Verdicts cause confusion, then more deliberation,
finally joy and thanks
By MICHAEL GRABELL and JEFFREY WEISS
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/102307dnmetholyr\
eligion.197bed99e.html#


At first, three of the six defendants in the Holy Land Foundation
trial were found not guilty. Then, they weren't. Then, one was found
not guilty. But not on all charges.


Go to link above to listen:

Audio: Sheik Saad Mohamad instructs a crowd of about 200 supporters of
the defendants as to the proper Muslim way to respond to the news (.mp3)

Audio: Khalil Meek, spokesman for the supporters, explains the
verdict. (.mp3)

Audio: Sahar Ayad of Irving reads the verdict from the RSS feed on
WFAA.com (.mp3)


Such was the confusion Monday at the Earle Cabell Federal Building and
Courthouse in downtown Dallas, where jurors rendered their verdict in
the nation's largest terrorism financing case.

After 14 years of investigation, two months of trial, 19 days of
deliberations and four more of waiting, the Holy Land case is
essentially back where it started. The judge declared a mistrial on
nearly all the charges, and prosecutors can retry everyone.

But the confusion quickly turned to jubilation among Holy Land supporters.

"Like Rosa Parks once was persecuted for simply sitting in a front
seat of a bus, my dad was singled out for feeding, clothing and
educating the children of Palestine," said Noor Elashi, daughter of
defendant Ghassan Elashi.

The defendants had arrived Monday morning in a cold rain that seemed
to swirl from every direction.

"We'll be all right," Shukri Abu Baker, the former Holy Land CEO, told
a United Church of Christ minister, there to support him. He then
looked up to the ceiling. "We're in good hands," he said.

More than 200 people, most of them Muslim, eventually assembled in a
sixth-floor cafeteria at the federal courthouse to await the verdicts.
The jury made up its mind Thursday, but the verdict had been sealed
over the weekend because the judge was out of town.
Reaction instructions

During the early bewildering minutes, an imam instructed the crowd how
to react.

"If we hear good news," said Sheik Saad Mohamad, "there is no loud
noise, no laughing like that. ... We need you to act and behave like a
Muslim."

Upstairs in the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Joe Fish read the
verdict from the jury forewoman. The jury had deadlocked on three of
the defendants, he said, unanimously acquitted a fourth and found two
others not guilty on most charges.

He then polled the jurors, as is routine. But three jurors said they
didn't agree with the verdicts.

The jury forewoman was surprised.

"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she told the judge.
"No one spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is
coming from. All 12 made that decision."

With the verdicts no longer unanimous, Judge Fish sent the jurors back
for more deliberations.

When they returned, two of three holdout jurors said they agreed with
the verdicts. But one held out, leading to a mistrial for fundraiser
Mufid Abdulqader and Holy Land's New Jersey representative,
Abdulrahman Odeh.

It's unclear why the two jurors initially said they did not agree and
then said they did agree with the verdicts. But one of those two said
that he didn't support a mistrial and wished they could have agreed on
all counts. Adding to the confusion was the response from some holdout
jurors that they "did not disagree" with the not guilty verdicts.

When the news got to the defendants' supporters in the sixth-floor
cafeteria – over RSS feeds on several cellphones – that none of the
defendants had been convicted, many of those in the room knelt briefly
in prayer.

Imam Moujahed Bakhach, a human relations commissioner in Fort Worth,
invoked God a few minutes later at a news conference.

"We thank God almighty first, and we thank the jury for their
patience," he said. Mahdi Bray, executive director of Muslim American
Society Freedom Foundation, said the government's failure to get any
convictions was evidence of the power of religious freedom.

"The American Muslim community is protected under the First
Amendment," he said. "Feeding people is not a crime, and we aren't
going to let the American government make it a crime."

Islam teaches that Muslims are supposed to give money to charity,
particularly during their holy month of Ramadan. The Holy Land
Foundation was one of several charities closed by the U.S. government
that had benefited from those religious charitable contributions.

The government had alleged that the Holy Land Foundation was linked to
Hamas, a Muslim organization responsible for bombings in Israel – and
responsible for running programs to feed and care for needy Palestinians.

At the impromptu news conference, speakers condemned the government
charges.

Speaking forcefully before dozens of journalists, Ms. Elashi called
her father "an American hero."

"He's a person who heard a Palestinian orphan's cry for help and chose
not to ignore it," she said.

Comparisons

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, drew links to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

"Today's campaign has a different name and a different target," said
Mr. Awad, whose group is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
"The campaign is anti-terrorism and the target is the American Muslim
community."

Outside the courthouse, supporters braved the drizzle to hug the
defendants. With ear-to-ear smiles and tears in their eyes, they
shouted, "Takbir! Takbir!" (God is great!)

They lifted Mr. Baker, Mr. Odeh and defense lawyer Greg Westfall on
their shoulders to loud cheers and applause from the crowd. One person
passed out orange-and-pink sugar cookies.

Muslim activists raised a long banner reading, "Feeding Children is
Not a Crime" as passing drivers on Commerce Street honked their horns
in support.

Muslims attending regular daily prayers at the Dallas Central Mosque
in Richardson also got the news about the end of the trial, said
Mohammed Suleman, a former president of the mosque's board of trustees.

Even for local Muslims who didn't follow the trial as closely as those
who went to the courthouse Monday, the results were a relief, Mr.
Suleman said.

"One way or another it was going to reflect on the Muslim community,"
he said.

Mixed with the relief for many was pride in the U.S. justice system,
he said.

That sentiment was echoed by Dr. Ahmed Basheer, head of the Muslim
Community Center in Fort Worth.

"Everybody who comes to this country as immigrants have a strong trust
in the American judicial system," he said. "This gives all the Muslims
a greater hope that Muslims, although they are the minority, can look
to get justice like everybody else."


Staff writer Steve Thompson contributed to this report.

mgrabell @ dallasnews.com; jweiss @ dallasnews.com

===

Mistrial for US Muslim charity: The foundation helped Muslim children
who were victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3125B63A-CA60-4F2D-9BA5-2921E8C60ABE.htm


The trial of former leaders of a US-based charity accused of
funnelling aid to "terrorist" organisations has been abandoned, after
three jurors disputed some of the verdicts.

Judge A Joe Fish, who presided over the case, sent the jury back to
resolve their differences, but declared a mistrial on Monday when no
unanimous verdict was returned.

The mistrial was a temporary victory for the former charity leaders,
who said they ran a legitimate organisation that helped Muslim
children made victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The result is also seen as a blow to the legal front of the US
government's so-called "war on terror".

When asked if the government would attempt to retry the case against
what was once the largest Muslim charity in the US, the lead
prosecutor said "yes", but would not comment further because of a gag
order.

Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey, speaking from outside the court house
in Dallas, said: "To the Muslim community this is a very important
case because all of their charities have been shut down and millions
of dollars that was supposed to go to help the needy in the
Palestinian territories are now being held by the government."

She said: "Many Muslims feel that the community has been tainted and
labelled guilty by association because so many mainstream groups and
individuals were associated with this charity."

Trial abandoned

The mistrial came about an hour after a confusing scene in the courtroom.

The court examined thousands of documents
and heard two months of testimony

Three former leaders of the group were initially found not guilty of
most counts, but when jurors were polled, three of them said those
verdicts were read incorrectly.

The jury were sent back to agree on their verdict and after about an
hour of deliberation, Fish said he received a note from the jury
saying 11 of the 12 felt they could not reach a unanimous decision.

The jury forewoman said she was surprised by the three jurors' actions.

"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she said.

"No one spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is
coming from."

Two months of testimony

In all, five former leaders of the charity and the Holy Land
Foundation itself had been accused of providing aid to groups
including Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip and has been designated a
"terrorist group" by the US government.

Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006, overturning the
rule of Fatah, and is popular among many Palestinians in Gaza and the
West Bank for its provision of welfare and social services.

Mohammed El-Mezain, the former chairman of the Holy Land Foundation
for Relief and Development, was acquitted of most of the charges
against him, while the cases for two defendants, initially found not
guilty along with El-Mezain, ended in mistrial.

The jurors did not reach verdicts on charges against the foundation
itself or Shukri Abu Baker, the charity's former chief executive, and
Ghassan Elashi, the former chairman, resulting in mistrials for them too.

Jurors had heard two months of testimony, mostly from FBI and Israeli
agents who described thousands of pages of documents and hours of
videotapes seized from the Holy Land Foundation.

They also heard from former associates of the group and from
Palestinian charities that received money from the foundation.

Prosecutors said Hamas controlled the charities that received the
funds, but defence lawyers argued none of the Palestinian charities
aided by the foundation were ever designated "terrorist" by the US
government.

===

DMN: Juror gets real about the '11-1' hung jury

Throughout his interview with Dallas Morning News reporter Rebecca
Lopez, William Neal reveals the insurmountable task of getting 12
people to unanimously agree on 197 counts against 5 men (and an
organization).

Mr. Neal said that much of the evidence was fear-based, and not
relevant to the financial trail the prosecution had to illustrate. The
government would contradict itself by instructing the jurors not to
bother remembering names, then pulling out lists upon lists of foreign
names, but no checks.

"It's a waste," said Mr. Neal. "To come up empty - I feel like I lost
my job and my girlfriend at the same time."

Mr. Neal found all of the defendants innocent of all charges.

Watch the video of his interview here.

http://www.dallasnews.com/video/dallasnews/hp/index.html?nvid=185986

===

THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
Shawwal 1428 AH (October 22, 2007)


I just received word that The Holy Land Foundation was found NOT
GUILTY of "Funding Terrorism" - charges that represented the heart of
the political indictment leveled by the Israeli-US governments, in a
looong, protracted, very costly and very public trial! (Additional
details will be forthcoming.)

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (and its
leadership) were accused of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas for
"terrorist operations" against Israel. The returned with a verdict on
Oct. 18, after 19 days of deliberation, but it was sealed until today
in order for all of the principles in the case to be present.

The United States designated Hamas a terrorist organization in 1995
and 1997, making it illegal to have financial dealings with the
organization. Lawyers for the HLF argued that it was a legitimate
humanitarian relief organization that provided urgently needed money
for medical, social service and educational assistance to Palestinian
families.

While this is a long overdue victory for the organization, its
leadership and supporters, it did not come without a HEAVY PRICE!
Important lessons should be extracted from this, because the struggle
continues.

El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan
Director of Operations
The Peace And Justice Foundation

===

Mistrial Declared in Muslim Charity Case
Judge Declares Mistrial for Most Defendants in Muslim Charity Trial
By DAVID KOENIG, DALLAS
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3760351


A judge declared a mistrial Monday for most former leaders of a Muslim
charity accused of funding terrorism, after chaos broke out in the
court when three jurors disputed the verdict that had been announced.

One of the defendants, former Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development Chairman Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted of most charges.

The outcome came about an hour after a confusing scene in the
courtroom, in which three former leaders of the group were initially
found not guilty. But then when jurors were polled, three of them said
those verdicts were read incorrectly.

Judge Joe A. Fish sent the jury back to resolve the differences, but
after about an hour, Fish said he received a note from the jury saying
11 of 12 felt further deliberations will not lead them to reach a
unanimous decision.

The jury forewoman said she was surprised by the three jurors' actions.

"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she said. "No one
spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is coming
from."

In all, five former Holy Land leaders and the group were accused of
providing aid to the Middle Eastern militant group Hamas. The U.S.
government designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1995 and again in
1997, making financial transactions with the group illegal.

DALLAS (AP) A judge declared a mistrial Monday for most former leaders
of a Muslim charity accused of funding terrorism, after chaos broke
out in the court when three jurors disputed the verdict that had been
announced.

One of the defendants, former Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development Chairman Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted of most charges.

===

THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
Shawwal 1428 AH (October 22, 2007)

CORRECTION
Re: The Holy Land Foundation Trial

Assalaamu Alaikum
(Greetings of Peace):

A short while ago, I sent out a release that was factually incorrect
and MISLEADING. For this I apologize.

The alert was based on a release that I received from the Dallas TX
chapter of CAIR. Within minutes after I sent out our release, however,
I received a call from my brother in Islam, Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmad, of
the Minaret of Freedom Institute, to alert me of the factual
discrepancy. I appreciated this call, as I consider ACCURACY in the
media (including advocacy media) to be very important!

Since then, I have had an opportunity to read two reports on what
actually did happen in that federal courthouse in Dallas,Texas - and
what happened is absolutely shocking!

Last Thursday, the jury reportedly found THREE of the leading
defendants (Mohammad El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh)
innocent on MOST of the charges in the indictment, and deadlocked on
the remaining counts. That decision was sealed after their
deliberations until this morning's reading by the jury forewoman.

After the verdict was read, the jury was individually polled by U.S.
District Judge Joe Fish. It was at this time that some of the jurors
expressed disagreement with the verdict (exonerating Mufid Abdulqader
and Abdulrahman Odeh). Something happened between Thursday and today.
The question is, what?

