Dennis of Damascus and Tehran Tom

Dennis of Damascus and Tehran Tom

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/14/2007

As Democrats in Congress and the organized left denounce the cautious optimism of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus (“General Betray Us,” according to moveon.org), some Members continue to consort with the enemy in ways reminiscent of Hanoi Jane Fonda in the early 1970s.

Dennis Kucinich is the latest among the Congressional Democrats to travel the road to Damascus, to give aid and comfort to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

In an interview with a tarted-up reporter for Syrian state television, Kucinich laid out his plan for unilateral U.S. surrender in Iraq, the Middle East, and indeed just about anywhere America might seek to get engaged under its own flag in the world.

Outside of the blog for his hometown newspaper, and a straight-up news account from NewsMax, Kucinich’s latest sneak attack on the left flank of the war on terror was widely ignored.

It should not have been. Kucinich is not merely a disgrace to Congress and the Democratic Party. By sucking up to a dictator and deriding U.S. troops in Iraq on a foreign state-run television program, he has disgraced his nation and his flag.

Here are a few samples of what Dennis of Damascus told the Syrian public, with the helpful (but unneeded) prompting of his cover-girl interviewer.

“I feel the United States is engaged in an illegal occupation,” he said. “Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is, and I think they’re looking for a new direction, and that’s certainly what I’m offering.”

He had come to Syria to meet with “His Excellency,” the Syrian dictator, “so that people are aware that there are members of Congress and in this case, a presidential candidate, who believes that Syria has a very important role to play in bringing about stability, in participating in a political process, which will help create the conditions which can lead to peace.”

Yes, well. That’s what Hanoi Jane said in May 1972 when she traveled to North Vietnam.

The Israeli Air Force recently had something to say about Syria’s contribution to peace and stability last week, when it bombed what appears to have been a shipment of Iranian missiles destined for Hezbollah as it was passing through eastern Syria.

An Israeli official told reporters on Wednesday that the air strike had “left a big hole” in Syria. The Syrians have complained to the United Nations.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker also derided the notion that Syria was a force for stabilization, noting “malign actions” by Syria and Iran in fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

But if you listen to Dennis of Damascus, that’s okay. All we need to do is talk to the dictators.

Kucinich said that Assad “showed a real desire to play a role in helping to create a peaceful settlement of the conditions in Iraq, as well as a grander approach towards creating peace.”

As he told Syrian television, “the United States must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with the help of Syria and Iran, that would bring an international peace-keeping force, move it in as our troops leave, so there is no vacuum.”

What Kucinich wants is very clear. He wants to turn Iraq over to Syria and Iran, with the imprimatur of the United Nations. He conveniently expects the UN to send the bills to the U.S. taxpayer and dump the political blame for the bloodshed to follow on President Bush.

“I crafted my peace plan with people who served in the UN with peace-keeping missions over the years,” Dennis of Damascus said. “Not only must we stabilize Iraq. We must pay reparations to Iraq for the great human tragedy that has been caused. Perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war.”

But wait: here comes the heart throb. Syria’s wonderfully humanitarian leader has taken in some of those Iraqi refugees. “A million and a half are in Syria, and I met with some of them, and I can tell you that this is a great human tragedy.”

Most of the Iraqi refugees in Syria are Christians, as I have noted on this page. But Kucinich conveniently forgot that.

He also forgot to mention that Syrian-backed Sunni Muslim jihadis were responsible for driving them out of them homes in the first place.

In a subsequent interview in Beirut with the Associated Press, Kucinich explained why he had not used the opportunity of his Labor Day travel to the Middle East to visit with U.S. troops in Iraq.

“I don’t want to bless that occupation with my presence,” he said. “I will not do it.” So much for a Democrat supporting the troops.

All of this could be dismissed as pure comedy if it weren’t for the fact that the Kucinich/MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party represents real money and influence.

The Washington Times reported on Thursday that MoveOn.org “ranked third in the country among political action committees in total receipts from January 2005 to June 30, 2006, with $14.1 million.”

The group trailed two other pro-Democrat PACS – Emily’s List, which raised $20 million, and the Service Employees International Union, which raised $14.4 million during the same period.

Kucinich is not the only member of Congress who wants to cozy up to America’s enemies.

Tehran Tom – excuse me, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California Democrat Tom Lantos – has said repeatedly that he wants to travel to Tehran to negotiate some kind of peace-in-our-time with Iran’s clerical dictators.

Lantos first bruited his desire to travel to Tehran in January 1998, but was quickly rebuffed by the Islamic Republic of Iran authorities.

After his much-disputed April 2007 trip to Damascus with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lantos said he was ready to escort the gentle-lady from California to Tehran:

“Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's] statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,” Lantos told reporters at the time.

In May, Lantos joined a letter that Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa) sent to the speaker of the Iranian parliament, suggesting a joint meeting of U.S. and Iranian parliamentarians.”

Also signing the letter were “Peace In Our Times” Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Chris Dodd, and Representatives English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks.

In his letters and meetings with Iranian authorities to obtain the release of Woodrow Woodrow Wilson Center scholar Haleh Esfandiareh, who was arrested in Iran early this year, Congressman Lee Hamilton reportedly offered to broker visits to Tehran by top Democrats in Congress.

Hamilton had “very large discussions” with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in New York, a source close to Hamilton told me, “that covered a broad range of subjects involving U.S.-Iranian relations.”

Esfandiareh was released after Hamilton sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, outlining his ideas for renewed U.S.-Iranian exchanges.

Hamilton was summoned to Iran’s mission at the United Nations in New York to receive a two paragraph reply from Khamenei in August, that signaled the ayatollah’s intention to release the jailed Iranian-American scholar as a gesture of good will.

We have seen these kinds of “good will” gestures many, many, many times before.

Whether it’s Neville Chamberlin returning from Munich in 1938, or Norwegian Nazi puppet Vidkun Quisling, who I profiled in my book, Preacher’s of Hate, the practise and its results are sickeningly familiar.

It’s called appeasement.

And the result, sooner rather than later, is always war.


Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).

In a realm of their own: the paranoid left

In a realm of their own: the paranoid left

Clarice Feldman
Please don’t miss Noemie Emery’s brilliant article in the Weekly Standard on the paranoia of the left. Here’s a sample:

Ah, reason! How sweet it is, and to what lengths it can lead you, when you think that you have a monopoly on it. Political parties are coalitions of interests, fighting it out in a series of struggles, in which no side has a patent on wisdom and virtue, and no wins are ever complete. People who understand this maintain their own balance and bearings, but those who insist they are fighting for reason lose what remains of their own.
Over and over, they do what they claim their opponents are doing, want to do, or have done: make vast leaps of faith on almost no evidence, get carried away on large waves of emotion, build towering edifices on small collections of factoids, omit, deny, or denounce all contrary evidence, build fantastical schemes which they project on the enemy, put two and two together and get 384. People are entitled to say what they want, but it takes something other than reason to look at raging debates and discern in them fascistic oppression, to look at large Republican losses (wholly in line with a sixth-year election) and see massive fraud on the part of the losers, to look at today’s South and see John Calhoun’s, to draft both the Bushes (and the entire Republican party) into the Confederate Army, 150 years after the fact. Facts on the ground have no effect on their fantasies, which exist in a realm of their own.

The surge is working. What now?

The Agony of Debate

 

The Agony of Debate

<br</brby Thomas Lindaman 

 

If you ever want to see some of the best political reporting on Election 2008, there are a number of places to go. If you don’t, go to the Washington Post. Seeing some of the subjects they cover as real news from the campaign trail makes my twice-monthly screeds look like Paradise Lost.

 

But I do have to give them credit on one story they ran on July 23rd. The story in question dealt with how the Democrats running for President are having to endure, get this, debate fatigue. Although the first official debate among the Democrat candidates was set for July 23rd, they’ve been having debates and discussions in front of just about any group who would have them. No word yet on if they’re going to swing by my place while they’re in Iowa to debate whether Dennis Kucinich is Gollum from The Lord of the Rings or a genetic cross between Ross Perot and Casey Kasem.

 

One major problem that the Washington Post story mentioned was how individual special interest groups are hosting candidate debates, but the big-name candidates feel they can’t skip them after second and third tier candidates accept. After all, they can’t risk offending the North Petaluma Anti-War Lesbian Same Sex Marriage Coalition and Bridge Club, right? Of course, this is a problem Democrats have brought on themselves by having so many special interest groups to pander to for votes. Since the 1990s if not a little before, the Democratic Party has gone from being a real political party to being a laundry list of special interest groups all jockeying for position in the political equivalent of Lord of the Flies. But unlike in the book, nobody’s quite sure who has the conch shell right now, but everyone in the race thinks George W. Bush is the monster.

 

This brings us to another point that is overlooked in the story. Democrats were announcing they were thinking about running for President in 2008…before the Congressional elections of 2006 were even held. That exercise in jumping the gun created the longer campaign season that the candidates and their staffs are complaining about now. I have zero sympathy for the nozzlehead who announced in 2006 that they wanted to run for President in 2008 and now complains about the long hours and numerous debates that go into running for President. Seriously, if you guys didn’t factor this into your decision when you made it, I don’t want you running my local 7-11, let alone the United States.

 

A representative from John Edwards’s campaign also lamented the short amount of time for candidates to give answers to questions. Eric Schultz said, “Senator Edwards feels strongly that voters deserve more substantive debates between the candidates….You cannot explain how you will end the war in Iraq or solve the climate crisis in 60 seconds.” You know, reading anyone talk about substance while representing John Edwards always makes me giggle. I can’t explain it. But it’s not like the candidates themselves are trying to figure out more substantive answers to questions in first place. I can summarize the core of the Democrat debates so far in the following vignette.

 

Moderator: The biggest issue right now is international terrorism. Senator Edwards, what do you think we should do?

 

Edwards: George W. Bush sucks!

 

Other Candidates: Yeah! George W. Bush sucks!

 

Moderator: How do you propose to get our troops out of Iraq? Senator Clinton, let’s start with you.

 

Clinton: [yelling in a loud monotone] BY DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH HAS DONE!

 

Other Candidates: Yeah! By doing the opposite of what George W. Bush has done!

 

Repeat that for another 59 minutes or so, throw in Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer to add credibility to the event, and you have yourself a Democrat Presidential debate.

 

The Post article mentions that a big risk to the major candidates by having so many debates is that they have more opportunities to screw up. Please. The only way these “debates” could be any more tightly scripted would be if writers for professional wrestling wrote them. Then again, it would be interesting to see “Macho Man” Mike Gravel go up against “The Rock” Barack Obama…provided, of course, Gravel can smell what Barack is cookin’.

 

And here’s the funny thing about all of this. Most people don’t pay attention to political campaigns until around Labor Day of the election year because, well, they have lives. In other words, the Democrats are knocking themselves out to attract the votes of the true believers, who most likely will vote for the eventual nominee. And these folks question George W. Bush’s intelligence?

 

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.

 

Greatest movie line ever — Turn up the volume — Things haven’t changed much over the years

Congressman rips Democrats for scuttling protection for passengers who report suspicious activity

King.jpg

Video at Hot Air. He says they’re blinded by partisanship and overly influenced by groups like CAIR. I think he’s right.

The Preferences Are Coming – Twelve Million of Them

The Preferences Are Coming – Twelve Million of Them
By Lloyd Billingsley
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 21, 2007

The 12 million or more who entered the United States illegally, and would gain United States citizenship under the current immigration proposal, Senate Bill 1348, will qualify for race preferences and privileges for which the majority of Americans are not eligible. This is not fair.

That is the view of Ward Connerly of the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, a veteran of battles against racial preferences in California, Washington and Michigan, and who believes that “race and ethnic preferences ought to be wrong under any circumstances.” The current immigration measure, Connerly believes, would constitute a massive endowment of such preferences.

“This is huge,” Connerly told Frontpage. “All this talk of going to the back of the line is B.S.. They would go to the front of the line. The minute they are Americans, they move in front of  white males and in some cases white women.” Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned “underrepresented minority.”

“We have to somehow make the American public aware of this. We are, right now, the Paul Revere on this. There is a problem here.”

 

The problem, according to Connerly, lies in “the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences.” That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

“This is one of those things that people have not thought through.” Connerly said. “A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country.”

Connerly does not find much to like about the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which he considers amnesty, similar to the 1986 measure that granted amnesty to more than five million illegals. Many of them these prior beneficiaries of amnesty, Connerly says, have also become benficiaries of preferences and he sees the potential for repetition.

“My big fear is that we make 12 million all legal and in 10 years we are back in same position with another five million. Illegal immigration will continue. Until you do something about making it impossible to cross border they will come.”

A root cause, in Connerly’s view, is the definition of a minority.

“It is not numerical,” he said, “you are a minority if you are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. We will have in California a circumstance that one group is a numerical majority but still classified a minority. You would be hard pressed to say they are disadvantaged. The premise is that minorities are politically powerless.”

Connerly is himself as racially diverse as Tiger Woods and finds fault with a classification system that uses race for Blacks, Whites, Asians and Native Americans but makes Hispanic an ethnic designation. That poses problems, he says, for legalizing millions of Hispanics with the stroke of a pen. “The minute illegals become legalized they become part of preferences,” he said.

Connerly is pushing for a “Fairness to Americans Amendment” to the Senate Bill on Immigration which reads, in part:

THEREFORE, for purposes of the operation of the civil rights laws of the United States, new immigrants to the United States subject to the Secure Border, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 shall not be considered to be “historically disadvantaged,” “underrepresented,” or to be in a “protected class” and shall not be entitled to any preferential or remedial employment goals, educational admissions goals or contracting goals by any entity subject to the civil rights laws of the United States.

Connerly’s past campaigns for equal treatment have prevailed despite much opposition from professional ethnics and the political establishment. In 1996 he helped eliminate racial preferences in California through Proposition 209, which became the blueprint for similar victories in Washington state in 1998 and Michigan in 2006. Some may have thought that the preferences issue had died with the ambiguous Supreme Court decision on affirmative action of 2003.  But the Michigan campaign last year showed how explosive an issue this remains.  In a campaign where Bill Clinton and Colin Powell both campaigned against him and Barack Obama ran a radio ad against the measure, Connerly’s anti-preference initiative still prevailed 58-42, a wider margin than Proposition 209—and this in the middle of a Democratic landslide nationally and in Michigan itself insofar as Gubernatorial and Senate candidates were concerned.

  

With three major states solidly against preferences, Connerly wants more people to vote on this question. So he has planned a kind of Super Tuesday on preferences for November 4, 2008, attempting to qualify ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma, states he says are already feeling the effects not only of “affirmative action” but also of illegal immigration.

“I think we win them all once we get on the ballot,” Connerly said. “We need to bring about a critical mass of states. The majority of Americans do not support race preferences. The more we get that view in body politic, the more legislators will be emboldened.”

Only 23 states allow ballot initiatives. For the others, Connerly says, the answer is a court decision: “With every passing day I realize how right our position is.”  He derives a warning from developments abroad.  “Look at what is going on India,” he says. “They made quotas more strict and the people are rioting.”

CROCK FROM CHIRAC ABOUT TEHRAN THREAT — Chirac seems to have returned to his original policy – seeking French influence and a market for French goods in the Muslim world.

CROCK FROM CHIRAC ABOUT TEHRAN THREAT By URI DAN

October 27, 2006 — PARIS -France’s Jacques Chirac is becoming a weak link in the international effort to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons – because he believes Iran’s president is too smart to detonate the bomb. “Ahmadinejad is an intelligent leader and will never use nuclear weapons,” Chirac has been saying privately.The reason Chirac is convinced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wouldn’t use the bomb that everyone knows he is building is that, if he did, “within a couple of minutes, Tehran would be decimated,” the French president says.

This is a sharp change by Chirac and comes as France debates whether Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously when he calls for the elimination of Israel and denies the Holocaust. It recalls the debate in Europe in the 1930s over whether Hitler really meant what he said.

Chirac has the answer.

“All that talk by Ahmadinejad is to get the Muslim world on the side of the Shiites,” he says. “I know this part of the world very well.”

So far, Chirac has made his comments in private talks. But the echoes are heard in Jerusalem where officials are worried over the latest change in his attitude toward the Mideast.

When Ariel Sharon first came to power, Chirac privately called him “a block of cement” with whom nobody could talk.

But in July 2005 on the eve of Sharon’s withdrawal of Israelis from the Gaza Strip, Chirac established a close dialogue with him, Israeli sources said.

They began to exchange information about the Iranian danger and about Ahmadinejad, whom Sharon regarded as “worse than his predecessors.”

But with Sharon out of the picture, Chirac seems to have returned to his original policy – seeking French influence and a market for French goods in the Muslim world.

The Nazi connection to Islamic terrorism

A picture was taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, reviewing Bosnian Muslim Fundamentalist troops – a unit of the “Handzar [Scimitar] Division” of the Nazi’s Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
See http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/mufti.htm

The Nazi connection to Islamic terrorism

April 5, 2004Chuck Morse’s latest book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini,” provides the clearest, most incisive history of how Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism have become the dominant political philosophy in the Arab world. It is the untold story of how Nazism took root in the Islamic world through the untiring efforts of the mufti of Jerusalem, whose aim it was to destroy the Jews in Palestine. Morse writes:

The Nazi Holocaust appears to have kicked into high gear on Nov. 25, 1941, during a Berlin meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) and the Nazi Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler. At that well-documented meeting, Hitler promised al-Husseini, the Palestinian pan-Arab leader, that after securing a dominant military position in Europe, he would send the Wehrmacht, the Nazi war machine, on a blitzkrieg across the Caucasus and into the Arab world under the guise of liberating the Arabs from British occupation.

It should be noted that merely two months after the Hitler-Husseini meeting, the infamous Wansee Conference took place in which the Nazis produced their plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

Although Husseini spent the war in Germany, he managed to flee the advancing Allied forces and made his way to Cairo. While the captured Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, Husseini escaped judgment and became the major force in transferring Hitler’s program of genocide to the Arab world.

During the war, he had recruited Bosnian Muslims to serve in Nazi-Muslim SS Hanshar brigades which slaughtered Jews and Christian Serbs in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. Memory of that slaughter was one of the reasons why the Serbs went after the Bosnian Muslims 50 years later.

After the war, Husseini established working links between Nazis and Arabs in the Muslim world. He also got rid of anyone who stood in his way. That is why moderate Arabs are so rare. Husseini killed most of them.

He began his public career after World War I, when moderate Arab leader Emir Feisal signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann recognizing the Balfour Declaration, which facilitated the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Feisal believed that a Jewish Palestine would help the newly liberated Arab world develop into modern states with prosperous economies. But Husseini refused to accept a Jewish Palestine, and he instigated pogroms to force the Jewish settlers out. The first pogrom took place in 1920. Morse writes:

In 1921, shortly after the launching of the 1920 pogrom and for reasons that will forever remain shrouded in mystery, Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who had been appointed as British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate that same year, appointed al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Despite vigorous opposition to this appointment, Husseini proceeded to instigate violence against the Jews in Palestine and spread hatred of Jews throughout the Arab world, brutally purging any Arab who opposed him. In 1937, Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine and became a full-fledged paid Nazi agent. In 1941, Husseini moved on to Baghdad where he helped organize the pro-Nazi Rachid Ali officers’ coup against the British government in Iraq. When the coup failed, Husseini fled to Rome and then to the Third Reich.

One of the Iraqi coup plotters was Gen. Tufah Khariallah, uncle, guardian, mentor and future father-in-law of Saddam Hussein. The mufti was also a mentor to Yasser Arafat, who is believed to be Husseini’s nephew.

Overlooked in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim, formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Bosnian Muslims, who were in the Croatian pro-Nazi Ustasha, were especially brutal toward the Christian Serbs. In 1943, a report on Ustasha activities stated:

The Ustasha terror began in Mostar. The Ustashi, the majority of them local Mohammedans, are arresting, looking, and shipping off Serbs or killing them and throwing the bodies in the Neretva River. They are throwing Serbs alive into chasms and are burning whole families in their homes. Outside of Zagreb the strongest Ustasha hotbed is Sarajevo. The Muslims committed unbelievable barbarities for they murdered women and children even with scissors.

After reading this book you will have no trouble understanding the origin of Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism. The author has packed the book with detailed documentation as well as photographs showing Husseini inspecting his Nazi-Muslim troops. Morse shows how Husseini’s legacy of hate and murder, and his aim to destroy Israel, have been carried forth by Arafat and his murderous Palestinian terrorists right to the present. The book is available through Amazon.com.

Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists

Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists
Despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is there is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews
 
 

Folks seem to be in a quandary: Should US president George W. Bush have used the terms “Islam” and “Fascists” in the same sentence. The majority of the negative comments have been directed toward the president’s lack of sensitivity toward the vast majority of followers of Islam.

But despite some weak politically correct attempts, the fact is that the press for the most part is guilty of whitewashing one simple fact: There is a radical, heretical brand of Islam fostering terrorism that is indeed a by-product of Fascism and a hatred of Jews. Shahid Nickels, a member between 1998 and 2000 of the group headed by Mohammed Atta who led the 9-11 attacks, said that “Atta’s weltanschauung was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that ‘the Jews’ are determined to achieve world domination. He considered
New York City to be the center of world Jewry which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One,” according to an article written by Dr. Matthias Küntzel. (1)
Atta’s peculiar “Nationalist Socialist way of thinking,” however, was far from unique. In fact, it was a seed germinating for 80 years among radical Islamists that can be traced to Hassan al-Banna, a 22-year-old school teacher who gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928/1929.

While initial growth of the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate, the organization’s membership rolls – coinciding with rising anti-Semitism in
Europe – by August 1938 had swelled to more than two hundred thousand members. By the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had around half a million members.“Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist “Young Egypt” (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat,” so begins an Asia Times article by Marc Erikson. (2)

“The “Supreme Guide” of the brethren knew that faith, good works and numbers alone do not a political victory make. Thus, modeled on Mussolini’s blackshirts (al-Banna much admired “Il Duce” and soul brother “Fuehrer” Adolf Hitler), he set up a paramilitary wing (slogan: “action, obedience, silence”, quite superior to the blackshirts’ “believe, obey, fight”) and a “secret apparatus” (al-jihaz al-sirri) and intelligence arm of al-Ikhwan to handle the dirtier side – terrorist attacks, assassinations, and so on – of the struggle for power,” writes Erikson elsewhere. (3)According to John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the
US Justice Department,
“Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently.”

Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his “admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside
Egypt.” (4)

So what was Al-Banna teaching?

Well, for one thing Al-Banna idealized death.  

“To a nation that perfects the industry of death and which knows how to die nobly, God gives proud life in this world and eternal grace in the life to come” and “We are not afraid of death, we desire it… Let us die in redemption for Muslims,” Al-Banna once wrote.The Muslim Brotherhood also “used and disseminated a quotation from the Koran that Jews are to be considered ‘the worst enemy of the believers.’ In addition, they evoked old stories of the early history of Islam by pointing to the example set by Mohammed who, as legend has it, succeeded not only in expelling two Jewish tribes from Medina during the 7th century, but killed the entire male population of the third tribe and sold all the women and children into slavery.” (5)Spreading their hate-filled message toward Jews, the Muslim Brotherhood found a soul-mate in Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem who held the highest political and religious posts in
Palestine from 1921 until after World War II.
Loftus and other authors note that the Muslim Brotherhood and Mufti had common goals with the new Nazi doctrines: a hatred for Western culture, democracy and Jews.The Mufti with the Muslim Brotherhood and Nazi ideology was a dangerous cocktail.“As early as 1929, a Mufti-led pogrom killed 133 autochthonous Jews in Jerusalem and
Hebron. Shortly thereafter, the Mufti declared the relentless fight against the Jews as the most important responsibility of all believers. Those who dared to resist his anti-Jewish orders were publicly denounced and publicly threatened in the mosques during Friday prayers.” (6)
“In a letter to Adolf Hitler, the Mufti emphasized his unflagging and successful efforts to use the “the
Palestine question” in order ‘to coalesce all Arab countries in a common hatred against the British and the Jews.’” (7)
Starting in 1933, the Mufti repeatedly offered to serve the German Nazi government. In the beginning, however, the Mufti’s fight against Jews was only supported in terms of ideology. That soon, however, changed.  

The Palestine’s 1936 “Arab Revolt” was in a large part incited by the Mufti, with cries of “Down with the Jews!” and “Jews get out of Egypt and
Palestine!”

It was not until 1937 that the Mufti’s “Holy War” began to receive substantial financial support and weapons from Nazi Germany, which allowed Hitler’s Islamist agents both in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt to spread their anti-Jewish hatred.
Klaus Gensicke writes in his dissertation on the Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis: “The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in
Palestine.”
 

“The Mufti’s so-called “Arab Revolt” took place against the background of the swastika: Arab leaflets and signs on walls were prominently marked with this Nazi symbol; the youth organization of the Mufti´s political party paraded as “Nazi-scouts”, and Arab children greeted each other with the Nazi salute. Those who had to pass through the rebellious quarters of
Palestine attached a flag bearing the swastika to their vehicles so as to insure protection against assaults by the Mufti’s volunteers.” (8)
 

By 1945 the Nazi Islamist agents were openly spreading terror. “The core of anti-Semitism had thus begun to shift from
Germany to the Arab world. On the anniversary of the Balfour-declaration, demonstrators rampaged the Jewish quarters of
Cairo. They plundered houses and shops, attacked non-Muslims, devastated the synagogues and then set them on fire. Six people were killed, several hundred more were injured.” (9)
Al-Husseini, wrote in his post-WWII memoirs, “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from
Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by
Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours.’” (10)

According to an article by David Storobin in Front Page magazine, “Controlling a spectacular sum of money and the right to appoint Palestinian Islamic preachers, al-Husseini built a ‘political machine’ that brought the religious and political establishment under his domination. Through them, he was able to arouse religious fanaticism against Jews and the West. His preachers urged their flock to ‘go out and murder the Jewish infidel in the name of the holy Koran,’ constantly declaring that ‘he who kills a Jew is assured of a place in the next world.’” (11)

Dr. Matthias Küntzel quotes Klaus Gensicke who claims that “The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in
Palestine.” (12)

Storobin notes that al-Husseini was, “officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941, who agreed to establish a bureau for al-Husseini which was used to spread propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, organize spy rings in Europe and the Middle East, and most importantly, establish Muslim Nazi SS divisions and Wehrmacht units in Bosnia, the Balkans, North Africa and Nazi-occupied parts of the Soviet Union. After the meeting, the Mufti was also named SS Gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the “Fuhrer of the Arab World” by Adolf Hitler himself.”

”The largest Muslim Nazi SS unit was the 13th division known as “Hanjar.” Husseini also organized smaller, less efficient units, including the 21st Waffen SS division known Skanderbeg (made up predominantly of Croatians) and the 23rd Waffen SS division known as
Kama and made up mostly of Albanian Muslims. Thus, the Hitler’s Mufti organized or helped to organize three out of 27 Waffen SS divisions formed before 1945.” (13)

Loftus too claims that the Mufti “went to
Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the Handzar Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler’s new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arabian Peninsula and, from there, on to Africa—grand dreams.” (14)

According to Küntzel, “The powerful collaboration of the Muslim Brothers with the Mufti and the pogroms against Jews a few months after the world learned about
Auschwitz clearly showed that the Brotherhood either ignored or even justified Hitler´s extermination of European Jews.”

Küntzel telling writes that “The consequences of this attitude, however, continue to be far-reaching and characterize the Arabic-Jewish conflict to this day.” (15)  Küntzel notes that this group of Islamists in 1947 explained away the international support of the creation of
Israel and the murder of six million European Jews by Nazi Germany, by reverting to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

In this vein, the Muslim Brotherhood considered the UN-decision of 1947 to partition
Palestine to be an “international plot carried out by the Americans, the Russians and the British, under the influence of Zionism,” (16) Küntzel noted. (17)Not surprisingly, given their role in WWII, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for War Crimes. However, instead of being brought to justice the Arab Nazis were snapped up by foreign spy agencies. Specifically, John Loftus claims that, almost the entire network was taken in by the British Secret Service. “Then a horrible thing happened. Instead of prosecuting the Nazis—the Muslim Brotherhood—the British Government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into
Egypt, and for three years trained them on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of
Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.”


Britain was not alone. The French Intelligence Service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi it could, but failed to quash the State of Israel”, according to Loftus. (18)Despite being now on side of the Allies, the Brotherhood didn’t sit still – nor did their ideology get any tamer. One of the main voices behind the Muslim Brotherhood was Sayed Qutb. With time, Qutb would eventually become the organization’s ambassador in the 1950s in
Syria and Jordon, as well as being the editor of the Brotherhood’s official publication. While in prison following an assassination attempt on Egypt’s
Nasser, Qutb wrote his treatise, Milestones, that advocated overthrowing Arab governments that refused to be run by anything other than the law of Islamic Shariah.
According to a BBC article, “For Qutb, all non-Muslims were infidels – even the so-called ‘people of the book’, the Christians and Jews – and he predicted an eventual clash of civilisations between Islam and the west.” (19) “Having played a large role in Nasser’s power grab, the Muslim Brotherhood, after the 1949 assassination of Hassan al-Banna by government agents under new leadership and (since 1951) under the radical ideological guidance of Sayyid Qutb, demanded its due – imposition of Sharia (Islamic religious) law. When
Nasser demurred, he became a Brotherhood assassination target, but with CIA and the German mercenaries’ help he prevailed. In February 1954, the Brotherhood was banned. An October 1954 assassination attempt failed. Four thousand brothers were arrested, six were executed, and thousands fled to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and
Lebanon,” notes Erikson. (20)
When Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood in 1955 they initially moved headquarters to London and
Geneva. Incidentally, the head of the
Geneva offices was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of al-Banna. In
Geneva, Ramadan launched the Institute for Islamic Studies – to become the civilized face of the Muslim Brotherhood, even having the distinction of dining with US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 at the White House. (21)
That fleeing of Muslim Brotherhood members – people who had been radicalized by Qutb, the Mufti and Nazi ideology – and the consequent spreading of their message, is something that the world is still living with.According to that same BBC article, “Qutb and (
Pakistan’s Syed Abul Ala Maududi) inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed a Persian version of their works in the 1970s.

Author and journalist Robert Dreyfuss also claims that the groundwork for the Ayatollah Khomeini was done by an Iranian by the name of Ali Shariat who was influenced by the Brotherhood.

As a sidenote, with respect to Hezbollah, it is widely reported that the organization got its beginnings in
Iran. That is an oversimplification.

“The origins of Shi’i Islamism in Lebanon go back not to Iran, as is commonly thought, but to Iraq in the 1960s where a Shi’i religio-political revival took place in the “circles of learning” (hawzat al-’ilmiya) in Najaf, led by the charismatic Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr,” according to an article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs – Sept. 1997. 

“Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in
Lebanon — which was against Sunnis and Christians — but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies.” (22)


Iran’s importance only became more noted upon the death of Sadr, and the success of the Iranian Revolution led by Khomeini. By 1984, Iran was financing around 90 percent of Hezbollah’s social works in
Lebanon.

As it stands now, Hezbollah “subscribes to Khomeini’s theory that a religious jurist (wilayat al-faqih) should hold ultimate political power. The authority of this jurist, both spiritual and political, may not be challenged; he must be obeyed. Hezbullah sees itself fulfilling the messianic role of turning Lebanon into a

province of
Islam. In its “open letter” of February 1985, Hizbullah declared that Muslims must “abide by the orders of the sole wise and just command represented by the supreme jurisconsult, who is presently incarnate in the imam_Ayatollah Khomeini. It also called for a battle with vice, meaning foremost the United States, and for the destruction of Israel to make way for
Palestine,” according to that same Middle East Review of International Affairs article.

Eventually, says Loftus the control of the Muslim Brotherhood passed to the
United States and the CIA – or its earlier form – as a counterweight for Arab Communists.

But this still doesn’t explain how we get the current form of Islam Fascists. For that one needs to remember that after Nasser expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt many of them went to
Saudi Arabia.

According to Loftus, “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to
Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in
Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like (Dr Abdullah) Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” 

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam—the Saudi version of Islam—is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in
Saudi Arabia—that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” (23)

Interestingly, according to a Wikipedia entry on Wahhabism, Al-Banna, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. “The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries,
Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. This seems to have set the stage for a mingling of Brotherhood and Wahhabi thought under the aegis of the term Salafism. Rebels against the Saudi state found justification in the thought of Sayyed Qutb, a member of the Brotherhood who spent years in Egyptian jails. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism. Thus there is now a considerable spectrum of religious opinion within Saudi Wahhabism/Salafism, to a great extent divided on the question of whether the Saudi state is to be supported, endured patiently, or violently opposed. The modern day Salafis, deny that Hassan al-Banna or Sayid Qutb were followers of the Salaf, since they upheld the view that it is allowed to overthrow the Muslim leader, and to make “Takfeer” (the act of placing a Muslim out of the fold of Islam, making him a disbeliever) on him based on Major Sins. (24)To this last point, Trevor Stanley also writes that today there are “a profusion of self-proclaimed Salafi groups,” where each accuses “the others of deviating from ‘true’ Salafism.”

Stanley notes that “Since the 1970s, the Saudis have wisely stopped funding those Salafis that excommunicate nominally Muslim governments (or at least the Saudi government), condemning al-Qaeda as ‘the deviant sect’. The pro-Saudis correctly trace al-Qaeda’s ideological roots to Qutb and al-Banna. Less accurately, they accuse these groups of insidiously ‘entering’ Salafism. In fact, Salafism was imported into
Saudi Arabia in its Ikhwani and Qutbist forms. This does not mean that the pro-Saudi Salafis are necessarily benign – for example, Abu Mu’aadh as-Salafee’s main criticism of Qutb and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna is that they claim Islam teaches tolerance of Jews.” (25)

Meanwhile, non-Muslims and mainstream Muslims alike use the ‘Wahhabi-Salafi’ label to denigrate Salafis and even completely unrelated groups such as the Taliban, adds Stanley.

It was in the Saudi Arabian madrassas, or schools, of Abdullah Azzam that Nazi Fascism with religious extremism were married.

And in one of those madrassas, the student Osama bin Laden studied.

“Should it further surprise us that Osama bin Laden accuses ‘the Jews” of “holding America and the West hostage’ given the fact, that the founder of Hamas, the Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, was at the same time the most important teacher and patron of al Qaida’s leader?” asks Dr. Matthias Küntzel (26)

“The origins of Bin Laden’s concept of jihad can be traced back to two early 20th century figures, who started powerful Islamic revivalist movements in response to colonialism and its aftermath,” writes Fiona Symon, a Middle East analyst. “Pakistan and Egypt – both Muslim countries with a strong intellectual tradition – produced the movements and ideology that would transform the concept of jihad in the modern world.”

“They blamed the western idea of the separation of religion and politics for the decline of Muslim societies … This, they believed, could only be corrected through a return to Islam in its traditional form, in which society was governed by a strict code of Islamic law,” Symon writes, adding: “Al-Banna and Maudoudi breathed new life into the concept of jihad as a holy war to end the foreign occupation of Muslim lands.” (27)

Loftus – and many other authors – says that with the Russian invastion of
Afghanistan in 1979, “the CIA decided to take the Arab Nazis out of cold storage.”

“So we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the Arab Nazis together and ship them off to Afghanistan to fight the Russians,” according to Loftus. “We had to rename them. We couldn’t call them the Muslim Brotherhood because that was too sensitive a name. Its Nazi past was too known. So we called them Maktab al-Khadamat al-Mujahidin, the MAK.” (28)

One of those people shipped off to Afghanistan, after being indoctrinated in Azzam’s madrassas, was Osama bin Laden – and who in turn melded the ideas of Hassan al-Al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood with those of Pakistan’s Syed Abul Ala Maududi’s Jamaat Islami after being exposed to it while fighting in Afghanistan. 

Their terror has now extended to the entire world. 

While the vast majority of believers in Islam certainly cannot be labeled as Islam Fascists, it remains that there is a group within the Muslim ranks that does have its roots based in National Socialism and Fascist ideologies. In an effort to brand Bush as politically incorrect, anti-Bush politicians and bloggers who are ignorant of history have become unwitting apologists for Islamo-Fascism, a movement within Islam that many Muslims claim is heretical. 

 

Bibliography1)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots2)                 Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 3)3)                 Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 1)4)                 The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida5)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots6)                 Ibid.7)                 Ibid.8)                 Der Mufti von Jerusalem Amin el-Husseini, und die Nationalsozialisten, Frankfurt/M. 1988, S. 2349)                 Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots10)             Mohammad Amin al-Husayni Wikipedia11)             Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII12)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots 13)             Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII14)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida15)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots 16)             Quoted from: Abd Al-Fattah Muhammad El-Awaisi, “The Muslim Brothers and the Palestine Question 1928-1947″,
London 1998, p. 195.
17)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots18)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida

19)             Analysis: The roots of jihad

21)            
America‘s Devil’s Game with Extremist Islam

22)             A closer look at Hezbollah’s motives  23)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida24)             Wahhabism25)             Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism26)             Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots27)             Analysis: The roots of jihad28)             The Muslim Brotherhood, The Nazis and Al-Qa’ida 

Copyright © 2006 Spero

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers