Council on American-Islamic Relations Attempting to whitewash 9-11 in textbooks

CAIR Attempting to whitewash 9-11 in textbooks

By schraged

CAIR Attempting to whitewash 9-11 in textbooks
From the Sacramento Bee 

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, leapt with remarkable speed from dynamic daily news reports to the static pages of history books. By the following fall, millions of students across the country were reading about the terrorist attacks in social studies texts put out by the nation’s major publishers.

With every school year that passes, increasing numbers of students and parents come across the lessons on 9/11. Now, as the fifth anniversary approaches, reactions are mounting to the textbooks’ treatment of this high-profile act of terrorism.

Some Muslims say the texts unfairly paint all people of their faith as terrorists. They say frequent references to “Arab terrorists,” “Muslim terrorists,” “Muslim extremists,” or “Islamic fundamentalists” give schoolchildren a negative impression of their religion.

“Because these terms are repeated so many times, it’s very alarming,” said Maren Shawesh, of the Sacramento chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. “We don’t want these younger students to grow up with that perception of Islam and Muslims.”

The Islamic community has an Identity problem. The only individuals defining what Islam is, happen to be the same people who advocate wiping a sovereign state off the map, detonating car bombs in crowded markets, or fly air planes into office buildings. For those Muslims who are not terrorists, and yes they are out there, it is well past time for you to step forward. Take a stand against the terrorists among you, and define Islam for what it is you believe it to be.  If the only ones defining Islam is the terrorists then all of Islam will be viewed as terrorists.

Chapter 8 of “World Geography,” published by McDougal Littell, opens with a large, iconic photograph of firefighters hoisting an American flag above the World Trade Center wreckage. The facing page describes what happened on Sept. 11, first from the perspective of a 15-year-old student who was evacuated from his high school four blocks from the twin towers.

Then the book says: “19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners.” Umbashi says the description is too broad; instead he thinks the book should be more specific about which countries the hijackers were from.

A few paragraphs down, the book says investigators began to identify who directed the attacks. “The evidence pointed to a global network, or worldwide interconnected group, of extremist Islamic terrorists led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian millionaire,” the passage states.

Khaled Umbashi, who is originally from Libya and is a practicing Muslim, questions whether Muslims are really behind the plot and he doesn’t like the term “extremist Islamic terrorists.” Umbashi took his concerns to the local chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, known as CAIR. The group is developing a national strategy to change the way Muslims are portrayed in American textbooks, said Shawesh, a board member of the Sacramento Valley chapter of CAIR.

“Right now there is communication between the Muslim community and the publishing companies,” Shawesh said. “They have to come to a complete understanding that a lot of the information that’s being printed is misconstrued.”

History cannot be sugar-coated in order to appease individual groups. Facts are facts and the facts about 9-11 are that 19 Islamic extremists executedan attack on this country that murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people. If CAIR or any other Islamic organization wants to change the perception of Muslims in this country they need to start by rooting out the terrorists among them, including those that on their board which have intimate links with Hamas.
Perhaps CAIR’s role in fundraising scams related to 9-11 charities should also be included in textbooks.  Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR’s website solicited donations for what it called the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity whose assets were later frozen and confiscated by the United States Department of the Treasury because, according to United States Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, HLF “masqueraded as a charity, while its primary purpose was to fund Hamas.”
I also want to point out that U.S. Representative John Murtha has 100% approval rating with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

We see now what liberal interpretations of the sedition and treason sections of the Constitution and supplemental federal laws have gotten us: a class of elitist bureaucrats who feel they are entitled to do anything they please, even if it significantly hurts national security. This is the ultimate application of the 60s hippie saying, “If it feels good, do it.”

Enough is En… make that too much

Daniel Ellsberg, in the new issue of Harper’s coming out next week, calls on government officials to leak US war plans for the Middle East to the press. I will assume someone who thinks this is a decent idea would have no problem leaking Pentagon war plans for Europe, Asia and defending North America. We see now what liberal interpretations of the sedition and treason sections of the Constitution and supplemental federal laws have gotten us: a class of elitist bureaucrats who feel they are entitled to do anything they please, even if it significantly hurts national security. This is the ultimate application of the 60s hippie saying, “If it feels good, do it.”

Perhaps Daniel Ellsberg and his supporters would say that he wouldn’t leak the D-Day invasion plans, but if a liberal bureaucrat assumes all foreign powers attacks are the valid answer to past colonialism and imperialism and general white guilt, then nothing in the foreseeable future rises to the moral level of keeping the D-Day invasion plans secret. Thus, all “sophisticated and nuanced” government officials (presumably those who went to hear Khatami speak – with glee) can leak anything they want guilt-free. Starting from today, the Bush Administration – or any future administration – by not enforcing the sedition and treason laws, further hastens our decline and weakens our country.