It is inconceiveable, in this commentator's estimation, that a jury
forewoman would have made such a mistake - especially in a trial of
this magnitude. What happened? Was the jury sequestered? (If not, why
not?) If it was sequestered, did anything else happen during this four
day period that may have resulted in illegal jury tampering, after the
fact?!

THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE RAISED!
As expected, the prosecution has already announced its intent to retry
all defendants on any and all counts that the jury could not reach a
unanimous decision on.

The struggle continues... (And as we can see, anything is possible.)

El-Hajj Mauri' Saalakhan
Director of Operations
The Peace And Justice Foundation

===

Judge declares mistrial in Holy Land Foundation case

Jurors unable to reach unanimous decision on most counts
Monday, October 22, 2007
By JASON TRAHAN and MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
jtrahan @ dallasnews.com and mgrabell @ dallasnews.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102207dnmethol\
yland.1878fd716.html


JIM MAHONEY/DMN
Shukri Abu Baker, who served as the foundation's CEO, celebrated with
supporters. The Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial ended
in a mistrial Monday after the jurors deadlocked on most of the
counts. One of five defendants was acquitted of all but one charge
against him.

Mohammad El-Mezain, the Holy Land's original chairman and endowments
director — was acquitted on most of the counts by a unanimous jury.
The mistrial will not affect his acquittals, but he could still face
prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to provide material support to
terrorism.

A government prosecutor said the Justice Department will retry the
case on the charges where the jury reached no verdict.

Earlier in the day, the jury forewoman told the judge that Mufid
Abdulqader, a top Holy Land fundraiser and former Dallas public works
supervisor, had been found not guilty on all counts. Abdulrahman Odeh,
the foundation's New Jersey representative, was also acquitted on most
of the charges. She also said the jury was unable to reach a decision
on all the other counts.

When polled, some jurors told the judge that they did not agree with
the verdicts on Mr. Abdulqader and Mr. Odeh.

U.S. District Judge Joe Fish then ordered the jury to discuss whether
further deliberations might allow them to reach a decision.

"Your verdict must be unanimous and it's apparent to me from the
answers of three members of the jury in respect to my question that
the verdicts that I read earlier do not represent the unanimous view
of the jury," Judge Fish said.

But after deliberating for another 45 minutes Monday morning, 11 of 12
jurors agreed that further deliberations would not change their
decisions. It was then that the judge declared a mistrial.

The five defendants have had an unexpected four-day wait to learn
their fate after the verdict was sealed on Thursday because the judge
was out of town. This delay came after 19 days of deliberations and a
two-month trial.

None of the defendants are accused of committing or directly
sponsoring any violent acts. The government had contended that the
five Holy Land defendants, all but one a U.S. citizen, sent more than
$12 million to Palestinian charity committees that they knew to be
controlled by the outlawed group Hamas, which has targeted Israeli
civilians for more than a decade.

Defense attorneys say their clients ran a legitimate charity and had
no terrorist ties.

The most serious charge would have carried a penalty of up to 20 years
in prison.

The Holy Land Foundation had been the largest Muslim charity in the
U.S. until it was shut down by President Bush. The case was the
biggest terror finance trial in U.S. history.

===

HOLY LAND FOUNDATION TRIAL: "Tolerance" or "Freedom?"
Saturday, October 13, 2007
http://theenemyshallnot.blogspot.com/


Even as the jury deliberates the fate of the HLF defendants, a
grotesque hoopla has grown up surrounding a Muslim Family Day at Six
Flags celebrating the end of Ramadan.

Someone needs to get a life, and it's not the Muslim community of
North Texas.

(Most?) non-Muslim Americans, and Americans who are not of Arab
descent have, since 9/11, been unable to think of Muslims and/or
Arab-Americans as persons. Americans seem not be able to think of our
Muslim and Arab-American neighbors as human beings whom Thomas
Jefferson believed to have certain "rights" simply by virtue of their
existence, among those rights (but not, in Jefferson's view, limited
to them) are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The only
specific right Jefferson enumerated in his lifetime was the right to
freedom of conscience (religion).

Jefferson wrote, in his "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in
the State of Virginia," that "…all attempts to influence [one's mind
in matters of religion] by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by
civil incapacitations…are a departure from the plan of the holy author
of our religion… [Therefore,] no man shall be….enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all
men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their
opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise
diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Paradoxically, in this time and place, one would probably have to look
very hard to find an American who would not at least give lip-service
to the Jeffersonian ideal of absolute freedom of religion. We salute
the flag with "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all." At the same time, with no evidence except irrational
fear engendered partly by the events of 9/11 (and by a government that
uses fear as a means of control), many Americans act as if they
believe that affording Muslims the rights Jefferson says we all
possess simply by virtue of our being is foolish, if not dangerous.
Muslims, especially Muslims who live next door, are "otherized,"
thought of as a one-dimensional group, and demonized—with no evidence.
This "othering" is not, however, a recent phenomenon. As Nada Elia writes,

The "othering" and rejection of Arabs and Arab Americans is as old as
this country, as is the erroneous homogenization of all Arab Americans
as Muslims…. It is no mere coincidence that the nation's first motto,
E Pluribus Unum, was replaced in 1956 with the more representative "In
God We Trust." After all, the embrace of plurality had to stop
somewhere, and the lines have historically been drawn most clearly
with regards to religion. The confluence of church and state, with the
presidential worldview today embracing Christianity and Zionism, is a
lethal mix for Arabs and Arab Americans, who are perceived as the
quintessential enemy. (1)

We non-Muslim Americans seem, for the most part, to be unable to
distinguish between diversity and violence, between that which is
"unfamiliar" and that which is "evil," between what we don't
understand and what we hate. And because we cannot make distinctions,
we hate difference in a way that Jefferson might well have thought was
"sinful and tyrannical," the description he used for forcing anyone to
support a religion they do not believe.

The idea that one's own religion/culture is not only superior to
"otherness" but under threat from the inferior "other," intensifies
what might be (real or imaginary) concern over some kind of
"terrorist" threat. Flags wave, and confusion about cultural and
religious "otherness" destroys any desire or ability to understand and
accept persons whom one perceives to be dangerously "different." But,
in the simplest Jeffersonian terms, the inability to accept the
humanness of the "other" is a rejection of the "unalienable rights"
that adhere to that person. Shalom Lappin puts it this way:

Acceptance of cultural difference, even when expressed as religiously
based separatism, is not a "concession" to immigrant minorities but
follows directly from the foundational principles of liberal
democracy. Adversaries of multiculturalism threaten those values by
rejecting cultural and religious pluralism. (2)

This inability of non-Muslim Americans to accept what they (we) see as
a dangerous "otherness" is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as the
Republic itself. Interestingly, not much is written currently even in
scholarly circles to try to understand this "othering" of Muslims and
Arab-Americans. Matthew F. Jacobs, in his article "The Perils and
Promise of Islam: The United States and the Muslim Middle East in the
Early Cold War," says he is trying

…to bridge such gaps in the scholarship by exploring the ways in which
particular discourses about Islam influenced how policymakers and
regional specialists comprehended the Middle East from the mid-1940s
through the early 1960s. I begin by investigating how academics,
government officials, and journalists trying to understand the Middle
East …relied on faulty and essentializing assumptions and common
stereotypes about Islam as they focused on it as a dominant feature of
regional culture, society, and politics….They came to view Islam as a
powerful threat to expanding U.S. interests in the region from the
late 1940s through the mid-1950s. (3)

This is not to say that academics and scholars could (or have the
responsibility to) change the way non-Muslim Americans think. That so
little scholarship exists that attempts even to understand non-Muslim
Americans' demonization of Islam indicates that the "[perception of
Muslims] as the quintessential enemy" will not change any time soon.

And so back to Six Flags. Is it so difficult to accept a Muslim family
day at the quintessential American amusement park? Will any of the six
flags that have flown over Texas (shall we talk about "diversity?") be
endangered by Muslim families celebrating the end of the fast days of
Ramadan? Can anyone present one shred of evidence that the North Texas
Muslim community supports "terrorism," either in Arlington or in
Jerusalem (the US attorneys for North Texas have tried, but could make
their case only with evidence that could not be documented)? It is
rhetorically unsound to make one's case by asking questions, so
understand that I am not asking "rhetorical" questions. I challenge
anyone who is afraid of my Muslim friends (or simply wants a scapegoat
for all that is wrong in the world) to answer these questions.

Or, in the absence of logical answers, Get A Life (fac ut vivas).

(1) Elia, Nada. "Islamophobia and the Privileging of Arab-American
Women." NWSA Journal, (National Women's Studies Association) Fall2006,
Vol. 18 Issue 3, p155-161. Nada Elia is Profess of Comparative
Literature, Antioch University. She is co-founder of RAWAN (the
Radical Arab Women's Activist Network). She holds a B.A., Beirut
University College; M.A., American University of Beirut; Ph.D., Purdue
University.
(2)Lappin, Shalom. "Multiculturalism and Democracy." Dissent,
Summer2007, Vol. 54 Issue 3, p14-18. Shalom Lappin is Professor,
Computational Linguistics, King's College, London.
(3) Jacobs, Matthew F. "The Perils and Promise of Islam: The United
States and the Muslim Middle East in the Early Cold War." Diplomatic
History, Sep 2006, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p705-739. Matthew Jacobs is
Professor of History at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

===

HLF MISTRIAL A 'STUNNING DEFEAT' FOR PROSECUTION
Not a single guilty verdict returned by Texas jury on 197 charges


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/22/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) called today's declaration of a mistrial in the case
against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Muslim charity a
"stunning defeat" for the prosecution.

CAIR also said the absence of a single guilty verdict on 197 charges
brought by the prosecution in the terror financing trial will help
reinforce the Muslim community's faith in America's system of justice.

The jury initially brought back "not guilty" verdicts on the
government's most serious charges of material support for terrorism
against the five HLF officials. However, jurors were deadlocked on
other charges, forcing the judge to declare the mistrial.

SEE: Judge Declares Mistrial in Holy Land Foundation Case (Dallas
Morning News)

===

In a statement reacting to the declaration of a mistrial, CAIR Board
Chairman Parvez Ahmed applauded the efforts of the jury.

Ahmed's statement said in part:

"After 19 days of deliberation, the jurors did not return even a
single guilty verdict on any of the almost 200 charges against these
men, whose only 'crime' was providing food, clothing and shelter to
Palestinian women and children. It seems clear that the majority of
the jury agreed with many observers of the trial who believe the
charges were built on fear, not facts. This is a stunning defeat for
prosecutors and a victory for America's legal system.

"The American Muslim community will continue to fight for justice and
for the right to help those who are in need, whether in this nation or
overseas. Today's developments in the HLF case send the message that a
hard-working jury of ordinary Americans will weigh the facts
objectively and will resist pressure to convict based on guilt by
association. Charitable giving should be honored, not criminalized."

Ahmed added that this is just the latest defeat for government
prosecutors in such cases. Similar conspiracy charges brought in
Illinois and Florida found little traction with jurors.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices
and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the
understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties,
empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice
and mutual understanding.

===

CAIR: HLF JUROR SAYS 'THERE WAS SO LITTLE EVIDENCE'
David Koenig, Associated Press
10/22/07


A judge declared a mistrial Monday for former leaders of a Muslim
charity accused of funding terrorism after jurors who spent 19 days
deliberating deadlocked on most charges.

Prosecutors said they would probably retry leaders of the Holy Land
Foundation for Relief and Development, which the federal government
shut down in December 2001.

The jury found one former Holy Land leader, Mohammed El-Mezain, not
guilty on 31 of 32 counts. Two other defendants were initially
acquitted on most or all charges, but in a confusing courtroom scene,
three jurors disputed the verdict.

The judge declared a mistrial against those men and two other former
foundation leaders for whom jurors never reached any decisions. . .

A juror told The Associated Press that the panel found little evidence
against three of the defendants and was evenly split on charges
against Baker and former Holy Land chairman Ghassan Elashi, who were
seen as the principal leaders of the charity.

"I thought they were not guilty across the board," said the juror,
William Neal, a 33-year-old art director from Dallas. The case "was
strung together with macaroni noodles. There was so little evidence."

Neal said the jury was split about 6-6 on counts against Baker and
Elashi. He said the government should not retry the case — a call
picked up by Holy Land's supporters. . .

The case stirred emotions in the American Muslim community, at least
partly because prosecutors named dozens of Muslim groups as unindicted
co-conspirators.

The Holy Land case followed terror-financing trials in Chicago and
Florida that also ended without convictions on the major counts.

The government "failed in Chicago, it failed in Florida, it failed in
Texas," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations — one of those unindicted co-conspirators.
"The reason it failed is the government does not have the facts; it
has fear."

