commonly seen in many blind cult faiths, but because one of the Principles of Sikhism is to put welfare of society above ones' individual welfare. The purpose of a Sikhs' life is not to be selfish about one's survival but about the survival of "society" / "community" at large, this means the extent of harm done by self-sacrifice of these Sikh women is minor as compared to the damage to the society that would have been done if Islam is allowed to be spread in the Indian society. This can be seen today, old civilizations now turned Islamic.

Had these women converted to Islam they would have saved their lives and their babies, but it would have lead to perpetual spread of Islamic poison in society, as we can see with the emergence of Pakistan, which is far worse than personal death of these women & the immense grief of massacre of their babies. It was only after this immense sacrifice that the Sikhs less than 5% of Punjab, were able to rule over Punjab and tame the Muslim majority areas. No other episode in history has seen a slaughtered tribe taking the enemy head on in less than a generations time; and rendering North India free of Islam. In the grand scheme of life, the sacrifice of these women was necessary.

- On another note, humans are social animals. Its called Pack mentality... Muslims love it. Once anybody converts, Muslims will shout out loud as when some celebrity converts to Islam, they mean to show that as an example that Islam is true. If these women had converted even for a moment, an example would have been set; and a lot more people would not have stood up to fight against islam. The idea was to show strong resistance at all costs to stand up against Islamic oppression & you you couldn't put an end to Islam in India if these brave Sikh men & women just converted..
These brave women sacrificed their babies & set a great precedent at that time. Taking inspiration from these brave women & other Sikh martyrdom that followed many more people joined the Sikh resistance & did not accept forced conversions and fiercely fought against Islamic oppression. Within next 50 years, Sikhs who were less than 5% in Punjab, not only destroyed & took over the Islamic empire in Punjab, but also ruled over that region which was majority Muslim something unparalleled in history till date, it is to say that Sikhism on the verge of being extinction, did not run away to safer parts of the world, but stood right there steadfast and rather kicked the enemy out of Punjab. By 1800, Punjab with a sizeable Muslim population was ruled over by a Sikh emperor who tamed their jihadi tendencies, by closing several mosques that called for jihad, banned muslim calls to azaans in the streets of his capital and wrested half of Afghanistan east of Khybar pass. This put a stop to Islamic spread in India. Today there is no Islam in as much as half of Punjab (todays' North India). Sikhs who numbered less than 5% of a population could not have saved their future generations from Islam, but for the Bravery of these women. In the grand scheme of life, the sorrow & sacrifices faced by the Sikh women must have been small and necessary. Today we are in much better and safer position with the advent of internet to face Islamic jihad. But will we use our freedoms today to carry on the fight of these women? These women belong not just to Sikh faith but a beacon of inspiration for all of us freedom loving people.
THESE ARE MUSLIMS AND THEIR HEADGEAR.. BEWARE OF THESE GUYS!!

turban_muslimMUSLIM RELIGIOUS ELDERS, like this man from Yemen, often wear a turban wrapped around a cap known in Arabic as a kalansuwa. These caps can be spherical or conical, colorful or solid white, and their styles vary widely from region to region. Likewise, the color of the turban wrapped around the kalansuwa varies. White is thought by some Muslims to be the holiest turban color, based on legends that the prophet Mohammed wore a white turban. Green, held to be the color of paradise, is also favored by some. Not all Muslims wear turbans. In fact, few wear them in the West, and in major cosmopolitan centers around the Muslim world, turbans are seen by some as passé.

turban_afghanAFGHAN MUSLIM MEN wear a variety of turbans, and even within the Taliban, the strict Islamic government that controls much of the country, there are differences in the way men cover their heads. This Taliban member, for example, is wearing a very long turban — perhaps two twined together — with one end hanging loose over his shoulder. The Taliban ambassador to Afghanistan, on the other hand, favors a solid black turban tied above his forehead. And some men in Afghanistan do not wear turbans at all, but rather a distinctive Afghan hat.

turban_iranIRANIAN MULLAHS wear black or white turbans wrapped in the flat, circular style shown in this image of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The word turban is thought to have originated among Persians living in the area now known as Iran, who called the headgear a dulband.

ARAB MUSLIM KAFFIYEH is not technically a turban. It is really a rectangular turban_arafatpiece of cloth, folded diagonally and then draped over the head — not wound like a turban. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has made the kaffiyeh famous in recent times. However, the kaffiyeh is not solely Palestinian. Men in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Persian Gulf states wear kaffiyehs in colors and styles that are particular to their region. Jordanians, for example, wear a red and white kaffiyeh, while Palestinians wear a black and white one. And a man from Saudi Arabia would likely drape his kaffiyeh differently than a man from Jordan. The black cord that holds the kaffiyeh on one’s head is called an ekal.

turban_nigerDESERT PEOPLES & MUSLIM TERRORISTS have long used the turban to keep sand out of their faces, as this man from Africa is likely doing. Members of nomadic tribes have also used turbans to disguise themselves. And sometimes, the color of a person’s turban can be used to identify his tribal affiliation from a distance across the dunes. This man’s turban is a very light blue. In some parts of North Africa, blue is thought to be a good color to wear in the desert because of its association with cool water.
 

KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE