Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 COUNTERPUNCH FULL OF SELF HATING JEWS ?? DONT THINK SO. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ whatreallyhappened The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide This article was originally was written in response to efforts to conceal the Israeli spy scandal, the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States, behind cries of "hate" and "anti-Semite". I am not "anti-Jewish", I am anti-espionage. There's a difference. I don't blame the Jewish people for the crimes of the Israeli government and the Mossad any more than I blame Americans for the crimes of the United States Government and the CIA. Israel's supporters constantly spin any criticism of Israel's actions as hate against the Jewish people. Indeed so desperate are Israel's supporters to dismiss criticism of Israel while being unable to refute the actual facts that they have taken to describing Jewish critics of Israel as "self-hating Jews." The current focus on the Israeli spy ring is about crimes committed against our nation by a foreign government, plain and simple, and whether one opposes those crimes or is accessory to those crimes by seeking to conceal them. There can be a no more dangerous path than for our government, our media, and our citizens than to ignore the presence of the largest spy ring ever uncovered within our nation simply because it is connected with a "protected" nation presumed to be above reproach or criticism. I urge you to all to continue to contact your representatives and your local media and demand a full and public hunt for the spies in our midst. Those who seek to protect those spies by suppressing this story must be suspect. In the wake of the revelation of yet another spy scandal involving the Mossad, involving the arrests of the largest spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, and the existence of a huge system that allowed Israel to track telephone calls by media, politicians, law enforcement, indeed all Americans, as well as the means to eavesdrop on actual calls by using the wiretapping system built into the telephone system by an Israeli owned company, any and all reports of this scandal have been met with the charges of "hate speech" and "anti-Semite". Recent weeks have seen supporters of the self-proclaimed Democracy of Israel resorting to endless hacker attacks and online smear campaigns against web sites and authors whose only "crime" is to not go along with Israel's agenda or of refusing to bury embarrassing scandals. These phrases, "hate speech" and "anti-Semite", are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms. Indeed they have been used so much that they have become red warning flags that the person using those phrases has something to hide and needs to shut down the discussion by any means possible. By screaming "hate speech" or "anti-Semite", Israel's supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved. I've run this web site for 16 years. You can check through the pre 9/11 version of What Really Happened for yourself to see if I have had any excessive preoccupation with Israel during that time. Only since 9-11 have I paid any attention to Israel, and that solely because the ACTIONS of the government of Israel have called attention to Israel. In the wake of the spy arrests this is a story that Americans need to know about, to know that someone else may be listening when that phone is picked up, if the phone tapping system was actually paid for with the money we send Israel every year, to know what intelligence service may be blackmailing our government and media, and to what purpose. It is the deepest irony that the Anti-Defamation League that has blacklisted this very web site for "hate", recently settled a lawsuit after being caught spying on Americans. Israel's supports respond to any criticism by screaming, "He hates Jews!". The truth is that I don't hate the Jewish people. I know a lot of Jewish people and count as my friends the ones who are as respectful of me as I am of them. My first wife was Jewish. My closest business associate is Jewish. "Rivero" is a Sephardic name. What I hate are certain actions of INDIVIDUALS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL. I hate the idea of someone spying on our nation's citizens. I don't like our own government to do it; why should I be any less opposed to a foreign government doing it? Why is it not reasonable to hate those who pry into our government, then use the information to coerce that government into actions contrary to the good of our own people? I hate that sort of behavior. All civilized people should. I would hate the perpetrators of the spy ring and the phone taping scandal if they were Russian, British, Lithuanian, Brazilian, whatever. That's a perfectly normal response to this crime. Hate gets a bum rap. In our politically correct society we are taught that it's bad to hate at all, but I disagree. Hate can be a good thing. There are lots of things I hate and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate liars. I hate thieves. I hate drug dealers. I hate corrupt politicians. I hate child molesters, especially those hiding their crimes behind the church. These are hates that are good for the people to have. Maybe if more people allowed themselves to hate liars, thieves, druggies, and the corrupt, our nation wouldn't be in the mess it's in. Think about that for a while. Hate can be good. Hate could actually save our country. I hate those who presume to decide for us what we can and cannot see, hear, or read. I am firmly opposed to and have openly defied efforts by our own government to withhold from the people information the people need to make good decisions with. When the Israeli lobby coerces Fox News to erase the story about Israel's spy ring, should I be less outraged at the concealment simply because the censors are Israeli? To NOT speak out about a crime because the perpetrators are Israeli is racist. Because this is EXACTLY what we are dealing with. Crimes. Espionage. Illegal wiretaps. Interference with investigations. Under the definitions in the USA Patriot bill, the organized campaign by AIPAC and others to force Fox News to drop the espionage story is itself (technically) an act of terror. To those who insist that the Israeli spy scandal should be ignored because it makes all of the Jewish people look bad, I ask if we should have ignored Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibalism because it made the people of Milwaukee look bad? Speaking of racism, the ideal held forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that no one race is superior to others; that no one race should rule by virtue of being a specific race. We even fought a civil war partly on that principle, and while the United States has not always lived up to that ideal, we have never surrendered it as our goal. So, when Ariel Sharon openly bragged on October 3rd that, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it", why should I not find this statement objectionable, and anti-American? Why should I not feel something less than affection for the man who made that statement? Why should a reasonable citizen of this nation not wonder to what extent Sharon was speaking the truth, especially in light of the manner in which Fox News was forced to erase the Carl Cameron stories? As seen in the subtitle above, the truth is "hate speech" only to those with something to hide. In the wake of the exposure of this latest spy scandal, the government of Israel might have expressed some public regret or shame over treating its purported friend, from whom it gets more foreign aid than is given to the entire continent of Africa, in such a shameful manner. Instead what we have seen is censorship of the American news by a foreign power, apparently with the permission of a compromised or complicit US Government, and the shrill cries of "hate speech" and "anti-Semite" hurled at anyone who dared presume to notice or comment on what Israel has been caught doing. If you want to know why Israel is so much in the news it isn't because of "hate" and it isn't because of "anti-Semitism", it's because foreign owned companies were caught bugging the phone system (including that of the White House) and foreign citizens have been arrested as part of the largest spy ring ever found in the United States and in the since-censored news story, the US Government admits to the existence of evidence linking those arrested spies to 9-11. That is NEWS, no matter what nationality is involved. The good side to the Fox News incident is that for the first time, Americans got a good look at just how much power and influence over what we see and hear is being exercised. It doesn't even matter who did it; that it was done at all is the lesson for our time. In recent weeks, the same government that goes after kids for pirating music turned a totally blind eye to the massive hacking campaign directed at web sites critical of the official 9-11 story. People need to pay attention to that as well. It is not "hate" to point out facts the American people should be paying attention to, especially on the threshold to what might turn out to be a world war started by deception. It is not "hate" to point out that CNN followed Fox News' example by erasing their story about the 2 hour advance warning of the World Trade Towers attacks received by employees of Odigo, one of the companies implicated in the espionage case. It is not hate to ask what really happened to USS Liberty. It is not hate to ask if the Lavon Affair was repeated at the World Trade Center. But if you want to see REAL hate in action, please read on. 1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001 2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000 3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982. 4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988 5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983. 6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969. 7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969 8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972. 9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121. 9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget." 10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. 11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking. 12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. 13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157. 15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978. 16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum" 17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. 18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979. 19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas. 20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5. 21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998. 22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972. 23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry. There is a double standard at work. Israeli supporters prowl the internet and the media shouting "hate speech" not at those who actually hate, but at those who focus on the embarrassing truths Israel does not want Americans to think about while they pony up another few billions dollars. The good news is that Israel's supporters have screamed "hate speech" and "anti-Semite" so much that the phrases have lost their shock value, which means they have lost their value to silence. Certainly I am not concerned about any labels placed on this web site by an organization of acknowledged spies. Indeed I am gratified to be recognized as such a threat to their plans and purposes. I am proud that efforts to get the truth out are working. This web site has had only one purpose since its creation; to make the cost of lies by politicians exceed the benefit of those lies, so that all government everywhere would discover that truth to the people is really the best policy. From the fear shown by Israel's supporters in their hacking, smearing, and blacklisting, it would appear that this web site has at least in part been suc ========================= While the media is proclaiming the recently concluded European Conference a reaffirmation of the fight against anti-Semitism, the reality is that Israel has been dealt a stunning political setback. Long used to equating criticism of Israel as an expression of hate against the Jewish people, Israeli supporters attending the conference (when they were not vandalizing artwork) tried repeatedly to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and were rebuffed at every turn. Even Colin Powell, Secretary of State to the one nation always willing to protect Israel at the United Nations, delinked criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. In the end, even the ADL's Abe Foxman had to grin and try to put the best face on it. But Israel has lost one of its oldest and most effective means to deflect criticism of its actions. Simply put, it is NOT anti-Semitism to criticize Israelis for what they DO. It is NOT anti-Semitism to report on Israeli spies in this country taping into police phone systems and warning Israeli drug dealers of investigations that threaten them. It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that Israel has defied more UN Resolutions that Iraq. It is NOT anti-Semitism to mention that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that actually HAS weapons of mass destruction. It is NOT anti-Semitism to remind people that Ariel Sharon has been charged with war crimes. It is NOT anti-Semitism to oppose the continuing sending of US tax dollars to Israel (totally four times the cost of the entire Apollo Moon Program) during times of great economy hardship in this country. It is NOT anti-Semitism to express concern over the vast sums of money that pro-Israel lobbyists are pouring into Congressional coffers. It is NOT anti-Semitism to be concerned about reports that the Mossad has suceeded in tapping even the White House phone system. It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that many of these supposed "hate crimes" Israel loves to hide behind are hoaxes. It is NOT anti-Semitism to want the US Government to be more concerned with the American people than with Israelis. It is NOT anti-Semitism to reject politicians who openly display their loyalty to a foreign power. It is NOT anti-Semitism to be angered by Philip Zelikow's admission that the war in Iraq was not fought to protect the US, but to protect Israel. It is NOT anti-Semitism to tell Israel's supporters that hiding their crimes behind the entire Jewish people by screaming "anti-Semite" at every criticism is a really good way to set those same people up as targets! Make no mistake, Israel has been dealt a serious blow by the conference in Europe. While there is no question that Israel's supporters will go on harassing and spearing those who dare criticise the policies of Ariel Sharon, the tar won't stick. It's official. Criticism of Israel is NOT anti-Semitism. My lawyer will be instituting legal proceedings against all search engines, ISPs, and content filtering companies which have labeled this site as "anti-Semitic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 LET ME GUESS IPT is islamophobic anti semitic. CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Dallas--In testimony Tuesday, FBI Agent Lara Burns reported before the jury in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, right alongside HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Agent Burns further testified that CAIR received money from HLF - a claim that Nihad Awad blatantly denied in a congressional testimony in September of 2003. Burns also said that both Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, CAIR co-founders who today serve as CAIR’s chairman emeritus and executive director, respectively, were also listed as individual members the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in America. Awad and Ahmed are further connected to the Palestine Committee based on their positions as president and public relations director of the IAP, a Hamas front group that was responsible for the dissemination of propaganda, and has since been closed down as a result of a multi-million dollar civil judgment in a trial involving the murder of an American teenager by HAMAS terrorists. CAIR, which touts itself as America’s premier Muslim civil rights organization, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. Burns’ testimony so far has placed both Ahmed and Awad at a 1993 Philadelphia meeting where the HAMAS members and supporters discussed a strategy to kill the Oslo Peace Accords, which threatened to marginalize HAMAS. The group also discussed ways to improve HAMAS fundraising in America. Government testimony regarding the role of CAIR reflects the prosecution’s attempt to prove that the HAMAS network in America was established through the Palestine Committee, or what the indictment called “a sub-group of active Muslim Brotherhood members of Palestinian origin.” The leader of this Committee was Musa Abu Marzook, a Specially Designated Terrorist since 1995, and Hamas’ current Deputy Political Bureau Chief. Through this committee, a number of organizations were established to promote HAMAS politically and financially, including HLF, IAP and UASR. What is the Palestine Committee In 1988, the head of the Palestine Section (a.k.a. the Palestine Body) of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Levant came to America, where he met with fellow Muslim Brothers and established the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. This is revealed in a1991 letter seized from the home of unindicted co-conspirator Ismail Elbarasse. An October 1992 internal memo (also seized from Elbarrasse’s home) explains: Palestine is the one for which Muslim Brotherhood prepared armies – made up from the children of Islam in the Arab and Islamic nations to liberate its land from the abomination and the defilement of the children of the Jews and they watered its pure soil with their honorable blood which sprouted into a jihad that is continuing until the Day of Resurrection and provided a zeal without relenting making the slogan of its children “it is a Jihad for victory or martyrdom." The Palestine Section of this memo explains the founding of the Section and notes that Palestine Committees were being established all over the world: At the end of the seventies, the Shamm [Levant] Countries Movement opened a new section which was called “The Palestine Section” to oversee the affairs of the Ikhwan inside the Occupied Territories. It was considered the liaison between the followers of the Movement inside and outside. In the beginning of the eighties, the Islamic action for Palestine experienced distinguished leaps. At the inside level, groups and apparatuses were formed to confront the Zionist enemy and they carried different names then such as “The Palestinian Mujahedeen” and other names. At the outside level, a number of associations, Islamic youths and students unions were formed to ally [sic] the masses in order to render the Palestinian cause victorious. The memo calls on the Palestine Committees, to work to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas" to "fight surrendering solutions," and to publicize and focus on “the savagery of the Jews.” The amended bylaws attached to the 1991 letter explains that the Palestine Committee in America will be composed of the heads of the following organizations and committees: 1) Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) 2) Occupied Land Fund (OLF, which later changed its name to the HLF) 3) United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) 4) Rehabilitation and Coordination Committee 5) Political Work and Foreign Relations Committee 6) Money and Investments Committee CAIR was not created until 1994 which explains why it is not listed here. The remarks at the end of the bylaws note that the International Shura Council (leadership council) directed them to achieve eight goals. Among them were: -“Collecting of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement from the Ikhwan and others.” -“Bringing to the media light the case of [HAMAS founder] Sheik Ahmad Yasin and his ailing condition.” -“Making use of what relationships the Ikhwan have in all fields and gatherings to serve the cause.” Additionally, the internal memo notes that the president of IAP was a member of a section affiliated with the executive council. This establishes that these organizations, including IAP, were members of the Palestine Committee established by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that their leaders sat on the Committee. In another development yesterday, prosecutors introduced a wiretap conversation between defendants Shukri Abu Bakr and Ghassan Elashi, in which they discussed IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. Emerson first uncovered the ties between HLF and HAMAS in his 1994 PBS documentary, Jihad in America. In the Aug. 2, 1995 call, Abu Bakr and Elashi discuss a Dallas Morning News editorial concerning U.S. plans to extradite Hamas political leader Musa Abu Marzook, who had been arrested while entering the country at John F. Kennedy airport in New York on an Israeli request that he face murder charges there. Elashi reads from the editorial, which called for Marzook to be deported, but not to Israel. To release him, the editorial said, would send a message that America offers refuge to terrorists. According to a government transcript of the call, Elashi invokes Emerson's name after the editorial: "Sadly, Arab and Islamic organizations in America are perceiving the action against Mr. Marzook as 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-Arab.'" "He says 'sadly,'" Elashi repeats. "Doesn't that bring you to Steven Emerson?" "Yeah, yeah, yeah," Abu Bakr responds. "Don't be surprised if Steven Emerson is the one who wrote it." Elashi also expresses concern that the Morning News "is referring to us in a way or another" when it mentions the FBI has noted terrorist cells were operating in North Texas. The trial continues Wednesday with the cross examination of Agent Burns by defendant Abdulrahman Odeh's lawyer. August 8, 2007 02:14 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 COUNTERPUNCH FULL OF SELF HATING JEWS ?? DONT THINK SO. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ whatreallyhappened The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide [...] My lawyer will be instituting legal proceedings against all search engines, ISPs, and content filtering companies which have labeled this site as "anti-Semitic". What a bizzare absurdly long tangential post, where on this thread have I (or anyone else) said Counterpunch, Amy Goodman or WRH are Anti-Semitic? I have leveled that accusation against WRH on other threads, it is a Holocaust denial site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) MAIN TOPIC LIST whatreallyhappened.....no Holocaust noted . it is a Holocaust denial site. // END Colby ? ????? .......? BANKERS GONE WILD | THE LECTRO | US GOVERNMENT TREASON | FAKE TERROR | CLIMATEGATE | LIE OF THE CENTURY | NEW MCCARTHYISM | ECONOMY | 9-11 | OK CITY | TWA 800 | MENA | WACO | JFK | RFK | JFK Jr. | MLK | FOSTER | RON BROWN | COINTELPRO | MOCKINGBIRD | ATHEISM | HAWAII | PEARL HARBOR | KILLING JESUS' FAMILY | OPIUM AND AFGHANISTAN | IRAN - ISRAEL: THE FACTS | IRAN A THREAT? | BIG BANG | OBAMA THE LOVE CHILD - END OF THE BIRTHER NONSENSE! | A GALLERY OF FAKE DEAD BIN LADENS | THE ELEVENTH MARBLE | SLAVE TO THE BANKERS | MORTGAGE FRAUD 4 DUMMIES | ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS | RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS | Edited February 21, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not all the hits here are offensive but quite a few are: http://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+site%3Awhatreallyhappened.com http://www.google.com/search?q=jews+site%3Awhatreallyhappened.com See also: http://davefromqueens2.blogspot.com/2009/05/michael-rivero-exposed-as-right-woos.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) LET ME GUESS IPT is islamophobic anti semitic. I'm always wary of men or women working alone who give themselves grandiose names suggesting 'they' are actually some sort of august institution. According to a report from the Center for American Progress Emerson (i.e the IPT) is a "misinformation expert" and "one of the leading lights of the Islamophobia network" http://www.americanp...slamophobia.pdf Read what "Loon Watch" has to say about the IPT http://www.loonwatch...t-on-terrorism/ Edited February 22, 2013 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Rivero and White Nationalist KKK Grand Wizard David Duke Mike Rivero invited David Duke on his radio show 17 February 2007 to talk about such issues as the jailing of Ernst Zundel. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ZUNDEL ?? GOLLY NO MATTER HOW WRONG AND ABSURD ZUNDEL IS <HE SHOULD SPEAK HIS VIEWS WITHOUT THREAT OF GOVERMENT ACTION. COLBY ?? GOLLY NO MATTER HOW WRONG AND ABSURD COLBY IS < HE SHOULD SPEAK HIS VIEWS WITHOUT THREAT OF GOVERNMENT ACTION. COLBY'S VIEW THAT NO DEMOLITION BROUGHT DOWN WTC 7 on 911 IS OF COURSE ABSURD> BUT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO HIS ABSURED VIEWPOINT. (below) ===================================================== WHY POPULAR MECHANICS CAN’T FACE UP TO REALITY Part 7: WTC 7 Fire and Column Failure http://www.ae911trut...911-myths-.html ========================================= Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 3 Written by Adam Taylor Wednesday, 25 April 2012 16:07 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Lets see one fellow says 4.1 million JEWS killed in Holocaust instead of 6 million (and tries to back this up with data/not made out of wholecloth) he is anathema ?? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edited February 21, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Where does Rivero say he thinks 4.1 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis? His position is that it was a hoax. The rest of your post is yet another attempt to divert a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 THIS IS SEPERATED OUT I THUS BELIEVE RIVERO AGREES (Gaal) THE HOLOCAUST AND THE FOUR MILLION VARIANT How will history remember the Holocaust, historic horror or historic hoax? It depends on whether or not World Zionism controls the history? For decades, most people accepted the Holocaust as true. There were some doubters. Internet search engines like Google or Yahoo cited thousands of articles, affirming or doubting it. But that's over. Like the mass media the search engines are now entirely owned or controlled by zionists. (Where do they get the financing?) A tsunami has swept across the search engines, purging all but Zionist sites, universally claiming that 6 million Jews were butchered in "nazi death camps" between 1940 and 1945 and that all questioners are anti-semites. Why did Zionism feel it necessary to launder the search engines? Is the Holocaust vulnerable? What is the true history? Today, Zionists claim there were 17 million Jews in 1940 and 11 million in 1945, a loss of 6 million. You see it everywhere, in the schools, movies, television, radio, newspaper, history, literature and on thousands of monuments and memorials throughout the Zionist world. And now on the internet. Note this number has remained constant for over a half century. It must be understood that the word "Jews" as used in this article primarily refers to a race of Khazars from Asia, called "Asiatics" by Benjamin Franklin. Today in Europe and America, Khazars constitute the majority of "Jews" (cf. Benjamin Freedman). And a majority of Khazars are Zionists. Modern Zionism is a highly organized political movement; it is not a religion. It is focused on its "ladder" to world domination and is extremely well financed. The Holocaust is its heart and soul. It originated in the 1800's backed by Rothschild and demanded its own nation in Palestine. In 1916 England promised this in the the Balfour Declaration, prepared by Rothschild and Brandeis, to bring US into World War I for England, but reneged. It took universal sympathy for the Holocaust after World War II to induce the nations to turn over part of Palestine to the Zionists in 1948. But there was a danger, the flag of Israel was hung on a Holocaust flagpole. The Holocaust also produced the Holocaust Industry in which hundreds of billions are collected for the "victims", their descendants and for Israel ad infinitum. Finally, the Holocaust is probably the greatest political cudgel in history. And World Zionism will stop at nothing to crush all investigations or questions about the Holocaust. What's their problem? Wikipedia is a well known encyclopedia on the internet, sympathetic to the Holocaust. Yet comparing its "Holocaust" article with its "death camp" articles produces major problems. We've all heard of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka, etc., names that cause a shiver of dread and horror even today, thanks to constant Zionist media repetition and reinforcement. But there are also many other camps: Bergen-Belsen, Belzec, Chelmno, Jasenovak, Majdanek, Sobibor, Sachenhausen, Sangerhausen, Flossenburg, Grini, Klooga, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Oranienburg, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Natzweiler, Ravensbrück, Maly Trostinets and Theresienstadt. Much of the information is based on Zionist estimates, documents and testimony with little hard evidence. According to Wikipedia, 3.8 million people died in the following "extermination camps...80 to 90% were Jews or half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust": Auschwitz 1.4 million deaths X 85% or 1.2 million Jews Treblinka 870,000 deaths X 85% or 740,000 Jews Belzek 600,000 deaths X 85% or 510,000 Jews Jasenovak 600,000 deaths X 85% or (Few Jews) Chelmno 320,000 deaths X 85% or 272,000 Jews Majdanek 360,000 deaths X 85% or 306,000 Jews Sobibor 250,000 deaths X 85% or 212,000 Jews But when you read the Wikipedia articles on the individual camps, significant discrepancies begin to emerge, as shown in the following abstracts: In 1989 Auschwitz corrected its monuments and reduced the number of deaths from 4 million to 1.1 million yet the 6 million total never changed (the savings at Auschwitz were picked up in other camps). Also, the International Red Cross and detailed German death records indicate that only about 150,000 died at Auschwitz of whom 30,000 were Jews. Wikipedia ignores or dismisses such records. (Compare with 1.2 million above.) In Treblinka, The Höfle Telegram listed 713,555 Jews killed up to the end of December 1942. With the addition of 1943 transports listed in Yitzhak Arad's book, one may arrive at the figure 800,000. (Compare with 740,000 above.) At Belzek, at least 434,500 Jews were killed. (Compare with 510,000 above.) The Jasenovac Memorial Area keeps a list of 69,842 names of Jasenovac victims: 39,580 Serbs, 14,599 Roma, 10,700 Jews, 3,462 Croats as well as people of some other ethnicities. ("The world's eminent authority on Holocaust victims, Yad Vashem Center, claims 600,000.") In the Chelmno camp, at least 152,000 people were killed, mainly Jews from the Lódz Ghetto. (Compare with 272,000 above.) According to the official Majdanek State Museum about 300,000 inmates passed through the camp, over 40% Jews. The most recent research by the Majdanek Museum indicates that there were 78,000 victims, 59,000 of whom were Jews. (Compare with 306,000 above.) At least 250,000 people were killed in Sobibór. The victims were mostly Jews from Poland. The deaths listed for the remaining sites do not come close to another 3.8 million, much less 80 to 90% Jews. Some samples are: The total number of deaths at Buchenwald is estimated at 56,545 with little mention of Jews. At Bergen-Belsen, an estimated 50,000 people died there, up to 35,000 of them dying of typhus in the first few months of 1945. Of the roughly 30,000 wartime victims at Sachsenhausen, most were Russian prisoners of war. At Maly Trostenets Yad Vashem currently estimates the number killed as 65,000 while German historian Christian Gerlach estimates the number to be in the range of 40,000-60,000, mostly Jews from Minsk. At Ravensbruk, about 30,000 to 40,000 women and children perished there, mostly Polish, few Jews. Various historians place the total death toll in the four main camps of Mauthausen, Gusen I, Gusen II and Gusen III at between 55,000 and 60,000. Over 200,000 prisoners were housed in Dachau of which nearly one-third were Jews; 32,099 prisoners are believed to have died in the camp and almost another 10,000 in its subcamps, primarily from disease. At Dachau signs now read that the facilities were never used as gas chambers to murder anyone. In fact, there's no evidence that any "death camps" used poison gas, gas chambers or gas ovens to kill. Yet Wikipedia lists millions of Jews murdered in every camp in poison gas chambers that could hold thousands of people at a time. This is necessary to account for the number of deaths, "75% of all European Jews". Wikipedia also states that 11 million people died in the "death camps", almost the same number of non-Jews as Jews. How does this fit with the claim that 80 to 90% of the deaths in the principal "death camps" were Jews. Millions of non-Jews have just disappeared. Finally, Wikipedia states that the first credible news of the "death camps" arrived in the West around D-Day, June, 1944, yet the Holocaust Industry is still trying to collect reparations from America for its failure to intervene at an earlier date in the European War on behalf of the Jews. An important objective study, which is suppressed, is the 1948 report by the International Red Cross, covering its activities during World War II (1942-1945) in the camps maintained by the German authorities. They were allowed to deliver over one million parcels of food, clothing and medicine to the inmates. It stated their efforts were hindered not by the Germans but by the Allied blockade of Germany and the dire situation in Germany during the final months of the war was due to "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (carpet bombing). It also states that large numbers of "the three million or so European Jews avoided internment altogether". Did they say 3 million? (It seems there was a massive migration of Jews out of Europe in the 1930's to America and in the 1940's to Israel.) There is no mention whatsoever of genocide, gas chambers, death showers, poison gas, etc.; quite the contrary. In lengthy books about World War II written by Churchill and Eisenhower, there is not a single mention of Jews being genocided in Nazi "death camps". Qualified engineers inspected the "death camps" and stated that the facilities were showers and could not be used as gas chambers and that the alleged deaths were "impossible". They were imprisoned. There is ample testimony of eyewitness inmates which belie the existence of "death camps". They are suppressed or imprisoned. The Nuremberg trials were hate theater orchestrated by the Zionists under the London Agreement. Testimony was obtained by torture. German generals were castrated by constant kicks to the groin. In 1933 Samuel Untermeyer said there were 14 million Jews in the world. By 1940 this exploded to 17 million (an astonishing racial fecundity) and then imploded to 11 million in 1945 due to the Holocaust. But in an article in 1948, Hanson Baldwin, the war expert of the New York Times, said there were then 15 to 17 million Jews in the world, almost the same number as 1940. Earlier demographers said that there were 14 to 15 million Jews during the period of the "Holocaust". Today there are less than 14 million, about the same number as in 1933. Almost half are now in the United States, twice the number of 1920. Here's how Wikipedia explains the discrepancies: "Deniers often use the 'Four Million Variant' as a stepping stone to leap...to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by a [Zionist] conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the 'Four Million Variant' is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories." Then why are Zionists still using the 6 million number, knowing it is "specious"? Millions of non-Jews died, too. The numbers don't make sense. Do Zionists fear any inquiries will prove there was no Holocaust at all and thus "stone wall" all inquiries? It's like the Protocols. In the 1930's they had a Swiss judge (Meyer) declare the Protocols a forgery but this was reversed on appeal. Yet Zionism still claims the Protocols are a proven forgery. The "web of deceit" is clearly Zionist. According to one article, "The carnage of World War II surpassed that of World War I. German war losses alone were estimated at 7 million, about half of whom died in battle. Ruined, defeated, and divided into zones of occupation, a much smaller Germany emerged in 1945 with a population about the same as in 1910." (Russian losses were immeasurable; it bore the brunt of the German Army.) After the war, millions more Germans died by starvation and disease in a ruined society, and 1.5 million German soldiers died in Eisenhower's Andersonville-like death camps, under the infamous and barbarous Morganthau Baruch Plans. American soldiers were then, as in World War I and today, the unwitting rapiers of Zionist hatred and greed. Note the commanders of the Allied Army in Europe, Eisenhower and Clark, were Jews. Apparently, Zionists will stop at nothing to crush all inquiries of the Holocaust by every possible means. Their reach and fanaticism is awesome. They have a "million eyes" watching everything and everybody (cf. the Protocols). What are they afraid of? Is the Holocaust a "house of cards"? If it falls, so does Zionism, Israel and the lucrative Holocaust Industry. And, despite the conditioning of the Zionist media monopoly, people everywhere are waking up to its deceptions. Then will the Zionist Era and its Protocol Chaos together with its perpetual wars, panics, poverty, depressions, revolutions, aggressions, assassinations, false flags, monopolies, debt and demagoguery come to an end./? The slaughter of mankind, cease and Peace, rule./? Spread the word on all the sites, forums and message boards. There should be an objective investigation of the Holocaust, free of the influence of France, Britain, and America. AIPAC now requires all US Congressional candidates to first pledge their loyalty to Zionism. Zionists rule Washington absolutely (London and Paris, too). Never have a people been swept by so many armies of secret police. Where is our loyal military? The world wonders! Acknowledgment: This information was obtained from an uncensored internet. Men can never be secure from tyranny, if there is no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it and therefore, they have not only a right to get out of it but to prevent it. John Locke Memorial Day, 2007 D. Cassidy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Great you spammed an entire Holocaust denial article here, this forum and this thread are so much the richer for it. Where exactly did the author say 4.1 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? No need to repost the entire article just the part with the 4.1 million figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Rivero and White Nationalist KKK Grand Wizard David Duke Mike Rivero invited David Duke on his radio show 17 February 2007 to talk about such issues as the jailing of Ernst Zundel. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ZUNDEL ?? GOLLY NO MATTER HOW WRONG AND ABSURD ZUNDEL IS <HE SHOULD SPEAK HIS VIEWS WITHOUT THREAT OF GOVERMENT ACTION. You don't think inviting Duke to discuss any subject is a bad sign? If his objective was simply what you claimed he would have made his point better inviting a liberal civil libertarian especially a Jewish one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Our Government And The Muslim Brotherhood Posted on February 17, 2013by thetruthsoldier by Andrew McCarthy Andy McCarthy is probably the best Federal Prosecutor that I have ever known. When he took on the prosecution of the “Blind Sheik” and his co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the plots to bomb tunnels, bridges, the Federal Building and the UN Headquarters in New York City he immersed himself in not only the evidence, but also the motive behind these actual and planned attacks. After concluding successful prosecutions of all of the Jihadists defendants Andy undertook to become a world class expert on the causes and actions of Radical Islamists and to understand their agenda. He has written two excellent books on the Islamist threat to America, they are: Willful blindness and The grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. I highly recommend both books, however, the article below explicitly describes how a “Soft Jihad” is being built to undermine our Country and its Rule of Law under the Constitution. It is a very troubling issue facing our nation and we need to understand the consequences of ignoring or at least underestimating this threat. - Oliver “Buck” Revel, Former Associate Executive Director of the FBI I was invited by the Center for Security Policy to give a speech at the National Press Club in Washington yesterday. The topic was our government’s relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and why concerns about Brotherhood infiltration, raised by five conservative House members, are very real. The speech ran nearly an hour, and there was a little over a half-hour of Q&A afterwards. You can view my speech by clicking the clay button above. Below is the prepared text of my speech: Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. A candidate for a high position in an executive branch agency — a position that entails a great deal of influence over public policy, a position that requires access to highly classified national security information — comes in for an interview by the FBI. This is a routine background investigation. Even people being considered for low-level positions in the executive branch are subjected to them. It is not because we question their patriotism or suspect that they are bad people. It is just common sense — in addition to being the subject of a good deal of statutory law and federal regulation. Naturally, as government positions get higher, more important, and more sensitive, the background investigations get more detailed — probing not only a candidate’s background, experiences, finances and associations, but those of the candidate’s close family members. One matter that is of particular importance is connections to foreign countries, organizations, persons and movements. There’s an entire section devoted to these concerns in Form 86, the form that all candidates for national security positions in the federal government are required to complete. Let’s assume that our candidate truthfully completes the form. What do you suppose our FBI agent is thinking as he flips through the form, asks some follow up questions, and gets the following story from the candidate: “I’ve worked the last dozen years at an institute that was founded by a wealthy, influential Saudi who is intimately involved in the financing of terrorism.” “Are you just speculating about that?” the candidate is asked. “Speculating? Oh, no, no, I’m not speculating. You see, this Saudi guy actually started an ostensible ‘charity’ that the United States government has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is a designated terrorist because it lavishly funded al Qaeda — you know, the jihadist network that we’re at war with. As a matter of fact, one of the men this Saudi guy brought in to help him run the specially designated terrorist organization, was so close to Osama bin Laden, that he actually helped bin Laden start al Qaeda.” The agent figures, “You’ve got to be kidding me. I guess you didn’t know this Saudi guy who was funding al Qaeda, right?” “Well,” our candidate responds, “as a matter of fact, we overlapped for seven years at that institute I worked at. Remember I told you that he’s the one who started it and I eventually worked there for twelve years? Well, turns out he stayed involved in it for decades — it was his baby … he gave the institution its mission and its vision. He was still there advising it and shaping it for my first seven years there. Then they took him off the masthead … right around the time he became a defendant in the civil lawsuit filed by the victims of the 9/11 attacks.” The agent is stunned. All he can think to ask is: “Why did you leave the institute?” “Oh,” our candidate replies, “I got offered a full-time job at the State Department, helping the secretary of State make U.S. foreign policy.” I really wish that was a farfetched story. Now let me back up for a moment. First, thank you all for coming here today. I came to Washington at the suggestion of my friends at the Center for Security Policy. They asked me to address the controversy stirred by five conservative members of the House of Representatives who’ve raised concerns about Islamist influence on American policy — specifically, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist governments, organizations and affiliates with which it works. I guess I was asked, in part, because I’ve been writing about this subject: I’ve been writing about the Muslim Brotherhood for a number of years. And for the last couple of weeks, I’ve been writing about the specific topic that we’re here to talk about this morning: the Brotherhood’s influence on our government, and the slings and arrows these five House members have been catching for having the temerity to notice it. I was also asked to come here, I believe, because I worked in the Justice Department for about 25 years — first at the U.S. Marshals Service, where I worked as a deputy marshal in the Witness Protection Program; then as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. I was a prosecutor for almost 20 years, and during that time I handled or supervised a number of cases involving national security — meaning terrorism cases, all of which involved attacks plotted by violent jihadists. I was also involved in many other investigations of national and international organized crime groups, many of which were violent in nature. Based on that experience, I have to confess that the controversy here baffles me. I don’t understand why more people in Washington, from both parties, have not rallied to the support of Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney. At a time when government policy is being radically harmonized with the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood — meaning, policy has shifted in the direction of avowed enemies of the United States — what ought to shock people is that there is any controversy over a commonsense request. The five House members are simply asking that the inspectors general in pertinent government agencies conduct internal inquiries and report back to Congress about potential Islamist influences at those agencies. Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims. I don’t know how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people. Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative. Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions. We are lucky to have them because they have embraced the culture of individual liberty that is the beating heart of Western civilization. They have accepted the premise of our society that everyone has a right to freedom of conscience and equality before the law. They have accepted our foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law for themselves, irrespective of the rules of any belief system or ideology. They construe Islam’s spiritual elements and its laws as a matter of private conscience, not as a mandatory framework for society. Those Muslims are not Islamists. When we talk about the influence of Islamists, we are referring to Muslims who are beholden to Islamic supremacism. Islamic supremacism is an ideology, not a religion. It is a totalitarian social system that would govern every aspect of life down to the granular level — economic, financial, social, political, military, familial, dietary, issues of crime-and-punishment, even matters of hygiene. That is the sharia system. As interpreted by many of Islam’s most influential thinkers — including organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and academics like the faculty of ancient al-Azhar University in Cairo — classical sharia rejects basic principles of American constitutional democracy. In fact, it rejects first and foremost our foundational premise that people are free to determine their own destiny and their own laws — regardless of what sharia holds. Classical sharia rejects freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, economic liberty, equality between men and women, equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Western notions of personal liberty and privacy. It is the goal of all Islamists to impose sharia. That is why there is no such thing as a “moderate Islamist.” If you want to replace the American Constitution with sharia, and Western civilization with the Islam of the Middle East, you are not a moderate — however grateful we may be that you’re not looking to blow up a bridge in order to impose your desires. Whether they are violent or non-violent, whether they work incrementally toward their goal or work at warp speed, the mission of Islamists is always and everywhere to impose sharia. In Islamist ideology, the implementation of the sharia system is the necessary precondition for turning non-Islamic societies into Islamic societies. And that is what Islamists believe they are under a divine injunction to do. When I talk about Islamists and Islamist influences, that is what I mean. It is essential to understand that Islamic supremacism is not a fringe ideology. And with due respect to the trendy, bipartisan diagnosis of it that has become so popular here in Washington, Islamic supremacism — and the extreme forms of behavior it inspires — are not a psychiatric problem. We like to portray the lethal threat against us as “violent extremism.” But “violent extremism” does not combust spontaneously. It is caused by Islamic supremacist ideology. Violent extremism, as well as non-violent extremism, are effects — they are not causes. They are not irrational and wanton, there is a logic to them … I should say, an ideologic. This ideology is based on a classical interpretation of Islam that has a rich history. We sound really ignorant to the people we’re trying to persuade when we pretend that this is not the case. Islamic supremacism has been developed over the centuries by many of Islam’s most respected thinkers — thinkers who are better understood as “jurists” than “clerics.” Their specialty is sharia, which is a societal system, not a mere set of religious principles. Islamic supremacism is the dynamic ideology of the Middle East at this moment in history. There have been times when it has been dormant, and when its worst tendencies have been cabined or suppressed by force, by law, or by cultural pressures. But at this historic moment, it is once again in its ascendancy. That is a big problem for us. Islamic supremacists mean us grave harm. We are understandably preoccupied with the fact that violent jihadists are taking aim at our lives. But we should not let the immediacy and horror of that threat obscure the fact that the Islamist movement is taking aim at our way of life. The movement’s intellectual leader is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is not a “largely secular” umbrella organization. It is not “moderate.” It is the vanguard of a ground-up, revolutionary, ideological mass movement. It is sophisticated, patient, and determined. It has spent almost 90 years building its reserves and biding its time. Increasingly over the last half-century, its efforts have been opulently underwritten by oil wealth, especially from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis follow a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, called Wahhabism. That is a close cousin of the Brotherhood’s interpretation, which is called Salafism. For our purposes, the two streams merge into the supremacist ideology that threatens us today. The threat is very real, very aggressive, and much broader than terrorism. That is because the underlying threat is not terrorism but the rationale for terrorism: which is the gradual imposition of classical sharia — by both violence and non-violence. We hear a lot of chatter trying to separate the two — violent and non-violent jihad. But they are never mutually exclusive. The non-violent jihad is called dawa, the aggressive proselytism of Islam. Dawa is leveraged by the threat of violence. The atmosphere of intimidation is what makes non-violent jihad so effective. It is what allows Islamist organizations to exercise such outsize influence on our policymakers even though Muslims barely register one percent of our population. Not long ago, I wrote a book called The Grand Jihad. The title is not something I came up with. It was drawn out of an internal Muslim Brotherhood document seized by the FBI from a top Brotherhood operative in Virginia. It was dated 1991 and called the “explanatory memorandum.” In it, leading Brothers stationed in the United States explained to their global leadership how the Brothers saw their mission. “Civilization jihad,” they called it. Then they elaborated: The Ikhwan [i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. See, when Islamists speak among themselves, especially when they don’t expect that we’ll ever hear or see what they say, they are very clear about what they are trying to do. They are also very clear about whom they are doing it with. The explanatory memo actually listed 29 different organizations — many of the most influential Islamist groups in America. The Brotherhood identified those groups as the accomplices in their grand jihad. And now that the Brotherhood is in the midst of a gradual triumph in Egypt and much of the Middle East, leading Brothers have become bolder in their public pronouncements. For example, in October 2010, on the cusp of the revolt, the Brotherhood’s “supreme guide” in Egypt, a man named Mohammed Badi, gave a speech in which he expressly called for violent jihad against the United States. Specifically, Badi urged his fellow Muslims to remember “Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for his sake with [their] money and lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme.” Applying this injunction, Badi proclaimed that jihad “is the only solution” against what he called “the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny.” Not negotiation — jihad. Badi also took delight in noting that the United States had been badly wounded by jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. From that, he predicted that America “is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.” So, contrary to what increasingly seems to be popular belief here in Washington, Islamist influences are not benign. They are not something to yawn over. They are something we need to defend against. We are talking about a very determined movement that pulls no punches in braying that it means to destroy our country. The most important sharia authority in the world, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist — proclaims that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.” And by the way, you’ll want to remember Sheikh Qaradawi’s name — we’ll be coming back to him shortly. Islamists not only tell us that they intend to destroy us. They tell us, straight out, how they intend to do it: Not only by the intimidating, constant potential of violence, but by “sabotage” — their word, not mine. The will, they say, “destroy” us “from within.” They intend to insinuate themselves into our major institutions, including into the policy-making bodies of our government. They intend to compromise us from the inside, as well as from the outside. Where I come from, when serious, competent, threatening people tell you what they are going to do to you and how they indend to do it, that is not something to be ignored. It is something to be taken very seriously. The main way to take it very seriously when it comes to our government is to police our agencies so they are not penetrated by pernicious influences. That is what these five members of Congress have tried to do. What is shocking and demoralizing, what ought to outrage the American people, is that the five of them are standing alone. To be clear, the five members have not made accusations of criminal wrongdoing. The critics who say they are relying on “guilt by association” are absurdly mixing apples and oranges. Our bedrock principle against “guilt by association” has to do with criminal prosecutions — we won’t tolerate someone’s being convicted of a crime and having his freedom taken away just because of who his friends are, or what his associates have done. But “guilt by association” has nothing to do with fitness for high public office. High public office is a privilege, not a right. Access to classified information is a privilege, not a right. You need not have done anything wrong to be deemed unfit for these privileges. It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States. It is about whether the American people can have confidence that you are likely to act in the public interest rather than out of bias, favor, or intimidation. It is about whether there’s a reasonable chance you could be compromised — not whether you have been compromised. To be more concrete about it, when I was a prosecutor, the Justice Department would never in a million years have let me handle an investigation that involved members of my family or their friends. That’s not because they didn’t trust me. It is because it would have been inappropriate. When government acts, it needs to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The legitimacy of government action depends on the public integrity of government action. My DOJ bosses wouldn’t make me sit out the case because they thought I’d do something wrong. They’d make me sit it out because the public might believe I was acting on improper motives. This anxiety about improper motives is a commonplace everywhere in government. Nothing sends the press and the public into a tizzy quite like the thought that government officials are letting lobbyists weigh in on the formulation of policy. We have rules against former government employees lobbying their old agencies. We have rules against representing both sides of a case. It is expected that government officials will recuse themselves from participating in decisions involving friends, relatives, or former clients. Those rules flow from human nature. They are not an indictment about the trustworthiness or patriotism of the people involved. People who work in government, especially if they need security clearances, expect to have not only their own backgrounds but also the backgrounds of their family members and associates probed. When FBI agents ask those routine questions, they are not just going through the motions. If disturbing facts are developed in the background check of a family member, that can be enough, by itself, to disqualify the candidate for the position. That is, it can be enough for us to draw the rational conclusion that the public would be better served having an unconflicted person in place. If the FBI had asked me about my mother’s background, and I’d responded by tearing what little hair I had left out and scolding the agent for daring to question my patriotism, that would not just have been a good enough reason to deny me access to top secret intelligence. It would have been a good enough reason to tell me to go find another line of work. With that as background, let me speak to the specific circumstances of Huma Abedin, the deputy chief of staff to secretary of state Clinton. It is worth stressing that the five members of Congress sent five different letters asking inspectors general at five different agencies to conduct internal investigations and report back to Congress. Ms. Abedin was far from the only government official whose name was raised. But she has gotten the most attention. For our purposes today, that’s fine because her situation dramatically shows how badly out of kilter things have become. We’ve heard all the caterwauling about “Islamophobia” and — my personal favorite, of course – “McCarthyism.” Two things about that. First, Islamophobia is a term that was manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood precisely for the purpose of browbeating people into silence about the activities and threat posed by Islamic supremacism. Today, there is no worse public sin than to be called a bigot, even if the charge is utterly empty. It is intimidating. It is intended to paralyze people into silence when it is their duty to speak up. And it works: That’s why 13 Americans, some of our best and bravest, were killed in a jihadist atrocity at Fort Hood. It is also why the government would rather dismiss Fort Hood as a case of “workplace violence” than deal with the ideology that caused it. Duty is calling us now, and it has to be done, even if the grievance industry grieves in overdrive. As for “McCarthyism,” the truth is that all the demagoguery here has been on the other side. Contrary to claims that the five members of Congress have raised, as Sen. John McCain put it, “unspecified and unsubstantiated” concerns, they have actually posited very disturbing factual matters that are quite specific and quite substantial. Rather than address those factual matters — matters that include connections not only to Muslim Brotherhood luminaries but to an al Qaeda financier — the response of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and their echo chamber in the Republican establishment has been to attack and smear the messengers. Having now spent a good deal of time weighing the competing claims, I am compelled to say that, when it comes to Ms. Abedin’s background, the five House members have actually understated the case. Their letter to the State Department’s inspector general stated that Ms. Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Huma Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Ms. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The Institute was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for at least seven years with Ms. Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. Under the auspices of the Muslim World League, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda. That is to say: Before you even start probing the extensive, alarming Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin could easily have been disqualified from any significant government position requiring a high security clearance based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef. A little more background: At the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, Ms. Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the Institute’s main product. It promotes the fundamentalist version of sharia championed by the Muslim Brotherhood, by Abdullah Omar Naseef, and by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. Ms. Abedin was assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from the time she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House, until the time shortly before she took her current position as Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. The Institute was founded by Naseef in the late 1970s. He is a hugely influential Saudi who was then the vice president of the King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Naseef recruited an academic colleague, Zyed Abedin — Ms. Abedin’s late father — to be the journal’s managing editor. Zyed Abedin thus moved his family to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Ms. Abedin was about two at the time. Her mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take the journal over after her husband died in 1993. She remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal. Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League. As the Washington Post has noted, the MWL was launched by Muslim Brotherhood activists with the financial backing of the Saudi royal family. It is often referred to as a charity, but it is really a global propagation enterprise — exporting the Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology throughout the world, very much including in the United States. There are few positions in Muslim Brotherhood circles more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder. The MWL is part of the foundation of the grand jihad — what the Brotherhood also calls its “civilization jihad” against the West. Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well. It was under the auspices of the MWL that, in 1988, Naseef created a charity called the Rabita Trust. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. Jalaidan is not just a member of al-Qaeda. He was a close associate of Osama bin Laden’s and actually helped establish the al Qaeda terror network. According to Osama bin Laden himself, the Muslim World League was one of al-Qaeda’s three top funding sources. Consequently, after 9/11, Naseef’s Rabita Trust was formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law. So were branches of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the International Islamic Relief Organization, two other Saudi-backed “charities” spawned by the MWL. Throughout the time that he ran the MWL and the Rabita Trust, Naseef kept his hand in at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, where the Abedin family continued to run his journal. In fact, Naseef continued to be listed on the masthead as a member of the “advisory editorial board” at the IMMA’s journal until 2003. We might hazard a guess as to why his name suddenly disappeared after that: Naseef’s involvement in funding al Qaeda was so notorious that, in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.) So to summarize, Ms. Abedin had a very lengthy affiliation with an institute founded by a top figure at the nexus between Saudi terror funding, Brotherhood ideology, and al Qaeda’s jihad against the United States. Even if the only pertinent information we had was her personal tie to Naseef, that would be extraordinarily disturbing. But as the five House members pointed out, there is much more. Ms. Abedin’s parents were recruited by Naseef to head up the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. They obviously had an extremely close relationship with Naseef over the last four decades. Besides being the editor of the journal since her husband died in 1993, Ms. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood, has served as a member of the Muslim World League. She also directs an organization called the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC or “committee”). This committee has been listed as a MWL organization. A top advisor of Dr. Abedin’s committee is Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. He, along with several self described members of the Muslim Brotherhood, are authors of the committee’s charter. As I mentioned earlier, Sheikh Qaradawi is the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief jurist. He is a fierce supporter of Hamas and has issued fatwas supporting suicide bombing against Israel and against American military and support personnel serving in Iraq. Dr. Abedin’s committee describes itself as part of an organization called the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR or “council”). Both this council and Dr. Mahmood’s committee are components of an umbrella group run by Sheikh Qaradawi, called the Union for Good. The Union for Good funds and supports violent jihad. It is a designated terrorist organization under American law. Moreover, the IICDR is banned in Israel for its support of Hamas. There is much that could be said about Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin’s work at the various Muslim Brotherhood affiliates. The overarching point, though, is this: She is an ardent champion of classical sharia law. Her committee’s website, for example, has called for the repeal of Mubarak-era Egyptian laws that ban female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape. All of these noxious practices find support in sharia, so she objects to any prohibition of them. Furthermore, as the Center for Security Policy has detailed, Dr. Mahmood published and edited a book called Women in Islam: Rights and Obligations. The book appears to have been written by a sister of Abdullah Omar Naseef. It is a sharia guide to women’s issues. It extensively cites Sayyid Qutb, who was the Brotherhood’s leading theorist after the death of its founder, Hassan al-Banna. Qutb was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966, and his writings continue to influence jihadist terror organizations, including al-Qaeda. Women in Islam asserts that manmade laws “enslave women” and that sharia is women’s “only escape.” The book provides sharia justifications for such practices as the following: female genital mutilation; stoning and lashing as punishments for adultery; the participation of women in violent jihad; prohibiting social interaction between the sexes; requiring women to be veiled; restricting free speech to what benefits Islam; forbidding women to abstain from sexual intercourse on demand by their husbands; requiring women to bar entry of any person into their homes unless their husbands have granted permission; and forbidding the death penalty for the murder of apostates (that is because sharia prescribes the death penalty for apostasy from Islam). Interestingly, about a year ago — a year before he took to the floor of the United States Senate to attack his House colleagues for raising questions about Ms. Abedin and others — Senator John McCain gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he pronounced himself “unalterably opposed” to any role for the Muslim Brotherhood in post-Mubarak Egypt. Senator McCain’s main objection to the Brotherhood was its promotion of sharia which, he observed, “is anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned.” One last point on Ms. Abedin’s family members. As I mentioned earlier, her brother, Hassan Abedin, is also affiliated with the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs as an associate editor. In addition, he was a fellow at an Islamist Academic Institute in Great Britain — the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. During that time, the Oxford Center’s board members included Abdullah Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. Let me finally make a few closing observations. In the end, our system is about political accountability more than legal remedies. I am not accusing anyone of committing a crime. But our national security and foreign policy have taken a dangerous turn. That needs to be a campaign issue, regardless of whether the two candidates are anxious to make it one. The principal policymakers in the Obama administration are the president and the top members of his administration, in particular, Secretary Clinton on foreign policy. No one I know, least of all me, is contending that President Obama or Secretary Clinton needed Huma Abedin in order to develop Islamist sympathies. I’d be surprised if Ms. Abedin does not favor the administration’s decision to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood as a friend rather than as an enemy. But she is not the official responsible for that decision. Some of the people highlighted in the letters by the five House members have very influential positions, and that is cause for concern because they have a lot to say about how policy gets shaped and executed. But no one is claiming that anyone other than the President is ultimately responsible for administration policy. It is also true that presidents and cabinet officials get to consult and seek assistance from just about anyone they want. The old adage that elections have consequences is particularly apt here. Cabinet nominations and confirmations have consequences, too. If you don’t want people with disturbing connections to a deeply anti-American organization like the Brotherhood to have influential government offices, then the point is to avoid electing and confirming politicians who will put such people in those jobs. Still, it is Congress’s responsibility to scrutinize executive branch policy, especially when the policy choices endanger the nation. Let’s consider just some of those policy choices in the last three-and-a-half years. Since 2009, the Obama administration has abandoned the federal government’s prior policy against dealing directly and formally with the Muslim Brotherhood. The State Department has not only been supportive of this dramatic shift; it has embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change: The State Department has an emissary in Egypt who trains operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures. We’re helping them get elected. The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt. The State Department has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia prohibitions against examination and negative criticism of Islam. The State Department has excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey. By the way, the Erdogan regime in Turkey now finances the terrorist organization Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and terrorist groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel. Transparently, this was in deference to the Islamist governments the administration has chosen to partner with — to the exclusion of Israel. Those government’s adhere to the Muslim Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism. The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer about $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections. The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the Hamas, which is a designated terrorist organization under American law — meaning that to provide it with material support is a serious federal crime. The State Department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia). The Islamic Group is the jihadist organization headed by the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman), who is serving a life sentence for his leading role in a terrorist campaign against the United States in the early Nineties. Like Hamas, the Islamic Group is a designated as a terrorist organization to which it is illegal to provide material support. On a just-completed trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured the ruling military junta to hand over power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and to the newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, who is a top Brotherhood official. Secretary Clinton later met with Morsi, who has also been extended the honor of an invitation to visit the White House in September. All this, despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive record of hostility toward the United States, and despite the fact that Morsi, in his first public statement after being elected president, announced that one of his top priorities is to pressure the United States for the release of the Blind Sheikh. One last thing. Government agencies are responsible to police themselves — to ensure that improper influences and conflicts of interest do not skew policy away from the public interest. Inspectors general are one way the agencies do that internally. And it is entirely appropriate for Congress to ask that inspectors general perform this role in a manner that informs Congress without unduly interfering in the agency’s performance of its mission. Congress has an obligation to ask questions and conduct oversight over executive agencies. After all, the people’s representatives have created these agencies. It is Congress that funds these agencies with taxpayer dollars. What we are paying for dramatically affects our security, so Congress must examine the policies and the expenditures to protect the public interest. Under the circumstances, there would be something terribly wrong if members of Congress were not asking questions about Islamist influence on our government. And there is something terribly wrong in the fact that these five members of the House are the only ones who have had the courage to step up to the plate. Andy McCarthy is probably the best Federal Prosecutor that I have ever known. When he took on the prosecution of the “Blind Sheik” and his co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the plots to bomb tunnels, bridges, the Federal Building and the UN Headquarters in New York City he immersed himself in not only the evidence, but also the motive behind these actual and planned attacks. After concluding successful prosecutions of all of the Jihadists defendants Andy undertook to become a world class expert on the causes and actions of Radical Islamists and to understand their agenda. He has written two excellent books on the Islamist threat to America, they are: Willful blindness and The grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. I highly recommend both books, however, the article below explicitly describes how a “Soft Jihad” is being built to undermine our Country and its Rule of Law under the Constitution. It is a very troubling issue facing our nation and we need to understand the consequences of ignoring or at least underestimating this threat. ++++++++++++++++++++++ THHP Question: Numbers Killedwww.holocaust-history.org/questions/numbers.shtmlCached - SimilarYou +1'd this publicly. UndoOct 8, 2000 – Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with ... Edited February 23, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Read what "Loon Watch" has to say about the IPT // END Colby http://www.loonwatch...t-on-terrorism/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Colby's beloved LOONWATCH . Colby says CAIR organization not connected to MB. Loonwatch connected to CAIR . GEE we come full circle haven't we ????? Eric Allen Bell Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:06 AM PST How and Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network by EricAllenBellFollow NOTES ON THE NEW ISLAMIC McCARTHYISM: Since the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center we have seen a spike in both rational and irrational fears of Islam. When those fears are rooted in ignorance, arguably this is “Islamophobia”. And a person who is consumed with such irrational fears is appropriately branded as “Islamophobic”. But what about the rational and legitimate concerns that people, such as myself, voice about the theology of Islam and some of the ways it is practiced, in certain parts of the world, which violate human rights? Is the expression of such concerns something that should be dismissed and branded as yet more "Islamophobia"? According to Loonwatch.com – a well known Islamophoiba watchdog site - there is no distinction. Loonwatch unconditionally attacks criticism of Islam but they refuse to criticize the many, many Islamic clerics and terrorists who are hurting people in the name of Islam. Should a person have something to say publicly questioning the funneling of monies from Islamic charities to Islamic terrorist networks, Loonwatch is there to call them a “Loon” for even raising the question. That’s quite a clever system – a form of radical Islamic McCarthyism it seems – with the first line of defense being a blogoshere of misinformed infidels who will blurt out the word “Islamophobe” at the slightest mention that within Islam there might be a problem brewing. What a clever design. Should an article be written about forced marriages of Muslim child brides overseas or the stoning to death of a Muslim woman as punishment for being raped, or the many young boys who are brainwashed in Islamic madrasas only to become radicalized Islamic militants, or the Muslim men who were arrested in the UK for distributing fliers to Londoners saying that Homosexuals should be punished by hanging because their lifestyle is against Islam – any article written to express concern about these developments will likely lead the writer of such article to be branded a “Loon” by Looonwatch.com and have his name put out on the street. This might cause the author of any such article to wonder if they will face the same fate as the Danish cartoonist Kurt Vestergaard who received death threats, followed up by a Somali Muslim intruder armed with an axe and knife who entered Westergaard's house, for drawing pictures of Mohammed (actually this lead to a bout 100 deaths and the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City and a letter bomb being sent to the Jyllands-Posten newspaper) or Theo Van Gough the filmmaker who was brutally murdered for expressing views which criticized the treatment of women in Islam, or author Salman Rushdie who faced a Fatwa placed on him by an Iranian Ayatollah for his book “The Satanic Verses” and the list goes on. And Loonwatch will call out those who criticize Islam and put their name on the street while the deafening silence remains when it comes to any kind of meaningful condemnation of this increasingly more and more common type of Islamic brutality in the world today. In fact, Loonwatch.com credited Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com with more or less causing Anders Breivik to commit mass murder and writing a psychotic manifesto which included many ramblings about Islam taking over Europe. Although there are numerous articles from experts who say that Breivik clearly had plans to kill before JihadWatch even existed, the blame goes to Spencer just the same. But this is of course a double standard. Loonwatch will not tolerate anyone connecting the dots between Islamic terrorism and violent passages in the Koran and Hadiths commanding Islamic violence. (http://www.NotWelcomeDocuemtnary.com) After making a documentary entitled “Not Welcome” which chronicles events surrounding the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in the middle of America’s Bible Belt, I have become a frequent reader of Loonwatch.com as a source for understanding the scope of the Islamophobia problem in the United States. There is an entire industry, run for profit, of Christian Zionist propaganda designed to scare people into believing that Sharia Law is going to take over in America. It is my view that this is absurd and that Frank Gaffney’s notion of “Creeping Sharia” is a ridiculous paranoid concept designed to instill fear in order to manufacture consent for the bombing of more oil rich Islamic countries. That said however, my research didn’t end there. I am highly sympathetic to the Muslims in Murfreesboro, TN and around the country who are being wrongly harassed and persecuted for their beliefs and I must admit that there is a part of me that would like to see this in simple black and white terms – a David and Goliath story with a clear protagonist and a clear antagonist. It was heart breaking when Muslim women told me stories of how Southern white kids were beating up Muslim kids in school and calling them “terrorists”. This should not happen in America or anywhere. In Murfreesboro, TN a group of radical Evangelicals were the aggressors, but this point of view is not a one-size-fits-all that works with other world events. It’s more complex than that. First let me make it clear that there is a difference between a Muslim and Islam. One is a human being and the other is a religious doctrine. No matter how many times I repeat this, there will always be a fair share of people who refuse to comprehend it and will go on the attack mode saying that I am insulting Muslims. Such was the case when I wrote an article entitled “Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam” (http://www.dailykos.com/... ). The next day when I received the usual Loonwatch email containing the next round of articles on who they had singled out to be a “Loon” I saw a photograph of my own face blown up with the words “Loon At Large” over it. The article itself ended with a demand that I be silenced and a link to Daily Kos asking people to write in and demand that I be censored. (http://www.loonwatch.com/...) My assertion in the article was and is that Loonwatch is protecting Jihadists and terrorists through lies of omission. Criticism ranged from emails I received saying that “it was about time someone stood up to Loonwatch”, to people who simply disagreed and felt Loonwatch to be a legitimate Islamophobia watchdog site and that my point was a bit of a stretch, to those who immediately took to the blogosphere, parroting all of the talking points of the Loonwatch smear piece, saying that I was “right wing” and a follower of Robert Spencer and a bigot and so on. So how can it be that I could make a documentary defending the rights of an Islamic community to build a 53,000 square foot mega mosque and then only months later publish an article with so many criticisms of Islam while accusing a major Islamic blog of being a “terrorist spin control network”? Am I as they say, just somebody with a split personality, or a “Loon” or some kind of an attention-seeking bigot? What happened? What happened is that my investigation into the theology of Islam continued. And I started to notice more and more of a correlation between some of the violent passages in the Koran and the Hadiths and many of the acts of brutality being carried out by radical Muslims in the world – mostly overseas. Then when I posted some of these news articles, from Al Jazeera and other international news sources on my Facebook wall, lively discussions and sometimes even debates took place concerning the fact that although the Koran very clearly commands violence in a few passages, most Muslims do not take those passages literally. And thank God, or Allah or Zeus or whoever one imagines to be ruling over the world that most Muslims do not follow all of the commandments in the Koran to the letter or take those dark passages literally. During those debates I was threatened twice. The first time was from a Muslim computer programmer out of Saudi Arabia who told me he was going to destroy me after I said that I thought Mohammed was too violent, had killed too many people to be considered a holy man (Mohammed personally beheaded hundreds of people and is considered the ideal man in Islam). I did not take this threat too seriously but soon after my website was hit with a denial of service attack. The second threat came from a Muslim man in New York who told me “I will cut off your dick and stuff it down your throat”. This time I not only contacted Facebook but also contacted the FBI. While all of this was happening I continued to receive newsletter emails from Loonwatch.com every few days. Their content was mostly obsessed with Robert Spencer and his blog called JihadWatch.com so I put myself on that mailing list as well. It was more than just strange to be receiving these two newsletters every week, each with their own bias. Spencer was meticulously pointing out nearly every act of Islamic inspired violence around the world while Loonwatch responded, tit for tat, by calling him a “Loon” over and over. I’m not sure what Spencer’s preoccupation with Jihad is really all about. He seems a little too cozy with the radical Evangelicals to me. That said, when I click on the links in his articles – for instance this one: “I was doing my duty as a Muslim,' says father who handed out leaflets saying gay people should be hanged” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... sure enough, Spencer wasn’t making this stuff up. In fact the Daily Mail in the UK did report on several Muslim men handing out fliers demanding that homosexuals be executed by way of hanging for disobeying Islam – in England. Spencer’s take on this is naturally seen through the lens of his own sense of reality – a reality strongly motivated by his own reasons - which are not entirely clear to me. Loonwatch would have us believe that Spencer hates all Muslims, but that is not the impression I come away with. That Loonwatch hates Robert Spencer will become immediately self evident to anyone who browses their site. And how does Loonwatch report on the many, many Islamic inspired hate crimes in the world today? By waiting for someone to say anything critical about them and then brading that person a “Loon”. The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. Headquartered in Richardson, Texas, it was originally known as Occupied Land Fund. In 2007, federal prosecutors brought charges against the organization for funding Hamas and other "Islamic terrorist organizations". Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) was founded in 1987 (The charter exhibits the influence of anti-Jew conspiracy theories throughout, as evidenced by the explicit mention of the "The Protocols of the Elder of Zion,") as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (an organization often credited as being the mother ship for Al Queda, those followers of “the religion of peace” who brought us 9/11). In the 1920s, an Egyptian school teacher, Hassan al-Banna, gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood. According to a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department, John Loftus, “Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently.” Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his “admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt.” For what it’s worth, here is what WikiPedia says about the connection between Hamas and the Council on American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.): “Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and US Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership." Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order, and later convicted in court, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas) , and the IAP. Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]." Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations" body, "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous." CAIR raised suspicions by raising its annual budget of around $3 million (as of 2007) in part through large donations from people and foundations identified with Arab governments. How does this relate to Loonwatch? Loonwatch works with CAIR by broadcasting CAIR's point of view. They are very consistent on this. Loonwatch is never in disagreement with CAIR. CAIR thanks Loonwatch in their "Hate Report". Connecting all of these dots is deeply, deeply concerning. Here is the math: Out of the Muslim Brotherhood come a number of terrorist organizations including Al Queda and Hamas. Out of Hamas comes C.A.I.R. and Loonwatch becomes a mirror for anything that C.A.I.R. wants to convey to Americans about how harmless Islam is. Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it sure does not look right. It has been my personal experience that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are in fact peaceful. It’s the many who are not that have me concerned and the propaganda machine designed to shoot down any criticism of this fact that causes me to find it necessary to speak my mind about Loonwatch. I was happy to see oppressive dictators in Tunisia, Egpyt and Libya fall but find it very disconcerting to see the old form of oppression replaced by a new form of oppression, that being Islamic Law (or “Sharia”). As of the time of this publication it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is prepared to take over leadership in Egypt as they are likely to be voted in Democratically by a majority of Egyptian Muslims. Let us not forget that the radical Islamic nuclear-armed military in Pakistan arrested those who helped the US to find and kill Bin Laden. Am I an “Islamophobe” for being concerned about these developments? So in America we have Fox "News", the most widely watched television cable news network, who gives us half truths about the wars our so-called "leaders" wage. The won't tell you about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed or maimed using bombs that your tax dollars paid for. And within the American Liberal and Islamic world, for some, there is LoonWatch.com - which again will only tell you half truths and use lies of omission when it comes to the religiously inspired Islamic violence which is occurring mostly overseas. Two sides of the same coin in a way, even though the mandate of each organization is quite different - each provides a highly distorted and profoundly biased view regarding the clash of the civilizations. My feeling is that in the broader scheme of things these civilizations do not want to be at war with each other. On both sides of the conflict it is the so-called "leaders" - the "leaders" of America, the "leaders" of Islam (not all of them) who are creating more and more of a mess of this world, using religion and fear and nationalism to achieve their wicked ends. We must not tolerate this any longer. If you value human rights, I would strongly urge you to reconsider just how serious the rise of Fundamentalism in general is and how there is hiding among the well-meaning liberal crowd a wolf in sheep's clothing - that being Loonwatch. In closing, Osama Bin Laden made it clear that he wanted to see the return of an Islamic Caliphate (or Global Islamic Kingdom) and it looks like his dream might just come true in that region of the world at least. Radical Islam is on the rise - nuclear bombs and all. And if you have anything critical to say about radical Islam, anything critical at all, prepare to be branded a “Loon” and have your name and photograph put out on the street when you become the next “Loon at Large”. Welcome to the new Islamic McCarthyism in America. KORAN 160,161: Because of the wickedness of certain Jews, and because they turn many from the way of God, We have forbidden them good and wholesome foods which were formerly allowed them; and because they have taken to usury, though they were forbidden it; and have cheated others of their possessions, We have prepared a grievous punishment for the Infidels amongst them." Edited February 23, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Read what "Loon Watch" has to say about the IPT // END Colby http://www.loonwatch...t-on-terrorism/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Colby's beloved LOONWATCH . Colby says CAIR organization not connected to MB. Loonwatch connected to CAIR . GEE we come full circle haven't we ????? Eric Allen Bell Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:06 AM PST How and Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network LOL you seem not to have read beyond the title because all the author claimed was that: "Loonwatch works with CAIR by broadcasting CAIR's point of view. They are very consistent on this. Loonwatch is never in disagreement with CAIR. CAIR thanks Loonwatch in their "Hate Report"." But he failed to even provide evidence of that. The only citation in the whole essay was a link to the site of a video "documentary" he made. Read a little more about your source. http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/02/jihadwatch-zombie-eric-allen-bell-returns-and-adds-antisemitism-to-the-islamophobia/ You also conspicuously failed to address my principle source, do you think the Center for American Progress is a CAIR front as well? How about "Dave from Queens"? Hilarious also that you referred to "Colby's beloved Loonwatch" when I'd cited them only once along with 2 other sources; let's compare this to your "beloved" WRH which you have cited and defended repeatedly, speaking of which you seem to have given up on defending the site and its owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Guess Colby didnt read article about LOON'watch' (pot/kettle black ? eh ??) misconstruing facts ? While all of this was happening I continued to receive newsletter emails from Loonwatch.com every few days. Their content was mostly obsessed with Robert Spencer and his blog called JihadWatch.com so I put myself on that mailing list as well. It was more than just strange to be receiving these two newsletters every week, each with their own bias. Spencer was meticulously pointing out nearly every act of Islamic inspired violence around the world while Loonwatch responded, tit for tat, by calling him a “Loon” over and over. I’m not sure what Spencer’s preoccupation with Jihad is really all about. He seems a little too cozy with the radical Evangelicals to me. That said, when I click on the links in his articles – for instance this one: “I was doing my duty as a Muslim,' says father who handed out leaflets saying gay people should be hanged” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... sure enough, Spencer wasn’t making this stuff up. In fact the Daily Mail in the UK did report on several Muslim men handing out fliers demanding that homosexuals be executed by way of hanging for disobeying Islam – in England. ============== "speaking of which you seem to have given up on defending the" (Colby) site and its owner viewpoint that the MB is NOT connected to western elites since you didnt respond to post # 72. COLBY CONCEDES Muslim Brotherhood Western Tool . (THOUGH COLBY TRIED TO DIVERT THE ISSUE/THREAD BRINGING UP WRH WEBSITE) =========== Oh yes , no response FBI report CAIR/MB connected at hip. A second Colby concession of a previous Colby position. (posts # 73 and # 62) ================ ARTICLE That’s quite a clever system – a form of radical Islamic McCarthyism it seems – with the first line of defense being a blogoshere of misinformed infidels who will blurt out the word “Islamophobe” at the slightest mention that within Islam there might be a problem brewing. GEE reminds me of ............ Edited February 23, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now