Before the 9/11 docudrama was shown in New York on Sunday night, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, running in the primary for State Attorney General (he won), aired a commercial that summarized his work in the Clinton Administration and the liberal “intelligentsia” worldview. In a telling line, presumably written by the best liberal political advertising minds in New York, it had Cuomo saying “We spoke to their hopes, not their fears.” Cuomo was all but saying that Democrats believe that we are at a point in “postmodern history” where anyone who believes we have enemies (and therefore someone to fear) are being prejudiced, racist, or whatever.

I cannot think of no better description of the liberal intelligentsia: the people who think everyone is their friend – or can be quickly persuaded to be their friend. We should not even speak about things that may increase fear or awareness of threats – or defend against them with secret war plans, even if they are not used.

When actor Ron Silver was an ardent Democrat in 1993, he made famous a verbal exchange he had while being involved preparing for the first Clinton inauguration. Seeing a display of military fighters overhead, he complained to a Clinton aide who told him that “those are our jets now.” This reassured him and he repeated the now famous story to the press. You may also note that Ron Silver did not advocate in 1993 to release the flight plans of those military jets on Inauguration Day to the press. And he did not advocate that newspapers write articles on how to buy a shoulder launched Stinger-type missile on the black market. But, strongly affected by 9/11, Silver made a major political change and appeared in the anti-Michael Moore DVD Fahrenhype 911, speaking in favor of a strong national defense. He specifically mentioned being concerned about protecting his wife and children in that movie. He also he spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention for President Bush.  There are those who would say, “Who are we to defend ourselves with prepared secret military plans – Nazis?” My reply is who are we not to defend ourselves? Traitors? These sound like two very extreme choices, but if someone is coming to kill you (have you boarded an airliner lately?), you are often left with two very extreme choices, i.e., kill or be killed. When the world was smaller, before the days of jet airplanes, atomic weapons, missiles, etc., it was commonly thought that two great oceans made such tough choices literally far, far away for most Americans. Many people, even after 9/11, find it easy to put such questions out of their mind and even argue we are wrong to even think about them. I don’t know if the following rises to the level of a prediction, but I say it will become harder and harder to avoid a lot of very tough choices involving the safety of all of us and our families.   Jack Kemp (not the politician)   9 14 06
 

House backs fence along border with Mexico

Reuters

WASHINGTON – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday authorized building a fence along portions of the border with Mexico in a vote critics said had more to do with election year politics than controlling illegal immigration.

The Republican-written bill, approved on a vote of 283-138, calls for construction of about 700 miles of fence along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Democratic opponents said the measure was a charade designed to help Republicans ahead of the November 7 elections.

“This is to score political points that are going to be demagogued in 30-second ads,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. He accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the “fears and passions” of people. He and other Democrats called for a broad immigration overhaul along the lines of the bill passed by the U.S. Senate that would create a guest worker program and legalize millions of illegal immigrants.

President George W. Bush backs comprehensive legislation and a guest worker program and spoke about the need for it during a meeting with House Republicans at the Capitol on Thursday. But the issue divides Republicans. Many feel the Senate bill would grant amnesty to people who broke U.S. law and it is unlikely a broad immigration bill will pass this year.

Instead, House Republican leaders plan to pass a series of border security measures before lawmakers break at the end of the month to campaign for the elections. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said the fence and other efforts would be added to a domestic security spending bill for next year that the House and Senate are hoping to finish by the end of the month.

Republican supporters of the fence said it was a step toward controlling the borders and would help stem the flow of illegal immigration while reducing drug smuggling and other crimes.

An estimated 1.2 million illegal immigrants were arrested in the last fiscal year trying to cross into the United States along the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Sections of the fence will be built in each state.

“We have to know who is coming across our borders and what they are bringing with them,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who heads the House Armed Services Committee.

“If we build it, they will no longer come illegally,” Hastert said after the vote.

But even some Republicans opposed the piecemeal approach.

“We’re really not debating anything of substance,” said Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican. “This is a feel good piece of legislation.”

Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Western-born Muslims seen as biggest threat

Western-born Muslims seen as biggest threat

September 14, 2006

YOUNG Western-born Muslims recruited in universities, mosques and on the internet are increasingly being turned to jihad by terrorist networks, which train them in Islamic countries to support and conduct attacks on their homelands.

The return of brainwashed sleeper agents trained in counter-intelligence and covert fundraising, as well as the use of explosives, was the “biggest threat to humanity in modern times”, said Boaz Ganor, founder of the Israeli-based Institute of Counter-Terrorism.

“They are looking for them in mosques … in the youth centres … on the web … relying on social acquaintances and also family ties and universities,” Dr Ganor told a conference hosted by the institute in the resort city of Herzliya yesterday.

He said terror organisations used psychological strategies to win the hearts of “specific” young Muslims through either indirect recruitment platforms such as the internet, and direct ones such as combing radical mosques and prayer halls.

Extremists looked for recruits who were not integrated into Western society and wanted to reinvent themselves.

“They are looking for people who are alienated from society, they’re looking for people that have religious devotion, they’re looking for those who believe that they are discriminated against,” Dr Ganor said.

Converts to Islam with a proclivity for violence and fanaticism were also considered good recruits. “They are using this idea of divine command, saying ‘we are just messengers and it is God that demands you to do this job … we have to save Islam’.

“(But) when you spread a network like that, sometimes you get fissures that you don’t expect to get because these alienated, frustrated youngsters are not just in the Muslim society, and therefore we see another phenomenon, which are converts.”

Last month, The Australian revealed that dozens of violent criminals in Sydney were being brainwashed by hardliners and converting to radical Islam in jail, creating a serious national security time bomb.

Dr Ganor said of the recruits: “They are usually being trained in other countries – it could be Pakistan or another place – and then they are infiltrated again into the old society as an indoctrinated, trained sleeper that are just sitting and waiting for the order.

“Some of them are being used for fundraising missions, some of them are being used for collection of intelligence and for recruiting others. But we have to understand … that some of them are being used for this mission of launching a terrorist attack on Western society.”

Another expert on Islamic terrorism who spoke at the conference, Steven Emerson, told The Australian that terrorist organisations were increasingly shifting towards training their recruits on how to become better intelligence agents and expose the weaknesses of their enemies.

“It’s in al-Qa’ida’s manual to do better counter-intelligence, to do observation, surveillance, reconnaissance,” he said. “That’s critical to any good terrorist apparatus. You always have to have a reconnaissance man.

“Hezbollah excels in reconnaissance – sending back to Tehran videos that they have witnessed in terms of the vulnerabilities.”

Dr Ganor said Muslim communities worldwide needed to take the initiative in exposing and thwarting the actions of radicals.

Pope’s speech stirs Muslim anger ===== Go for it Pope Benedict!!!!!

Pope’s speech stirs Muslim anger

Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week. Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.

Turkey’s top religious official asked for an apology for the “hostile” words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope’s comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope’s comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam.

‘Abhorrent’

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born pontiff explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of Byzantine, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperors words were, he said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Benedict said “I quote” twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was “incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”.

The Pope is due to visit Turkey in November and the Turkish response was swift and strong, the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford reports from Istanbul.

Religious leader Ali Badda Kolu said the Pope’s comments represented what he called an “abhorrent, hostile and prejudiced point of view”.

Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ.

He said he hoped the Pope’s speech did not reflect “hatred in his heart” against Islam.

Many Turks see Benedict as a Turkophobe and commentators call his words just before the holy month of Ramadan “ill-timed and ill-conceived”, our correspondent adds.

Sahara seen as potential terrorist breeding ground

Sahara seen as potential terrorist breeding ground
Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:16 AM BST

By Nick Tattersall

DAKAR (Reuters) – The vast Sahara has long sheltered rebels and bandits but security experts fear its remote oases and mountain hideouts may also be an ideal recruitment and training ground for al Qaeda-linked militants.

Rebellious nomads, large Muslim communities and dire poverty in a largely unpoliced territory have made the U.S. intelligence community increasingly nervous that the Sahara’s southern fringe in West Africa could become a launch pad for terrorist attacks.

“We’re not talking about large numbers of terrorists, like Iraq or Afghanistan, or fixed training bases,” one U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington told Reuters.

“We’re talking about relatively small numbers of moving targets who are difficult to fix and destroy but who represent an increasing threat … It’s not the biggest threat in the world, but it’s a significant emerging one.”

One of Washington’s greatest concerns is the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), an Algerian rebel movement which has pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and publishes Osama bin Laden’s messages on its Web site.

French and Italian police arrested suspected GSPC members earlier this year thought to have been planning attacks, some of them in Algeria and in Iraq. The head of French police has said the group also poses a major threat to France.

Regional diplomats, security sources and U.S. officials believe the GSPC and its allies have been running mobile camps in the Sahara, teaching recruits guerrilla tactics before sending them home as “sleepers” to await further instructions.

“After training they are dormant. They become sworn members who know they are going to die,” said Mamour Fall, a reclusive Senegalese imam expelled from Italy in 2003 after being branded a national security threat.

“One day you receive your ticket telling you it is your turn to go, and you go,” he told Reuters in Dakar last year.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCE

Fall said he met bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990s, fought alongside him in Bosnia and was still preaching his message in West Africa.

He said three camps in the Sahel — the southern fringe of the Sahara — trained a total of 100 men every six months sent from around the region. Intelligence experts believe such activity is very much ad hoc.

“It’s two or three vehicles meeting somewhere in an oasis, bringing out a laptop computer and showing people how to construct bombs. Or it’s someone setting up a temporary firing range,” one senior U.S. intelligence official said.

U.S. Special Forces have been training local armies in 10 countries in the region to confront the threat as part of the U.S. government’s Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative.

But radical voices such as Fall’s are the exception in West Africa, which has a strong tradition of moderate Sufi Islam whose brotherhoods are renowned for their tolerance.

Opposition to U.S. foreign policy may be common among many West Africans, largely due to the war in Iraq and U.S. support of Israel, but it is rarely fervent — the strongest resentment is often reserved for former European colonial powers.

But Washington fears the region’s poverty and weak governance leaves it prone to influence from movements like the Salafis, a purist group among Sunni Muslims whose extreme followers fought armed struggles in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya and in Algeria with the GSPC.

“Over the years, especially over the past 5 or 10, there has been an influx of Saudi and Pakistani, mostly Saudi, money and you’ve seen mosque building and proselytising across the whole belt of the Sahel,” the U.S. counterterrorism official said.

“They bring a new kind of Islam to the region that is inconsistent with the historic brotherhoods and the Sufi tradition that has been dominant.”

Fall said although violent jihad was largely alien to African Muslims, preachers such as himself portrayed Africans as victims of colonial powers in much the same way as some Arabs saw themselves as victims of U.S. imperialism.

“The context is linked. We have the same religion, the same economic situation, the same culture. Young men know they have to do something to be respected,” he said.

RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

Militant Salafist groups in the Sahara, such as the GSPC, nonetheless appear so far to have had limited success in finding support for their ideology among local populations.

Tuareg nomads in northern Mali and northern Niger are seen as particularly ripe for recruitment because they come into contact with GSPC fighters on desert trading routes and themselves fought armed rebellions in the 1990s.

Yet they publicly reject the GSPC cause. Eglasse Ag Idar, a Tuareg leader who was part of a revolt in Mali’s desert town of Kidal in May, helped conduct hostage negotiations with the GSPC when they kidnapped 32 European tourists in 2003.

“We talked a lot about the fact we were all Muslims. We told them that Islam never demands such violent acts, that for us it was not legitimate,” Ag Idar told Reuters from Kidal, adding he believed the GSPC still had logistics bases north and west of Timbuktu near the Algerian border.

“They do not have a big presence … but we tell people in the region, particularly our youths, not to approach them.”

(Additional reporting by Caroline Drees and David Morgan in Washington)

Why is the first Muslim to ascend to elected national office in the U.S. being given a free pass by the media… particularly when his past includes racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic supremacy and an abundance of lies?

The wrong stuff

For the past three months, we have used the many faces of Minnesota’s Democratic Fifth District congressional candidate Keith Ellison as symbolic of the question, “Who is Keith Ellison?” In “Who is Keith Ellison? (2)” this past June, for example, we documented the fact that Keith Ellison had publicly appeared under assumed names including Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad over the period 1989-1998. In each of these personas he was an advocate, leader, spokesman and/or self-identified member of the Nation of Islam. These personas were not a relic of the distant past or a byproduct of youthful indiscretion. Indeed, Ellison first ran for public office as a self-identified member of the Nation of Islam under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad in 1998.

Ellison has repeatedly asserted that his involvement with the Nation of Islam was limited to an 18-month period around the time of the Million Man March in 1995. This assertion by Ellison has been a cornerstone of Ellison’s campaign; it is repeated in every Minneapolis Star Tribune article on Ellison in which the issue of Ellison’s connections to the Nation of Islam are mentioned. In today’s jointly bylined Star Tribune story by Rochelle Olson and Dane Smith, the statement is repeated and correctly attributed to Ellison:

In the past, Ellison has said his ties to Farrakhan included no more 18 months in the 1990s, primarily spent organizing for the Million Man March in Washington, D.C.

Given the fact that Ellison’s acknowledged involvement with the Nation of Islam began no later than 1995 and the indisputable fact that it extended at least to late 1998, Ellison’s limitation of his involement with the Nation of Islam to 18 months is a blatant, easily demonstrable lie which the Star Tribune nevertheless continues to repeat.Today for the first time the Star Tribune mentions Elllison’s shifting public personas, by quotation of Ellison’s Republican opponent Alan Fine. Yet the Star Tribune, like the Washinton Post earlier this week in Alan Cooperman’s story, asserts that these personas were names that Ellison went under as a student. Thus Olson and Smith write in today’s Star Tribune story:

“I’m extremely concerned about Keith Ellison, Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison, Keith Ellison Muhammad,” Fine said, referring to names Ellison used when he wrote several editorials for the University of Minnesota Daily when he was a law student in the early 1990s.

How many errors is it possible to pack into a dependent clause commenting on a quotation? Ellison was a law student from 1987-1990, not in the early 1990s. He used the name Keith Hakim in two University of Minnesota Daily columns published in 1989 and 1990. He subsequently used the other names over a period that extended through 1998, on each occasion as an advocate of or spokesman for the Nation of Islam. One such occasion occurred at a public hearing in which Ellison used the name Muhammad, as reported by the Star Tribune itself in the Star Tribune’s 1997 story on the hearing.It is pathetic that the Star Tribune has not familiarized itself or its readers with Ellison’s various public identities at this late stage of the campaign, but it is inexcusable for it falsely to assert that these identities were used by Ellison “when he was a law student.” The fact that this error has occurred in two stories in the same week, first in the Washington Post and then in the Star Tribune, suggests one of two facts. Either the Star Tribune is relying on the Post for its information about Ellison or Ellison is peddling another canard about his Nation of Islam past that the Star Tribune is gullibly repeating. Now that the Ellison candidacy is a significant national story, would it be too much to ask the Star Tribune to get the facts straight?

By the same token, today’s AP story on Ellison by Martiga Lohn refers to Fine’s citation of Ellison’s various public personas as “emphasizing the black Democrat’s Muslim background with a series of pen names formerly used by Ellison.” It is a sentence that has the sole virtue by contrast with the Star Tribune story of introducing new errors into the discussion — with the suggestion that pointing Ellison’s Nation of Islam personas out is itself bigoted. Some kind of congratulations to the AP are surely in order.

Minnesota’s statewide candidates for governor (Mike Hatch) and Senator (Amy Klobuchar) have somehow managed to avoid commenting on Ellison. They have declined to endorse him or even to be photographed with him. Such reticence on their part has not deterred Minnesota DFL Chairman Brian Melendez from imputing bigotry to those who, like Alan Fine, have expressed qualms about Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam. As the AP story reports:

Minnesota DFL Chairman Brian Melendez said Ellison won’t hurt the party’s other candidates. He condemned Fine’s attack, saying it was racist.”He’ll probably pick up the pigheaded fool vote but hopefully there aren’t too many of them,” Melendez said.

The Newsweek story on the Ellison campaign by Lee Hudson Teslik seems more concerned with adjusting attitudes than with getting facts straight. It not so subtly trades in imputations of bigotry to those of us who have sought to report the facts on Ellison’s past and present associations:

[S]ome Muslims, both locally and nationally, have reservations about Ellison. One concern is his prior associations with members of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, which many Muslims do not consider mainstream. Ellison explicitly denies having been a part of the group, though he admits working with many of its members in helping to coordinate the Million Man March in 1995. Other Muslims worry that the negative attention Ellison has drawn more generally—from charges that he has disregarded parking tickets to criticisms for having once shared a stage with Khalid Abdul Muhammed, a man who called Jews “the bloodsuckers of the black nation”—will reflect poorly on their community.They already feel the heat. Conservative blogs have hounded Ellison with a tone some Muslims have interpreted as racist. A blog called PowerLine [sic], for instance, posted news of his August 25 fundraiser, lambasting the support Ellison has received from Nihad Awad. The ambiguously-sourced post portrayed Awad as an Islamist extremist linked to the Palestinian group Hamas and labeled him a voice of the “Wahhabi lobby.” Given the frequency of these sorts of attacks, there are concerns that xenophobia could affect the primary. “I’ve been alarmed by the amount of prejudice we’re seeing,” says Saeed. “It’s a great disappointment to the Muslim community.” In light of this, Mahmud says she has come to see Ellison’s candidacy as “bittersweet.” Ellison has worked to quell his critics. On May 28, he wrote a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) “categorically and unequivocally reject[ing] anti-Semitism in any form.” But uneasiness has persisted, particularly among area Jewish groups. “The guy is campaigning on ‘I’ve changed, I’ve learned, I’ve changed my behavior,’” says Dan Rosen, a Minneapolis lawyer who sits on JCRC’s board. “But it strikes me that what we’re talking about is not a therapy session. It’s the United States Congress.”

It is striking how unconcerned with the facts Newsweek is. Has Nihad Awad had intimate links to Hamas? Has he publicly identified himself as a supporter of Hamas? Is Awad a voice of the “Wahhabi lobby”? What was Nihad Awad doing on stage with a flag of Hezbollah in the 1994 photo that we posted in our report on Ellison’s August 25 fundraiser? Newsweek apparently doesn’t care to know; perhaps the desire to know is itself symptomatic of “xenophobia.”Newsweek refers to our post as “ambiguously-sourced.” Among the sources we cited on Awad in the post were the Weekly Standard, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, the CAIR Web site, the White House Web site and various of Awad’s speeches by place and date. Calling the post “ambiguosly-sourced” seems to me more ambiguous than the post itself. I think the references are clear. I’m a little unclear, however, on what “ambiguously-sourced” means in this context.

Newsweek carries on the tradition of the American press as the kind of censorious Victorian gentleman that Tom Wolfe used to describe the press of the late fifties and early sixties in The Right Stuff:

It was as if the press in America, for all its vaunted independence, were a great colonial animal, an animal made up of countless clustered organisms responding to a central nervous system. In the late 1950′s (as in the late 1970′s) the animal seemed determined that in all matters of national importance the proper emotion, the seemly sentiment, the fitting moral tone, should be established and should prevail; and all information that muddied the tone and weakened the feeling should simply be thrown down the memory hole. In a later period this impulse of the animal would take the form of blazing indignation about corruption, abuses of power, and even minor ethical lapses, among public officials; here, in April of 1959, it took the form of a blazing patriotic passion for the seven test pilots who had volunteered to go into space. In either case, the animal’s fundamental concern remained the same: the public, the populace, the citizenry, must be provided with the correct feelings! One might regard this animal as the consummate hypocritical Victorian gent. Sentiments that one scarcely gives a second thought to in one’s private life are nevertheless insisted upon in all public utterances. (And this grave gent lives on in excellent health.)

Indeed he does.

Europeans have been too busy shaking their fists at Americans to notice that their romance with Islam has been a one-way relationship.

9/11, Five Years Later: A View from Europe
By Bruce Bawer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 14, 2006

Recently I watched Casablanca for perhaps the 20th time.  Its characters include people from the U.S., Norway, Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria whose harrowing experiences in Nazi-occupied Europe have taught them a precious lesson: the value of freedom.  Many seek passage to America, a beacon of liberty in a darkening world.  In one stirring scene, Nazi officers at Rick’s café begin singing Die Wacht am Rhein, and the other customers respond with La Marseillaise.

Something like that sense of international unity in the cause of freedom is rather what I expected of the West after 9/11.  But it didn’t happen.  Why?  Largely because of a failure to comprehend the nature of the enemy: Islamist terrorism continues to be characterized by many as a desperate response to poverty, oppression, and/or Western foreign policies, rather than what it is: a jihad by people who seek to conquer the West as Muhammed did North Africa, subduing infidels and imposing sharia.  Only recently did George W. Bush finally confess that we were fighting “Islamic fascists” – only to revert, in the face of criticism, to the empty term “war on terror.”

Some understand the enemy, yet underestimate its capabilities.  One’s comfort can be one’s downfall: just as it seemed inconceivable that the Twin Towers could be brought down so easily, so our Western civilization can feel indestructible, and the idea of having to defend it can feel like – well, something out of an old movie.  There are few more telling symbols of many young Europeans’ sense of absolute security, their utter unconsciousness of any clear and present threat to their freedom, and the alienness to them of any concept of moral responsibility than the Che t-shirts and Palestinian scarves by which they play at identifying with the perceived glamour of violent revolution against their own civilization.

On 9/11 (as now), I was a New Yorker living in Oslo.  Yet that day I realized I’d never left home – for this was, I knew, an attack not only on my hometown but on the free world.  Clearly, we were at war – not only with terrorists, but with their philosophical allies in the West.  I already knew a bit about the latter: in 1999, living in Amsterdam’s Oud West, I looked around me and realized I’d failed to notice a key piece of the European puzzle – namely, the rise of Muslim communities that weren’t transitional phenomena (like the now-vanished Polish neighborhood in Manhattan where my father grew up) but the beginnings of a fast-growing, self-segregating European Islamic society that was becoming ever more confident and assertive in its rejection of Western values.  The celebrations in the streets of Ede and elsewhere on 9/11 affirmed my sense of the grim possibilities these enclaves represented.

In the wake of 9/11, European leaders felt obliged to join America in invading Afghanistan.  But the initial show of solidarity by politicians and intellectuals (“we are all Americans”) quickly gave way to declarations that the U.S. – by supporting Israel, buttressing Arab dictators, fostering globalism, etc. – had asked for 9/11.  But not Europe.  Europe was the Muslims’ friend.  Muslims knew this.  Hence Europe was safe.  This soon became Western European orthodoxy.  Only days after 9/11, Norwegian author Gert Nygårdshaug sneered at the idea that there might soon be an attack on “Oslo or Rome or Copenhagen.”  He was far from alone in his mockery.

Then came Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, Mumbai.  Van Gogh was butchered; Muslims rioted in France; their coreligionists in Denmark rampaged over newspaper cartoons of Muhammed.  The Western European elite played down, even denied, any connection among these events.  Yet year by year the truth has become increasingly clear: though the U.S. was the target on 9/11, the front line of the war with Islamism is Europe.

It is a war, moreover, in which the enemy’s most powerful weapon is not bombs but demography.  Muslim immigration levels remain high; so do reproduction rates.  Yes, only a tiny percentage of European Muslims are terrorists; but many more – who get their “news” from satellite channels such as Al-Jazeera and who feed one another’s animosity toward the West in mosques, in community centers, and on Internet message boards – find European culture intolerably decadent and share the jihadist goal of a European caliphate governed according to Koranic precepts.  Recent polls show that at least 40% of Muslims in the U.K. would like to see Britain under sharia law, and that at least one in four approved of the 7/7 attacks.  European-establishment rhetoric to the contrary, poverty and ignorance aren’t the explanation: the most intense anti-Western sympathies are nursed not by illiterate immigrants from rural Arab villages but by their well-educated, European-born children who live well and drive BMWs.

In all of Europe, only the Danes have taken remotely serious actions to halt the advance of what the scholar Bat Ye’or has called “Eurabia.”  The results: immigration to Denmark is down, integration improved.  Yet even in Denmark, death threats against cartoonists have made the free word less free.  Elsewhere, too, sharia is on the march.  Belgian law now forbids “Islamophobia”; similar legislation was passed by Britain’s House of Commons last year, but nixed by the Lords.  In Norway, you can now be imprisoned for “insulting” someone’s religion (and the burden of proof is on the accused).  A grim foretaste of Europe’s future was provided last February in Oslo, where, at a state-sponsored press conference, editor Velbjørn Selbekk – who, after reprinting the Muhammed cartoons, had defied death threats for weeks – did a sudden about-face, apologizing abjectly to the largest assemblage of imams in Norway’s history.  The Norwegian government hailed this capitulation, calling it a “reconciliation”; later an official delegation visited Qatar to beg Muslim leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s forgiveness, too.

What of America?  No question, Bush’s arrogance, incompetence, inarticulateness, deafness to criticism, and tolerance of torture have (in Andrew Sullivan’s words) “managed to muddy the moral high ground against the evil of Islamism” – thereby polarizing Americans and helping alienate Europeans at a time when unity is crucial.  (The U.S. military’s dismissal of desperately needed Arabic-language experts for being gay testifies to the endurance of an absurd bias that I thought, on 9/11, would fade in the face of a real and deadly foe.)  In the U.S., as in Europe, politicians and journalists who should know better continue to repeat the ludicrous mantra that Islam means “peace,” jihad means “inner struggle,” and extremists are “hijacking Islam.” 

Yet for all America’s missteps, the European elite’s charge that the U.S. is the world’s #1 menace has been obscene and self-destructive – as has that same elite’s tireless whitewashing of the real menace.  On 9/11, I would never have imagined that five years later, a man who refuses to condemn the stoning of female adulterers would be respected as the leading voice of “moderate” European Islam; that European governments would still be funding within their borders mosques and Muslim schools that teach contempt for democracy, Jews, gays, and sexual equality; that Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen would argue for accepting the oppression of Muslim women in the West; and that Britain would still be sheltering radical clerics, Queen Elizabeth knighting the likes of Iqbal Sacranie (who calls homosexuality “unacceptable”), and London mayor Ken Livingstone praising as “progressive” the above-mentioned al-Qaradawi (who has defended suicide bombers and the execution of gays).  The delusion endures:  in August, the AP reported that Germans were “stunned” by news of a planned train bombing in their country because they thought their “opposition to the Iraq war would insulate” them from terrorism; and Britain’s “Communities Secretary,” following the arrest of “English lads” who’d planned to blow up London-to-U.S. flights, promised to consider a proposal by Muslim leaders to pacify would-be domestic bombers by introducing sharia law in immigrant areas.

I would never have believed on 9/11 that in 2006, most Europeans would still be surprised to learn – to pluck two examples at random – that over seven in ten immigrant women in Sweden (according to an EU study) are affected by “honor-related violence” and that Jewish children (according to a French government report) “can no longer get an education” in France because of abuse by Muslim classmates.  Some law-enforcement authorities have already thrown in the towel: in 2004, Swedish police admitted they “have no control over the situation in Malmö,” a city plagued by Muslim rapes and robberies; this August, after a Muslim gang shootout in Oslo, police said they were “reluctant to crack down on the gangs out of fear for their own safety.”

On 9/11, the free world was powerfully reminded of its freedom.  In Europe, alas, that day’s spirit has been steamrollered by an establishment that – apparently having already accepted the inevitability of Europe’s Islamization – routinely turn the truth on its head, representing aggressors as victims and self-defense as inflammatory.  That upside-down picture needs to be set aright, and the spirit of 9/11 resurrected.  For the bottom line is simple: if we don’t cherish our liberties with the fervor that the jihadists treasure their faith, we’ll lose.

Ahmadinejad: We can better lead the world ===== Very scary thought

Ahmadinejad: We can better lead the world

Iranian president says nuclear standoff with West can be resolved peacefully; adds: ‘there is no need for UN sanctions against his country; US should moderate its language’
Associated Press

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says nuclear standoff resolvable by dialogue Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his country’s nuclear standoff with the West can be solved through dialogue, while calling for unspecified “New conditions” in negotiations.  Ahmedinejad, on an hours-long stopover in Senegal en route to Cuba for a summit of the Nonaligned Movement, said the debate over Iranian nuclear enrichment could be solved peacefully. “We’re partisans of dialogue and negotiation. We believe that we can resolve our problems in a space of dialogue and justice – together,” he told reporters. “I must announce, we’re available, we’re ready for new conditions” in talks, he said without elaborating. Ahmadinejad spoke in Farsi, with his comments interpreted into French.  Oil-rich Iran says it needs uranium enrichment to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity. Enrichment can also create material for atomic bombs, however, and the United States and other nations suspect that is Tehran’s real goal.  Asked if he believed his country would be slapped with UN sanctions, as pressed by the United States, Ahmadinejad said there was “No reason” for sanctions and called on the US to moderate its language. “The American leaders should prefer to not speak in an angry fashion,” he said, before asserting that his country is a natural international leader.  Declaring solidarity with Africa “We believe the on the basis of law and justice, we can better lead the world,” he said at an early-morning briefing, amid a powerful electrical storm that brought power cuts to the conference hall, before flying onto Cuba. Ahmadenijad earlier met with President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, a heavily Muslim and deeply impoverished West African nation.  Ahmadinejad last visited West Africa in July, when he addressed an African summit in Gambia, declaring solidarity with the impoverished continent and lashing out at the West.  Then as now, Iran was locked in a dispute with the United States and European Union over its nuclear program. Iran is in negotiations with the West, but faces sanctions for rejecting the UN Security Council’s demand that it freeze uranium enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear arms. The United States is considered a strong ally of Senegal. Most of Senegal’s 12 million people are Muslim, practicing a moderate and sometimes mystical version of the faith heavily influenced by local religious leaders, called marabout.  

Kissinger warns of possible “war of civilizations”

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/ts_alt_afp/usattackseurope

 http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1052815

Kissinger warns of possible “war of civilizations” Wed Sep 13, 11:54 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) – Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a “war of civilizations” arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East. In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a “global catastrophe” dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the  Iraq war.“A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one,” Kissinger wrote.“The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.“Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East.”Kissinger wrote that the big threat lay in the erosion of nation states and the emergence of transnational groups.  Iran was at the centre of the challenge, he said, with its support for Hezbollah, radical Shiite groups in Iraq and its nuclear program.Washington must accept that many European nations were more optimistic about talks designed to convince Iran to halt uranium enrichment — a process Tehran denies is aimed at making weapons, he wrote.But in return, he said, Europe should accept the process must include a “bottom line” beyond which diplomatic flexibility must not go and a time limit to ensure talks did not become a shield for “developing new assaults.”In the article, Kissinger, national security adviser for former president  Richard Nixon, and secretary of state for Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, warned the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was still dangerous, after its month-long conflict with  Israel.“Hezbollah’s next move is likely to be an attempt to dominate the Beirut government by intimidation and, using the prestige gained in the war, manipulating democratic procedures,” he said.He concluded by noting that observers wondered whether, after the Cold War, trans-Atlantic ties could survive the loss of a common enemy.“We now know that we face the imperative of building a new world order or potential global catastrophe. It cannot be done alone by either side of the Atlantic. Is that realization sufficient to regenerate a common purpose?”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers