Israel has provided specialized equipment to Turkey to aid Istanbul’s rescue and recovery efforts following a deadly 7.2 magnitude earthquake that hit the country’s Van district on Sunday.
According to the Ministry of Defense the decision came after a request from Turkish officials, which was subsequently approved by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The ministry did not specify what equipment was being loaned to Turkey.
Turkish officials had initially said they required no aid in dealing with the effects of the disaster.
According to Turkish authorities, the death toll from the earthquake rose dramatically, and is expected to continue rising. Some 2,262 buildings collapsed in the wake and large numbers of local residents are still missing.
On Monday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday evening to personally offer assistance with the recovery efforts from the devastating earthquake, as well as to express his “condolences.”
Erdogan thanked Netanyahu for his concern and for the offer of support, said the official.
It was reportedly the first contact between Netanyahu and Erdogan since the diplomatic row that erupted between Anarka and Jerusalem in the wake of the UN Palmer Report on the 2010 Mavi Marmara “Gaza Flotilla” incident.
The report, which described Israel’s naval blockade on Hamas-run Gaza as a “legal and appropriate” means of interdicting the flow of arms to the Hamas run enclave. Israel agreed to “express remorse” for the deaths of 9 Turkish nationals who were killed while trying to lynch Israeli naval commandos who had boarded the ship in accordance with international maritime law, but refused to apologize.
Since then relations between Israel and Turkey have chilled to the point where officials in both capitals have stopped referring to one another as ‘allies’ amid a torrent of bellicose rhetoric and reckless posturing on Erdogan’s part.
Last December, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan dispatched firefighting planes to Israel to help tame forest fires which killed 44 people, and sent aid to victims of the blaze.
In 1999, relations between the Anarka and Jerusalem were cemented in part by the aid which Israel sent to assist in the aftermath of two massive earthquakes in northwest Turkey that killed some 20,000 people.
It is unclear if Israel’s current gesture with serve to warm relations presently in deep freeze.
Source: www.israelnationalnews.com
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Riots: Tony Parsons says ordinary people are coming together to say 'no more'
TWO hard and bitter lessons in these days of burning and looting – the police can’t protect you and one good person alone is powerless against the mob.
A white man with grey hair who remonstrated with a gang burning a bin was beaten within an inch of his life. His identity remains a mystery. The mob stole his wallet and his phone.
These days you can’t expect the emergency services to save your family from being burned alive or beaten to death.
So in this atmosphere of lawlessness, communities are coming together to stand up for themselves.
Family men are patrolling streets where they have had their fill of blood and broken glass to say: “No more.”
Turks in Dalston. Sikhs in Southall. White communities in Enfield and Eltham. They are standing up for themselves and their families because they no longer trust the police to do it.
Some say the English Defence League was active in Eltham. But whether this is true or not, surely white communities are allowed to protect themselves too?
CHILDREN
In these streets, where the police did not come and the firemen could not do their job, we have been taught that goodness will not conquer evil.
Look at these yobs the wrong way and they will kill you, take your wallet and toss your children’s photos into a bush.
They will torch your home or your business, and your wife and children will weep, and you will dial 999 and nobody will come to help.
So good luck to the street patrols. When the police are reeling, communities either come together or learn to cower behind closed doors.
Even Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, says that citizens can use reasonable force to fight back.
Suddenly our country feels far more tribal than it did last week.
The street patrols divide along racial and ethnic grounds, with people seeking the safety of their own.
But don’t blame these gangs, be they Turkish or white or Sikh.
Blame the witless morons who smashed and robbed and burned.
In the patrols, we see hope of a better day. These are not vigilantes – they are family men who are protecting their homes and loved ones.
There are real dangers in standing up against lawlessness, as we see from the tragic deaths in Birmingham. The good guys don’t always win.
We want to get back to where we were just a week ago, when we had faith in the police to protect us.
Sadly, I don’t know if we ever will.
Save Brazil's Internet!
Next week, Congress could vote to radically restrict internet freedom in Brazil -- criminalizing everyday online activities like sharing music and restricting fundamental blogging tools. We have just six days to stop them.
Public pressure defeated an attack on internet freedom in 2009, and we can do it again! The bill is in three committees in the Chamber of Deputies to stop the bill from passing. These politicians are carefully watching public response to the proposed bill in the days leading up to the big vote -- now is our chance to launch a national outcry and force them to protect internet freedoms.
Brazil has over 75 million internet users -- we can be deafening if we join together. Send a message now to leaders of the Constitution and Justice, Science and Technology, and Public Safety Committees, then share it with your friends and family across Brazil!
Public pressure defeated an attack on internet freedom in 2009, and we can do it again! The bill is in three committees in the Chamber of Deputies to stop the bill from passing. These politicians are carefully watching public response to the proposed bill in the days leading up to the big vote -- now is our chance to launch a national outcry and force them to protect internet freedoms.
Brazil has over 75 million internet users -- we can be deafening if we join together. Send a message now to leaders of the Constitution and Justice, Science and Technology, and Public Safety Committees, then share it with your friends and family across Brazil!
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Video That’s Driving the Palestinians Crazy!
: Recently the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon, released a video with facts about the legal status of Judea and Samaria, or as many call it, the “West Bank” (watch the video below). In response to the video release, Saeb Erekat, representing the Palestinian Authority, put out a two page official press release, condemning the alleged “lies and distortions” of the video. In actuality, Erekat did not respond to any of the factual points raised by Deputy Minister Ayalon in the video.
In response to the Erekat press release, Deputy Minister Ayalon issued his own press release asking Mr. Erekat why he did not address even one factual issue in the video. Ayalon also invited Erekat to a public debate on all the issues. “I challenge any of the Palestinian Authority political leadership to an open debate on all the issues ahead of September.” Mr. Erekat refused to take part in a public debate saying that “ending the Israeli occupation is not a point needed to discuss”.
This episode did not end there. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister sent out another press release saying the following:
“I am more than a little surprised that Erekat rejected my offer of an open and public debate, especially considering he was concerned enough about our video to release a two page official press release”.
“Erekat is used to telling the world that Israel’s policies are illegal and against international law and I offered him the chance to back up his own statements and he is proving unable or unwilling to do so.”
“Like its diplomatic policies, it appears that the Palestinian Authority is only able to debate unilaterally.”
The sad thing about this episode is that it clearly demonstrates how the Palestinian Authority in general, and Erekat in particular, are scared of debating the facts regarding the dispute.
Please join us in thanking Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon for standing up for Israel’s right by sharing this video with your friends and family.
In response to the Erekat press release, Deputy Minister Ayalon issued his own press release asking Mr. Erekat why he did not address even one factual issue in the video. Ayalon also invited Erekat to a public debate on all the issues. “I challenge any of the Palestinian Authority political leadership to an open debate on all the issues ahead of September.” Mr. Erekat refused to take part in a public debate saying that “ending the Israeli occupation is not a point needed to discuss”.
This episode did not end there. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister sent out another press release saying the following:
“I am more than a little surprised that Erekat rejected my offer of an open and public debate, especially considering he was concerned enough about our video to release a two page official press release”.
“Erekat is used to telling the world that Israel’s policies are illegal and against international law and I offered him the chance to back up his own statements and he is proving unable or unwilling to do so.”
“Like its diplomatic policies, it appears that the Palestinian Authority is only able to debate unilaterally.”
The sad thing about this episode is that it clearly demonstrates how the Palestinian Authority in general, and Erekat in particular, are scared of debating the facts regarding the dispute.
Please join us in thanking Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon for standing up for Israel’s right by sharing this video with your friends and family.
Arabs Try to Set Fire to Jerusalem Cemetery
A Jewish worshipper who came on Thursday to pray at the tombs of revered sages in the Har HaMenuchot cemetery in Jerusalem, came across several Arabs who were attempting to set some shrubs in the cemetery on fire.
The Jew reported this incident to Arutz Sheva through its You Report page, saying, “The Arabs claimed that they simply threw a cigarette. They were sitting in a cemetery and I do not know what they had to do there, and they are the only ones who were there.”
The worshipper, who attached a picture of the fire (below), wrote, “Here's what they do not want you to know. Arabs tried and almost succeeded in igniting shrubs in the Har HaMenuchot cemetery. I called the fire department but by the time they got there the Arab arsonists were gone, and so ended another arson attempt. Is this the new form of terror attacks?”
In the past several weeks, there has been evidence that Palestinian Authority terrorists are reverting to the first Intifada tactic of trying to burn down Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Arabs have set more than 20 fires in Jewish communities, mostly outposts, which have endangered lives and forced the evacuation of residents.
Police investigations have determined that the blazes were intentional, and tracks have led them Arab villages nearby the Jewish communities. Six Arab suspects have been arrested.
In one such incident last Friday, Arabs from Burin started a huge fire which spread up a nearby mountain and came dangerously close to the homes of the nearby community of Givat Ronen.
Firefighters who were called to put out the fire were pelted with stones.
(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)
The Jew reported this incident to Arutz Sheva through its You Report page, saying, “The Arabs claimed that they simply threw a cigarette. They were sitting in a cemetery and I do not know what they had to do there, and they are the only ones who were there.”
The worshipper, who attached a picture of the fire (below), wrote, “Here's what they do not want you to know. Arabs tried and almost succeeded in igniting shrubs in the Har HaMenuchot cemetery. I called the fire department but by the time they got there the Arab arsonists were gone, and so ended another arson attempt. Is this the new form of terror attacks?”
In the past several weeks, there has been evidence that Palestinian Authority terrorists are reverting to the first Intifada tactic of trying to burn down Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Arabs have set more than 20 fires in Jewish communities, mostly outposts, which have endangered lives and forced the evacuation of residents.
Police investigations have determined that the blazes were intentional, and tracks have led them Arab villages nearby the Jewish communities. Six Arab suspects have been arrested.
In one such incident last Friday, Arabs from Burin started a huge fire which spread up a nearby mountain and came dangerously close to the homes of the nearby community of Givat Ronen.
Firefighters who were called to put out the fire were pelted with stones.
(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Statement from SIOA and SIOE on Norway murders
By JihadWatch
Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Anders Gravers, Stephen Gash and everyone in SIOA and SIOE are profoundly grieved by the murders in Norway. There is nothing more painful for a parent than to lose a child, and to do so in such a way is a horror beyond measure that no words can mitigate. We stand in sympathy with the victims’ families and all the people of Norway.
His crimes are a vivid manifestation of everything we stand against as individuals and in our organizations. This calculating and vicious mass murderer’s reported motivation in political fanaticism makes the evil he has done all the more heinous. We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism. We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda.
This disgusting neo-Nazi, whom we excluded from SIOE because of his Nazi ties, epitomizes the disrespect for life and the contempt for humane values that terrorism embodies, and that we have dedicated our lives to resisting. Whether the challenge to human rights and to the dignity of the human person comes from neo-Nazis or Islamic supremacists, we are determined to continue to resist it, and to do everything in our power to defend the principles of freedom upon which the best of human civilization has always been based.
In this great defense of human rights, we stand with the free people of Norway, and of free people everywhere in the world where the human spirit is struggling against oppression and injustice.
Posted by Robert on July 25, 2011 6:26 AM |
Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Anders Gravers, Stephen Gash and everyone in SIOA and SIOE are profoundly grieved by the murders in Norway. There is nothing more painful for a parent than to lose a child, and to do so in such a way is a horror beyond measure that no words can mitigate. We stand in sympathy with the victims’ families and all the people of Norway.
His crimes are a vivid manifestation of everything we stand against as individuals and in our organizations. This calculating and vicious mass murderer’s reported motivation in political fanaticism makes the evil he has done all the more heinous. We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism. We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda.
This disgusting neo-Nazi, whom we excluded from SIOE because of his Nazi ties, epitomizes the disrespect for life and the contempt for humane values that terrorism embodies, and that we have dedicated our lives to resisting. Whether the challenge to human rights and to the dignity of the human person comes from neo-Nazis or Islamic supremacists, we are determined to continue to resist it, and to do everything in our power to defend the principles of freedom upon which the best of human civilization has always been based.
In this great defense of human rights, we stand with the free people of Norway, and of free people everywhere in the world where the human spirit is struggling against oppression and injustice.
Posted by Robert on July 25, 2011 6:26 AM |
Press release from NDL
It is with disbelief and sadness that we have received news of the tragedy at the government building and on the island.
Our goal has always been to provide information about the conflict between Western values and Islam, violence and terror is the means we firmly reject.
The terrorist acts be connected with a person who is against multiculturalism and Islam, we must emphasize that the suspect has never been a member of our organization.
People who advocate violence, racism or extremism has been and will be banned from NDL.
This is in every way a setback for the debate in Norway. For us who want a fair debate, this is a situation we fear will be used against us. Our values are freedom of speech, equality, peace and democracy. It is our fear that the discussion will now end up in a track where our arguments are met with hatred and incoherent arguments.
But today is the day our condolences, thoughts and sympathies are with survivors, relatives of those killed, AUF and the Norwegian people.
A total NDL condemns the terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011. A date that will forever stand as a day of mourning in the country's history.
Admin in NDL
Our goal has always been to provide information about the conflict between Western values and Islam, violence and terror is the means we firmly reject.
The terrorist acts be connected with a person who is against multiculturalism and Islam, we must emphasize that the suspect has never been a member of our organization.
People who advocate violence, racism or extremism has been and will be banned from NDL.
This is in every way a setback for the debate in Norway. For us who want a fair debate, this is a situation we fear will be used against us. Our values are freedom of speech, equality, peace and democracy. It is our fear that the discussion will now end up in a track where our arguments are met with hatred and incoherent arguments.
But today is the day our condolences, thoughts and sympathies are with survivors, relatives of those killed, AUF and the Norwegian people.
A total NDL condemns the terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011. A date that will forever stand as a day of mourning in the country's history.
Admin in NDL
Official Statement by EDL – Anders Brievik
Unfortunately, due to some uneducated members of the media, blindly only reporting half a story, we have been forced to make another statement on the Norwegian terrorist Anders Brievik and further give attention to him, rather than the 94 innocent victims, their families and the people of Norway who deserve the attention as they recover from this tragedy.
It would seem shameful that journalists have been all too quick to link the English Defence League to this murderous creature, quoting from his blog that ‘on some occasions [he] had discussions with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies (via facebook)’. We can categorically state that there has never been any official contact between him and the EDL, our facebook page had 100,000 supporters and receives tens of thousands of comments each day. And there is no evidence that Brievik was ever one of those 100,000 supporters. Even so, anyone who expresses any extremist beliefs of any kind, be it white supremacist, christian fundamentalist or Islamic extremists, they all get banned from the site.
We have a long and successful history of ridding this peaceful and patriotic organisation of anyone who doesn’t agree with our mission statement, or shows extremist beliefs. This includes successful stewarding of our demos, ensuring that any racists are removed from the areas, strict moderating on our forums and constant monitoring of our facebook pages and affiliated groups. It has been reported that Norway has some problems far-right groups and neo-Nazi organisations, in February, our friends at the Norwegian Defence League had many new supporters after our peaceful Luton demonstration. Unfortunately, due to irresponsible and libellous journalism, some of these new supporters believed the NDL to be a group to express their far-right and neo-Nazi beliefs. It wasn’t and the NDL did a fine job of quickly acting and banishing such unwanted fascists and putting the record straight that fascists are not welcome in the Defence Leagues, only patriots worried about the rise of extremism that causes unnecessary death and pain to innocent people. It is not known whether Brievik was one of those to be banished, but the fact that one of his aims was to set up a Norwegian version of the EDL, when there already was one, goes some way to showing that he hasn’t got a clue about the EDL movement.
If these pathetic and sensationalist journalists had bothered to give the due respect to Norway, its readers and the truth, they would have read the entire writings of Brievik and reported the whole story. They would see that Brievik talks about the EDL in a negative light because of our anti-extremist stance. They would have reported the facts, they would have reported our history of being anti-fascist, anti-violent and anti-extremist. They would have reported that Brievik also states on page 1438 of his document, ‘The EDL are in fact anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. They have many members and leaders with non-European background (African and Asian)…EDL and KT (Brievik) principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically…The EDL harshly condemns any movement that use terror as a tool, such as the KT. This is why, we, the KT, view the EDL as naïve fools.’
It couldn’t be made any clearer that Brievik did not like the way the EDL was a peaceful organisation, open to all, making our point through legal and democratic means, as Brievik recognises we do ‘The EDL is a democratic movement, they still believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems‘. He even knew before hand that the EDL would harshly condemn his terrorist atrocity and his terrorist group, and as the leading anti-terrorist, anti-fascist, anti-racist organisation in the country, this is exactly what we have already done in our release yesterday: Extremism strikes in Norway.
No form of terrorism can ever be justified and the taking of innocent lives, can never be justified. We are proud to stand strongly against all forms of extremism and we will continue to speak out against the biggest terrorist threat to our nation, Islamic extremism. With our next protest in the most extremist filled area of the UK, home to many past terrorists and no telling how many future terrorists, East London. Just last week, a Somalian national from the area went on trial for funding terrorism, so it is vitally important the law abiding citizens of this land make a stand to urge the government into decisive action to prevent the next act of terrorism and scene of devastation, again being in the UK.
Again, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Norway.
It would seem shameful that journalists have been all too quick to link the English Defence League to this murderous creature, quoting from his blog that ‘on some occasions [he] had discussions with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies (via facebook)’. We can categorically state that there has never been any official contact between him and the EDL, our facebook page had 100,000 supporters and receives tens of thousands of comments each day. And there is no evidence that Brievik was ever one of those 100,000 supporters. Even so, anyone who expresses any extremist beliefs of any kind, be it white supremacist, christian fundamentalist or Islamic extremists, they all get banned from the site.
We have a long and successful history of ridding this peaceful and patriotic organisation of anyone who doesn’t agree with our mission statement, or shows extremist beliefs. This includes successful stewarding of our demos, ensuring that any racists are removed from the areas, strict moderating on our forums and constant monitoring of our facebook pages and affiliated groups. It has been reported that Norway has some problems far-right groups and neo-Nazi organisations, in February, our friends at the Norwegian Defence League had many new supporters after our peaceful Luton demonstration. Unfortunately, due to irresponsible and libellous journalism, some of these new supporters believed the NDL to be a group to express their far-right and neo-Nazi beliefs. It wasn’t and the NDL did a fine job of quickly acting and banishing such unwanted fascists and putting the record straight that fascists are not welcome in the Defence Leagues, only patriots worried about the rise of extremism that causes unnecessary death and pain to innocent people. It is not known whether Brievik was one of those to be banished, but the fact that one of his aims was to set up a Norwegian version of the EDL, when there already was one, goes some way to showing that he hasn’t got a clue about the EDL movement.
If these pathetic and sensationalist journalists had bothered to give the due respect to Norway, its readers and the truth, they would have read the entire writings of Brievik and reported the whole story. They would see that Brievik talks about the EDL in a negative light because of our anti-extremist stance. They would have reported the facts, they would have reported our history of being anti-fascist, anti-violent and anti-extremist. They would have reported that Brievik also states on page 1438 of his document, ‘The EDL are in fact anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. They have many members and leaders with non-European background (African and Asian)…EDL and KT (Brievik) principles can never be reconciled as we are miles apart ideologically…The EDL harshly condemns any movement that use terror as a tool, such as the KT. This is why, we, the KT, view the EDL as naïve fools.’
It couldn’t be made any clearer that Brievik did not like the way the EDL was a peaceful organisation, open to all, making our point through legal and democratic means, as Brievik recognises we do ‘The EDL is a democratic movement, they still believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems‘. He even knew before hand that the EDL would harshly condemn his terrorist atrocity and his terrorist group, and as the leading anti-terrorist, anti-fascist, anti-racist organisation in the country, this is exactly what we have already done in our release yesterday: Extremism strikes in Norway.
No form of terrorism can ever be justified and the taking of innocent lives, can never be justified. We are proud to stand strongly against all forms of extremism and we will continue to speak out against the biggest terrorist threat to our nation, Islamic extremism. With our next protest in the most extremist filled area of the UK, home to many past terrorists and no telling how many future terrorists, East London. Just last week, a Somalian national from the area went on trial for funding terrorism, so it is vitally important the law abiding citizens of this land make a stand to urge the government into decisive action to prevent the next act of terrorism and scene of devastation, again being in the UK.
Again, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Norway.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Jihadi Forums, Blogs & Social Media
Understanding Online Radicalization: The Jihadi Forums
Rising terrorism arrests in America, particularly the breaking up of 22 plots between May 2009 and November 2010, have sparked questions about how young Muslim men become terrorists. Although radicalization has become a catch phrase in the media, little has been written about the methods, websites, and actors involved in the process.
This series, “Understanding Online Radicalization,” seeks to shed light on how the Internet functions as a tool for radicalizing would-be terrorists. It will answer questions about the kinds of websites popular among jihadists, how these sites have used new media and technology, and how they appeal to young people.
Understanding the world of online jihadists gives us insight into what motivates its participants and what drives some of them to act out their violent fantasies.
Jihadi Forums: The Ansar al-Mujahideen Network
For converts to violent Islamism, the ideology that has motivated attacks ranging from 9/11 to the Fort Hood massacre, the Internet is the ultimate tool in their arsenal. It guides, educates, and provides a sense of community among the isolated Western followers of the path of jihadists.
In particular, jihadi forums provide a one-stop shop for news, publications, and media. Though the forums lack the organized worldview of jihadi blogs, they do provide some of the strongest links bonding would-be terrorists to one another and to larger networks abroad.
Among the jihadi forums, Ansar al-Mujahideen [AM] and its sister site Ansar al-Mujahiden English Forum [AMEF] provide a readily accessible example of the potential of websites in this genre. AM began in 2008 as a “rather low-frills, Arabic-language clone forum with questionable credibility and a membership of mostly silent observers,” according to counterterrorism expert Evan Kohlmann. Although the website grew by leaps and bounds even before Kohlmann’s February 2010 article on the site, it has since become one of the primary beacons among aspiring radicals in the West.
The construction of the Arabic-language edition of the site is simple but graphically sharp. Well-designed ads at the top of the page highlight the latest publications by a number of jihadi media groups, including al-Qaeda branches, Somali terrorist organization al-Shabaab, and independent scholars of jihad. Underneath these ads is a ringing endorsement of the site by Jordanian Islamist Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, followed by links to general news about the ummah (Muslim nation), specific theaters of war, a “College of Electronic Jihad,” and many more dedicated sub-forums.
The world of jihadi forums is a fast-moving place, where groups post links to books, articles, videos, and other multimedia using mostly Western file transfer services. Although there is an expectation that most of these links will be taken down, AM features an archive of key texts and “redeploys” significant ideological manuscripts and technical manuals in a timely fashion.
AMEF, the English-language brand of AM, is a smaller and more focused version of its parent website. It features the same glossy links to new jihadi publications as well as the slightly back-dated English translations of those items, but features less sub-categories. For AMEF, the spotlight is on news of the ummah, jihadi media, publications, and press releases.
Materials posted to the forum can be divided into three general categories: “The War on Islam,” the need to fight back, and a smaller subset of publications that support traditional Islamist points of view.
Using violent sections of traditional Islamic texts linked to historic events, the forum presents the view of constant war between Islam and all other ideologies. In its latest episode of this epic war, the forces of disbelief are led by Americans and Jews, who seek to manipulate and oppress Muslims and Islam.
Grievances with American foreign policy — whether real or imagined — reinforce their beliefs. Self-declared scholars dismiss the sell-out Westernized intellectuals on the circuit of mainstream Islamic conferences, often with a high degree of success. Their message has a strong degree of acceptability among predisposed youth, who believe Islam is under attack and subsequently feel alienated when their local religious leaders fail to take actions to protect Islam and Muslims. Jihadist forums provide a powerful answer to the anger these youth experience, combining violence with theological justification.
Once readers buy into the general notion of conflict between Islam and other ideologies, materials on the forum illustrate the how, when, where, and why of carrying out terrorist attacks.
Biographies of previous attackers provide inspiration, video series and glossy magazines give technical training, and “authentic” scholars of jihad provide targets to strike. Presented in a closed forum session, inspired individuals can confidentially prepare themselves and others to follow through on their ideology and to become heroes of the faith who will be idolized by the next generation of online jihadists.
In recent years, ideologues popular among Western jihadists — such as Yemeni-American scholar Anwar al-Awlaki — have tried to dissuade forum members from travelling to the lands of jihad. Instead, they have encouraged a greater focus on media production and so-called “homegrown” attacks, which are meant to leave the smallest paper trail for American intelligence agencies to follow.
Other major themes include teaching participants how to avoid Western intelligence operations, and expanding dawah (proselytizing). There has also been a growth in “supporting” materials, which supply a more general Islamic education. The move has been a response to the accusations of more moderate clerics, who attack extremists for their weak grasp of general Islamic principles and their calls for conflict without tangible ends.
AM and AMEF have made strong headway among American and European audiences. Faical Errai, a 26-year-old Moroccan living in Spain who founded the webpage, was arrested by Spanish Guardia Civil forces and later deported to his home country. According to Spanish trial documents and researcher Raff Pantucci at the ICSR, Errai had personally used the AM website to fundraise and direct fighters to Chechnya and the Taliban-dominated Pakistani province of Waziristan. From Spain, Errai boasted of directing Libyan terrorists to war zones, a marker of the international success of AM. After Errai’s arrest, the website was taken over by other jihadists, who continued the same mission and expanded the group to include AMEF.
AMEF became a major site for American and European jihadists who did not possess fluency in Arabic. Examples include convicted American terrorists Colleen LaRose (Jihad Jane), Zachary Chesser (Abu Talha al-Amriki), and Emerson Begolly (Asadullah al-Shishani), who were all major contributors to AMEF. German couple Fritz and Filiz Gelowicz, both convicted of providing material support to jihadi groups, were also regular participants.
For Chesser and Jihad Jane, the radicalization process was fairly similar. Both were converts who bought into “The War on Islam” narrative, who experienced significant radicalization outside the Internet, and who later became major participators in online forums. Chesser, who was apprehended before joining al-Shabaab, told investigators about his participation in AMEF and al-Shabaab forum alqimmah.net. He was also a leading activist for the Revolution Muslim blog, and was the founder of “themujahidblog.” Jihad Jane was also an active participant on AMEF and Revolution Muslim, which later became islampolicy.com.
Begolly, a would-be terrorist who was nabbed well before becoming operational, was an active participant in several forums including AMEF, Shumukh al-Islam, and Fallujah, according to SITE intelligence group.
With large numbers already radicalized, AMEF and AM have also begun to expand their reach into new technology. In October 2009, AM’s “Mobile Detachment” created a special data package for cell phones, according to expert Nico Prucha at jihadica.com. Aside from speeches and educational materials, the package includes an encryption program for jihadists to communicate securely, as well as new data packages that capitalize on new and older materials.
Part 2 - Understanding Online Radicalization: The Jihadi Blogs
In the next part of the series, we will examine jihadi blog Revolution Muslim and its successor, Islam Policy. Unlike jihadi forums, which are online warehouses of information, blogs take a more limited amount of data and weave a narrative from the chosen items.
Revolution Muslim / Islam Policy
Few websites, even in the jihadi world, can claim to have singlehandedly created terrorists. One American blog, the now-defunct Revolution Muslim [RM] site, and its successor, Islam Policy [IP], illustrate the power that jihadi blogs can wield.
If jihadi forums represent a one-stop shop for jihad material, jihadi blogs are the ideological factories that put the pieces together. Although lacking the sophisticated graphics of professional jihadi sites, Revolution Muslim and Islam Policy provided a narrative that justifies jihad.
The group also strived to exploit freedom of speech to encourage al-Qaeda’s mission of destroying the West, although they would eventually step over the line and into the waiting hands of law enforcement.
RM’s message was so powerful that it motivated a secular British woman to become an extremist, and then an attempted murderer. Roshonara Choudhry, an aspiring teacher studying at King’s College in London, underwent a total change after watching Anwar al-Awlaki videos and participating in RM’s forums.
Choudhry’s plot targeted her local member of parliament at a meet-and-greet. While pretending to shake hands with him she stabbed him twice in the stomach. She later told the judge that she wanted to be a “martyr,” and refused to defend herself in a secular court she didn’t recognize.
The key to the blog and the organization’s success comes from its humble origins. RM started as a small collection of misfits in 2007, when founders Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Muhammad gathered together a handful of like-minded Islamists to promote the teachings of radical cleric Abdullah el-Faisal. El-Faisal guided the group through online classes taught in video chat rooms, as the group’s small and fringe street dawah (proselytizing) team recruited stray Islamists.
The group’s vocal presence in New York City’s Times Square and outside of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York encompassed more than shouting slogans and passing out pamphlets; RM’s blunt support for the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda, and its affiliate organizations gave it a recruiting edge over similar Islamist organizations.
That’s not to say that RM’s message was much different than that found on many jihadi forums. Revolution Muslim preached the common message that the West is at war with Islam, and that means Islam must defend itself.
But RM’s distinguishing factor was its ability to reinforce these sentiments with Western and jihadi news sources and to connect terrorists to relevant videos by catchy preachers like Anwar al-Awlaki. RM drilled its message home with protests, online speeches by el-Faisal, and chat room sessions discussing jihad. By catching young converts early, RM shaped the worldview of these new Muslims and molded them into supporters of al-Qaeda.
RM was so successful at its mission that it absorbed other jihadi startup blogs, as described in the criminal complaint against Abdel Hameed Shehadeh. Although he was charged with making false statements in a matter involving international terrorism, agents alleged that Shehadeh had additional connections to terror, including RM. Shehadeh created a jihadi blog called civiljihad.com, which quickly became a mirror site of RM.
RM’s success can also be measured in the number of terrorists it produced. Zachary Chesser, a Muslim convert and former leader of the group, was convicted of trying to join Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab and for making threats to the South Park cartoonists. The currently leader of IP, Jesse Morton (aka Younus Abdullah Muhammad), was arrested last month in Morocco and will be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for his role in those threats.
Several other terrorists participated in RM’s activities. Neil Bryant Vinas, who plotted to blow up trains on the Long Island Rail Road, was a friend of RM’s former leader Yusuf al-Khattab. Tarek Mehanna, convicted on material support charges, and Daniel Maldonado, who is serving 10 years for training with al-Shabaab, were also acquaintances of the group.
Ultimately, the fame that brought new members to RM would bring it down. In April 2010, Zachary Chesser was drawn into RM’s sphere and issued threats against South Park’s creators for their Muhammad cartoon. The threat, coupled with Chesser’s later indictment for trying to join al-Shabaab, was the first time someone was convicted for information posted on RM’s blog. It would not be the last.
On November 4, 2010, a British member of RM posted a detailed threat against British parliamentarians, as well as a salute to Roshanara Choudhry’s involvement with the blog. The post prayed for Choudhry release, encouraged others to follow her path, reposted the documents that most inspired her, and outlined how and where to strike the politicians. Shortly thereafter, RM’s website was shut down and British police arrested Bilal Zaheer Ahmad for making the post.
RM leader Younus Abdullah Muhammad, the senior leader of RM following the arrest of Chesser and the departure of senior member Yusuf al-Khattab, refused to let the group die. Muhammad founded a successor group called Islam Policy, and linked various Revolution Muslim websites to it. He added other elements, such as an emphasis on Islamic economics and TV commentary for anti-American English news site Russia Today. By mainstreaming the group, he could continue promoting al-Qaeda’s ideology while becoming an international media star.
However, the South Park incident soon caught up with Muhammad. An indictment showed that he was a key player in formulating the “credible” threats for which Chesser took the fall.
Although RM/IP’s history is more developed than many blogs, it shows the power that the jihadist narrative has. Without RM, those indicted for terrorism would not have had the reinforcement and community that motivated their attacks.
Ali Teymouri is a researcher specializing in jihadi publications and translations. He believes that moderate Muslims need to support American counterterrorism efforts, and is committed to making that happen.
Part 3 - Understanding Online Radicalization: Facebook and Social Media
The first two parts of this series covered the two primary website types that jihadists create to radicalize individuals, namely blogs and web forums. The third part of this series will focus on jihadi social media and how jihdaists use Facebook.
“Islam can dominate, over the world, only by jihad,” says the very plain jihadi website realjihad.tk. It reminds readers that jihad doesn’t have stages, and that “lame excuses” like making a living shouldn’t stand in the way.
RealJihad lacks the sharp graphics, interactive chat rooms, and other tools used by more sophisticated jihadi blogs and forums. Despite this, it has a leg up on its competitors: it is one of the primary links provided on the Facebook page of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistani terror organization.
Jihadi radicalization occurs on a number of sites and is not limited to the dedicated sites, blogs, and forums commonly used by terrorist supporters. Jihadists exploit popular Western social media sites, like Facebook, to radicalize, build contact networks, and pass information.
“All users, to learn all detailed rules related to JIHAD, read from this source,” says a user on Jaish-e-Mohammad’s Facebook page, directing readers to an English-language recruiting site. “All users, plz try to read and understand the rules and virtues of JIHAD, through this weblink,” he states on another post with another link. Likewise, Jaish-e-Mohammad’s reputation for daring attacks on the Indian army and even on India’s parliament provides a base around which social media users rally.
Other designated terrorist organizations ranging from Hamas to al-Shabaab have already taken advantage of Facebook, with their spokesman units and media groups establishing pages dedicated to terror. Popular jihadi forums like Ansar al-Mujahideen and its English counterpart also operate closed discussion groups on Facebook.
Facebook’s terms of use rejects violent content: “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening … incites violence; or contains … graphic or gratuitous violence,” the guidelines state. Yet terrorist organizations bypass the rules by linking to third party sites and by posting in obscure foreign languages like Somali and Urdu.
Facebook is also inconsistent about applying standards against unofficial terrorist pages. Al-Shabaab, whose media page on Facebook was recently taken down after the Investigative Project on Terrorism wrote about it, can still influence Facebook users through an unofficial page run by the group’s supporters. More specific pages are dedicated to al-Shabaab’s followers in Kenya and elsewhere.
Self-appointed teachers — “ustadhs” — and other young radicals are also creating their own communities outside of mainstream mosques and social groups. “I don’t have sabr [patience] for the jahil [ignorant] Westernized Muslim,” says self-appointed teacher and internet extremist Khalifah al-Akili, in a posting praising Osama bin Laden and criticizing a young Muslim against extremism. “Osama [bin Laden] dedicated his life to Islam and I don’t see why his acts weren’t justified in Islam,” chimes in al-Akili’s friend, Amir Khan.
Al-Akili’s radical postings and his open support for al-Shabaab and other al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups are characteristic of the Facebook-brand extremist. “May Allah bring death to the kuffar [disbelievers] and the munafiqeen [hypocrites] that wish to celebrate the death of any of the mujahideen,” al-Akili said in response to the killing of bin Laden. “Read it and learn it … and practice it,” he wrote about 44 Ways to Support Jihad, a text by al-Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki.
Many of those who believe in al-Akili’s brand of extremism don’t follow through on it. Although many buy into the critical ideas of radicalization, such as the glorification of martyrdom and Islam’s war with the West, most are wannabe terrorists without the means or ability to carry out attacks. However, a small minority carry ideology into action.
A Muslim convert from Baltimore, Antonio Martinez [Muhammad Hussain], was a test case for how far social media extremists might actually go. On his Facebook page, he describes himself as just “a yung brotha from the wrong side of the tracks who embraced Islam.” But it didn’t take long for him to buy into the radical narrative being preached on Facebook.
Martinez was caught by the FBI in a Facebook sting operation after using the site to call for violence to stop the oppression of Muslims. In December 2010, the FBI set up the 21-year-old with a fake car bomb, and apprehended it after he drove to an intended target and attempted to detonate it. Martinez’s affidavit also describes his Facebook affiliations with “Call to Islam” and “Authentic Tawheed,” two online movements promoting jihadi ideology.
Government agents have even discovered terrorist plots conceived entirely on Facebook. Awais Younis, who plotted to bomb the D.C. metro and the capital’s shopping district Georgetown, was discovered when someone reported threats he made through the site’s chat function. Younis described a plan to build a pipe bomb and stated that he knew “what types of shrapnel would cause the greatest damage.”
Younis’ threats developed over a short period of time. “That is the problem with Americans[,] they cant leave well enough alone until something happends [sic] then they sit there wondering why we dropped the twin towers like a bad habit hahaha,” he told an unnamed Facebook friend. By the time police swooped in on him, Younis was already planning to place a pipe bomb underneath a sewer head in Georgetown during rush hour to maximize casualties.
The growth of social networks and even full-fledged plots on Facebook defies the expectations of some experts. In 2008, George Washington University professor Marc Lynch wrote that Facebook extremists would struggle with the question of how to “get your people in, and keep intelligence agents out.” The past few years have proven that security may be a consideration; but, the draw of the world’s largest social network has penetrated even the jihadi world.
Poster Note:
This is a great research of Ali Teymouri on the jihadi forums and blogs. Please go inside the links of Pajamas Media web page to find out the jihadi websites Ali is talking about. Thank you.
Source: The Middle-East Conflit ( SpeedyMedia)
Rising terrorism arrests in America, particularly the breaking up of 22 plots between May 2009 and November 2010, have sparked questions about how young Muslim men become terrorists. Although radicalization has become a catch phrase in the media, little has been written about the methods, websites, and actors involved in the process.
This series, “Understanding Online Radicalization,” seeks to shed light on how the Internet functions as a tool for radicalizing would-be terrorists. It will answer questions about the kinds of websites popular among jihadists, how these sites have used new media and technology, and how they appeal to young people.
Understanding the world of online jihadists gives us insight into what motivates its participants and what drives some of them to act out their violent fantasies.
Jihadi Forums: The Ansar al-Mujahideen Network
For converts to violent Islamism, the ideology that has motivated attacks ranging from 9/11 to the Fort Hood massacre, the Internet is the ultimate tool in their arsenal. It guides, educates, and provides a sense of community among the isolated Western followers of the path of jihadists.
In particular, jihadi forums provide a one-stop shop for news, publications, and media. Though the forums lack the organized worldview of jihadi blogs, they do provide some of the strongest links bonding would-be terrorists to one another and to larger networks abroad.
Among the jihadi forums, Ansar al-Mujahideen [AM] and its sister site Ansar al-Mujahiden English Forum [AMEF] provide a readily accessible example of the potential of websites in this genre. AM began in 2008 as a “rather low-frills, Arabic-language clone forum with questionable credibility and a membership of mostly silent observers,” according to counterterrorism expert Evan Kohlmann. Although the website grew by leaps and bounds even before Kohlmann’s February 2010 article on the site, it has since become one of the primary beacons among aspiring radicals in the West.
The construction of the Arabic-language edition of the site is simple but graphically sharp. Well-designed ads at the top of the page highlight the latest publications by a number of jihadi media groups, including al-Qaeda branches, Somali terrorist organization al-Shabaab, and independent scholars of jihad. Underneath these ads is a ringing endorsement of the site by Jordanian Islamist Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, followed by links to general news about the ummah (Muslim nation), specific theaters of war, a “College of Electronic Jihad,” and many more dedicated sub-forums.
The world of jihadi forums is a fast-moving place, where groups post links to books, articles, videos, and other multimedia using mostly Western file transfer services. Although there is an expectation that most of these links will be taken down, AM features an archive of key texts and “redeploys” significant ideological manuscripts and technical manuals in a timely fashion.
AMEF, the English-language brand of AM, is a smaller and more focused version of its parent website. It features the same glossy links to new jihadi publications as well as the slightly back-dated English translations of those items, but features less sub-categories. For AMEF, the spotlight is on news of the ummah, jihadi media, publications, and press releases.
Materials posted to the forum can be divided into three general categories: “The War on Islam,” the need to fight back, and a smaller subset of publications that support traditional Islamist points of view.
Using violent sections of traditional Islamic texts linked to historic events, the forum presents the view of constant war between Islam and all other ideologies. In its latest episode of this epic war, the forces of disbelief are led by Americans and Jews, who seek to manipulate and oppress Muslims and Islam.
Grievances with American foreign policy — whether real or imagined — reinforce their beliefs. Self-declared scholars dismiss the sell-out Westernized intellectuals on the circuit of mainstream Islamic conferences, often with a high degree of success. Their message has a strong degree of acceptability among predisposed youth, who believe Islam is under attack and subsequently feel alienated when their local religious leaders fail to take actions to protect Islam and Muslims. Jihadist forums provide a powerful answer to the anger these youth experience, combining violence with theological justification.
Once readers buy into the general notion of conflict between Islam and other ideologies, materials on the forum illustrate the how, when, where, and why of carrying out terrorist attacks.
Biographies of previous attackers provide inspiration, video series and glossy magazines give technical training, and “authentic” scholars of jihad provide targets to strike. Presented in a closed forum session, inspired individuals can confidentially prepare themselves and others to follow through on their ideology and to become heroes of the faith who will be idolized by the next generation of online jihadists.
In recent years, ideologues popular among Western jihadists — such as Yemeni-American scholar Anwar al-Awlaki — have tried to dissuade forum members from travelling to the lands of jihad. Instead, they have encouraged a greater focus on media production and so-called “homegrown” attacks, which are meant to leave the smallest paper trail for American intelligence agencies to follow.
Other major themes include teaching participants how to avoid Western intelligence operations, and expanding dawah (proselytizing). There has also been a growth in “supporting” materials, which supply a more general Islamic education. The move has been a response to the accusations of more moderate clerics, who attack extremists for their weak grasp of general Islamic principles and their calls for conflict without tangible ends.
AM and AMEF have made strong headway among American and European audiences. Faical Errai, a 26-year-old Moroccan living in Spain who founded the webpage, was arrested by Spanish Guardia Civil forces and later deported to his home country. According to Spanish trial documents and researcher Raff Pantucci at the ICSR, Errai had personally used the AM website to fundraise and direct fighters to Chechnya and the Taliban-dominated Pakistani province of Waziristan. From Spain, Errai boasted of directing Libyan terrorists to war zones, a marker of the international success of AM. After Errai’s arrest, the website was taken over by other jihadists, who continued the same mission and expanded the group to include AMEF.
AMEF became a major site for American and European jihadists who did not possess fluency in Arabic. Examples include convicted American terrorists Colleen LaRose (Jihad Jane), Zachary Chesser (Abu Talha al-Amriki), and Emerson Begolly (Asadullah al-Shishani), who were all major contributors to AMEF. German couple Fritz and Filiz Gelowicz, both convicted of providing material support to jihadi groups, were also regular participants.
For Chesser and Jihad Jane, the radicalization process was fairly similar. Both were converts who bought into “The War on Islam” narrative, who experienced significant radicalization outside the Internet, and who later became major participators in online forums. Chesser, who was apprehended before joining al-Shabaab, told investigators about his participation in AMEF and al-Shabaab forum alqimmah.net. He was also a leading activist for the Revolution Muslim blog, and was the founder of “themujahidblog.” Jihad Jane was also an active participant on AMEF and Revolution Muslim, which later became islampolicy.com.
Begolly, a would-be terrorist who was nabbed well before becoming operational, was an active participant in several forums including AMEF, Shumukh al-Islam, and Fallujah, according to SITE intelligence group.
With large numbers already radicalized, AMEF and AM have also begun to expand their reach into new technology. In October 2009, AM’s “Mobile Detachment” created a special data package for cell phones, according to expert Nico Prucha at jihadica.com. Aside from speeches and educational materials, the package includes an encryption program for jihadists to communicate securely, as well as new data packages that capitalize on new and older materials.
Part 2 - Understanding Online Radicalization: The Jihadi Blogs
In the next part of the series, we will examine jihadi blog Revolution Muslim and its successor, Islam Policy. Unlike jihadi forums, which are online warehouses of information, blogs take a more limited amount of data and weave a narrative from the chosen items.
Revolution Muslim / Islam Policy
Few websites, even in the jihadi world, can claim to have singlehandedly created terrorists. One American blog, the now-defunct Revolution Muslim [RM] site, and its successor, Islam Policy [IP], illustrate the power that jihadi blogs can wield.
If jihadi forums represent a one-stop shop for jihad material, jihadi blogs are the ideological factories that put the pieces together. Although lacking the sophisticated graphics of professional jihadi sites, Revolution Muslim and Islam Policy provided a narrative that justifies jihad.
The group also strived to exploit freedom of speech to encourage al-Qaeda’s mission of destroying the West, although they would eventually step over the line and into the waiting hands of law enforcement.
RM’s message was so powerful that it motivated a secular British woman to become an extremist, and then an attempted murderer. Roshonara Choudhry, an aspiring teacher studying at King’s College in London, underwent a total change after watching Anwar al-Awlaki videos and participating in RM’s forums.
Choudhry’s plot targeted her local member of parliament at a meet-and-greet. While pretending to shake hands with him she stabbed him twice in the stomach. She later told the judge that she wanted to be a “martyr,” and refused to defend herself in a secular court she didn’t recognize.
The key to the blog and the organization’s success comes from its humble origins. RM started as a small collection of misfits in 2007, when founders Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Muhammad gathered together a handful of like-minded Islamists to promote the teachings of radical cleric Abdullah el-Faisal. El-Faisal guided the group through online classes taught in video chat rooms, as the group’s small and fringe street dawah (proselytizing) team recruited stray Islamists.
The group’s vocal presence in New York City’s Times Square and outside of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York encompassed more than shouting slogans and passing out pamphlets; RM’s blunt support for the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda, and its affiliate organizations gave it a recruiting edge over similar Islamist organizations.
That’s not to say that RM’s message was much different than that found on many jihadi forums. Revolution Muslim preached the common message that the West is at war with Islam, and that means Islam must defend itself.
But RM’s distinguishing factor was its ability to reinforce these sentiments with Western and jihadi news sources and to connect terrorists to relevant videos by catchy preachers like Anwar al-Awlaki. RM drilled its message home with protests, online speeches by el-Faisal, and chat room sessions discussing jihad. By catching young converts early, RM shaped the worldview of these new Muslims and molded them into supporters of al-Qaeda.
RM was so successful at its mission that it absorbed other jihadi startup blogs, as described in the criminal complaint against Abdel Hameed Shehadeh. Although he was charged with making false statements in a matter involving international terrorism, agents alleged that Shehadeh had additional connections to terror, including RM. Shehadeh created a jihadi blog called civiljihad.com, which quickly became a mirror site of RM.
RM’s success can also be measured in the number of terrorists it produced. Zachary Chesser, a Muslim convert and former leader of the group, was convicted of trying to join Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab and for making threats to the South Park cartoonists. The currently leader of IP, Jesse Morton (aka Younus Abdullah Muhammad), was arrested last month in Morocco and will be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for his role in those threats.
Several other terrorists participated in RM’s activities. Neil Bryant Vinas, who plotted to blow up trains on the Long Island Rail Road, was a friend of RM’s former leader Yusuf al-Khattab. Tarek Mehanna, convicted on material support charges, and Daniel Maldonado, who is serving 10 years for training with al-Shabaab, were also acquaintances of the group.
Ultimately, the fame that brought new members to RM would bring it down. In April 2010, Zachary Chesser was drawn into RM’s sphere and issued threats against South Park’s creators for their Muhammad cartoon. The threat, coupled with Chesser’s later indictment for trying to join al-Shabaab, was the first time someone was convicted for information posted on RM’s blog. It would not be the last.
On November 4, 2010, a British member of RM posted a detailed threat against British parliamentarians, as well as a salute to Roshanara Choudhry’s involvement with the blog. The post prayed for Choudhry release, encouraged others to follow her path, reposted the documents that most inspired her, and outlined how and where to strike the politicians. Shortly thereafter, RM’s website was shut down and British police arrested Bilal Zaheer Ahmad for making the post.
RM leader Younus Abdullah Muhammad, the senior leader of RM following the arrest of Chesser and the departure of senior member Yusuf al-Khattab, refused to let the group die. Muhammad founded a successor group called Islam Policy, and linked various Revolution Muslim websites to it. He added other elements, such as an emphasis on Islamic economics and TV commentary for anti-American English news site Russia Today. By mainstreaming the group, he could continue promoting al-Qaeda’s ideology while becoming an international media star.
However, the South Park incident soon caught up with Muhammad. An indictment showed that he was a key player in formulating the “credible” threats for which Chesser took the fall.
Although RM/IP’s history is more developed than many blogs, it shows the power that the jihadist narrative has. Without RM, those indicted for terrorism would not have had the reinforcement and community that motivated their attacks.
Ali Teymouri is a researcher specializing in jihadi publications and translations. He believes that moderate Muslims need to support American counterterrorism efforts, and is committed to making that happen.
Part 3 - Understanding Online Radicalization: Facebook and Social Media
The first two parts of this series covered the two primary website types that jihadists create to radicalize individuals, namely blogs and web forums. The third part of this series will focus on jihadi social media and how jihdaists use Facebook.
“Islam can dominate, over the world, only by jihad,” says the very plain jihadi website realjihad.tk. It reminds readers that jihad doesn’t have stages, and that “lame excuses” like making a living shouldn’t stand in the way.
RealJihad lacks the sharp graphics, interactive chat rooms, and other tools used by more sophisticated jihadi blogs and forums. Despite this, it has a leg up on its competitors: it is one of the primary links provided on the Facebook page of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistani terror organization.
Jihadi radicalization occurs on a number of sites and is not limited to the dedicated sites, blogs, and forums commonly used by terrorist supporters. Jihadists exploit popular Western social media sites, like Facebook, to radicalize, build contact networks, and pass information.
“All users, to learn all detailed rules related to JIHAD, read from this source,” says a user on Jaish-e-Mohammad’s Facebook page, directing readers to an English-language recruiting site. “All users, plz try to read and understand the rules and virtues of JIHAD, through this weblink,” he states on another post with another link. Likewise, Jaish-e-Mohammad’s reputation for daring attacks on the Indian army and even on India’s parliament provides a base around which social media users rally.
Other designated terrorist organizations ranging from Hamas to al-Shabaab have already taken advantage of Facebook, with their spokesman units and media groups establishing pages dedicated to terror. Popular jihadi forums like Ansar al-Mujahideen and its English counterpart also operate closed discussion groups on Facebook.
Facebook’s terms of use rejects violent content: “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening … incites violence; or contains … graphic or gratuitous violence,” the guidelines state. Yet terrorist organizations bypass the rules by linking to third party sites and by posting in obscure foreign languages like Somali and Urdu.
Facebook is also inconsistent about applying standards against unofficial terrorist pages. Al-Shabaab, whose media page on Facebook was recently taken down after the Investigative Project on Terrorism wrote about it, can still influence Facebook users through an unofficial page run by the group’s supporters. More specific pages are dedicated to al-Shabaab’s followers in Kenya and elsewhere.
Self-appointed teachers — “ustadhs” — and other young radicals are also creating their own communities outside of mainstream mosques and social groups. “I don’t have sabr [patience] for the jahil [ignorant] Westernized Muslim,” says self-appointed teacher and internet extremist Khalifah al-Akili, in a posting praising Osama bin Laden and criticizing a young Muslim against extremism. “Osama [bin Laden] dedicated his life to Islam and I don’t see why his acts weren’t justified in Islam,” chimes in al-Akili’s friend, Amir Khan.
Al-Akili’s radical postings and his open support for al-Shabaab and other al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups are characteristic of the Facebook-brand extremist. “May Allah bring death to the kuffar [disbelievers] and the munafiqeen [hypocrites] that wish to celebrate the death of any of the mujahideen,” al-Akili said in response to the killing of bin Laden. “Read it and learn it … and practice it,” he wrote about 44 Ways to Support Jihad, a text by al-Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki.
Many of those who believe in al-Akili’s brand of extremism don’t follow through on it. Although many buy into the critical ideas of radicalization, such as the glorification of martyrdom and Islam’s war with the West, most are wannabe terrorists without the means or ability to carry out attacks. However, a small minority carry ideology into action.
A Muslim convert from Baltimore, Antonio Martinez [Muhammad Hussain], was a test case for how far social media extremists might actually go. On his Facebook page, he describes himself as just “a yung brotha from the wrong side of the tracks who embraced Islam.” But it didn’t take long for him to buy into the radical narrative being preached on Facebook.
Martinez was caught by the FBI in a Facebook sting operation after using the site to call for violence to stop the oppression of Muslims. In December 2010, the FBI set up the 21-year-old with a fake car bomb, and apprehended it after he drove to an intended target and attempted to detonate it. Martinez’s affidavit also describes his Facebook affiliations with “Call to Islam” and “Authentic Tawheed,” two online movements promoting jihadi ideology.
Government agents have even discovered terrorist plots conceived entirely on Facebook. Awais Younis, who plotted to bomb the D.C. metro and the capital’s shopping district Georgetown, was discovered when someone reported threats he made through the site’s chat function. Younis described a plan to build a pipe bomb and stated that he knew “what types of shrapnel would cause the greatest damage.”
Younis’ threats developed over a short period of time. “That is the problem with Americans[,] they cant leave well enough alone until something happends [sic] then they sit there wondering why we dropped the twin towers like a bad habit hahaha,” he told an unnamed Facebook friend. By the time police swooped in on him, Younis was already planning to place a pipe bomb underneath a sewer head in Georgetown during rush hour to maximize casualties.
The growth of social networks and even full-fledged plots on Facebook defies the expectations of some experts. In 2008, George Washington University professor Marc Lynch wrote that Facebook extremists would struggle with the question of how to “get your people in, and keep intelligence agents out.” The past few years have proven that security may be a consideration; but, the draw of the world’s largest social network has penetrated even the jihadi world.
Poster Note:
This is a great research of Ali Teymouri on the jihadi forums and blogs. Please go inside the links of Pajamas Media web page to find out the jihadi websites Ali is talking about. Thank you.
Source: The Middle-East Conflit ( SpeedyMedia)
Monday, June 20, 2011
Libya Coverage Exposes Media Double Standards
JUNE 19, 2011 16:19 BY SIMON PLOSKER
With the turmoil and upheaval in the Middle East, it is always interesting to examine how the media is covering events compared with coverage of Israel. Particularly in a situation where Western nations are involved in a military campaign, as in the case of Libya, it can be enlightening to contrast how the coverage stands up to comparable situations that Israel has found itself in.
A few deliberate changes to this original Associated Press article that cites a NATO spokesperson talking about Libyan human shields, illustrates the point:
“We are saving countless lives every day across the country,” she said. “We are conducting operations with utmost care and precision to avoid civilian casualties. Civilian casualty figures mentioned by the Libyan regime Hamas regime are pure propaganda.”
… government forces Hamas terrorists “have been shelling cities, mining ports and using mosques and children’s parks as shields.”
Lungescu’s The IDF Spokesman’s comments also counter allegations from Libyan Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who accused NATO the IDF on Friday of a “new level of aggression” and said the military alliance has intentionally targeted civilian buildings in recent days, including a hotel and a university.
“It has become clear to us that NATO the IDF has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. … This is a crime against humanity,” he told reporters in the capital.
Sound familiar? Replace references to NATO and Libya in the story with the IDF and Hamas and the story bears remarkable similarity to that of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead.
But here’s where the similarity ends. During Operation Cast Lead and the fallout from the Goldstone Report, Israel also made it clear that Hamas was hiding behind the civilian population, while the world media parroted accusations that the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians and carrying out “war crimes”.
Why is it that the media is prepared to accept the concept that an enemy could be so cynical as to store weapons in a house of worship or fire missiles from the vicinity of a school when that enemy is the Libyan regime but not when Hamas is accused of the very same thing by Israel?
Why does the media rightly question the veracity of Colonel Gadaffi’s claims over casualty figures yet have have little problem publishing casualty figures provided by Hamas terrorists?
NATO acknowledged Saturday that its aircraft had mistakenly hit a column of rebel military vehicles last week near the Libyan oil port of Brega, and early Sunday morning the Qaddafi government showed reporters a destroyed cinder-block house that neighbors and the government said was hit by an errant NATO airstrike in the capital. …
It was the first time in three months of airstrikes that the Qaddafi government has presented credible evidence of what appeared to be direct civilian casualties of NATO attacks. Although the government has often claimed large numbers of civilian deaths, it has never previously presented bodies or consistent facts about the dead.
The destroyed building was far from any obvious military facility, in the Souq al Juma area, which is known for its hostility to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and some neighbors who said they opposed him nonetheless confirmed the government’s account of an airstrike. Still, journalists visiting the site found no pieces of a bomb. NATO could not be reached for comment, and it was impossible to rule out another explanation.
So reads a report from the New York Times. In the fog of war, it is unclear the exact circumstances behind the incidents mentioned above. Clearly though, there is a level of acceptance that even the most sophisticated militaries can make mistakes and that enemies can engage in deliberately misleading propaganda.
As Sky News reports:
It could not be immediately verified whether the three bodies had come from the destroyed building in the Arada district.
Arada is a neighbourhood in the Souq al-Juma district, which is known for anti-Gaddafi sentiment.
One man told reporters at the scene that anti-aircraft guns were located nearby, fuelling suspicions that the strike may have been aimed close to the actual impact zone.
Two weeks ago, Libyan government officials were accused by a staff member at the same hospital in a note passed to journalists of falsely labelling a child hurt in a car crash as the victim of a Nato attack.
Yet, nobody (other than the Libyan regime) is accusing NATO of deliberately targeting civilians or calling for a Goldstone-style inquiry. Likewise, NATO suffered similar errors in Afghanistan with regard to “collateral damage”.
With the turmoil and upheaval in the Middle East, it is always interesting to examine how the media is covering events compared with coverage of Israel. Particularly in a situation where Western nations are involved in a military campaign, as in the case of Libya, it can be enlightening to contrast how the coverage stands up to comparable situations that Israel has found itself in.
A few deliberate changes to this original Associated Press article that cites a NATO spokesperson talking about Libyan human shields, illustrates the point:
“We are saving countless lives every day across the country,” she said. “We are conducting operations with utmost care and precision to avoid civilian casualties. Civilian casualty figures mentioned by the Libyan regime Hamas regime are pure propaganda.”
… government forces Hamas terrorists “have been shelling cities, mining ports and using mosques and children’s parks as shields.”
Lungescu’s The IDF Spokesman’s comments also counter allegations from Libyan Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who accused NATO the IDF on Friday of a “new level of aggression” and said the military alliance has intentionally targeted civilian buildings in recent days, including a hotel and a university.
“It has become clear to us that NATO the IDF has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. … This is a crime against humanity,” he told reporters in the capital.
Sound familiar? Replace references to NATO and Libya in the story with the IDF and Hamas and the story bears remarkable similarity to that of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead.
But here’s where the similarity ends. During Operation Cast Lead and the fallout from the Goldstone Report, Israel also made it clear that Hamas was hiding behind the civilian population, while the world media parroted accusations that the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians and carrying out “war crimes”.
Why is it that the media is prepared to accept the concept that an enemy could be so cynical as to store weapons in a house of worship or fire missiles from the vicinity of a school when that enemy is the Libyan regime but not when Hamas is accused of the very same thing by Israel?
Why does the media rightly question the veracity of Colonel Gadaffi’s claims over casualty figures yet have have little problem publishing casualty figures provided by Hamas terrorists?
NATO acknowledged Saturday that its aircraft had mistakenly hit a column of rebel military vehicles last week near the Libyan oil port of Brega, and early Sunday morning the Qaddafi government showed reporters a destroyed cinder-block house that neighbors and the government said was hit by an errant NATO airstrike in the capital. …
It was the first time in three months of airstrikes that the Qaddafi government has presented credible evidence of what appeared to be direct civilian casualties of NATO attacks. Although the government has often claimed large numbers of civilian deaths, it has never previously presented bodies or consistent facts about the dead.
The destroyed building was far from any obvious military facility, in the Souq al Juma area, which is known for its hostility to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and some neighbors who said they opposed him nonetheless confirmed the government’s account of an airstrike. Still, journalists visiting the site found no pieces of a bomb. NATO could not be reached for comment, and it was impossible to rule out another explanation.
So reads a report from the New York Times. In the fog of war, it is unclear the exact circumstances behind the incidents mentioned above. Clearly though, there is a level of acceptance that even the most sophisticated militaries can make mistakes and that enemies can engage in deliberately misleading propaganda.
As Sky News reports:
It could not be immediately verified whether the three bodies had come from the destroyed building in the Arada district.
Arada is a neighbourhood in the Souq al-Juma district, which is known for anti-Gaddafi sentiment.
One man told reporters at the scene that anti-aircraft guns were located nearby, fuelling suspicions that the strike may have been aimed close to the actual impact zone.
Two weeks ago, Libyan government officials were accused by a staff member at the same hospital in a note passed to journalists of falsely labelling a child hurt in a car crash as the victim of a Nato attack.
Yet, nobody (other than the Libyan regime) is accusing NATO of deliberately targeting civilians or calling for a Goldstone-style inquiry. Likewise, NATO suffered similar errors in Afghanistan with regard to “collateral damage”.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Syria Pays Cash For Riot, Media Takes Propaganda For Free
une 6, 2011 16:12 by Simon Plosker
Once again a flood of headlines present Israel as an aggressor responsible for the deaths of dozens of unarmed civilians. Was this really a peaceful protest or another Syrian-engineered attempt to breach Israel’s border? Where did the media get it right and where did it go wrong?
Syrian Media: A Credible Source?
For many weeks, Syrian state controlled media (and it is all state controlled) has failed to report on President Bashar Assad’s brutal and murderous assault his own citizens’ peaceful protests against the Syrian regime. So why then did the media rush to quote casualty figures provided by Syrian media despite the lack of any concrete confirmation of the number of deaths or injuries from either side?
For example, the New York Times reported:
By nightfall, the Syrian news agency SANA reported that 22 protesters had been killed and more than 350 had been wounded. Israeli officials said that they had no information on casualties but suggested that the Syrian figures were exaggerated.
Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.
As Jeffrey Goldberg says:
So, the official Syrian news agency, which has every reason to inflate the casualty figures, reports that 22 people were killed by Israeli troops. Israel says that it disputes the figures. The Israeli information operation is far from perfect, but it’s much better than the Assad regime’s information operation. So skepticism about these figures is certainly warranted.
And yet, the Times follows this ambiguous paragraph about the death toll with a declaration: “Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.” How does the Times know this? How does the Times know how many people died? The only source for the death toll is the Assad regime’s propaganda apparatus.
Protestors or Infiltrators?
Events on the Golan played out in similar fashion to the events of the so-called Naqba Day one month previously as did the press coverage. Many headlines referred to Israel opening fire on “protestors”. But this was not your run of the mill protests, nor was it peaceful. This was an attempt to breach Israel’s borders in a hostile act.
The term “protestors” conjures visions of placard carrying activists rather than the more accurate term of “rioters” who threw Molotov Cocktails and stones and confronted Israeli soldiers while trying to enter Israel.
Any infiltration has to be taken seriously and that is how the press should also have treated these incidents – as attempts to illegally breach a sovereign nation’s borders.
Despite this, Karl Vick of Time Magazine chose to frame the incident in this way:
Television images on Sunday from the Golan Heights village of Majdal Shams showed apparently unarmed Palestinian civilians marching peacefully down a hill toward Israeli soldiers who had assumed firing positions. Then came a crackle of gunshots; bloodied bodies were then carried back up the hill. It went on for hours, with 20 people reported dead according to Syrian state television. The human cost was high but for a Palestinian movement trying to reframe itself, the footage at least set it on a course along on the lines of Birmingham, Soweto and Gandhi’s Salt March — parallels it has been making explicitly.
Aside from falsely presenting Palestinians as Gandhian acolytes, this description certainly does not correspond with other media reports that confirmed that the IDF had issued clear warnings in Arabic and fired tear gas before firing over the heads of the Palestinians in an attempt to convince them to halt. The use of live fire and then, only used selectively, was only a last resort.
The video below records the verbal warning given by the IDF.
Once again a flood of headlines present Israel as an aggressor responsible for the deaths of dozens of unarmed civilians. Was this really a peaceful protest or another Syrian-engineered attempt to breach Israel’s border? Where did the media get it right and where did it go wrong?
Syrian Media: A Credible Source?
For many weeks, Syrian state controlled media (and it is all state controlled) has failed to report on President Bashar Assad’s brutal and murderous assault his own citizens’ peaceful protests against the Syrian regime. So why then did the media rush to quote casualty figures provided by Syrian media despite the lack of any concrete confirmation of the number of deaths or injuries from either side?
For example, the New York Times reported:
By nightfall, the Syrian news agency SANA reported that 22 protesters had been killed and more than 350 had been wounded. Israeli officials said that they had no information on casualties but suggested that the Syrian figures were exaggerated.
Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.
As Jeffrey Goldberg says:
So, the official Syrian news agency, which has every reason to inflate the casualty figures, reports that 22 people were killed by Israeli troops. Israel says that it disputes the figures. The Israeli information operation is far from perfect, but it’s much better than the Assad regime’s information operation. So skepticism about these figures is certainly warranted.
And yet, the Times follows this ambiguous paragraph about the death toll with a declaration: “Even so, it was the worst bloodshed in the Golan Heights since Israel and Syria fought a war there in 1973.” How does the Times know this? How does the Times know how many people died? The only source for the death toll is the Assad regime’s propaganda apparatus.
Protestors or Infiltrators?
Events on the Golan played out in similar fashion to the events of the so-called Naqba Day one month previously as did the press coverage. Many headlines referred to Israel opening fire on “protestors”. But this was not your run of the mill protests, nor was it peaceful. This was an attempt to breach Israel’s borders in a hostile act.
The term “protestors” conjures visions of placard carrying activists rather than the more accurate term of “rioters” who threw Molotov Cocktails and stones and confronted Israeli soldiers while trying to enter Israel.
Any infiltration has to be taken seriously and that is how the press should also have treated these incidents – as attempts to illegally breach a sovereign nation’s borders.
Despite this, Karl Vick of Time Magazine chose to frame the incident in this way:
Television images on Sunday from the Golan Heights village of Majdal Shams showed apparently unarmed Palestinian civilians marching peacefully down a hill toward Israeli soldiers who had assumed firing positions. Then came a crackle of gunshots; bloodied bodies were then carried back up the hill. It went on for hours, with 20 people reported dead according to Syrian state television. The human cost was high but for a Palestinian movement trying to reframe itself, the footage at least set it on a course along on the lines of Birmingham, Soweto and Gandhi’s Salt March — parallels it has been making explicitly.
Aside from falsely presenting Palestinians as Gandhian acolytes, this description certainly does not correspond with other media reports that confirmed that the IDF had issued clear warnings in Arabic and fired tear gas before firing over the heads of the Palestinians in an attempt to convince them to halt. The use of live fire and then, only used selectively, was only a last resort.
The video below records the verbal warning given by the IDF.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Strengthen Jerusalem as the United Capital of Israel
Israel is under intense pressure to divide Jerusalem and share sovereignty with a Palestinian entity. Eastern Jerusalem, including the entire Old City, the Temple Mount and many other holy sites would fall under Arab rule.
During Arab rule from 1948-1967, non-Muslims were forbidden from access to Jerusalem's holy sites. Only Israel can guarantee free and open access to Jerusalem for all peoples and religions.
Please sign the Jerusalem Declaration to affirm that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish People and must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.
The declaration will be presented to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Jerusalem Mayor Barkat and the Israeli Knesset.
Click on the link below (or copy and paste into your browser) to sign the letter.
After you sign, we urge you to share this with everyone you know via Email, Facebook and Twitter.
http://www.jerusalemdeclaration.com
During Arab rule from 1948-1967, non-Muslims were forbidden from access to Jerusalem's holy sites. Only Israel can guarantee free and open access to Jerusalem for all peoples and religions.
Please sign the Jerusalem Declaration to affirm that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish People and must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.
The declaration will be presented to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Jerusalem Mayor Barkat and the Israeli Knesset.
Click on the link below (or copy and paste into your browser) to sign the letter.
After you sign, we urge you to share this with everyone you know via Email, Facebook and Twitter.
http://www.jerusalemdeclaration.com
Gene Simmons Slams Obama, the UN
KISS rock star, Israeli-born Gene Simmons, tells the CNBC Christian network that U.S. President Barack Obama "has no idea of what the world is like." He also calls the United Nations "the most pathetic body on the face of the earth."
Jane Wells interviewed Simmons on CNBC and asked him what he thinks of President Obama, for whom Simmons voted and now regrets it. He answered, "If you have never been to the moon, you can't issue policy about the moon. For the president to be sitting in Washington D.C. and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel' - how abut you live there and try to defend an indefensible border - nine miles wide?"
"On one side, you got hundreds of millions of people who hate your guts. On the other side you got the Mediterranean. Unless you control the Golan Heights, it is an indefensible position. it is a nice idea, [but] when you grow up, you find out that life is not the way you imagine it.
"President Obama means well - I think he actually is a good guy, He has no idea of what the world is like because he does not have to live there."
Simmons also told the interviewer that "women are much brighter than we are. You should have thousands of babies."
He was born in Israel in 1949 as Chaim Witz and moved with his family to New York when at the age of eight. His Polish mother survived the Holocaust.
He has written about the United States, "I wasn't born here. But I have a love for this country and its people that knows no bounds. I will forever be grateful to America for going into World War II, when it had nothing to gain, in a country that was far away... and rescued my mosimmons jewish israelther from the Nazi German concentration camps. She is alive and I am alive because of America. And, if you have a problem with America, you have a problem with me."
Last March, he performed in a homecoming visit to Israel and said, "I'm Israeli. I'm a stranger in America." He also said that artists who boycott Israel are "fools."
Jane Wells interviewed Simmons on CNBC and asked him what he thinks of President Obama, for whom Simmons voted and now regrets it. He answered, "If you have never been to the moon, you can't issue policy about the moon. For the president to be sitting in Washington D.C. and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel' - how abut you live there and try to defend an indefensible border - nine miles wide?"
"On one side, you got hundreds of millions of people who hate your guts. On the other side you got the Mediterranean. Unless you control the Golan Heights, it is an indefensible position. it is a nice idea, [but] when you grow up, you find out that life is not the way you imagine it.
"President Obama means well - I think he actually is a good guy, He has no idea of what the world is like because he does not have to live there."
Simmons also told the interviewer that "women are much brighter than we are. You should have thousands of babies."
He was born in Israel in 1949 as Chaim Witz and moved with his family to New York when at the age of eight. His Polish mother survived the Holocaust.
He has written about the United States, "I wasn't born here. But I have a love for this country and its people that knows no bounds. I will forever be grateful to America for going into World War II, when it had nothing to gain, in a country that was far away... and rescued my mosimmons jewish israelther from the Nazi German concentration camps. She is alive and I am alive because of America. And, if you have a problem with America, you have a problem with me."
Last March, he performed in a homecoming visit to Israel and said, "I'm Israeli. I'm a stranger in America." He also said that artists who boycott Israel are "fools."
Friday, May 27, 2011
You're forged! Trump declares Obama's birth certificate fake
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to be president during March and April – and rose to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination then as a result – says he believes the "birth certificate" released by the White House is forged.
His comments came yesterday in a telephone call to WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., who is appearing on wall-to-wall radio programs – between 10 and 20 per day – to respond to questions about his latest best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President."
Trump asked Corsi about the book, its evidence and what is happening next in the effort to document whether Obama is, in fact, constitutionally qualified for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1's "natural born citizen" requirement.
Get the inside details on what could be the most serious constitutional crisis in modern history, in "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President."
Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document.
(Story continues below)
"I always said I wanted to know if it was real," Trump told Corsi.
The image has been challenged by a number of experts in the field, and the original, of course, has yet to be seen, much less analyzed.
The state of Hawaii said it inserted "safety paper" into a copy machine and copied onto the new paper the original image from its state records. However, state officials were unwilling to confirm to WND after the image was released that what was issued by the White House was, in fact, an accurate representation of their original records.
During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him at the release that it was a computer-generated document.
That opinion has been repeated many times, and WND has reported on a few of the objections that have been raised by various experts:
* Ivan Zatkovich, of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, for example, analyzed the various layers in the PDF file released by the White House, and concluded: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."
Zatkovich, with 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation, said the multiple PDF document layers are unusual.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said.
Among the various items that were separated into different layers include the main text, the mother's occupation, the dates accepted, the stamp and signature of the state registrar and the time stamp of the state registrar:
Also, the main layer of text reveals most of the wording on the document, with strange exceptions such as the first part of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature. The main text layer has only "unham Obama." Likewise, "Kenya" is spelled "enya" and "Barack" is spelled Ba ack."
Secondly, Karl Denninger, the former of CEO of MCSNet, a Chicago networking and Internet company, said the presence of "kerning" in the text confirms manipulation.
Denninger posted a series of reports online, including on YouTube, where he explains his concerns, which focus around the lettering as it appears on the document that reportedly is a photocopy on green "safety paper" of the original record in Hawaii
He explains that the type on the birth document show evidence of "kerning," the squeezing of letters into a line so that they intrude into adjacent letter spaces. Kerning is routine since the advent of word processors and computers, but impossible with a typewriter.
Denninger explains that in the image above, of the name of the hospital, the "a" and the "p" share vertical space on the line.
"This process, of course, requires that you know what the next letter is. With a computer this is pretty easy, since the computer can retroactively go back and adjust, and it also can typeset the current letter with the knowledge of what the previous one was," he reported. "A typewriter, on the other hand, is a mechanical device. It does not know what the next letter is that you will type, nor does it know what the last letter was that you typed. It thus has a typeface that always leaves physical space between the boundary of each character."
Read more: You're forged! Trump declares Obama's birth certificate fake http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=303181#ixzz1NVNSjHRY
His comments came yesterday in a telephone call to WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., who is appearing on wall-to-wall radio programs – between 10 and 20 per day – to respond to questions about his latest best-seller, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President."
Trump asked Corsi about the book, its evidence and what is happening next in the effort to document whether Obama is, in fact, constitutionally qualified for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1's "natural born citizen" requirement.
Get the inside details on what could be the most serious constitutional crisis in modern history, in "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President."
Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document.
(Story continues below)
"I always said I wanted to know if it was real," Trump told Corsi.
The image has been challenged by a number of experts in the field, and the original, of course, has yet to be seen, much less analyzed.
The state of Hawaii said it inserted "safety paper" into a copy machine and copied onto the new paper the original image from its state records. However, state officials were unwilling to confirm to WND after the image was released that what was issued by the White House was, in fact, an accurate representation of their original records.
During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him at the release that it was a computer-generated document.
That opinion has been repeated many times, and WND has reported on a few of the objections that have been raised by various experts:
* Ivan Zatkovich, of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, for example, analyzed the various layers in the PDF file released by the White House, and concluded: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."
Zatkovich, with 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation, said the multiple PDF document layers are unusual.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image," his report said.
Among the various items that were separated into different layers include the main text, the mother's occupation, the dates accepted, the stamp and signature of the state registrar and the time stamp of the state registrar:
Also, the main layer of text reveals most of the wording on the document, with strange exceptions such as the first part of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature. The main text layer has only "unham Obama." Likewise, "Kenya" is spelled "enya" and "Barack" is spelled Ba ack."
Secondly, Karl Denninger, the former of CEO of MCSNet, a Chicago networking and Internet company, said the presence of "kerning" in the text confirms manipulation.
Denninger posted a series of reports online, including on YouTube, where he explains his concerns, which focus around the lettering as it appears on the document that reportedly is a photocopy on green "safety paper" of the original record in Hawaii
He explains that the type on the birth document show evidence of "kerning," the squeezing of letters into a line so that they intrude into adjacent letter spaces. Kerning is routine since the advent of word processors and computers, but impossible with a typewriter.
Denninger explains that in the image above, of the name of the hospital, the "a" and the "p" share vertical space on the line.
"This process, of course, requires that you know what the next letter is. With a computer this is pretty easy, since the computer can retroactively go back and adjust, and it also can typeset the current letter with the knowledge of what the previous one was," he reported. "A typewriter, on the other hand, is a mechanical device. It does not know what the next letter is that you will type, nor does it know what the last letter was that you typed. It thus has a typeface that always leaves physical space between the boundary of each character."
Read more: You're forged! Trump declares Obama's birth certificate fake http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=303181#ixzz1NVNSjHRY
Friday, May 20, 2011
Israel and Obama’s Radical Past
By Stanley Kurtz
Does President Obama’s radical past tell us anything significant about his stance on Israel today? Perhaps more important, do the radical alliances of Obama’s Chicago days raise a warning flag about what the president’s position on Israel may be in 2013, should he safely secure reelection? Many will deny it, but I believe Obama’s radical history speaks volumes about the past, present, and likely future course of his policy on Israel.
The Los Angeles Times has long refused to release a videotape in its possession of a farewell dinner, attended by Obama, for scholar and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Obama spoke warmly of his friendship for Khalidi at that event. Unfortunately, the continuing mystery of that video tape has obscured the rather remarkable article that the LA Times did publish about the dinner — and about Obama’s broader views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In light of the controversy over Obama’s remarks on Israel in his address yesterday on the Middle East, it is worth revisiting that 2008 article from the LA Times.
The extraordinary thing about “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” is that in it, Obama’s supporters say that in claiming to be pro-Israel, he is hiding his true views from the public. Having observed his personal associations, his open political alliances, his public statements, and his private remarks, Obama’s Palestinian allies steadfastly maintain that Obama’s private views are far more pro-Palestinian than he lets on.
Having pieced together Obama’s history, I make much the same argument about Obama’s broader political stance in my book, Radical-in-Chief. Obama’s true views are far to the left of what he lets on in public. Yet it’s striking to see Palestinian activists making essentially the same point — not in criticism of Obama, but in praise.
Notice also that, in this article, Rashid Khalidi himself claims that Obama’s family ties to Kenya and Indonesia have inclined him to be more sympathetic to Palestinians than other American politicians are. That sort of claim often gets ridiculed when conservatives make it.
The point of all this is not that, as president, Obama is going to make policy exactly as Rashid Khalidi might. Obviously, no American president could take such a position and survive politically. Rather, the point is that Obama’s stance is going to tilt more heavily toward the Palestinians than any other likely American president, Republican or Democrat — just as Obama’s Palestinian allies argued in that LA Times piece.
The entire article is worth a read, but here are some choice excerpts:
A special tribute [at the farewell dinner] came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals provided by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases” . . .
[Obama today] expresses a firmly pro-Israel view. . . .
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed. . . .
“I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates,” said Hussein Ibish…. “That’s my personal opinion, Ibish said, “and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons and what he’s said.”
. . . Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel….
Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Obama, through his aide, Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah’s account could not be independently verified.
In Radical-in-Chief, I show how Obama generally resorts to obfuscation to hide his radical past, saving outright false denial for those few cases where it is absolutely necessary. Is this another such case?
Radical-in-Chief also shows in some detail, with new information, that Obama had to know about Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s intensely anti-Israel views. I also discuss the triangular relationship between Obama, Khalidi, and Bill Ayers. Ayers and Khalidi were extremely close friends and allies, and both were close political allies of Obama as well.
For further evidence that Obama’s early views tell us more about his actions in the present — and future — than his current “pragmatic” statements, see “Obama’s Past Tells the Truth.”
There is also the question of Samantha Power, Obama’s most important foreign policy advisor during his Senate years, and a guiding force behind our current intervention in Libya. I surveyed her views in “Samantha Power’s Power.” Although Power now disavows it, there is persuasive evidence that she once advocated an American military intervention against Israel to impose a two-state solution. It is extraordinary that someone holding that view should have been Obama’s closest foreign-policy adviser for years, and a continuing influence within his administration today.
It is true, of course, that Obama has long maintained close ties to the Jewish community. Yet the depth of his ties to the pro-Palestinian Left is unmatched among major American politicians. It is reasonable to conclude that this is having an effect on Obama’s policies — more than he admits — and will continue to do so, especially should the president secure reelection.
Does President Obama’s radical past tell us anything significant about his stance on Israel today? Perhaps more important, do the radical alliances of Obama’s Chicago days raise a warning flag about what the president’s position on Israel may be in 2013, should he safely secure reelection? Many will deny it, but I believe Obama’s radical history speaks volumes about the past, present, and likely future course of his policy on Israel.
The Los Angeles Times has long refused to release a videotape in its possession of a farewell dinner, attended by Obama, for scholar and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Obama spoke warmly of his friendship for Khalidi at that event. Unfortunately, the continuing mystery of that video tape has obscured the rather remarkable article that the LA Times did publish about the dinner — and about Obama’s broader views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In light of the controversy over Obama’s remarks on Israel in his address yesterday on the Middle East, it is worth revisiting that 2008 article from the LA Times.
The extraordinary thing about “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” is that in it, Obama’s supporters say that in claiming to be pro-Israel, he is hiding his true views from the public. Having observed his personal associations, his open political alliances, his public statements, and his private remarks, Obama’s Palestinian allies steadfastly maintain that Obama’s private views are far more pro-Palestinian than he lets on.
Having pieced together Obama’s history, I make much the same argument about Obama’s broader political stance in my book, Radical-in-Chief. Obama’s true views are far to the left of what he lets on in public. Yet it’s striking to see Palestinian activists making essentially the same point — not in criticism of Obama, but in praise.
Notice also that, in this article, Rashid Khalidi himself claims that Obama’s family ties to Kenya and Indonesia have inclined him to be more sympathetic to Palestinians than other American politicians are. That sort of claim often gets ridiculed when conservatives make it.
The point of all this is not that, as president, Obama is going to make policy exactly as Rashid Khalidi might. Obviously, no American president could take such a position and survive politically. Rather, the point is that Obama’s stance is going to tilt more heavily toward the Palestinians than any other likely American president, Republican or Democrat — just as Obama’s Palestinian allies argued in that LA Times piece.
The entire article is worth a read, but here are some choice excerpts:
A special tribute [at the farewell dinner] came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals provided by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases” . . .
[Obama today] expresses a firmly pro-Israel view. . . .
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed. . . .
“I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates,” said Hussein Ibish…. “That’s my personal opinion, Ibish said, “and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons and what he’s said.”
. . . Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel….
Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Obama, through his aide, Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah’s account could not be independently verified.
In Radical-in-Chief, I show how Obama generally resorts to obfuscation to hide his radical past, saving outright false denial for those few cases where it is absolutely necessary. Is this another such case?
Radical-in-Chief also shows in some detail, with new information, that Obama had to know about Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s intensely anti-Israel views. I also discuss the triangular relationship between Obama, Khalidi, and Bill Ayers. Ayers and Khalidi were extremely close friends and allies, and both were close political allies of Obama as well.
For further evidence that Obama’s early views tell us more about his actions in the present — and future — than his current “pragmatic” statements, see “Obama’s Past Tells the Truth.”
There is also the question of Samantha Power, Obama’s most important foreign policy advisor during his Senate years, and a guiding force behind our current intervention in Libya. I surveyed her views in “Samantha Power’s Power.” Although Power now disavows it, there is persuasive evidence that she once advocated an American military intervention against Israel to impose a two-state solution. It is extraordinary that someone holding that view should have been Obama’s closest foreign-policy adviser for years, and a continuing influence within his administration today.
It is true, of course, that Obama has long maintained close ties to the Jewish community. Yet the depth of his ties to the pro-Palestinian Left is unmatched among major American politicians. It is reasonable to conclude that this is having an effect on Obama’s policies — more than he admits — and will continue to do so, especially should the president secure reelection.
12 Reasons Why Jerusalem Must Remain United Forever Under Israeli Control
By Ken Abramowitz
1. Jerusalem has been the capital city of the Jewish people (but no one else) for 3,000 years, including both ancient Israel and current Israel. There were caliphates based in Medina, Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo--never in Jerusalem.
2. Jews lived in Jerusalem for 1,700 years before the Arab conquests in the Seventh century.
3. Jerusalem is mentioned 641 times in the bible and 0 times in the Koran.
4. Jewish legal rights to Jerusalem (and even all of Judea/Samaria) were "irrevocably" recognized in the San Remo conference of 1920 by unanimous agreement of the 51 members of the League of Nations. Moreover, for the past 150 years, Jews have been the majority population in Jerusalem.
5. Jews were ethnically cleansed from eastern Jerusalem when they were attacked by 5 Arab armies in 1948.
6. Without Israeli security control that exists today, Jerusalem would descend into chaos, with rival militias battling each other like in the Gaza Strip. This would make life intolerable to residents and tourists alike. In 1949, 25% of Jerusalem Jews fled when exposed to random sniper fire from the Arab Legion.
7. Unified Israeli control of Jerusalem is crucial for the IDF, as it requires a secure route during wartime to move soldiers/equipment to the eastern border, along Jordan River.
8. Israeli Arab residents in Eastern Jerusalem enjoy social security and health insurance benefits valued at about $10,000 per annum. Removing such benefits and moving this population over to a tyrannical regime (PA or Hamas) is both unethical and immoral. It also violates the wishes of the majority of Arabs in eastern Jerusalem
9. If Israel were to irrationally allow the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, the PA would not protect the Christian population or religious sites, as witnessed by the PA's persecution of Christian Arabs in Bethlehem. The Jewish sites would also not be protected, as seen in Joseph's tomb in Nablus (Shechem) and the synagogue in Jericho. Between 1948-1967, fifty nine Jewish religious sites were destroyed by the occupying Jordanians.
10. PA control over eastern Jerusalem would create a "magnet" for Sunni terror organizations (Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite or Shiite-funded terror organizations (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas) to undermine and then take over, as in Lebanonhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif, Gaza, and now Egypt. In fact, Jerusalem would become the focus of the rivalry by these two worldwide terror organizations. Hamas is now formally a partner for the second time of Fatah in the PA. Hamas actually hosted al-Qaeda groups in Gaza since 2006.
11. The increased hostilities, guaranteed to be created by the inevitable war, would lead to unnecessary tensions worldwide between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
12. The division of Jerusalem is not in the interests of Israel, US, EU, PA, or local Arab residents. It is only in the interests of Iran, thereby aiding its goal of world domination.
Source:SPEEDYMEDIA
1. Jerusalem has been the capital city of the Jewish people (but no one else) for 3,000 years, including both ancient Israel and current Israel. There were caliphates based in Medina, Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo--never in Jerusalem.
2. Jews lived in Jerusalem for 1,700 years before the Arab conquests in the Seventh century.
3. Jerusalem is mentioned 641 times in the bible and 0 times in the Koran.
4. Jewish legal rights to Jerusalem (and even all of Judea/Samaria) were "irrevocably" recognized in the San Remo conference of 1920 by unanimous agreement of the 51 members of the League of Nations. Moreover, for the past 150 years, Jews have been the majority population in Jerusalem.
5. Jews were ethnically cleansed from eastern Jerusalem when they were attacked by 5 Arab armies in 1948.
6. Without Israeli security control that exists today, Jerusalem would descend into chaos, with rival militias battling each other like in the Gaza Strip. This would make life intolerable to residents and tourists alike. In 1949, 25% of Jerusalem Jews fled when exposed to random sniper fire from the Arab Legion.
7. Unified Israeli control of Jerusalem is crucial for the IDF, as it requires a secure route during wartime to move soldiers/equipment to the eastern border, along Jordan River.
8. Israeli Arab residents in Eastern Jerusalem enjoy social security and health insurance benefits valued at about $10,000 per annum. Removing such benefits and moving this population over to a tyrannical regime (PA or Hamas) is both unethical and immoral. It also violates the wishes of the majority of Arabs in eastern Jerusalem
9. If Israel were to irrationally allow the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state, the PA would not protect the Christian population or religious sites, as witnessed by the PA's persecution of Christian Arabs in Bethlehem. The Jewish sites would also not be protected, as seen in Joseph's tomb in Nablus (Shechem) and the synagogue in Jericho. Between 1948-1967, fifty nine Jewish religious sites were destroyed by the occupying Jordanians.
10. PA control over eastern Jerusalem would create a "magnet" for Sunni terror organizations (Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite or Shiite-funded terror organizations (Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas) to undermine and then take over, as in Lebanonhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif, Gaza, and now Egypt. In fact, Jerusalem would become the focus of the rivalry by these two worldwide terror organizations. Hamas is now formally a partner for the second time of Fatah in the PA. Hamas actually hosted al-Qaeda groups in Gaza since 2006.
11. The increased hostilities, guaranteed to be created by the inevitable war, would lead to unnecessary tensions worldwide between Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
12. The division of Jerusalem is not in the interests of Israel, US, EU, PA, or local Arab residents. It is only in the interests of Iran, thereby aiding its goal of world domination.
Source:SPEEDYMEDIA
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Paedophilia ‘culturally accepted in south Afghanistan’
British forces were advised by a military study that paedophilia is widespread and culturally accepted in southern Afghanistan.
Older, powerful men boosted their social status by keeping boys as sexual playthings and the practice was celebrated in song and dance, a military study claimed.
British officers in Helmand requested the study to help them understand the sexual behaviour of locals and Afghan comrades after young soldiers became uneasy they were being propositioned.
American social scientists employed to help troops understand the local culture reported that homosexual sex was widespread among the Pashtun ethnic group in southern Afghanistan.
Strict separation of men and women, coupled with poverty and the significant expense of getting married, contributed to young men turning to each other for sexual companionship.
“To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid western discomfort is to risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture,” the report said.
The study, called ‘Pashtun Sexuality’, said that as well as willing sex between young men, “boys are appreciated for physical beauty and apprenticed to older men for their sexual initiation”.
The practice of ‘bache bazi’ or boy play, is known throughout Afghanistan, but is particularly renowned in the city of Kandahar next to Helmand, where prepubescent boys are widely admired.
Western soldiers often report feeling unease at the attentions of their Afghan comrades, who are affectionate with each other and sometimes wear make-up.
British troops have also talked of their disgust at police or militias keeping young boys as hangers on.
Anna Maria Cardinalli, author of the report, said British officers requested the research in the summer of 2009 when she worked with them in Lashkar Gah.
She said: “They were having young men who were beginning to feel uncomfortable because they felt they were being approached.” She said the study gave no advice about what action troops should take if they confronted paedophilia.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “Afghanistan is a sovereign nation with its own law under which the sexual abuse of children is illegal.
“British forces working as part the wider [coalition] force continue to work with and assist the Afghan National Security Forces, including the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police, to ensure that the rule of law in Afghanistan is adhered to and upheld.
Source: "The Telegraph"
Older, powerful men boosted their social status by keeping boys as sexual playthings and the practice was celebrated in song and dance, a military study claimed.
British officers in Helmand requested the study to help them understand the sexual behaviour of locals and Afghan comrades after young soldiers became uneasy they were being propositioned.
American social scientists employed to help troops understand the local culture reported that homosexual sex was widespread among the Pashtun ethnic group in southern Afghanistan.
Strict separation of men and women, coupled with poverty and the significant expense of getting married, contributed to young men turning to each other for sexual companionship.
“To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid western discomfort is to risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture,” the report said.
The study, called ‘Pashtun Sexuality’, said that as well as willing sex between young men, “boys are appreciated for physical beauty and apprenticed to older men for their sexual initiation”.
The practice of ‘bache bazi’ or boy play, is known throughout Afghanistan, but is particularly renowned in the city of Kandahar next to Helmand, where prepubescent boys are widely admired.
Western soldiers often report feeling unease at the attentions of their Afghan comrades, who are affectionate with each other and sometimes wear make-up.
British troops have also talked of their disgust at police or militias keeping young boys as hangers on.
Anna Maria Cardinalli, author of the report, said British officers requested the research in the summer of 2009 when she worked with them in Lashkar Gah.
She said: “They were having young men who were beginning to feel uncomfortable because they felt they were being approached.” She said the study gave no advice about what action troops should take if they confronted paedophilia.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “Afghanistan is a sovereign nation with its own law under which the sexual abuse of children is illegal.
“British forces working as part the wider [coalition] force continue to work with and assist the Afghan National Security Forces, including the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police, to ensure that the rule of law in Afghanistan is adhered to and upheld.
Source: "The Telegraph"
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thoughts for Israel's Independence Day
Rabbi Marc D. Angel, New York:
…Yes, Israel. This tiny country--surrounded by enemies, threatened constantly by terrorism and war, subject to an Arab economic boycott, frequently maligned by the media, torn within by ethnic and religious strife--is [tied for 8th place] among the world's happiest countries [according to a Gallup World Poll]!
Given its many problems, why is Israel so happy? Why is it among the happiest, most thriving, most creative countries of the world?
I believe the answer is: the grand human spirit of the people of Israel. Israelis--in spite of many differences among themselves--recognize that they are part of an incredible, dynamic adventure. Israel is the only example in the history of humanity of an ancient nation exiled from its land, forced to live (often under horrific conditions) as a minority group scattered throughout the world--who after nearly 2000 years returned to its ancestral land, revived its ancient language, and re-established its historic culture. Israelis--and all members of the Jewish people--understand that we are living in a unique period of history. Israelis are happy not only because they are thriving intellectually, culturally, scientifically, militarily; but because they understand that their lives mean something, that they are pioneers in restoring the honor and strength of the Jewish people after centuries of powerlessness and disgrace…
Rabbi Avraham Yisrael Sylvetsky, Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav Kook:
…But we are still in the midst of the process. He "Who gathers Israel from the four corners of the world" has not yet restored our "judges as of yore", and the [resulting] "sadness and sorrow" have not yet been removed [quotes based on the 11th and 12th blessings of the Amidah prayer - ed.]. The legal establishment, our shame, is still a patchwork of British law and Turkish law, while the true justice of Torah law is abandoned by the wayside… Corruption, too, has spread in various parts of the government, where there is no Torah and the heart is not directed heavenward.
It appears that precisely this low point that we have reached is leading the Nation of Israel to recognize the need to build a new foundation of government and justice according to Torah, ‘whose ways are pleasant and whose paths are wholly peace.’ …
The State has already been established – the Jewish body is recovering from its sickness, the wounds of the Exile are healing, the limbs are getting stronger – and it is well on its way, with G-d’s help, to reaching complete health.
Rabbi Shmuel Yaniv, Givat Shmuel:
The State of Israel was established in the year 5708 to the Creation of the World – and the 5,708th verse in the Torah reads, “And G-d will bring you to the Land inherited by your forefathers, and you will take possession of it, and He will do good to you…” (Deut. 30,5)
Rabbi Beryl Wein, Jerusalem:
The Prophet Ezekiel warned the Jewish people 2,500 years ago not to think that they are like other nations. Independence Day of the State of Israel is not like Bastille Day in France, Canada Day, or the 4th of July. If our Independence Day takes on the same status as other Independence Days around the world, it loses its spiritual and emotional significance.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
…Yes, Israel. This tiny country--surrounded by enemies, threatened constantly by terrorism and war, subject to an Arab economic boycott, frequently maligned by the media, torn within by ethnic and religious strife--is [tied for 8th place] among the world's happiest countries [according to a Gallup World Poll]!
Given its many problems, why is Israel so happy? Why is it among the happiest, most thriving, most creative countries of the world?
I believe the answer is: the grand human spirit of the people of Israel. Israelis--in spite of many differences among themselves--recognize that they are part of an incredible, dynamic adventure. Israel is the only example in the history of humanity of an ancient nation exiled from its land, forced to live (often under horrific conditions) as a minority group scattered throughout the world--who after nearly 2000 years returned to its ancestral land, revived its ancient language, and re-established its historic culture. Israelis--and all members of the Jewish people--understand that we are living in a unique period of history. Israelis are happy not only because they are thriving intellectually, culturally, scientifically, militarily; but because they understand that their lives mean something, that they are pioneers in restoring the honor and strength of the Jewish people after centuries of powerlessness and disgrace…
Rabbi Avraham Yisrael Sylvetsky, Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav Kook:
…But we are still in the midst of the process. He "Who gathers Israel from the four corners of the world" has not yet restored our "judges as of yore", and the [resulting] "sadness and sorrow" have not yet been removed [quotes based on the 11th and 12th blessings of the Amidah prayer - ed.]. The legal establishment, our shame, is still a patchwork of British law and Turkish law, while the true justice of Torah law is abandoned by the wayside… Corruption, too, has spread in various parts of the government, where there is no Torah and the heart is not directed heavenward.
It appears that precisely this low point that we have reached is leading the Nation of Israel to recognize the need to build a new foundation of government and justice according to Torah, ‘whose ways are pleasant and whose paths are wholly peace.’ …
The State has already been established – the Jewish body is recovering from its sickness, the wounds of the Exile are healing, the limbs are getting stronger – and it is well on its way, with G-d’s help, to reaching complete health.
Rabbi Shmuel Yaniv, Givat Shmuel:
The State of Israel was established in the year 5708 to the Creation of the World – and the 5,708th verse in the Torah reads, “And G-d will bring you to the Land inherited by your forefathers, and you will take possession of it, and He will do good to you…” (Deut. 30,5)
Rabbi Beryl Wein, Jerusalem:
The Prophet Ezekiel warned the Jewish people 2,500 years ago not to think that they are like other nations. Independence Day of the State of Israel is not like Bastille Day in France, Canada Day, or the 4th of July. If our Independence Day takes on the same status as other Independence Days around the world, it loses its spiritual and emotional significance.
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Minister Edelstein: The truth about reconciliation agreement with Hamas
by World Zionist Organization
Hamas mourns bin Laden’s death
Gaza government condemns US slaying of ‘Arab holy warrior’, asks ‘God to offer him mercy with true believers, martyrs’. Meanwhile, US source says special forces team’s mission had been to kill, not capture, arch terrorist in Pakistan.
Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an “Arab holy warrior” while Iran condemned “Zionist terror” and a US national security official told Reuters the mission of the special forces team that hunted down the terrorist had been to kill him.
“This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an “Arab holy warrior” while Iran condemned “Zionist terror” and a US national security official told Reuters the mission of the special forces team that hunted down the terrorist had been to kill him..”This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters that the group regards bin Laden’s death “as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”
Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”
Iran responded to the killing by saying that the US and its allies had now “lost the excuse to continue their presence in the region with the aim of fighting terror”.
In a statement Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, “This incident proves that there is no need for a huge war in order to deal with one person.” He said Iran, which sees itself as a victim of terror, “condemns all acts of terrorism in the world, including the organized terror of the Zionist regime”.
Hamas mourns bin Laden’s death
Gaza government condemns US slaying of ‘Arab holy warrior’, asks ‘God to offer him mercy with true believers, martyrs’. Meanwhile, US source says special forces team’s mission had been to kill, not capture, arch terrorist in Pakistan.
Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an “Arab holy warrior” while Iran condemned “Zionist terror” and a US national security official told Reuters the mission of the special forces team that hunted down the terrorist had been to kill him.
“This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an “Arab holy warrior” while Iran condemned “Zionist terror” and a US national security official told Reuters the mission of the special forces team that hunted down the terrorist had been to kill him..”This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters that the group regards bin Laden’s death “as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”
Though he noted doctrinal differences between bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Hamas, Haniyeh said: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”
Iran responded to the killing by saying that the US and its allies had now “lost the excuse to continue their presence in the region with the aim of fighting terror”.
In a statement Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, “This incident proves that there is no need for a huge war in order to deal with one person.” He said Iran, which sees itself as a victim of terror, “condemns all acts of terrorism in the world, including the organized terror of the Zionist regime”.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Flotilla to Gaza in order to demand the release of Guilad Shalit
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_192419080797889
This group is created with the intention of mobilizing a flotilla to Gaza in order to demand the release of Guilad Shalit in view of the scarce concern shown by the allegedly humanitarian organizations since it comes to an Israeli boy whom, for humanitarian reasons, we can no longer abandon in the terrorists’ hands of thegroup Hamas. Echoing the new winds of freedom claimed by the people in this area of the world, we are determined to join the framework of fraternal justice and freedom so that no more kidnappings of this kind take place in the area.
The fleet does not intend by any means to exert pressure or interfere in the government proceedings. In front of worldwide organizations and institutions we raise our voice so that their indifference does not silence us.
We need sponsors to launch the project and volunteers to make the trip.
Help us widespread and raise supporters.
To cooperate with us you can:
Add the banner to your website or blog.
Help spread among your friends.
Join the group on Facebook and invite your friends.
Be a member of the flotilla (please contact us).
Help us find sponsors for this noble cause.
For Gilad and Israel, all together as one!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Reuters Redefines Terrorist Attack
Nothing captures the media’s attention like a bomb in the heart of Jerusalem. At this time, one person was killed and over 30 wounded as a bomb detonated next to a busy bus stop near the city’s central bus station and international conference center.
Incredibly, Reuters included the following in its report:
Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
We’ve long criticized Reuters for its refusal to call terror by its name.
Now, Reuters appears to be attributing the term “terrorism” as something solely in the minds of Israelis. In February 2011, Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer announced the appointment of new Editor-in-Chief Stephen Adler saying:
Our news organization is now poised to advance to new levels of excellence in an industry which is moving very fast.
Reuters certainly appears to be moving very fast and reaching new levels – just not in the area of excellence.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg hits the nail on the head in response:
Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a “terrorist attack”? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a “teachable moment.” Or as a “venting of certain frustrations.” Or as “an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy.” Or perhaps as “a very special episode of ‘Cheers.’” Anything but “a terrorist attack.” I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as “an exercise in urban renewal.”
The mind reels.
Source: Honestreporting.com
Incredibly, Reuters included the following in its report:
Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
We’ve long criticized Reuters for its refusal to call terror by its name.
Now, Reuters appears to be attributing the term “terrorism” as something solely in the minds of Israelis. In February 2011, Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer announced the appointment of new Editor-in-Chief Stephen Adler saying:
Our news organization is now poised to advance to new levels of excellence in an industry which is moving very fast.
Reuters certainly appears to be moving very fast and reaching new levels – just not in the area of excellence.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg hits the nail on the head in response:
Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a “terrorist attack”? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a “teachable moment.” Or as a “venting of certain frustrations.” Or as “an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy.” Or perhaps as “a very special episode of ‘Cheers.’” Anything but “a terrorist attack.” I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as “an exercise in urban renewal.”
The mind reels.
Source: Honestreporting.com
Saturday, March 19, 2011
United Nations Authorizes Strikes in Libya; Gadhafi Vows Offensive
The United Nations Security Council has approved a resolution authorizing the international community to take "all necessary measures," short of sending in ground troops, to protect civilians in Libya.
The vote comes just as leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces are planning a major offensive on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya, where opposition forces were seen cheering the vote.
The vote was 10-0 with five abstentions. The abstaining countries were Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India.
U.S. officials say the authorization will be used by a coalition of nations, including Arab countries, France and Great Britain, to bomb military targets inside Libya.
With attacks on his forces looming, Gadhafi addressed the rebels on state television, warning them, "We will find you."
"We are coming tonight," he said to the rebel forces. "There won't be any mercy."
The resolution, a copy of which was provided to ABC News by a U.N. diplomat before the vote, also authorized the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya as a way to protect the opposition fighters and civilians from Gadhafi's jets.
Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit to neighboring Tunisia that imposing a no-fly zone would "require certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."
Gadhafi's forces have struck at rebel forces in eastern Libya in the past week, regaining territory there and showing no regard for civilian casualties. Their quick movement prompted many to worry any help for the rebels would arrive too late.
Secretary Clinton met in Paris earlier this week with representatives of the Libyan opposition, who urged her to provide the rebels with assistance, or else the uprising might soon be squashed.
The U.S. had hesitated to support a no-fly zone for weeks. This week, however, the Obama administration threw its weight behind an effort to authorize a no-fly zone -- and more -- at the United Nations. The shift was a recognition that a no-fly zone alone would not stop the tanks and helicopters that Gadhafi has deployed.
Source: ABC News
The vote comes just as leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces are planning a major offensive on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya, where opposition forces were seen cheering the vote.
The vote was 10-0 with five abstentions. The abstaining countries were Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India.
U.S. officials say the authorization will be used by a coalition of nations, including Arab countries, France and Great Britain, to bomb military targets inside Libya.
With attacks on his forces looming, Gadhafi addressed the rebels on state television, warning them, "We will find you."
"We are coming tonight," he said to the rebel forces. "There won't be any mercy."
The resolution, a copy of which was provided to ABC News by a U.N. diplomat before the vote, also authorized the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya as a way to protect the opposition fighters and civilians from Gadhafi's jets.
Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit to neighboring Tunisia that imposing a no-fly zone would "require certain actions taken to protect the planes and the pilots, including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."
Gadhafi's forces have struck at rebel forces in eastern Libya in the past week, regaining territory there and showing no regard for civilian casualties. Their quick movement prompted many to worry any help for the rebels would arrive too late.
Secretary Clinton met in Paris earlier this week with representatives of the Libyan opposition, who urged her to provide the rebels with assistance, or else the uprising might soon be squashed.
The U.S. had hesitated to support a no-fly zone for weeks. This week, however, the Obama administration threw its weight behind an effort to authorize a no-fly zone -- and more -- at the United Nations. The shift was a recognition that a no-fly zone alone would not stop the tanks and helicopters that Gadhafi has deployed.
Source: ABC News
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Baby Killers: BBC Butchers the Real Story
March 13, 2011 15:42 by Simon Plosker
Only days after HonestReporting’s Managing Editor wrote about the thread that links Palestinian incitement to inevitable acts of terror, Israel has suffered a shocking and brutal terrorist attack carried out by baby killers. Yet the BBC has still managed to turn this into a story about settlements.
As the JPost reports:
A mother, father and three of their children were stabbed to death late Friday night by at least one suspected terrorist who infiltrated the Itamar settlement southeast of Nablus.
The killings occurred shortly after 10 p.m., when one or two attackers jumped the fence that surrounds Itamar and broke into the home of Ruth and Udi Fogel, aged 35 and 36, respectively. The attackers went room to room, stabbing the parents, a three-month-old girl, Hadas, and two boys, Elad, three, and Yoav, 11.
Clearly, those who are capable of the premeditated murder of babies and children are driven by something far deeper than an aversion to the existence or building of Israeli settlements. There is nothing more innocent than a three-month old. Yet, many media outlets still chose to politicize the horrific slaughter of innocents by focusing less on the despicable act itself and more on making an issue of the location of the attack and dehumanizing the victims as “settlers”.
Note some of the following headlines:
* Suspecting Palestinians, Israeli Military Hunts for Killers of 5 West Bank Settlers – New York Times
* Israeli troops scour West Bank villages for killers of 5 Jewish settlers – Washington Post
But the most shocking and callous treatment of the incident was produced by the BBC. While the news cycle moved on and media outlets turned towards an announcement of approval for construction in Israeli settlements, most at least gave prominence to the appalling details of the terrorist attack even if this became part of a story relating to settlements.
The BBC, however, virtually buried the Fogel family’s massacre, once again demonstrating its obsession with the settlement issue above all other issues relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
No dedicated reportage of the brutal attack was featured elsewhere on the site. Instead, subsumed in a story of settlements, it warrants only a few lines. The BBC does, however, report that the attack “has shocked many Palestinians”. Of course, the BBC failed to mention that Hamas described the attack as a “heroic operation” while sweets and candies were handed out in Gaza in celebration.
The BBC has exercised its own moral judgment that says that the issuing of building permits in settlements is the cause of terror. Otherwise, the story may have included statements from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu attributing the terror attack to Palestinian incitement.
The BBC has a well-staffed bureau in Jerusalem with the same access as other media outlets. Yet it chose not to publish any photos or specific details of the terror incident.
In the BBC’s world, it is all about the settlements. By politicizing such a heinous terrorist crime perpetrated against a baby, two small children and their parents, the BBC is as guilty as the perpetrators of dehumanizing innocent Israelis based on where they live. For the BBC, it seems that the location of the murders and the stress on how settlements “are held to be illegal under international law” is more important than the murders themselves.
If the BBC ever had any moral compass, it has demonstrated that it has completely lost it. In the BBC’s eyes, there is no moral difference between deliberately murdering innocent babies and the construction of homes in disputed territory. Indeed, for the BBC, the settlement issue at best allows one to “understand” why such an atrocity could take place and at worst, justifies it.
The BBC is by no means the only guilty party in creating an environment where Israeli Jews living in West Bank communities are dehumanized to the point that a three-month old is merely a “settler” – the Palestinian Authority’s continuous incitement in the Palestinian media and education system bear much responsibility. But the international media have bought into this narrative of demonization and helped to create such a toxic environment that the murder of innocents is deemed to be almost acceptable and the human story behind a tragedy is cynically removed.
YNet News reports that the director of Israel’s Government Press Office, Oren Helman, has demanded an apology over CNN’s coverage of the terrorist attack:
A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. “Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case,” Helman wrote. “There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed.”
CNN has responded, as of 1714 GMT, by removing the quotation marks from the headline and the opening paragraph.
The GPO’s other complaints, however, concerning CNN’s descriptions of the terrorist as an “intruder” or “assailant” have not been addressed at this time.
UPDATE 2
The BBC covered the terrorist attack in an article that was last updated on March 12 at 15:04 GMT. The story was as problematic as CNN’s, using a headline that cast doubt on the circumstances of the terrorist attack through the use of quotations.
The BBC usually links to related materials on later stories such as the settlement one critiqued above. Instead, the story of the terror attack disappeared from the main news pages, including that of the Middle East news where such items usually stay visible online for a period of at least a few days.
So why is it that the BBC’s original coverage of the terror attack, as problematic as it was, does not even appear as a related item at the bottom of the settlement story? Having drawn a link between the building of settlements and the attack, it is extremely surprising that the original story has been omitted. An innocent slip or is there something more sinister behind the scenes at the BBC?
UPDATE 3
Why did Sky News wait over 48 hours to cover the brutal terrorist murder and only then in a story highlighting settlements?
Source: HonestReporting
Only days after HonestReporting’s Managing Editor wrote about the thread that links Palestinian incitement to inevitable acts of terror, Israel has suffered a shocking and brutal terrorist attack carried out by baby killers. Yet the BBC has still managed to turn this into a story about settlements.
As the JPost reports:
A mother, father and three of their children were stabbed to death late Friday night by at least one suspected terrorist who infiltrated the Itamar settlement southeast of Nablus.
The killings occurred shortly after 10 p.m., when one or two attackers jumped the fence that surrounds Itamar and broke into the home of Ruth and Udi Fogel, aged 35 and 36, respectively. The attackers went room to room, stabbing the parents, a three-month-old girl, Hadas, and two boys, Elad, three, and Yoav, 11.
Clearly, those who are capable of the premeditated murder of babies and children are driven by something far deeper than an aversion to the existence or building of Israeli settlements. There is nothing more innocent than a three-month old. Yet, many media outlets still chose to politicize the horrific slaughter of innocents by focusing less on the despicable act itself and more on making an issue of the location of the attack and dehumanizing the victims as “settlers”.
Note some of the following headlines:
* Suspecting Palestinians, Israeli Military Hunts for Killers of 5 West Bank Settlers – New York Times
* Israeli troops scour West Bank villages for killers of 5 Jewish settlers – Washington Post
But the most shocking and callous treatment of the incident was produced by the BBC. While the news cycle moved on and media outlets turned towards an announcement of approval for construction in Israeli settlements, most at least gave prominence to the appalling details of the terrorist attack even if this became part of a story relating to settlements.
The BBC, however, virtually buried the Fogel family’s massacre, once again demonstrating its obsession with the settlement issue above all other issues relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
No dedicated reportage of the brutal attack was featured elsewhere on the site. Instead, subsumed in a story of settlements, it warrants only a few lines. The BBC does, however, report that the attack “has shocked many Palestinians”. Of course, the BBC failed to mention that Hamas described the attack as a “heroic operation” while sweets and candies were handed out in Gaza in celebration.
The BBC has exercised its own moral judgment that says that the issuing of building permits in settlements is the cause of terror. Otherwise, the story may have included statements from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu attributing the terror attack to Palestinian incitement.
The BBC has a well-staffed bureau in Jerusalem with the same access as other media outlets. Yet it chose not to publish any photos or specific details of the terror incident.
In the BBC’s world, it is all about the settlements. By politicizing such a heinous terrorist crime perpetrated against a baby, two small children and their parents, the BBC is as guilty as the perpetrators of dehumanizing innocent Israelis based on where they live. For the BBC, it seems that the location of the murders and the stress on how settlements “are held to be illegal under international law” is more important than the murders themselves.
If the BBC ever had any moral compass, it has demonstrated that it has completely lost it. In the BBC’s eyes, there is no moral difference between deliberately murdering innocent babies and the construction of homes in disputed territory. Indeed, for the BBC, the settlement issue at best allows one to “understand” why such an atrocity could take place and at worst, justifies it.
The BBC is by no means the only guilty party in creating an environment where Israeli Jews living in West Bank communities are dehumanized to the point that a three-month old is merely a “settler” – the Palestinian Authority’s continuous incitement in the Palestinian media and education system bear much responsibility. But the international media have bought into this narrative of demonization and helped to create such a toxic environment that the murder of innocents is deemed to be almost acceptable and the human story behind a tragedy is cynically removed.
YNet News reports that the director of Israel’s Government Press Office, Oren Helman, has demanded an apology over CNN’s coverage of the terrorist attack:
A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. “Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case,” Helman wrote. “There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed.”
CNN has responded, as of 1714 GMT, by removing the quotation marks from the headline and the opening paragraph.
The GPO’s other complaints, however, concerning CNN’s descriptions of the terrorist as an “intruder” or “assailant” have not been addressed at this time.
UPDATE 2
The BBC covered the terrorist attack in an article that was last updated on March 12 at 15:04 GMT. The story was as problematic as CNN’s, using a headline that cast doubt on the circumstances of the terrorist attack through the use of quotations.
The BBC usually links to related materials on later stories such as the settlement one critiqued above. Instead, the story of the terror attack disappeared from the main news pages, including that of the Middle East news where such items usually stay visible online for a period of at least a few days.
So why is it that the BBC’s original coverage of the terror attack, as problematic as it was, does not even appear as a related item at the bottom of the settlement story? Having drawn a link between the building of settlements and the attack, it is extremely surprising that the original story has been omitted. An innocent slip or is there something more sinister behind the scenes at the BBC?
UPDATE 3
Why did Sky News wait over 48 hours to cover the brutal terrorist murder and only then in a story highlighting settlements?
Source: HonestReporting
Monday, March 7, 2011
The world's most dangerous broadcaster
I have only just caught up with the BBC1 documentary on the Dutch politician Geert Wilders that was transmitted on Tuesday evening. Did I say documentary? ‘Europe’s Most Dangerous Man' was a vicious hatchet job that was a disgrace to journalism. More than that, it could be argued that by presenting Wilders as a latter-day Nazi who was likely to foment war in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims, it was in effect inciting violence or the murder of a politician who is already under armed guard 24/7.
There were several aspects of this programme that should have caused any responsible broadcaster to sling it straight into the trash. First and most fundamentally, it simply turned the people threatening the free world into victims and the politician who is trying to defend the free world against that threat into a fascist. Muslims were presented as universally peaceful people signed up to democracy and human rights; Wilders was the presented as the extremist threat to democracy and human rights. Yet as Wilders himself was quoted as saying – even while the script was telling us that these words were ‘extremist’ – he was defending freedom against the threat from Islamists to extinguish those freedoms.
Worse still, look at the two individuals the film-makers used to level the most inflammatory charges against Wilders – individuals who were described as democrats assigned up to human rights. The first, Ibrahim Mogra, is from the Muslim Council of Britain – described by the programme as ‘an organisation seeking to promote a distinct Muslim identity in tune with British cultural norms and values’.
Yet this is the organisation with which the British government has twice broken off relations on account of its extremism. The first occasion was when it refused to take part in Britain’s Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony. The second occasion was in response to the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, signing the Istanbul Declaration, a public declaration of support for Hamas and call for violence against the British Royal Navy and Jewish communities.
The film made no mention of this whatever. Instead it used the MCB man to attack Wilders as a dangerous extremist.
The second of these ‘moderate’ individuals wheeled on to attack Wilders was Sheikh Khalid Yasin. The film described Sheikh Yasin as ‘an American Muslim teacher extremely popular among young European Muslims’ who ‘has embarked on a mission to de radicalise them.’ Yasin denounced Wilders for ‘fanning hatred’.
Yet in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ transmitted two years ago, Yasin was recorded saying:
‘We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [non-Muslims] ... they are doing ‘brain defiling’ ... You are watching the kaffir TVs, and your wife is watching right now, and your children are watching it right now, and they are being polluted, and they are being penetrated, and they are being infected, so that your children and you go out as Muslims and come back to the house as kaffirs...The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing.’
And Wilders is called ‘Europe’s most dangerous man’?
Worse, the film then adduced as the final proof of Wilders’s perfidy that he was a passionate defender of Israel. His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.
Worse again, however, the film suggested that Wilders was an Israeli spy – and, in the words of Sheikh Yasin, that it was doing Israel’s dirty work for it:
‘I think that he [Wilders] has taken and embraced the idea of modern Zionism. And he is using the platform of modern Zionism to espouse the same concepts about Muslims in the world and the Koran, that the Jews cannot afford to say in Israel. But Mr Wilders can do them a favour. He can go outside of Israel with those same feelings and he can characterise the way that the Zionists characterise the Palestinians to legitimise their power. Mr Wilders can characterise Islam in the same way. This is what is taking place.’
So the film suggested, in effect, that Wilders was the front man for a kind of Nazi-Jewish conspiracy -- thus defaming both him and Israel in one go. Others smeared by association with him were the distinguished scholar of Islam (and indefatigable supporter of true Islamic reformers) Daniel Pipes, and the heroic Danish defender of freedom of speech Lars Hedegaard – who recently only narrowly fought off an attempt by Denmark’s pusillanimous prosecutors to silence him through a criminal prosecution for raising concerns about violence within some Muslim family life.
This travesty of a documentary was made by two radical Dutch film-makers for a production company called ‘Red Rebel’. Questions need to be asked how the BBC could transmit something on such an inflammatory subject which ignored the most basic standards of journalistic fairness, -- and was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party.
But of course, we all know the answer to that already. BBC ‘group- think’ means that BBC executives will have assumed the lazy and vicious left-wing demonisation of Wilders is axiomatically true and unchallengeable. They will thus have suspended any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim.
We are living in truly evil times.
Source: Spectator.co.uk
There were several aspects of this programme that should have caused any responsible broadcaster to sling it straight into the trash. First and most fundamentally, it simply turned the people threatening the free world into victims and the politician who is trying to defend the free world against that threat into a fascist. Muslims were presented as universally peaceful people signed up to democracy and human rights; Wilders was the presented as the extremist threat to democracy and human rights. Yet as Wilders himself was quoted as saying – even while the script was telling us that these words were ‘extremist’ – he was defending freedom against the threat from Islamists to extinguish those freedoms.
Worse still, look at the two individuals the film-makers used to level the most inflammatory charges against Wilders – individuals who were described as democrats assigned up to human rights. The first, Ibrahim Mogra, is from the Muslim Council of Britain – described by the programme as ‘an organisation seeking to promote a distinct Muslim identity in tune with British cultural norms and values’.
Yet this is the organisation with which the British government has twice broken off relations on account of its extremism. The first occasion was when it refused to take part in Britain’s Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony. The second occasion was in response to the MCB’s deputy general secretary, Dr Daud Abdullah, signing the Istanbul Declaration, a public declaration of support for Hamas and call for violence against the British Royal Navy and Jewish communities.
The film made no mention of this whatever. Instead it used the MCB man to attack Wilders as a dangerous extremist.
The second of these ‘moderate’ individuals wheeled on to attack Wilders was Sheikh Khalid Yasin. The film described Sheikh Yasin as ‘an American Muslim teacher extremely popular among young European Muslims’ who ‘has embarked on a mission to de radicalise them.’ Yasin denounced Wilders for ‘fanning hatred’.
Yet in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ transmitted two years ago, Yasin was recorded saying:
‘We Muslims have been ordered to do ‘brainwashing’ because the kuffaar [non-Muslims] ... they are doing ‘brain defiling’ ... You are watching the kaffir TVs, and your wife is watching right now, and your children are watching it right now, and they are being polluted, and they are being penetrated, and they are being infected, so that your children and you go out as Muslims and come back to the house as kaffirs...The whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness. There’s no such thing.’
And Wilders is called ‘Europe’s most dangerous man’?
Worse, the film then adduced as the final proof of Wilders’s perfidy that he was a passionate defender of Israel. His crime, apparently, was to believe that Israel was ‘the last line of the defence of Europe’ – which indeed it is – and that to solve the Middle East impasse, Jordan should become Palestine -- which indeed it originally was.
Worse again, however, the film suggested that Wilders was an Israeli spy – and, in the words of Sheikh Yasin, that it was doing Israel’s dirty work for it:
‘I think that he [Wilders] has taken and embraced the idea of modern Zionism. And he is using the platform of modern Zionism to espouse the same concepts about Muslims in the world and the Koran, that the Jews cannot afford to say in Israel. But Mr Wilders can do them a favour. He can go outside of Israel with those same feelings and he can characterise the way that the Zionists characterise the Palestinians to legitimise their power. Mr Wilders can characterise Islam in the same way. This is what is taking place.’
So the film suggested, in effect, that Wilders was the front man for a kind of Nazi-Jewish conspiracy -- thus defaming both him and Israel in one go. Others smeared by association with him were the distinguished scholar of Islam (and indefatigable supporter of true Islamic reformers) Daniel Pipes, and the heroic Danish defender of freedom of speech Lars Hedegaard – who recently only narrowly fought off an attempt by Denmark’s pusillanimous prosecutors to silence him through a criminal prosecution for raising concerns about violence within some Muslim family life.
This travesty of a documentary was made by two radical Dutch film-makers for a production company called ‘Red Rebel’. Questions need to be asked how the BBC could transmit something on such an inflammatory subject which ignored the most basic standards of journalistic fairness, -- and was effectively the broadcasting equivalent of a flier distributed by the Socialist Workers’ Party.
But of course, we all know the answer to that already. BBC ‘group- think’ means that BBC executives will have assumed the lazy and vicious left-wing demonisation of Wilders is axiomatically true and unchallengeable. They will thus have suspended any critical faculties or professionalism to which they might ever have laid any claim.
We are living in truly evil times.
Source: Spectator.co.uk
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
The Jerusalem Post
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
By DAVID E. MILLER/THE MEDIA LINE
01/31/2011 18:56
Ordinary people cheer on protesters, but Hamas and Fatah are both hesitant to take sides.
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank expressed both hope and anxiety as unrest went into its seventh day in Egypt, a country that has acted as a lifeline to besieged Gaza and a patron to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank but also as the object of anger and resentment.
In Gaza, where the Islamic Hamas movement rules, officials were mum on the mass protests, which have brought Egypt to a standstill and forced President Hosni Mubarak to dismiss his cabinet. In the West Bank, where the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) is in control, police blocked a demonstration backing the Egyptian protesters.
Mubarak has had a complicated relationship with the Palestinians, especially since Hamas and Fatah parted ways and Gaza fell under Hamas rule in 2007. Cairo has mostly cooperated with Israel’s embargo of Gaza to the chagrin of Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, but allows goods to pass illegally through tunnels under their joint border.
Towards Fatah, Mubarak has served as a friend, but has earned the wrath of many ordinary West Bank Palestinians for being too close to Israel and for being complicit in Israel’s Gaza embargo.
The PA on Sunday obstructed a small demonstration in solidarity with the opposition across from the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah. A few dozen protesters were met by 20 armed police, who tried to confiscate cameras and intimidated demonstrators, Human Rights Watch reported.
Ahmad, a Gaza resident who asked not be identified by his full name, said that similar demonstrations would have taken place in Gaza, too, but people feared a crackdown by Hamas.
"The Hamas government is too scared to voice a position, fearing that Mubarak's regime will eventually prevail and Hamas will be held accountable," Ahmad told The Media Line.
"If the regime survived, things will get much worse for us," added Ali Abu-Shahla, secretary-general of the Gaza Business Association.
In the meantime, however, the chaos in Egypt is complicating life in Gaza as fighting between troops and protesters in northern Sinai closes the roads between Cairo and Gaza that bring commodities to the tunnels. By Monday, tunnel traffic had ground to a halt and gasoline reserves quickly ran out, forcing filling stations to shut down.
"The Gaza Strip is completely dependent on Egypt for gasoline," Mahmoud Al-Khizandar, deputy head of the fuel dealers association in Gaza, told The Media Line. He said the price of gas coming in from Egypt was one Israeli shekel (28 cents) per liter, compared with 6.50 shekels for Israeli gas, a price beyond the reach of most Gazans.
Fearing a fuel shortage and ignoring government pleas against hoarding, Gazans flocked to filling stations over the weekend filling gas tanks and plastic containers to the brim. Ali Abu-Shahla said Gaza's diesel-fueled power stations were also likely to suffer from the smuggling halt, with power shortages to be expected in the coming days.
"I don't understand why Israel doesn't completely open all the border crossings," Abu-Shahla told The Media Line. "That would put an end to illicit trade from Egypt."
But Samir Zaqout, field work coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, insisted there was no fuel shortage.
"Even when the Egyptian gas runs out in the gas stations, there will still be plenty of Israeli reserves," he told The Media Line, adding that the Hamas government has barred gas stations from filling containers to prevent stockpiling.
Meanwhile, Egypt shut its official border crossing with Gaza on Sunday, although there were no soldiers there to enforce it, Al-Khizandar of the fuel dealers association said. Hamas security personnel guarded the border, however, preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egypt. At least 50 Palestinians wishing to exit Gaza were turned back by Hamas forces, Reuters reported. But five Palestinian militants fleeing Abu-Zaabal prison in Cairo made it home to Gaza.
The escapees came back bearing stories of torture and mistreatment by the Egyptians, fueling popular antipathy for Egypt’s ruler.
Mutasem Al-Quqa, who spent seven years in Egyptian prisons, said he was arrested on his way from Gaza to Cairo on charges of belonging to Hamas, which is outlawed in Egypt.
"They put us in solitary confinement, which I cannot describe, it was so horrible," he told the Palestinian Information Center, a Hamas news agency. "I managed to escape that prison, which was a hell for Palestinian inmates, after residents of the area destroyed the prison walls."
Despite the economic distress the unrest has created, some Gazans remained cautiously optimistic about Egypt.
"People here are generally happy with what's going on," said Ahmad. "Gazans suffered a great deal at the border crossing with Egypt. They often had to bribe soldiers, but the Egyptians had no mercy on people, whether leftists or Hamas members. They even turned back the sick who came for treatment."
But Al-Khizandar said he preferred to focus on the cultural and familial ties between Gazans and Egyptians, a result of geographic proximity and 19 years of direct Egyptian control between 1948 and 1967.
"Many Egyptians live in the Gaza Strip, so there are family ties; Many Gazan students go abroad to study in Egypt," he said.
For Palestinians, Egyptian unrest is bittersweet
By DAVID E. MILLER/THE MEDIA LINE
01/31/2011 18:56
Ordinary people cheer on protesters, but Hamas and Fatah are both hesitant to take sides.
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank expressed both hope and anxiety as unrest went into its seventh day in Egypt, a country that has acted as a lifeline to besieged Gaza and a patron to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank but also as the object of anger and resentment.
In Gaza, where the Islamic Hamas movement rules, officials were mum on the mass protests, which have brought Egypt to a standstill and forced President Hosni Mubarak to dismiss his cabinet. In the West Bank, where the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) is in control, police blocked a demonstration backing the Egyptian protesters.
Mubarak has had a complicated relationship with the Palestinians, especially since Hamas and Fatah parted ways and Gaza fell under Hamas rule in 2007. Cairo has mostly cooperated with Israel’s embargo of Gaza to the chagrin of Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood opposition group, but allows goods to pass illegally through tunnels under their joint border.
Towards Fatah, Mubarak has served as a friend, but has earned the wrath of many ordinary West Bank Palestinians for being too close to Israel and for being complicit in Israel’s Gaza embargo.
The PA on Sunday obstructed a small demonstration in solidarity with the opposition across from the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah. A few dozen protesters were met by 20 armed police, who tried to confiscate cameras and intimidated demonstrators, Human Rights Watch reported.
Ahmad, a Gaza resident who asked not be identified by his full name, said that similar demonstrations would have taken place in Gaza, too, but people feared a crackdown by Hamas.
"The Hamas government is too scared to voice a position, fearing that Mubarak's regime will eventually prevail and Hamas will be held accountable," Ahmad told The Media Line.
"If the regime survived, things will get much worse for us," added Ali Abu-Shahla, secretary-general of the Gaza Business Association.
In the meantime, however, the chaos in Egypt is complicating life in Gaza as fighting between troops and protesters in northern Sinai closes the roads between Cairo and Gaza that bring commodities to the tunnels. By Monday, tunnel traffic had ground to a halt and gasoline reserves quickly ran out, forcing filling stations to shut down.
"The Gaza Strip is completely dependent on Egypt for gasoline," Mahmoud Al-Khizandar, deputy head of the fuel dealers association in Gaza, told The Media Line. He said the price of gas coming in from Egypt was one Israeli shekel (28 cents) per liter, compared with 6.50 shekels for Israeli gas, a price beyond the reach of most Gazans.
Fearing a fuel shortage and ignoring government pleas against hoarding, Gazans flocked to filling stations over the weekend filling gas tanks and plastic containers to the brim. Ali Abu-Shahla said Gaza's diesel-fueled power stations were also likely to suffer from the smuggling halt, with power shortages to be expected in the coming days.
"I don't understand why Israel doesn't completely open all the border crossings," Abu-Shahla told The Media Line. "That would put an end to illicit trade from Egypt."
But Samir Zaqout, field work coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, insisted there was no fuel shortage.
"Even when the Egyptian gas runs out in the gas stations, there will still be plenty of Israeli reserves," he told The Media Line, adding that the Hamas government has barred gas stations from filling containers to prevent stockpiling.
Meanwhile, Egypt shut its official border crossing with Gaza on Sunday, although there were no soldiers there to enforce it, Al-Khizandar of the fuel dealers association said. Hamas security personnel guarded the border, however, preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egypt. At least 50 Palestinians wishing to exit Gaza were turned back by Hamas forces, Reuters reported. But five Palestinian militants fleeing Abu-Zaabal prison in Cairo made it home to Gaza.
The escapees came back bearing stories of torture and mistreatment by the Egyptians, fueling popular antipathy for Egypt’s ruler.
Mutasem Al-Quqa, who spent seven years in Egyptian prisons, said he was arrested on his way from Gaza to Cairo on charges of belonging to Hamas, which is outlawed in Egypt.
"They put us in solitary confinement, which I cannot describe, it was so horrible," he told the Palestinian Information Center, a Hamas news agency. "I managed to escape that prison, which was a hell for Palestinian inmates, after residents of the area destroyed the prison walls."
Despite the economic distress the unrest has created, some Gazans remained cautiously optimistic about Egypt.
"People here are generally happy with what's going on," said Ahmad. "Gazans suffered a great deal at the border crossing with Egypt. They often had to bribe soldiers, but the Egyptians had no mercy on people, whether leftists or Hamas members. They even turned back the sick who came for treatment."
But Al-Khizandar said he preferred to focus on the cultural and familial ties between Gazans and Egyptians, a result of geographic proximity and 19 years of direct Egyptian control between 1948 and 1967.
"Many Egyptians live in the Gaza Strip, so there are family ties; Many Gazan students go abroad to study in Egypt," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)