|
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE NGOs
By Avi Davis
On a fairly regular basis these days I receive solicitations from Amnesty International, a human rights group based in London. Although I have never been a member of Amnesty International, it is my belief that my address is retained in their records after a scalding documentary I made about the human rights groups’ involvement in fostering the myth of a Jenin Massacre in 2003. At that time I had flown to London to interview the head of Amnesty International to determine what had driven the organization to accept ludicrous reports about supposed Israeli atrocities and to publicize them worldwide. What I uncovered at that time, opened my eyes to the politics of human rights in the world today and the twisted ways many of the organizations struggle to maintain attention, retain funding and exercise influence.
Since 1948 and the passage of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), the human rights industry, as I will kindly refer it, has grown enormously. In 1948, sixty-nine NGO (non-governmental organizations) had consultative status at the United Nations; by 2000, that number was over two thousand, many of which claimed to promote “universal human rights” in their mission statements. For example, Amnesty International explicitly states that it “does not support or oppose any government or political system...it is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.” Similarly, HRW pledges to uphold objectivity a nd condemn human rights abuses on all sides.
The impact of the larger Human Rights NGOs has been staggering. The World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and UN Human Rights Commission must all take into account the attitudes and policies of non-governmental organizations when deliberating on matters of global concern. The Seattle Riots of 1999 , the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court were all decisively affected by the political positions and lobbying activities of some of the major NGOs.
Human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Global Exchange, Christian Aid and Oxfam operate under a halo of respectability and inscrutability, presenting themselves as altruistic welfare organizations that promote the common good of humanity - while governmental, business and political institutions are cast as selfish and particularistic. Their leaders are international celebrities and receive the kind of treatment in many countries which is generally reserved for diplomats and visiting dignitaries. After all, who could quibble with policies that are avowedly universal , pluralistic, bipartisan and concerned for the welfare of humankind no matter color, creed, religion or politics?
Who indeed? The reality is that human rights organization today swagger around the world voicing opinions and promoting activism on a score of issues which have no absolutely no connection to their core mandates.
There are myriad examples:
Amnesty International was a signatory to a November 1, 2001 document characterizing the 9/11 attacks as a legal matter to be addressed by criminal-justice procedures rather than by military retribution. Suggesting that the hijackers were motivated chiefly by a desire to draw attention to global injustices perpetrated by the United States, this document explained that similar future calamities could be averted only if America would finally begin to "promote fundamental rights around the world."
Global Exchange recently endorsed a document called the Earth Charter, which blames capitalism for many of the world's environmental, social, and economic problems. The Charter maintains that "the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening." A notable cosigner of this petition was Global Exchange Director Medea Benjamin, who was a chief organizing force behind the November 1999 riots in Seattle, where some 50,000 protesters destroyed millions of dollars worth of property in their effort to shut down the WTO Conference in that city. Oxfam also endorsed a recent "Our World is Not for Sale" campaign similarly condemning the WTO.
Oxfam regularly issues political condemnations of Israel while remaining completely silent about Palestinian-perpetrated human rights abuses and acts of terror. The British branch of Oxfam regularly denounces Israel's security policies against terror attacks. Oxfam Belgium recently produced a poster, in both Flemish and French, calling on Belgian consumers to boycott Israeli products; the poster declared that "Israeli fruits have a bitter taste," and depicted blood dripping from an Israeli fruit.
The UK chapter of Christian Aid was a signatory to a petition of so-called "civil society" organizations that opposed globalization, big business in general, and "any effort to expand the powers of the World Trade Organization (WTO) through a new comprehensive round of trade liberalization." Members affiliated with some of the signatories actively participated in the Seattle riots In 2003, Christian Aid also endorsed an "Our World is Not for Sale" campaign condemning the WTO.
So if these organizations can command such international attention and can have such an impact on representative world bodies, who, exactly, has given them their mandate?
The answer is almost no one. Very few organizations possess the kind of individual donor base or system of accountability that would make them “ representative ” in any democratic sense. Amnesty’s donor base tops the list it 220,000 and it is all downhill after that. Most large Human Rights NGOs do not receive a majority of their funding from their donor bases at all but from very large foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation. While these foundations do have systems in place to monitor how the NGOs expend the funds they receive, that kind of reporting is slow and often lags years behind the actual disbursement of the funds. Internally, most NGOs do not have democratic structures set in place for decision making and policy is typically set by a relatively small handful of individuals at the top of the tree.
That leaves a collection of individuals with great power and relatively little accountability in areas of vital interest to world economic stability, peace and security.
The tens of thousands of NGOs around the world that have developed claims to represent civil society therefore represent barely any one but themselves – self appointed world tribunes who use their podium to counter the prevailing “selfish and particularistic interests” of states, governments (including democracies), multinational corporations and political parties.
This is of particular importance when considering the upcoming follow up to the UN-sponsored World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that took place in September 2001, in Durban, South Africa. Although it was completely overshadowed by the dramatic events in New York two weeks later, that conference provided a key venue for promoting Israel as “an apartheid regime,” encouraging a policy of international isolation, based on the South African model. The conference was generated and motivated by non- governmental organizations whose anti-Israel and anti-semitic pronouncements resulted in a bitter reaction from countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States who felt used. Nothing at that conference was said of real human rights abuses in neighboring Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran.
The upcoming April 23-24 conference in Geneva promises to be as much a fiasco as the last one, largely because the same non-governmental organizations, who are free of accountability, will once again have open rein to transform an international conference on human rights into a cesspool of hatred and potential violence.
If there was ever a time to reconsider the efficacy and credibility of NGO activism on human rights, then this it. Those individuals and organizations concerned about true human rights should stand up and expose the radical agenda of the NGOs and help set in motion a counter movement (and counter conference) in order to present an alternative to a destructive international cause, which has lost its moral compass and whose contributions to true human dignity are growing more limited with each passing year.
Avi Davis is the Executive Director and Senior Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance and is the coordinator of the upcoming European Freedom Alliance conference The Politicization of Human Rights and International Law, to be held in London in March, 2009.
NEWS: EUROPE AND AMERICA
Recent Report Finds Over A Third Of Muslim Students in British Universities Back Killings and Sharia Law
Third of Muslim students back killings: Radicalism and support for sharia is strong in British universities-Abul Taher
 ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law. The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”The report was criticised by the country’s largest Muslim student body, Fosis, but Anthony Glees, professor of security and intelligence studies at Buckingham University, said: “The finding that a large number of students think it is okay to kill in the name of religion is alarming. “There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and nonMuslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.” The researchers found that 55% of nonMuslim students thought Islam was incompatible with democracy. Nearly one in 10 had “little respect” for Muslims. In addition to its poll of 1,400 Muslim and nonMuslim students, the centre visited more than 20 universities to interview students and listen to guest speakers. It found that extremist preachers regularly gave speeches that were inflammatory, homophobic or bordering on antisemitic. (TimesOnline)
Swedish Taxpayers Flipping The Bill For Surgically Restored ‘Virginity’
Stockholm taxpayers funding surgically restored 'virginity'
Surgical reconstructions of the hymen, a fold of skin found at a woman's vaginal opening, are being performed by both public and private practitioners in Stockholm, a new report shows.
• More Swedish docs fear malpractice complaints (24 Jul 08)
• Honour violence widespread in Sweden (9 Jun 08)
• Swedish girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer (26 Feb 08)
The study has caused alarm among local health officials and politicians, who were previously unaware that such operations took place at all, let alone at tax payer-funded health clinics. "That there is even a demand for this type of operation is appalling. It is not illegal as long as it is voluntary, but I personally do not believe that girls that approach the healthcare services for a hymen reconstruction do this voluntarily," said Stockholm's vice-mayor and social services secretary, Ulf Kristersson of the Moderate Party in a statement
"[It's] a medical procedure without purpose." The findings come from a project launched in the autumn of 2007 by Stockholm's city council launched to survey the incidence of "honour-related restrictions" on the lives of girls and boys living in the city. One of these such restrictions is the practice of surgical operations to restore the hymens of young girls to ensure that they bleed following intercourse on their wedding night.
It is a common myth that blood from the breaking of the hymen during sexual intercourse indicates that the woman was a virgin. Both Christian and Muslim groups in most Middle Eastern countries expect a woman to bleed on her wedding night, Bernardita Nunez told Svenska Dagbladet. Nunez heads Terrafem, an organization which advises 600 to 1,000 women and young girls every year on matters related to their wedding night expectations.
"There is no research, no findings, and no knowledge about these operations. People put in stitches which the girls believe can rebuild the hymen, but they're totally wrong," Nunez told the newspaper. (TheLocal)
Hirsi Ali Requests Funding For Her Protection
Netherlands: Former MP Hirsi Ali seeks police protection in US-AKI
 Amsterdam, 29 July (AKI) - A court in The Hague has approved a request by Somali-born ex-MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali for witnesses to be heard in her claim for the Dutch state to pay for her security in the US, Dutch media reported on Tuesday. The Dutch government stopped paying for Hirsi Ali's police protection after she moved to the US permanently last year. An outspoken critic of Islam and advocate of women's rights, Hirsi Ali had to live under police protection in the Netherlands after receiving death threats. She now works for a conservative US think-tank. "Hirsi Ali clearly had protection in the Netherlands because she was in danger and probably still is," a senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations' security programme, Bibi Van Ginkel, told Adnkronos International (AKI). "She has for some time been the voice and face of women's emancipation under Islam, and is clearly under some threat," Van Ginkel said. Hirsi Ali's radical opinions expressed in her writings and lectures have "really insulted some people," she said. But Hirsi Ali is a former MP and public figure, and the Dutch government should "try and arrange some kind of protection" in cooperation with the US authorities, she argued. "The Dutch government cannot look the other way and shouldn't try and get out but find more of a solution than it has done," said Van Ginkel. (AKI)
“Hell Will Freeze Over' Before Muslim Schools Give Children A Liberal Education”
Muslim faith schools cause segregation, say teachers-Daily Mail Reporter
Muslim students at their studies: But faith schools cause religious segregation, teachers have been told
'Hell will freeze over' before Muslim schools give children a liberal education, teachers were told today. Faith schools threaten to cause religious segregation and must not be expanded, said Wesley Paxton from teachers' union Voice. He suggested divisions like those seen in Northern Ireland between Protestant and Catholic communities could arise in England if more Islamic groups take over schools. His remarks follow government moves to give religious groups a greater role in education through an expansion of academies and an offer of state funding for private Muslim schools. In a speech at the union's annual conference in Daventry, Mr Paxton said: 'More faith schools is probably going to mean more Islamic schools. There are already many schools with more than 50 per cent non-white enrolment. 'What benefits will there be by emphasising differences, by removing what non-Muslim influences these people will have, and reduce their chances of having a balanced upbringing? 'For girls in particular, can you imagine a UK madrassa being a hotbed of liberality, co-education, and having Cosmopolitan in the school library? I have a vivid imagination but I can't envisage that,' he said. 'In the words of President Nixon, "Hell will freeze over first." We are all people, we all breathe the same air, we need fewer distinctions, not more.' (DailyMail)
Europe's "30 Million Muslims... [Must] Infiltrate [Society]... Each Person Should Say: 'I Am An Ambassador For Islam'"
Egyptian Islamic Preacher 'Amr Khaled: Within 20 Years, Muslims Will Be Majority in Europe; Muslims in Europe Should Be "Ambassadors for Islam" -MEMRI
"The Muslims Keep Having Children, While the Europeans Do Not - This Means That Within 20 Years, the Muslims Will Be a Majority"
Interviewer: "How do you view the Islamic scene in Europe?"
Amr Khaled: "The most important thing is that there are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications."
Interviewer: "There are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe."
Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well.
"But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
Interviewer: "The name of the Prophet is unknown to..."
Khaled: "Not just his name, but who he was. Even if they know that the name of the Muslims' Prophet is Muhammad, they know nothing about him, about his history, when he lived, and so on. They know nothing about him.
"The goal of the enemies of Islam is to drive the 20-30 million [Muslims] out of Europe, or to provoke them in a way that would lead to their banishment. If [the Muslims] remain in Europe, this will be dangerous, so they must leave." (MEMRI)
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Academic Freedom Under Attack In Canada
True Academic Freedom Embraces Both Sides of Debate-Rory Leishman
London Free Press
Academic freedom used to be a hallmark of the Canadian university system. Apart from a few fascists, communists and other cranks on campus, everyone recognized that the free and vigorous expression of controversial ideas is essential to the life of the mind and the pursuit of truth. Today, academic freedom is under attack as never before. On all too many campuses, freedom of expression is trumped by the contemporary canons of political correctness. Consider, for example, the suppression of debate on abortion and the sanctity of human life. Earlier this year, the Canadian Federation of Students, an organization that purports to represent more than half a million students at more than 80 universities and colleges across Canada, expressed support for students' unions that "refuse to allow anti-choice organizations access to their resources and space." In conformity with this resolution, a growing number of students' unions from Memorial University in Newfoundland to the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, have barred pro-life student organizations from using student facilities. In defending the adoption of this policy at York University, Gilary Massa, vice-president for equity of the York Federation of Students, explained that students will still be allowed to discuss abortion in student space, provided they do so "within a pro-choice realm." Massa sees no room for the discussion of abortion from a pro-life perspective. "These pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature," she insists. "The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing . . . Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights." That's typical of campus censors: They are very sure that they have an infallible grasp of the truth. (StudentsForAcademicFreedom)
Colorado Christian University Wins Lawsuit Against Discrimination
University That Claimed Religious Discrimination Wins Lawsuit-Beckie Supaino
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Colorado's higher-education coordinating board discriminated against Colorado Christian University when it denied the institution state funds for student aid on the grounds that it is "pervasively sectarian." The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, overturns a 2007 trial court ruling (The Chronicle, May 21, 2007). The Colorado Commission on Higher Education administers student scholarships for accredited colleges in the state but under state law must exclude those deemed pervasively sectarian. Criteria for whether a college falls into that category includes whether students are required to attend religious services and whether required religion courses "indoctrinate or proselytize" students. Based on those criteria, coordinating-board officials had determined that a Methodist university and a Roman Catholic university were not pervasively sectarian but that two other colleges, including Colorado Christian, were. The university disputed both the coordinating board's assessment that it was pervasively sectarian and the legitimacy of the statute. Colorado Christian sued the Colorado Commission on Higher Education in 2004, claiming that the coordinating board was denying the college's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and its 14th Amendment right to equal protection. Last year, the U.S. District Court in Denver ruled in favor of the coordinating board. The university appealed that decision. On Wednesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals attempted to clarify the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. The court held that in some instances, the state can refuse to provide financial support for programs on religious grounds. But it said Colorado had gone too far. The appeals court based its decision on two Constitutional principles that it said the Colorado exception violated. First, it said the coordinating board discriminated among religions by differentiating between "sectarian" and "pervasively sectarian" institutions. Second, it was overly intrusive in requiring state employees to make judgment calls on religious matters, including whether certain course work was designed to indoctrinate or proselytize.
The court also interpreted Locke v. Davy, a 2004 Supreme Court decision, differently than Colorado's higher-education coordinating board had. In that case, the court determined that a state could withhold funding from theological training. The Colorado commission had argued that its pervasively sectarian test was similar to determining whether a program of training was theological. The appeals court, however, rejected that argument because an institution, as opposed to the state, determines whether a program is theological. The right to discriminate "does not extend to the wholesale exclusion of religious institutions and their students from otherwise neutral and generally available government support," the court said. Gregory S. Baylor, director of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, which represented Colorado Christian, said he expected the court to rule in the university's favor. The main question is how the court would make its argument: "In our view, they had choices," he said. Colorado Commission on Higher Education spokesman John Karakoulakis declined to comment before having time to review the decision. Nate Strauch, a spokesman for the Colorado Attorney General's office, also declined to comment on the outcome of the case but said the attorney general would meet with the governor and the coordinating board within the next two weeks to decide whether to appeal the ruling. (ChronicleofHigherEducation)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Willful Ignorance In Fighting Jihadist Ideology
Ignorance about the Enemy's Ideology is the Problem-by Jeffrey Imm
In fighting Jihad, America's greatest challenge remains understanding and confronting the ideology that provides the basis for Jihadist terrorism. Efforts to clearly define this enemy ideology recently have been undermined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department in promoting a "terror lexicon" that recommends federal government employees avoid terms such as "jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahideen," and "caliphate" when addressing issues involving terrorism. The argument made by the DHS, NCTC, and others is that the use of such terms will aid in the "recruitment" of Muslims to join terrorist organizations, or will alternatively provide "legitimacy" to religious aspects of terrorist efforts. However, this tactical approach to create a "terror lexicon" to ban such terms used in federal government terrorism reports and the 9/11 Commission report undermines the strategic efforts to identify, understand, and confront the ideology that is the root challenge in a war of ideas against Jihad. And, as Bill West points out, it can also open the door to some unintended consequences for law enforcement. Congressmen Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) has been an outspoken critic of such "terror lexicon" efforts, and was the leader of an amendment to the House of Representatives' 2009 Intelligence funding bill to prevent government funding from supporting such activities. On July 16, 2008, the House passed (by voice vote) House Resolution 5959 "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009," which included Congressman Hoekstra's amendment (Section 507 'Jihadists').
Senator Schumer Adds His Name To The Freedom Protection Act Of 2008
Schumer Steps Forward-New York Sun
Senator Schumer's decision Friday to add his name to those of Senators Specter and Lieberman among the backers of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 increases the likelihood that the measure will make its way into law in the scramble after Congress returns from summer recess but before it breaks again for the elections. It will be an uphill battle, but count us among those hoping for a success. The law seeks to counter "libel tourism," the practice of suing American writers in foreign jurisdictions, where the libel laws are friendlier to plaintiffs. The Free Speech Protection Act would prohibit American courts from enforcing such foreign judgments, and it would allow their victims to countersue in American courts. To understand what's at stake, look at the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, in whose honor it has been nicknamed "Rachel's Law." In 2003, Ms. Ehrenfeld, an expert on terrorism who has served as an adviser to the Department of Defense, published "Funding Evil," a study of how terrorist networks are financed. A Saudi billionaire sued her for libel in Britain, where the burden of proof for such lawsuits is lower than in America. Though only 23 copies of her book had been sold in Britain, its court found against Ms. Ehrenfeld, ordering her to have her book pulped and to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The judgment of the British court cannot be enforced in America. But the cost and burden to Ms. Ehrenfeld of defending the suit sent a message to any writer, or any publisher, contemplating a book on the subject of Islamist terror. "In effect," wrote a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Stanley Kurtz, "the Internet-driven internationalization of publishing is nullifying America's First Amendment protections." (NewYorkSun)
ANTISEMITISM
The Usual Antisemites Gearing Up For Durban II
Durban redux? Vitriol may follow Israel to Geneva- Michael J. Jordan
 When Israel hate gets into materials that masquerade as basic references and educational aids, it is really past time to sound the alarm. Yourdictionary.com is the latest example of how anti-Israel propaganda, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have gone mainstream.
Previously, we noted that anti-Israel propaganda had permeated Wikipedia, thanks to the efforts of a few dedicated anti-Israel editors. But Wikipedia, despite its tremendous authority, is a source open to public editing. Yourdictionary.com is supposedly a neutral source, which provides "educational content" for profit. When the propaganda gets into dictionary definitions, it is a sign that it really has become part of the mainstream culture.
The most remarkable thing about yourdictionary.com is perhaps the entries that are NOT there" Neither "anti-Semitism" nor "antisemitism" were listed in this dictionary as of July 19!For the entry Jew, the dictionary lists the anti-Semitic verb form first. To be fair, it states that the usage is racist, but I have never seen the verb form of "Jew" listed first in any dictionary (as in "He Jewed me down"). (IsraelNews)
“Jews And Their Leadership - Religious, Political, And Intellectual - Must Demand A Mea Culpa From Their Muslim Counterparts For The Sacralized Islamic Jew Hatred Which Is Still Being Taught In Islamic Schools, And Contributed To Ilan Halimi’s Death, And Countless Other Similar Atrocities Across Space And Time, Since The Advent Of Islam.”
Exclusive: Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Modern Textbooks-Andrew Bostom
 Palestinian cleric Wael Al-Zarad during a television program which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on February 28, 2008 intoned the following about the Jews of Israel: “By Allah, if each and every Arab spat on them, they would drown in Arab spit.” Wael Al-Zarad’s seemingly hallucinatory statement also included this allegation,
From the dome of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, they proclaim that Ezra the Scribe is the son of God. The reference to Ezra is actually a false, intentionally defamatory Koranic accusation (Koran 9:30) against Jews, citing a claim which Jews, in fact, have never made. But the crux of Al-Zarad’s remarks explained that the Muslims’ blood vengeance against the Jews, “will only subside with their [the Jews] annihilation, Allah willing, because they tried to kill our Prophet several times.” These allegations are part of a central antisemitic motif in the Koran which decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews (Koran 2:61/ reiterated at 3:112) for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah. It should be noted that Koran 3:112 is featured in the pre-amble to Hamas’ foundational Covenant. This central motif is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60, and 5:78, which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), or simply apes, (i.e. verses 2:65 and 7:166), having been “…cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary’s son” (5:78). Muhammad himself repeats this Koranic curse in a canonical hadith (the hadith being the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by his companions; from the hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawoud, Book 37, Number 4322: “He [Muhammad] then recited the verse [5:78]: ‘…curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected Faith [i.e., the “primordial” Faith, Islam] by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary’.”) And the related verse, 5:64, accuses the Jews - as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did in a January 2007 speech, citing Koran 5:64 - of being “spreaders of war and corruption,” a sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (FamilySecuityMatters)
TERRORISM
Refusing To See A Threat, Much Of The Media Is In A Myopic Slumber
Clifford D. May: Responding to wake-up call, some hit the snooze button-Clifford D. May
It's often said that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a "wake-up call" -- that they forced both the political class and the public to seriously (if belatedly) address a peril that for years had been minimized and marginalized. But as Andrew McCarthy makes clear in his masterful memoir, "Willful Blindness," slumber persists; too many people still do not recognize that "in an age when weapons of mass destruction have become more accessible than ever before, militant Islam may actually pose an existential threat to the United States. At a minimum, it constitutes a formidable strategic threat." Advocates of a strong defense have been opposed at every turn by leftists who blame America first ("chickens coming home to roost"), paleo-conservatives who believe that Americans venturing abroad inevitably stir up hornets' nests, and libertarians who see threats to civil liberties behind every counterterrorist initiative. That there has not been a catastrophic attack on American soil for nearly seven years has emboldened this anti-anti-terrorist coalition. They are certain that the reason we have not been hit recently -- as have London, Madrid, Bali, Baghdad, Kabul, etc. -- has nothing to do with any actions taken by the Bush administration. (StarTribune)
Why Is The US Treasury Department Not Disclosing Terrorist Financing?
Exposing Terror Financing: Who is Treasury Protecting Under Its Veil of Secrecy?-Andrew Cochran
IIt has been nearly seven years since the September 11th attacks, but the U.S. Treasury Department continues to shield critical information from the public about the financial activities of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT). Treasury has evaded demands for improved disclosure of its investigations. The public has a right and a need to know the factual findings of these important investigations, such as the names of the terrorists and important details of their financial records. Such disclosures will allow the public, specifically financial institutions, to ensure that terrorists are unable to move money through the banking system. It will also allow victims of terrorism to obtain the necessary information to know who is responsible for their injuries and losses. Shielding these important facts from the public domain allows terrorists to exploit bureaucratic turf-battles to wage their deadly jihad. To date, Treasury has not publicly provided a sound reason for this secrecy. The time has come to change these policies. One such example of Treasury’s intransigence involves its 2005 investigation of Arab Bank plc. After receiving a tip from a private citizen, the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) led an investigation with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to determine whether Arab Bank, a leading Middle Eastern financial institution, adequately implemented anti-money laundering laws. Their investigation concluded that the bank failed to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (see Jonathan Winer's November 17, 2006 post). A $24 million fine was levied against the bank, resulting in the second-largest fine ever rendered under the Act (see Victor Comras' August 17. 2005 post). (CounterTerrorismBlog)
The Threat Of Shari’a Financing In The West
Jihad Economics and Islamic Banking-Dr.Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
[From Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency; Edited by Jeff rey Norwitz; U.S. Naval War College , June 2008, chapter 28.]
The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.1 Shari'a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).2 The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic "nation," or ummah, supreme.3 Rising oil prices and the West's dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari'a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.4 Therefore, under the shari'a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States , belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah. Shari'a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari'a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat. This ignorance is illustrated by the statements of Massachusetts representative Barney Frank and Utah senator Bob Bennett. Responding to opponents of Bourse Dubai's then-proposed acquisition of 20 percent of NASDAQ in September 2007, Frank quipped, “In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous. . . . What are we talking about here”--smuggling someone onto a stock exchange? 5 Similarly, Bennett said, “ Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that's for sale. What's wrong with that?” (RightSideNews)
TERRORISM-INTERNET
Al Qaeda Website Issues New Call For Violence Against Canadians And Westerners
Jihadist Web site urges followers to kill Canadians-Ian MacLeod
 A virulent al-Qaeda Web site has issued a new call for followers to kill Canadians and other Westerners and attack oil and economic targets. The message on the password-protected al-Ekhlaas.net forum was posted on July 7, the third anniversary of the London transit massacre. The Web site is a notorious and favoured site of hardcore jihadists. Experts are debating the significance of the latest al-Ekhlaas threat calling for the targeting of Christians, especially those from Canada, the United States, Britain, Spain, Australia and Italy. Most unsettling, perhaps, is the instructional nature of the posting. Details of the Arabic-language posting, entitled "Clandestine work inside the city," were recently translated and reported by the Jamestown Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank. Under the nom de guerre Abu Hajar Abdul Aziz al-Moqrin (the former leader of al-Qaeda's Saudi wing killed in 2004), the posting explains how a four-unit jihadist cell should be properly trained in urban terror warfare before activation. (NationalPost)
JIHAD-INTERNET
Why do we show Jihaadee videos?
 This is a question that is often bothering the disbelievers around the world. They come to this blog and see “violent” videos of American soldiers (as well as their allies) being killed in explosions, assassinations, beheading, and whatnot. If one is to look at the videos in isolation of the events that are occurring on the battlefields, then it is natural for one to be bothered. However, once the context is understood, then the videos are acknowledged. There are two main reasons why we show these videos:
1. To expose the lies of the Western Media.
2. To inform the public of the successes and victories of the freedom fighters.
Regarding the first point: since we care for the world public to know what is going on in the lands of Jihaad, we present these videos. The Western media often portrays the war in ‘Iraaq, for example, as a “sweeping victory” and “the terrorists are on the run,” when that is not the case at all when one watches these videos. In another instance, President Karzai often tells the media that the “Taliban is defeated” and “they are hiding in the mountains [without fighting],” when that is not the case at all when one watches these videos. In addition, in these videos, the Mujaahideen condemn senseless killing of innocent Muslims in the marketplaces and Mosques; and they prove it through their cancellation of operations and warnings to the other groups. This is another blow to the Western media credibility who rushes to conclude that the Mujaahideen are behind every single bombing.
Regarding the second point: it is to show the truth about the realities of the confrontations. This is also why we show videos of Mujaahideen who give talks such as Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Shaykh Abu Yahya al-Libi and many others. Through this channel, the Mujaahideen are able to express the realities of contemporary warfare, the lies of the media, and the deception of the so-called Muslim Governments and leaders. It is also a medium to refresh the views of the masses regarding various Islaamic issues including martyrdom operations, Jihaad, Apostasy in Islaam, Shari’ah and so on. The Western media is doing its best to cancel out the voices and opinions of the Mujaahideen and they are satisfied with their pessimistic assumptions and conclusions without proper verification. In addition, we show these videos to bring glad tidings to those who side with the freedom fighters. Not very often do we hear the Western media talking about the successes about the base takeovers in Afghanistan, and the massive operations in ‘Iraaq done by the Mujaahideen. So it’s fair game by showing the videos here. Showing Jihaadee videos is a direct challenge to the Western Media and how they portray the wars around the world. CNN and FOX will tell us that the American Soldiers have strong control in province within Afghanistan and As-Sahab Media will prove to them that they just ran over their base and kicked them out overnight; and they will even show the Afghan villagers showing their happiness and support for the actions of the Mujaahideen. And the Western media - instead of mentioning this victory - will keep their mouthpiece shut. The current reality tells us that the United States is facing extreme hardship in these wars and their power as well as influence is spreading thin whilst the Mujaahideen have all the time in the world to ambush and re-ambush the US Empire until it can take no more and finally collapses like the way the Soviet Union collapsed; and thus, when the dust settles, the Mujaahideen will prove to the world that they can bring happiness and justice back upon the earth.
|
