Iran and Nuclear Deception

by Dore Gold

In a rare admission two weeks ago, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoon Abbasi, was quoted in al-Hayat saying the Iranian government had provided false information in the past to protect its nuclear program. Abbasi accused Britain's foreign intelligence service, MI-6, of spying on Iran to justify the fact that it had decided to lie to the international community. To further confuse analysts in the West, Abbasi said that sometimes the Iranians had presented certain weaknesses that they did not have, and alternatively they presented themselves as having strengths they did not possess. 

By admitting that their diplomacy was based on a system of lies, the Iranians further put into question whether any of their statements to the International Atomic Energy Agency could be relied upon in any way. The monitoring of nuclear programs around the world has always been based on their transparency and the confidence that international inspectors could have in the declarations of countries with nuclear technology that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The result of what Abbasi was saying was that the IAEA should have serious doubts about what Iran was officially reporting.

Abbasi's admission should not have come as a surprise considering that deception has long played a critical role in Iranian diplomacy. It was Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, who wrote in his book, "Islamic Government," published in Najaf in 1970, that "the preservation of Islam and the Shi'i school" required that its adherents observe the "principle of taqiya" — a term which means "deception" though it is taken from the Arabic root "to shield." 

Using taqiya, Middle Eastern historians have written that Iranian Shiites facing oppression were able to protect their community from external dangers from the Sunni world. What Khomeini did was to make a virtue out of what had once been a necessity. Thus Abbasi had essentially applied what was part of Khomeini's ideological legacy for the Islamic republic to protect its nuclear program. He must have known that Iran's use of lies in its diplomacy in the past had been surprisingly effective. For one of the great problems with Iran's use of deception as a part of state policy is that many in the West refused to accept that they have been deceived. 

Just before Ayatollah Khomeini arrived in Tehran in 1979, he lived outside of Paris and met with Western academics and journalists and told them that he wasn't interested in exercising personal power and that he would seek to advance the protection of human rights. His deception campaign worked with gullible Westerners. Professor Richard Falk, who today attacks Israel regularly as a U.N. official, at the time wrote an op-ed in The New York Times entitled "Trusting Khomeini." An analysis in The Washington Post suggested that Khomeini would set up a western parliamentary democracy. 

The Iranians have been using the same techniques for years to weaken Western resolve to deal effectively with them. There was the case of a message to the Bush administration through the Swiss ambassador to Iran in 2003, with a supposed roadmap for a "grand bargain" normalizing U.S.-Iranian relations, the authenticity of which was denied by those closest to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Then there was the Iranian claim that Khamenei issued a fatwa saying that nuclear weapons were contrary to Islam. Yet in 2005 when the deputy director-general of the IAEA asked for a copy of Khamenei's fatwa from the Iranian ambassador, Tehran never supplied anything in writing. 

The main reason why the Iranians use diplomatic deceptions of this sort is that they keep getting away with them. In this specific case on Abbasi's statement to al-Hayat, there may be an additional factor. In the past, Iran has exposed aspects of its nuclear program, like in 2009 when it exposed its enrichment plant in Fordow, when it feared it was in danger of getting caught. Sometimes, the Iranians unilaterally change the rules of inspections, like when they declared in 2007 that they only have to admit to the existence of nuclear facilities once they receive nuclear material, rather than when their construction is started. This way the Iranians try to sneak out of their commitments rather than break out dramatically like the North Koreans. 

Because of the use of techniques of this sort, the U.S. and its allies still suspect that Iran has nuclear facilities which it has failed to declare. It cannot be ruled out that Abbasi has tried to set up an excuse for why Iran has not accurately presented to the IAEA aspects of its nuclear program that it is required to open up to inspections. The motivation of the Iranians is ultimately unimportant. What is significant is that any future arrangement between the West and Iran must be based on an ironclad system of inspections, if such understandings are ever reached, given the role that outright deception continues to play in Iran's diplomatic relations with the West.

Dore Gold

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2644

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel Wages Cyber Battle over UAV

by DEBKAfile

Exploding mystery UAV over Israel

 

Israeli intelligence and air force waged a cyber battle Saturday, Oct. 6 with unidentified parties, most likely Hizballah or Iran, who sent a satellite-guided unmanned helicopter into Israeli air space through the Mediterranean.  debkafile’s military sources report exclusively that for 30 minutes, as the helicopter flew over southern Israel, control swung back and forth between Israeli cyber operators and unknown agents.

The battle was finally resolved by an Israel decision to scramble four F-16 fighters to shoot the trespasser down, the while Israeli cyber experts tried to identify its satellite controller.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak released a statement saying that Israel takes a very grave view of the incursion and will weigh its response.

debkafile reported earlier Saturday, straight after the incident:

Israeli air force jets were scrambled Saturday, Oct. 6 to shoot down a small unmanned aircraft from Gaza. It was downed over the Yatir forest in the southern Mt. Hebron district after cutting across southern Israeli airspace. It crashed at around 1000 local time. Israeli troops are scouring the area in search of fragments.

debkafile’s military sources reports that the unmanned plane was sent over Israeli airspace at the start of a military mobilization exercise conducted by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It is coordinated with Hizballah and sponsored by Iran. The Lebanese terrorist group may have helped Hamas launch the aerial vehicle, which came in from the west.

It [w]as shot down almost half an hour after the intrusion. The IDF spokesman denied it caught Israel intelligence unawares. He said the UAV was tracked from the start and the operation for downing it was delayed to avoid harm to civilian locations in its path.

Our sources add that the plan for the Gaza exercise was approved in the talks Hamas leaders Mahmoud A-Zahar and Marwan Issa held with Iranian and Hizballah leaders in Tehran and Beirut in the second week of September. They agreed then that Hamas would take active part in any Iranian or Syrian conflict with Israel.

After launching the small UAV, Hamas went ahead with its call-up of reserve strength for active duty. Roadblocks were thrown up to keep Gaza Strip roads from being clogged with civilian traffic and speed up military movement.  Palestinian sources claim that before it was detected the Hamas craft managed to fly over Israeli bases and towns including Beersheba.

DEBKAfile

Source: http://www.debka.com/article/22414/Israel-wages-cyber-battle-over-UAV-satellite-guided-by-Iran-or-Hizballah

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Why were they Given Guns?

by Gonen Ginat

To understand this story, we need to mention that according to religious law, once a Jew recites a blessing over the performance of a particular commandment, he or she must perform the commandment immediately, without interruption. Talking is not permitted between the recitation of the blessing and the act. Why? Just because. Now for the story:

“One morning, a Jewish wagon driver came to town and related what he had seen. A group of armed Cossacks was about an hour outside town, and from their speech it was plain that they were on their way to murder, rape and plunder. On hearing this, those Jews who could threw their most precious possessions into wagons and fled to safety until the danger had passed.

“Who was left? Only a few old men who had stubbornly refused to get on the wagons with the others. Rabbi Baruch Eigen was among them. He locked himself in his tiny shop in a shack at the edge of town and opened a book of Psalms. He heard the hoofbeats of the Cossacks’ horses and the cries of the Jews. Several minutes later, three Cossacks kicked his door open, burst in and pointed their rifles at him. Rabbi Baruch lifted his eyes heavenward and began to recite the blessing: “Blessed are You, O Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, Who has commanded us to sanctify His name publicly.” The Cossacks looked at this Jew, who seemed to them so odd that they decided to leave him alone and walked out. As they left, Rabbi Baruch ran after them saying, “Ummm! Ummm!” When they didn’t turn around, he shouted: “But I already recited the blessing!”

(from "Tales from Our City")

This week, one of the television channels reported a similar incident. But this time, it was not a group of helpless Jews facing armed rioters, but rather Jews who were trained and well armed. Yet their response was identical to that of the Jew who begged the Cossacks to do him in.

A report broadcast on Channel 2 TV showed dozens of Palestinians standing in front of an army position with an armed Border Police soldier inside — who was not responding. They threw firebombs at him again and again, and he did nothing. He was not the only one: his fellow soldiers stood at a nearby position and did nothing. All of them had weapons — and nothing.

The reason they allowed the Palestinians to throw firebombs and rocks at them undisturbed was that those were their orders, and they know very well that if any one of them should have opened fire, he would have found himself under investigation and court-martialed, with the violent Palestinians on the side of the accusers, right beside our own justice system. The Channel 2 TV commentator explained that the soldiers were acting according to orders: taking barrages of violence again and again, without responding.

Have we gone completely out of our minds? Is there any other possible reason?

Years ago, on reserve duty during one of the intifadas in the Rafah area, an officer appeared and explained that if anyone threw rocks at us, we had to think while the rock was airborne and then, if we reached the conclusion that after the incident we would manage to prove that the rock had put our lives in danger, and in addition, while it was in the air we saw that the person who had thrown it was aiming another one — only then could we fire into the air. This is the honest truth.

One of the reservists at the time, a fellow named A.H., was considered something out of legend. He was a ship’s mechanic who had emigrated from a South American country, repaired our jeeps with staples and pieces of rusty metal wire that he had picked up from the ground, and carried a machete wherever he went. One day, he was driving along the road that later became known as the Philadelphi Road. A group of young men started throwing rocks at him. They were on his left.

Now we need to exercise our imaginations a bit. He was driving an open jeep with a canvas roof. His left hand was on the steering wheel, and with his right hand he took the M-16, leaned it on his left hand — which was on the steering wheel — looked into the sight, and fired a single rubber bullet. All this while he drove at high speed. The bullet struck the ringleader in the middle of the neck as he held a large rock. Later on, the young man died of the injury. They said that the Palestinians buried him with the rock in his hand.

As expected, an investigation was launched. The reservist's main problem was that according to the orders at the time, a rubber bullet could be fired only when it was well aimed and the target was sure to be hit. This was to avoid harming innocent people. But the bullet was fired while he driving at high speed, with his gun in one hand. On the other hand, A.H. claimed that considering his skills as a sniper, hitting the target was a sure thing. It was a fact that he had indeed hit the target.

A.H. was so sure he promised that if the event were to be re-enacted, he would fire again while driving, with only one hand holding the gun, and hit the target precisely once again.

A colonel attended the re-enactment. I think he was the brigade commander. Beside him was an whole entourage of lawyers, all of them in well-pressed uniforms, chuckling over A.’s presumption.

And then they rode in the jeep. A.H. drove as he had during the incident, with the colonel sitting next to him. When they approached, the brigade commander told A.H. that his target was an electricity pole that was twice the distance from him that the ringleader of the rock-throwing group had been.

“No problem,” A.H. told the colonel. He took the M-16 in his right hand once more while driving at high speed, and this time, without looking into the sight, he fired at the electricity pole.

Bull’s-eye.

He was not court-martialed.

On the other hand, what happened afterward was that the ones who got stronger were the battalions of the military advocate-general.

Which is reminiscent of an incident that occurred several generations after the story we began with. A Jew was hiking in the Appalachians in the United States. Suddenly he saw an enormous grizzly bear in front of him. The Jew took a small book of Psalms out of his pocket and began to mumble. After a moment, he saw that the bear had taken out a small book and was mumbling, too.

Raising his head, the Jew asked the bear, “What are you saying?”

The grizzy looked at him and answered, “What kind of question is that? Aren’t you supposed to make a blessing before you eat?”

Which raises the question: would it not be appropriate for the IDF and the Border Police to consider giving some of the troops something that could be a good deal more useful than weapons, such as a book of Psalms?

***

It is all the same thing

Less than a week after we went over to standard time, dozens of essays and battalions of presenters and commentators of various radio and television news programs told us again and again what a stupid mistake it was to go off daylight savings time “in the middle of the summer.”

That is what happened last year too. Then, too, they talked endlessly about “the middle of the summer.”

And last year, right after we went over to standard time, it rained. Just like this year.

And last year, nobody looked at the rain, remembered the lectures about “the middle of the summer,” and said, “Sorry, I made a mistake.”

Yes — it was all just like this year.

Gonen Ginat

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2645

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Circumventing the Law - Again

by Bruce Johnson


The President seems completely comfortable with circumventing passed law and Congress itself.  With his instructions for ICE agents to disregard portions of passed immigration law still fresh, instructions are issued from the Department of Labor to employers to disregard WARN Act notifications. 

"DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, ..."

Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget insulated contractors from any legal costs that might be incurred in contract complications due to following this new guideline from the Federal Government.  What powers they possess!

From the aforementioned report, "...any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable."

Could it be political considerations? 

It is no wonder that this President and those who advise him view the Constitution as an impediment rather than a guide.  Anyone who listened to his National Pubic Radio interview back in 2001 was forewarned of his attitude, but it was difficult to measure his brash disregard.  I think we now have the full measure.

Bruce Johnson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/circumventing_the_law_-_again.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

First They Came for the Jews and then the Christians

by Daniel Greenfield

 

 

Maikel Nabil in Times of Israel summarizes the grim tale of Egypt’s ethnic cleansing of religious minorities over the decades, a story that should have authentic human rights activists up in arms.

Between 1954 and 1956, 80,000 Egyptian Jews were expelled from Egypt, but not before they were robbed of their property. After that, Egypt revoked their citizenship, forbidding them from returning to their homeland. Of course, before they left, Egyptian authorities forced them to sign papers saying that they had been treated fairly and were leaving of their own will. There are currently around 300 Jews living in Egypt, isolated in an environment that is hostile to them.

After the Egyptian military expelled Jews and outlawed Bahais and Shias, they started their campaign against Christians. The Egyptian regime has maintained since that time a very fundamental understanding of Islam, and forced it through the media and the education system. Violent attacks against Christians became increasingly frequent, and most of the time no one was prosecuted.

The Egyptian regime created an uncomfortable situation for Christians in order to force them to leave the country. And the evidence shows that it worked. Some 4 million Egyptian Christians have emigrated from Egypt over the last 60 years, representing one-third of the entire Coptic population, and comprising nearly 75% of Egyptians living abroad.

But Egyptian authorities are not satisfied with that. After Mohammed Morsi acceded to power, he decided to speed up this process. The Egyptian regime used the film “Innocence of Muslims” to start a huge propaganda campaign against Egyptian Christians. And of course, Christians in Egypt are becoming increasingly isolated under this propaganda. Violence against Christians occurs every day, and the state usually takes the side of the Muslim murderers.

The faux human rights activists don’t care about this explosive narrative or what the purge of 5 million people from two religious minorities implies about a state.

They will go on for years about Israel, a country where the Muslim population has increased over the years, while ignoring the real apartheid in Muslim countries where the minority non-Muslim populations have shrunk drastically over the years.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/first-they-came-for-the-jews-and-then-the-christians/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Arrested for Blasphemy in America?

by Deborah Weiss


Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Sam Bacile, was recently arrested for violations of his probation terms from a 2010 conviction for bank fraud.  But many in both the legal and political world believe that the real crime for which he was jailed was blaspheming Islam. 

Nakoula is an Egyptian-born US citizen with a history of drug and financial crimes.  In 2010 he was sentenced to 21 months in jail and 5 years probation for bank fraud.  The terms of his probation were that he was not allowed to use any alias names or use the Internet without prior approval from his probation officers.

Merely weeks after his release from jail in June 2011, Nakoula posted a film trailer on YouTube.  It was a 14-minute video clip promoting the film “Innocence of Muslims.”  The video was totally un-noteworthy and of unprofessional quality.  Left in English, it might have gone unnoticed.

Yet, a few months later, the film was translated into Arabic and went viral over the Internet.  It inflamed Muslims worldwide, and sparked protests and riots for its content depicting the Muslim Prophet Mohammad as a child molester, womanizer, and religious fraud.

At first, Nakoula acknowledged that he wrote the script for “Innocence of Muslims,” but denied his role in creating the film.  After all, the credits listed a “Sam Bacile” as the producer.

But upon investigation, federal authorities identified Nakoula as the culprit.  Nakoula confessed to producing the film and admitted that “Sam Bacile” was merely an alias.  Originally, “Sam Bacile” had called reporters claiming that he was an Israeli Jew who had raised 5 million dollars from wealthy Jewish donors to produce the film.  However, in the end it became clear the mere $50,000 to $60,000 film budget was a gift from his wife’s family, who is based in Egypt, where the riots began.

The riots spread to at least 20 countries worldwide and fanned the flames of pre-existing anti-American sentiment, causing numerous deaths.

Ever bowing down to Islam, President Obama chose to blame the video clip for “spontaneous uprisings” in Libya, which resulted in the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US diplomatic officials.

The administration held this story line for days.  However, it became evident that the attack on the US consulate which occurred on the symbolic date of September 11, was a pre-planned terrorist attack executed by Al-Qaeda or its affiliates.

Nevertheless, Obama can’t seem to let the film go, even referring to it in his address to the United Nations, castigating it as “disgusting.”  And, while he gave lip service to the virtues of free speech, he simultaneously raised Islam up as untouchable, asserting that “the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”  It seems like a bizarre statement coming from a United States president, until one remembers Obama’s Cairo speech in which he claimed that it’s his job as president of the United States to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

To make matters worse, this President requested that Google (YouTube’s parent company) remove the video from YouTube.  To its credit, Google refused, explaining that free speech is legal in America and that Nakoula had not violated YouTube’s terms and conditions.

Subsequent to all the attention paid to Nakoula and his video, Nakoula received death threats from enraged Muslims who called for his arrest and execution.  Pakistani Federal Railways Minister, Ghulan Ahmad Bilour, put a 100,000 dollar bounty on Nakoula’s head, offering this reward to anyone who would find and murder the notorious blasphemer.  The Minister invited both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to join him on his “blessed mission.”

Thereafter, Nakoula and his family were forced into hiding and Nakoula placed his California home up for sale.

On September 27, a mere two days after Obama’s speech to the United Nations, Nakoula was arrested for violating his probation terms.

Flanked by at least five law enforcement officials on all sides, Nakoula was pushed into a car and carted off to court.

Assistant US Attorney, Robert Dugdale, charged Nakoula with 8 counts of violating the terms of his probation.  The charges all related to using an alias name and lying to officials about his role in making the anti-Islam film.  The US Attorney’s office refrained from charging Nakoula with unauthorized use of the Internet.

Nakoula was escorted into court with handcuffs and shackled at the waist.  His attorney denied the charges and pleaded for his client to be released on 10,000 dollars bond.

The court, however, was unsympathetic.  The judge ruled that Nakoula would be held in jail without bond, reasoning that Nakoula was both a flight risk and a danger to the community.  The latter is a little perplexing for someone who has never committed a violent crime.  Nevertheless, Nakoula now sits in jail awaiting the scheduling of his probation revocation hearing, where he faces the possibility of 24 additional months in prison.

It is relatively easy to find technical violations of probation.  In this case, it’s obvious that had so much attention not been shed on Nakoula’s video clip, any infractions of the terms of his probation would likely have gone unnoticed.

Legal professionals and First Amendment advocates of all political stripes are questioning the legitimacy of the charges.  Due to the highly political nature of the case, there is significant speculation that high level US officials may have weighed in on the decision to arrest Nakoula.

It is common knowledge that authoritarian regimes around the globe arrest those who are politically inconvenient or at odds with those in power.  In Muslim majority countries, even those considered secular, blaspheming the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is quite problematic.  The consequences can range from community threats and out-casting to jail, flogging and even execution.

There is no doubt that in recent years, there has been momentum building in the West for the silencing of speech which is critical of Islam.  Whether it takes the form of UN Resolutions to combat “defamation of religions” (i.e. Islam), hate speech legislation, or politically correct policy enactments, speech critical of Islam or its Messenger has become increasingly verboten in Europe and Canada.
The question now is, in the last bastion of freedom known as this great United States of America, will man continue to be free to express his ideas, even if unpopular, or will the government join the rank and file by retaliating against those whose speech it dislikes, under the pretext of probation violation technicalities?

Deborah Weiss

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/deborah-weiss/arrested-for-blasphemy-in-america/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Profs. on Mideast Turmoil: Blame America, Israel, and Free Speech

by Cinnamon Stillwell

In the wake of the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, the seizure of the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the ensuing anti-American protests and riots throughout the Middle East—the latter ostensibly over an anti-Islam YouTube film trailer that originated in the U.S. months earlier—what do Middle East scholars have to say about the turmoil in the region?

As self-styled supporters of “academic freedom,” are they rushing to defend First Amendment rights instead of kowtowing to Muslim religious sensibilities? Are they denouncing the prospect of self-censorship rather than pushing YouTube to pull the “offending” video by claiming that it constitutes “hate speech?” Are they standing up for religious freedom instead of encouraging Americans to adhere to Sharia law-driven prohibitions on blasphemy? Are they putting aside their anti-Western biases and laying blame where it belongs instead of on America and Israel?

If the following quotes from Middle East studies academics are any indication, the answer to all those questions would be a resounding No!

Let’s take a look at what these “experts” have to say.

On First Amendment rights:
Bruce Lawrence, professor emeritus of religion and member of the Islamic Studies Center’s advisory board, Duke University:

But what about hate speech? Is hate speech not a category that impinges on, and limits, the practice of free speech?

Omid Safi, professor of Islamic studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

In reality, pieces like the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ [sic] so-called film are best classified as ‘hate speech,’ as they seem to be of the same genre as anti-Semitic films of the 1930’s or Birth of the [sic] Nation KKK movies.

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies, Oxford University:

[B]ehind the celebration of freedom of speech hides the arrogance of ideologists and well-fed racists who feed off the multiform humiliation of Muslims and to demonstrate the clear ‘superiority’ of their civilisation or the validity of their resistance to the ‘cancer’ of retrograde Islam.

John Brown, adjunct professor of liberal studies, Georgetown University:

Every culture or group of cultures has its own red lines. They might be legal red lines, but they are cultural red lines. There are taboos there are things people cannot say in public. In my experience, you just don’t speak badly of the Prophet Muhammad. It just does not happen.

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University:

Indeed, it’s important to remember that, for Muslims, Mohammed is the ideal Muslim, as it was. He’s the living Quran. You know, he’s the model, you know. And so to go after him, OK, is to be the ultimate form, you know, the ultimate form of disrespect. It would be the ultimate blasphemy. . . . I think there’s a recognition of the freedom of speech, but you know, you still get into freedom of speech and then what are the consequences of it? . . . And so what you really have is a situation where this belongs to the genre of Islam-aphobia, which is just like [sic] anti-Semitic.

As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science, California State University, Stanislaus:

U.S. officials have been really insulting my intelligence all week with talk of the ‘freedom of speech’ that we have here in the U.S. that Muslims don’t understand. . . . They understand that the U.S. government has made it illegal for anyone to express support for Hamas and Hizbullah in the U.S.  Muslim[s] do understand that the U.S. has banned TV channels [Hezbollah’s Al-Manar and Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV] from the U.S. because they deemed them offensive to Israel. . . . We remember that the Bush administration asked all U.S. news media after Sept. 11 to refrain from airing any Bin Laden tapes.

Omid Safi, professor of Islamic studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Freedom of speech falls alongside other freedoms to live and be free from bombs falling on people’s heads and to be free from occupations . . . I will take free speech comments seriously when others take people’s freedom of life and dignity and to be free from occupation just as seriously.

On why YouTube should pull the video, “Innocence of Muslims”:
Hatem Bazian, Near Eastern studies senior lecturer, University of California, Berkeley:

Take the ethical high ground and say, ‘yes, I understand that I have the legal right to do it. But ethically, I need to actually say no to it, because it does not represent the best of our values.’ I would say even to put it in the recycling bin would be an insult to the recycling bin.

John Brown, adjunct professor of liberal studies, Georgetown University:

This movie reached new depths . . . I find it difficult that the most insulting thing ever made about the Prophet Muhammad in the history of Western civilization, as far as I know, doesn’t violate usage [Youtube usage] policy.

On blaming America, and Israel, and the West:

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies and director of the Middle East studies program, University of San Francisco:

It is extremely unlikely that such vitriolic anti-American protests would have taken place were it not for decades of U.S. support, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, of allied dictatorships and the Israeli occupation, not to mention the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the ongoing military strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University:

The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staff, and the Cairo riots seem similar but share in common the incitement and exploitation of popular outrage among many Muslims, as we have witnessed during the Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoons affairs. They exploit deep seated popular anti-American sentiment, based on decades of resentment over US and European foreign policies in the Middle East.

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan:

The touchiness of Muslims about assaults on the Prophet Muhammad is in part rooted in centuries of Western colonialism and neo-colonialism during which their religion was routinely denounced as barbaric by the people ruling and lording it over them.

Mark LeVine, professor of history, University of California, Irvine:

Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians ‘by mistake,’ and wonder with equal bewilderment how ‘we’ can be so barbaric and uncivilized.

Hamid Dabashi, Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia University:

Sam Bacile [the pseudonym for the alleged filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula] is integral to a pattern, an Islamophobic streak of racism that runs deep into American culture.

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan:

From the 9/11 attacks to the embassy burnings of this past week, the U.S. pays the price for supporting the subjection of the Palestinians in widespread hatred for it from the Muslim world.

On downplaying the violent reaction of the Muslim world:
Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, co-author, with Georgetown University’s John Esposito, of Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, and nonresident senior public policy scholar at the American University of Beirut:

So I think it would just be too much of a generalization to say Muslims react violently when they’re offended, whereas everyone else reacts peacefully. I think that riots and protests turn violent all over the world.

Also:

The other thing to keep in mind is that, sometimes, when there are offensive materials here in this country, people do protest against them and I think that that’s also part of freedom of speech that we have to look at and respect.

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan:

[D]efending the Prophet and defending the post-colonial nation are for the most part indistinguishable, and being touchy over slights to national identity (and yes, Muslimness is a kind of national identity in today’s world) is hardly confined to Muslims.

Bruce Lawrence, emeritus professor of religion and member of the Islamic Studies Center’s advisory board, Duke University:

Should Muslim sensitivities be viewed any differently from their Jewish or Christian counterparts? Muslims do monitor their prophet. His legacy has been challenged within Islam at many levels, but his basic character has not been besmirched with the degree of ill will, bordering on savagery, that has been seen in the past 12 years.

Whether it be John Esposito toeing the line of his Wahhabi funders; Omid Safi engaging in irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric; Stephen Zunes blaming the U.S. and Israel for all that’s wrong with the world; Dalia Mogahed whitewashing Islamism; As’ad AbuKhalil justifying violence; Mark LeVine exhibiting contempt for America; or Juan Cole displaying the same disregard for the First Amendment he showed when he called for the U.S. government to shut down Fox News these are the ideologues to whom the Western media turns for insight into the Middle East. Anyone hoping to understand the turmoil in the region as the consequences of the “Arab Spring” continue to unfold should look elsewhere.

Cinnamon Stillwell

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/cinnamon-stillwell/profs-on-mideast-turmoil-blame-america-israel-and-free-speech/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ethnic Cleansing in Bangladesh

by Mohshin Habib

Because Saudi Arabia is one of the top donors to Bangladesh, the government of Bangladesh has taken no action against the Al-Rabita NGO. Saudi Arabia has also threatened that if it is discontented, it will send back to Bangladesh the tens of thousands of laborers who work in Saudi Arabia.

Despite what officials state, the Islamists of Bangladesh have been violently urging all non-Muslims to get out of the country. Buddhists, for example, mostly settled in the southeast part of Bangladesh and less than 1% of the population of 150 million, have been struggling to survive. More than 1,000 have fled; the situation is no different for Christians and Hindus.

What is clear is that Rabita Al Alam al Islami, known as Al-Rabita, a powerful Saudi Arabia-based non-governmenal organization [NGO] has taken charge of Islamization, especially in the remote areas. Since 1980, Al-Rabita has been working throughout southeast Bangladesh to convert the hill people to Islam. There is serious concern that Al-Rabita has been funding terrorists (See: "Islamic NGOs Funding Terror in Bangladesh").

Throughout the area, construction of mosques and madrassas [Islamic religious schools] continues. There are now 800 mosques and nearly 300 madrassas built by Al-Rabita. Al-Rabita also has an Islamic Missionary Center with the goal of converting poor tribal people. This Saudi NGO has been spending millions of dollar to promote Shariah law and violent Islamism in the country.

And because Saudi Arabia is one of the top foreign aid donors to Bangladesh -- the government of Bangladesh has taken no action against this NGO. Saudi Arabia has also threatened that if it is discontented, it will send back to Bangladesh the tens of thousands of laborers who work in Saudi Arabia.

For three days beginning September 29, more than 25,000 radical Muslims attacked different Buddhist communities in Bangladesh, as reported in news coverage worldwide. The Islamist attackers claimed that a photo of a burned copy of the Koran was posted on Facebook by a Buddhist youth. The youth denied the allegation and proved that someone else posted the photo in his Facebook wall. At the mere rumor, however, thousands of radical Islamists burned dozens of Buddhist temples and around 100 houses, and looted golden statues of Buddha. Some valuable manuscripts written in the ancient Pali language were also burnt to ashes. Officials stated that the radical Islamists used gunpowder and petrol. Afterward, the administration ordered compliance with "CRPC section 144," which restricts gatherings of more than four persons.

In recent years Muslim extremism and violent tendencies, especially in the mountainous areas of Bangladesh, have intensified. According to a Congressional Research Service Report of 2008, the authorities in Bangladesh have expressed concern about the use of madrassas by a network of Islamic activists being investigated in connection with a number of incidents of violence. The report states, "[T]here is concern among observers that the secular underpinnings of moderate Bangladesh are being undermined by a culture of political violence and the rise of Islamic extremists."

In 2010, the mountainous areas were rocked by violence, reigniting decades-old ethnic and religious tensions, as Muslim settlers set fire to hundreds of homes of indigenous Buddhists. The attacks resulted in countless injuries and deaths.

Since 1980, there have been 20 major occurrences of massacres against the indigenous non-Muslim people by Muslim settlers -- in co-operation with the government. More than 100,000 Jummas -- the indigenous Buddhists -- have fled across the border to India. Many villages have been completely burnt down by the Islamists. Thousands of Buddhist families who were displaced have not been resettled, and the number of poverty-stricken Buddhist refugees has substantially increased.

These mountainous areas with dense forests have become a safe haven for Bangladeshi Islamists, who had previously fought in Afghanistan against the U.S.

Mohshin Habib

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3385/bangladesh-ethnic-cleansing

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Muslim Brotherhood Targeting United Arab Emirates?

by Mudar Zahran

If the US has tolerated the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, why not in the UAE?

Last April, the United Arab Emirates started cracking down on Islamists operating there, and eventually arrested 60 of them. Shortly after that, Dhai Khalfan, Dubai's Police chief, started publicly warning of an "international plot" to overthrow the governments of Gulf states, saying the region needs to be prepared to encounter any threat from Islamist dissidents as well as Syria and Iran". Is the Muslim Brotherhood now ready to expand its dominance to oil-rich Arab nations after taking control of Egypt, the Arab country with the largest population?

In August -- in one of his many statements about the matter -- Khalfan said, "There is an international plot against Gulf states in particular and Arab countries in general." Khalfan was clear about the reason he thought the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to control Gulf states: Wealth. "This is preplanned to take over our fortunes…the bigger our sovereign wealth funds and the more money we put in the banks of Western countries, the bigger the plot to take over our countries."

Khalfan also posted on his Twitter account that, "since the Muslim Brotherhood has 'become a state,' anyone advocating its cause is considered a foreign agent."

Until last April, the existence of Islamist opposition groups in rich nations such as the UAE had not been an issue of attention to either the global media or even the UAE government itself; Khalfan admits he too -- as Dubai's top cop -- did not realize there were so many Muslim Brotherhood members in the Gulf states.

The Gulf News reported many in the UAE believe Islamists there had support of, and remained in touch with, the Muslim Brotherhood's "mother organization in Egypt," in spite of the the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leadership's denial of such ties.

The global Muslim Brotherhood's response to the arrests in the UAE suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood holds a sincere concern for those Islamists, particularly through media sources close to the Muslim Brotherhood; for example, the London-Based Al-Hiwar TV network has been airing shows in support of the Islamists arrested in the UAE. On one occasion, Al-Hiwar dedicated an entire 50 minute show to them.

In another show, where the phones are open for the public to call in live, the anchor said: "We would like to excuse ourselves for the last half hour of this show…as you know, this show is talking about Arab intifadas…let's dedicate the last half hour to the United Arab Emirates …to sympathize with those people inside the UAE, even if your cause is Syria (or anything else)…"

In addition, Al-Hiwar interviewed family members of the arrested UAE nationals, and later interviewed some of the Islamists stripped of their UAE citizenship on the basis of claiming citizenship in another country.

Al-Hiwar is based in London, UK; according to the Crehis Plethi website London, it is an important media center for the Muslim Brotherhood. The website even claims Al-Hiwar TV as the Muslim Brotherhood's "main medium."

The founder of Al-Hiwar Channel, Dr. Azzam Al-Tamimi, in an interview with the BBC show, Hardtalk, Al-Tammi said he would "sacrifice his life (for Palestine)" if he "has the opportunity."

In Front Page Magazine, Patrick Pool describes Al-Tamimi, who in fact published a book titled "Hamas from within," as a "well-known international Muslim Brotherhood operative and Hamas insider."

On September 20, the Gulf Times reported UAE Islamists had extensive co-ordination with Muslim Brotherhood members in a Gulf state, who have granted the UAE's Brotherhood approximately $2.7 million.

The UAE, an economically prosperous federation of states -- especially Abu Dhabi, which finances the others -- have established themselves in regional politics as the hub of moderation, with a particularly strong stance against terrorism, as a US Embassy cable confirmed. Disrupting that Island of moderation in the Gulf, in addition to seizing the country's vast wealth, would be a convenient victory for the Muslim Brotherhood, now in charge of one of most populous nations of the Arab and Muslim world, Egypt -- as well as placing the organization one step closer toward establishing its broader goal: an Islamist empire.

The US administration's tolerance of -- and often even support for -- Islamists' hijacking the Arab revolutions, is another attraction for the Muslims Brotherhood: if the US has tolerated them in Egypt, why not UAE? In addition, the UAE's proximity to Iran has always been a threat to the prosperous UAE's stability; the Muslim Brotherhood might easily seek an alliance with Iran to destabilize the UAE -- especially given the constant tension between Iran and the UAE over three UAE islands occupied by Iran since 1971.

Ironically, Azzam Al-Tamimi, whose TV network is advocating the case for the detained Islamists in UAE, can be seen in this video expressing his "gratitude" to Ayatollah Khomeini -- the late leader of the Islamic revolution of Iran -- for the Yaoum Al-Kudos [the Jerusalem Day].

The Muslim Brotherhood has proven itself a strategically patient radical organization that thinks long-term. It has been trying to take control of Egypt since 1928. Now that it does control Egypt, other countries, such as the UAE and Jordan, may already be on its list.

Mudar Zahran

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3370/muslim-brotherhood-united-arab-emirates

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egypt's Christians - Distraught and Displaced

by Raymond Ibrahim

Reuters reported last week that "Most Christians living near Egypt's border with Israel [in the town of Rafah in Sinai] are fleeing their homes after Islamist militants made death threats and gunmen attacked a Coptic-owned shop." Photos of desecrated churches and Christian property show Arabic graffiti saying things like "don't come back" and "Islam is the truth."

All media reports describe the same sequence of events: 1) Christians were threatened with leaflets warning them to evacuate or die; 2) an armed attack with automatic rifles was made on a Christian-owned shop; 3) Christians abandoned everything and fled their homes.

Anyone following events in Egypt knows that these three points—threatening leaflets, attacks on Christian property, followed by the displacement of Christians—are happening throughout Egypt, and not just peripheral Sinai, even if the latter is the only area to make it to the Western mainstream media. Consider:

Genocidal Leaflets

On August 14, El Fegr reported that leaflets were distributed in areas with large Christian populations, including Upper Egypt, offering monetary rewards to Muslims who "kill or physically attack the enemies of the religion of Allah—the Christians in all of Egypt's provinces, the slaves of the Cross, Allah's curse upon them…"

As a testimony to just how safe the jihadis feel under Egypt's new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi—who just freed a militant jihadi responsible for the burning of a church leaving several Christians dead—the leaflets named contact points and even a mosque where Muslims interested in learning more about killing Christians should rally "after Friday prayers where new members to the organization will be welcomed."

On the same day these leaflets were distributed, a separate report titled "The serial killing of Copts has begun in Asyut" noted that a Christian store-owner was randomly targeted and killed by Salafis.

Muslim Attacks on Christian Properties and Persons

For months, Arabic-Christian media have been reporting ongoing stories of Muslim "gangs" and "thugs" attacking Christian homes, abducting the residents, including women and children, and demanding ransom monies—not unlike what is happening to Christians in Iraq and Syria. In one particular case, the Muslim gang attacked the home of a Coptic man, "releasing several gunshots in the air, and threatening him either to pay or die." The gang "picked this specific village because Copts form 80% of its inhabitants." Such reports often conclude with an all too familiar postscript: Christians calling police for help and filing complaints, all in vain.

A Coptic Solidarity report from August 20 titled "Copts in Upper Egypt Attacked, Beat, Plundered," tells of just that—how Christians are being beat, their businesses set on fire, and their properties plundered (see also here and here for similar reports). Likewise, according to Al Moheet, a new human rights report indicates that, in Nag Hammadi alone, there are dozens of cases of Muslim gangs abducting Christian Copts and holding them for ransom. Concerning these, the Coptic Church is daily asking for justice and receiving none.

Christian Displacements

The exodus of Copts from their homes also has become an ongoing crisis, so much so that a recent statement by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt lamented the "repeated incidents of displacement of Copts from their homes, whether by force or threat." The statement also made clear that what happened in Sinai is no aberration: "Displacements began in Ameriya, then they stretched to Dahshur, and today terror and threats have reached the hearts and souls of our Coptic children in Rafah [Sinai]."

Indeed, back in February, a mob of over 3,000 Muslims attacked and displaced Christians in the region of Ameriya, due to unsubstantiated rumors that a Christian man was involved with a Muslim woman. Christian homes and shops were looted and then torched; "terrorized" women and children who lost their homes stood in the streets with no place to go. As usual, it took the army an hour to drive 2 kilometers to the village, and none of the perpetrators were arrested. Later, a Muslim Council permanently evicted eight Christian families and confiscated their property, even as "Muslims insisted that the whole Coptic population of 62 families must be deported."

A few weeks ago in Dahshur, after a Christian laundry worker accidently burned the shirt of a Muslim man, the customer came with a Muslim mob to attack the Copt at home. As the Christian defended his household, a Muslim was killed. Accordingly, thousands of Muslims terrorized the area, causing 120 Christian families to flee. One elderly Coptic woman returned home from the bakery to find the area deserted of Christians. Rioting Muslims looted Christian businesses and homes. Family members of the deceased Muslim insist that the Christians must still pay with their lives.

The same time the media reported about the displacement of Christians from Rafah, a quarrel between two school girls—a Christian and a Muslim—ended when several "heavily-armed" Muslims stormed the home of the Christian girl, causing her family and three other Christian families to flee the village. When the father returned, he found that all his saved money and possessions had been plundered. When he asked police for help, the officer replied, "I can't do anything for you, reconcile with them and end the problem."

-----

Indeed, this has been the same attitude of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood led government: in all of the above cases, the government looked the other way, or, when called on it, denied reality. Thus the Coptic Holy Synod made it a point to assert in its statement that "nearly one month ago the media had published the violations against the Copts but the Egyptian authorities have not taken the necessary measures to protect the Egyptian families, who have the right to live safely in their homes." As for the Rafah incident—the only incident to reach the mainstream media—Prime Minister Hisham Qandil denied that Christians were forced to flee, saying "One or two [Christian] families chose to move to another place and they are totally free to do so like all Egyptian citizens."

Such governmental indifference is consistent with the fact that, despite promising greater representation for Egypt's Christians, President Morsi just broke his word by allowing only one Copt—a female—to represent the nation's 10-12 million Christians in the newly formed cabinet.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3761/guest-column-egypt-christians-distraught

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.