              
|
Moral Inversion in GazaThere is no shortage of analysis and commentary concerning Israel's attempt to destroy Hamas' ability to fire rockets indiscriminately into civilian communities. But Melanie Phillips makes several key points in this column published Sunday in The Spectator that are worth reading. She notes that those speaking the loudest for Israeli restraint were silent about the "bombardment of Israeli towns by more than 6000 rockets in the past six years, deliberately targeting innocent civilians," and continue to ignore Hamas' use of Gaza residents as human shields. When those innocents are injured or killed, it fuels the cries of disproportionate force and demands for a ceasefire. No one challenges the terror masters to stop placing them in harm's way:
Phillips points out reporting in a New York Times story which demonstrates clearly the nature of those Israel fights. The article describes a Palestinian woman's search for her husband in a Gaza hospital. It turned out the man was shot in the head, "like five others killed at the hospital this way in 24 hours," (emphasis added) for allegedly collaborating with Israel. "A crowd at the hospital showed no mercy after the shooting, which was widely observed," the Times story continued. So much for the Hippocratic Oath. Phillips, meanwhile, offers a small ray of hope by citing Reform Party of Syria President Farid Ghadry's refreshingly candid assessment:
Finally, for a more tongue-in-cheek essay, see Martin Lewis' entry on the Huffington Post. By IPT News | Mon, 5 Jan 2009 at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) In Defense of the Constitution
James Yee & CAIR: "Trust" Terror? A jury has found the remaining defendants know as the "Fort Dix Six" guilty of conspiring to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix. The jury found that the men had made an agreement to attack soldiers at the base "and had taken at least one step toward carrying it out." In record time, CAIR and their stooge James Yee rose to the defense of Islamist jihadists who wanted to kill fellow americans, and to insult the integrity of FBI and law enforcement personnel who acted quickly and bravely to defend our countrymen from a terror attack. James Yee: "It seemed to me as if the case was pretty flimsy," ... "It seems like these guys under
It's amazing to see James Yee speak about "normal circumstances" dictating the course of this case. It was under normal circumstances that the FBI learned of the Fort Dix Six's jihadist practices when one of the six brought a home made terror training video tape to a shop to have the tape converted to DVD. The employee watched the tape in the course of making the copy, and viewed alarming and shocking militant jihad-like activity which prompted him to call the authorities. Undoubtedly due to the efforts of groups like CAIR, the clerk actually worried over being called a racist if he called the authorities and alerted them to what he had seen.
"All of this doesn't help build trust with the American Muslim community, and that is vital if our
Unbelievable...this from a "man" who arguably dishonored both his officer's commissioning oath and the US Army uniform he wore while "ministering" to Islamic terrorists detained at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...a man without honor presumes to lecture anyone about trust? James Yee, poster boy of the Front Group created for Hamas - CAIR, has the nerve to act as if he speaks for the American Muslim community and tell us that we should have "trusted" that the Fort Dix Six were nothing but innocent gun-toting Boy Scouts not worthy of any investigation? Not everyone in the convicted men's community agrees with Yee. Fuat "Mike" Mamo of Cresskill, New Jersey had this to say, specifically of the three Albanian born brothers who were convicted: "I don't know what they were thinking...they were just out of their mind and they should be "Many people in the Muslim community will see this as a case of entrapment...from what
Anti-CAIR sought the opinion of a respected American Muslim on the subject of the Fort Dix Six convictions and the statements of CAIR and James Yee. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was kind enough to provide the following response: ************************ I never ceased to be amazed at the depths to which Islamist groups like CAIR and their supporters like James Yee will stoop to On December 22, 2008, Jim Sues, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of CAIR also certainly seems to have a problem Not only did the jury disagree with that, but Patrick Rowan, assistant US attorney general for national security said it best, "The word to be a different one for Islamists than for those adjudicated by juries in New Jersey or Dallas. James Yee also provided an incredulous comment after the guilty verdict. "All this doesn't help build trust with the American Muslim community, and that is vital if our law enforcement is going to fight terrorism." Mr. Yee, please speak for yourself and cease and desist representing yourself as a spokesperson for the American Muslim Community and I am personally offended that you are touted as a representative of American Muslims who are former military officers. As a former US Navy Lieutenant commander, I take great umbrage with an individual who has not only taken the oath of citizenship but that of a US military officer and yet portrays a sentiment that he and thus by inference, ‘the American Muslim community' has a problem with government informants and their efforts to infiltrate possible jihadist cells. With Mr. Yee's pronouncements on the heels of this case, it becomes difficult to see when he would ever find it appropriate for the government to do its job and infiltrate radical cells with whom they have probable cause and stop their activities. Mr. Yee, we have an obligation as citizens and as officers to our oath and to uphold the law regardless of any other allegiance to a faith It is truly sad that such offensive comments are touted as representing the sentiments of the American Muslim community. In fact, if media President, AIFD
************************* 'Nuff said ...Andrew Whitehead Story Links: By Anti-CAIR | Tue, 23 Dec 2008 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) Myrick, Wolf Smack AIG's New Shariah FinancingFinancial giant AIG's decision to offer a shariah-compliant insurance program is drawing heat in court and on Capitol Hill. AIG is operating today with help from a $40 billion taxpayer bailout. According to the Insurance Journal, an AIG subsidiary's shariah-compliant homeowner's insurance plan is the first of "a series of Shari'ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S." Companies involved in entertainment, alcohol and pork would not be eligible for investment from program funds. In a letter dated Thursday to AIG board chairman Edward Liddy, U.S. Reps. Sue Myrick (R-NC) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) note that, for all its seeming appeal, shariah financing is used by terrorist groups from Al Qaida to Hamas to route money because it is difficult to track its flow. Calling the American people "de facto stockholders in your company," the two members of Congress bluntly warned AIG to be careful if it should continue its Shariah plan:
Myrick helped created the bi-partisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. Wolf is the ranking Republican on the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee and human rights champion. They noted other aspects of Shariah law, including the stoning to death of adulterers. See their letter here. AIG's plan also generated a lawsuit in Michigan against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve Board claiming that it would violate the First Amendment to have taxpayer money going to "approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities." By IPT News | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) Rejected Complaint Still Makes its PointA Canadian human rights council has rejected a complaint from an online magazine editor against an imam the editor accused of engaging in "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits communication which "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti did just that to gays, women, Jews and people he considers infidels in his book, "Islam or Fundamentalism ? In light of the Qor'an and the Sunna," Marc Lebuis said in his complaint. Al-Hayiti writes gays and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" and beheaded if caught performing sodomy. Women are inferior to men. Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth" and "injustice will never disappear from the face of the earth before Islam and Sharia are properly applied throughout the world." Those who leave Islam should have their necks cut, the book said. But in a December 5 letter, a Canadian Human Rights Commission official said the imam's writing weren't likely to provoke hatred or contempt and the complaint would be dropped. Lebuis filed his complaint last April, just after the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against journalist Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine accusing them of publishing Islamophobic articles. The commission said it lacked jurisdiction to act, but still criticized Steyn and Maclean's for "promoting societal intolerance" and disseminating "destructive, xenophobic opinions. (Steyn weighs in on the Lebuis decision here.) At the time, Lebuis explained his complaint actually was an attempt "to force a debate on freedom of expression and bring the public and the media to denounce the new role that CHRC is taking on, that is: Censor of ‘blasphemy'." At the same time, he hoped to draw attention to Al-Hayiti's Salafi ideology, which he labeled dangerous enough to be outlawed. But he didn't sound as if he expected a different outcome. That doesn't mean he feels like he lost:
By IPT News | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) A Poor Choice for Poster ChildThe NSA's warrantless surveillance program remains the focus of debate as President Bush prepares to leave office. The program allowed telephone calls and e-mails to be monitored without a warrant when they included U.S. residents and people abroad with suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates. While the argument is focused on some specific cases, it really is "a purely political matter aimed at President Bush and seeking to discredit the framework of anti-terror measures adopted during his tenure," Stephen Schwartz argues in this Weekly Standard column. It is fair to wonder why opponents can't come up with a better test case than Ali al-Timimi. Timimi is serving a life sentence after being convicted of "soliciting others to wage war against the United States; counseling others to engage in a conspiracy to levy war against the United States; attempting to aid the Taliban" using explosives and firearms to further the scheme. His lawyers filed a new appeal Tuesday, saying he had been subject to the surveillance and that he should be given a new trial because they were deprived of information resulting from it. Schwartz notes that House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel Chairman Rush Holt (D-NJ) wants an investigation into whether government officials withheld information from Timimi's defense team. Timimi's conviction is based upon his coordination with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), the group believed to be behind last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Lest anyone wonder why U.S. officials would be concerned about the LET, Schwartz explains:
Timimi's case shows that the LET has followers in the United States, a true cause for concern. But as Schwartz dryly notes: "'Domestic spying,'" at least at this point, apparently trumps "international plotting of mass murder" as a matter for congressional scrutiny." By IPT News | Wed, 17 Dec 2008 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) Is US Aid Underwriting Virulent PA Programming?It is well established that Hamas-run television features programming indoctrinating children with a hatred for Israel, Jews and glorifying suicide bombings. Over at the Daily Beast, Gerald Posner posts a series of video clips from the Palestinian Authority that show the same kind of propaganda. The PA, of course, is supposed to be the moderate voice of the Palestinians, recognized by the U.S. as an honest negotiating partner in peace talks. What's worse, Posner claims, is that U.S. aid is being used to in producing the hateful images to children, which include "a steady drumbeat of indoctrination to kill Israelis, with idealized images of virgins who await suicide bombers." You need to follow the link and see the clips for yourself. They are all under a minute. By IPT News | Wed, 17 Dec 2008 at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) The Threat of Radical Brit-PaksEach year, hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who hold British passports travel to Pakistan to see family and friends. Some, however, sneak off to terrorist-training camps in Pakistan's remote and uncontrolled tribal areas. So what's to keep these terrorist-trained Brit-Paks, as they are known, from using their passports to board a plane to the U.S.? That is one of the disturbing issues Con Coughlin raises in the Telegraph today. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown acknowledges his security services are tracking 20 active terror plots at any one time. Many, Coughlin writes, involve "‘Brit-Paks' who have been radicalised and trained in Pakistan and managed to return undetected to Britain." All of this points attention back on Pakistan and the depth of its commitment to curtail the use of its land to train jihadists. It is promising just such a crackdown in the wake of last month's Mumbai terrorist attacks:
The question is what happens if more attacks are found to have roots in the Pakistani tribal areas and if such attacks hit Britain or the U.S. By IPT News | Tue, 16 Dec 2008 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) Murder and Honor in PakistanA British author is telling a shocking story about last month's murder of a Pakistani military officer. Major-General Alavi, a former head of Pakistan's special forces, was gunned down outside Islamabad November 19.
Alavi has predicted his death in a recent meeting with Carey Schofield. It was because of this letter which Alavi gave Schofield, which accuses other Pakistani military leaders of striking secret agreements with the Taliban. One general allegedly struck an agreement to pay Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud to protect the army from attacks. Mehsud is believed to be behind the assassination of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Schofield, author of the forthcoming Inside the Pakistan Army, writes in the Sunday Times that Alavi felt his concerns were being ignored:
Alavi was a natural target for terrorists working in Pakistan, but he was killed by 9mm pistol shots, the kind used by the army. Schofield described the murder as "far more clinical than a normal militant attack." Alavi had been forced out as head of Pakistan's special services three years ago in what he considered a fabricated set of allegations meant to silence his criticism that his country was letting Taliban fighters operate freely and strike western troops in Afghanistan. Writing the letter, and making sure Schofield took it public if something were to happen to him, was his way of setting the record straight. "I want justice. And I want my honour restored," Schofield says Alavi told her. "And you know what? I [don't] give a damn what they do to me now. They did their worst three years ago." By IPT News | Tue, 16 Dec 2008 at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) Their Anti-Drug Advisor? Keith RichardsBritain's former intelligence chief is calling on Scotland Yard to sever ties with an anti-terror advisor after the Times of London reported the advisor is wanted by Interpol for his work with an alleged Tunisian extremist movement. Mohamed Ali Harrath has been subject to a "red notice," which roughly equates to being on a most wanted list, since 1992. Harrath was a founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, which Tunisian officials say seeks to create "an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence." The Interpol notice indicates Harrath is wanted for "Counterfeiting/forgery, crimes involving the use of weapons/explosives, terrorism," the Times reports. British authorities rejected a Tunisian extradition request in 1997. Then they went a step further, hiring Harrath as an advisor in the Scotland Yard Muslim Contact Unit to help prevent terrorism and extremism, the Times reports. Baroness Neville-Jones, the country's former intelligence chief, said Harrath had to be let go and offered a series of pointed questions on Monday:
Harrath denies that the Tunisian Islamic Front has any terrorist connection and argues Tunisia trumped up charges against him. The Times interviewed Tunisia's justice minister, who said that while in London, Harrath sent Islamic Front recruits to terrorist camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Harrath called those "completely outrageous and false" allegations. The newspaper notes that he "refuses, however, to discuss what he did between 1995 and 2000 in Britain." By IPT News | Mon, 15 Dec 2008 at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) Distinguishing Muslims from IslamistsThis might be a longer blog post than usual, but Hudson Institute Center for Eurasian Policy director Zeyno Baran has written something that clearly and succinctly distinguishes the ambitions of Islamists versus the rest of the Muslim world. Baran was among the panelists last week at a forum sponsored by the Hudson Institute and the Pew Charitable Trust on America's role in promoting democracy abroad. The 100-minute discussion, moderated by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, featured a good exchange of ideas and an assessment of the challenges we now face. It can be seen here. But it is Baran's paper, "The Case for Liberal Democracy," that really merits attention. America is losing ground in the global war of ideas, she argues, in large part because it has sought short-term successes over a longer term strategy of how to best promote democracy. The push for elections helped legitimize Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006. That wasn't what U.S. policy makers had in mind. Baran starts with a basic question:
To Islamists, democratic elections are merely the mechanism to gain the power needed to implement sharia, which can fool naïve westerners who think elections by themselves are signs of progress in the Arab and Muslim world:
The bottom line is that the U.S. does not understand what Islamism is. As Baran said during the December 10 forum, "Muslims can be democrats just like any other religious people can be. Islamists cannot and are not." Participating in elections provides a veneer of moderation that cloaks a radical agenda, Baran argues in her paper. It is a concession that makes it possible to bring about "an uncompromising worldview." That is why the Muslim Brotherhood has advocates who say it is a moderate group despite its goal of making sharia the governing basis of society:
True democratic reform requires a long term investment in political stability and education. Hungry people who live in fear won't embrace democracy. They need to learn critical thinking skills and feel confident in their ability to provide for their families. Such changes don't come quickly or cheap, Baran acknowledges. But:
It's an important paper in understanding why Islamists, even when they embrace a path of democracy over violence, still harbor an agenda that is antithetical to a free society. Read the whole thing here. By IPT News | Mon, 15 Dec 2008 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |
|
 |
© 2009 The Investigative Project on Terrorism. | Legal Information |