===

Fair Play over Fear Mongering
Oct 24, 2007
M. Cherif Bassiouni


A prosecution that is likely to go down in the record books as one of
the great abuses of the American legal process ended with a mistrial
yesterday in Dallas, Texas.

The politicized case against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), an
American charity providing aid to needy families in Palestine, alleged
material support for a terrorist organization.

This was so even while the government conceded that HLF only provided
assistance to real charitable organizations and persons.

Yet the prosecution's "Alice in Wonderland" theory postulates that in
so doing, HLF freed Hamas from its burden to fund charitable
activities in Palestine, thus having more resources to direct toward
terrorist activities.

The government could only build its case on overstretched assumptions
and associations. It failed to prove any credible conspiratorial
linkage between the Americans who operated HLF in Texas and those who
operate Hamas in Palestine.

As far-fetched as the theory itself was, the evidence presented by the
government to support that theory failed to connect the dots. And on
Thursday, October 18, the jury returned a sealed verdict that - not
surprisingly - did not include a single guilty verdict on any of the
197 charges.

However, the judge was out of town and the verdict could not be read
until Monday, October 22. By then, some members of the jury apparently
had misgivings, and after the verdict was read and the jury polled,
three jurors contested the unanimous nature of the verdict.

The judged ordered further deliberations after which 11 of the 12
jurors concurred with the original verdict and one did not, thus
causing the judge to declare a mistrial.

What is additionally outrageous in this case is the fact that the
Department of Justice named 306 individuals and organizations as
un-indicted co-conspirators in the case. The exhaustive list includes
several major American Muslim organizations in this country.

Such intimidation and harassment leveled against American Muslims and
their religious, civic and charitable organizations by this
administration is yet another manifestation of the recent erosion of
American constitutional freedoms.

The fear-mongering campaign opted for by many in this administration –
and supported by avowedly anti-Muslim groups - has created a climate
of Islamophobia that is contrary to the basic values of this otherwise
tolerant country.

But it is the assault upon constitutional freedoms under the guise of
terrorist-related prosecutions that is most shocking.

Since 2002, an estimated 500 cases have been brought against Muslims
in America. Half of these have been dismissed as being without merit.
The rest have all resulted in either acquittals or negotiated pleas on
minor charges which are unrelated to the original indictment. Of the
500 cases, it is estimated that some 30 of them may have had some
reasonable foundation in law.

In no other area of prosecution has the Department of Justice produced
such an extraordinarily high percentage of dismissed cases and cases
resulting in guilty pleas on unrelated charges. This, in itself,
raises concerns that these prosecutions were informed by the
fear-mongering claims of the current administration that terrorism
à-la 9/11 may become an indigenous product and that American Muslims
may be a new clear and present danger.

Not only is this outrageously wrong, it is un-American in every respect.

These overreaches and abuses by the Department of Justice, not the
least of which is the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian - who continues to
linger in jail because of a vindictive prosecutorial approach against
someone who was never proven to have been guilty of any
terrorist-related charges – weakens our democracy rather than protects it.

The inclusion of 306 un-indicted co-conspirators as mentioned above is
intended to put these organizations and individuals on notice that
they should not stand up for their rights under the Constitution.

Obviously, these charges are also intended to dry up contributions and
support for these organizations and eventually open them up to
frivolous lawsuits for damages by those who have been victims of
terrorism elsewhere.

The perverse nature of the un-indicted co-conspirator designation made
public in the HLF case is that those so-designated cannot challenge
the designation in a court of law and thus have no way to restore
their reputation to its earlier standing. This is a unique situation
where any person or organization can be designated "guilty by
association" and stigmatized as such without legal redress.

There is no doubt that the Department of Justice in selecting that
list of 306 organizations and individuals intended to accomplish such
results, especially for three of the largest and most effective
American Muslim organizations: The Islamic Society of North America,
the North American Islamic Trust and the Council on American-Islamic
Relations.

The situation described above requires action by Congress and by those
American organizations and individuals who cherish their constitution
and who believe in the American way of democracy and freedom for all.

If the present tactics of the Department of Justice continue, it will
not be long before American Muslims suffer the same fate
Japanese-Americans did in World War II.

Demonizing an entire minority group based on suspicion and
fear-mongering was wrong then, and it is wrong now. We cannot allow
such a blot on our history to be repeated.

I am confident that America's sense of decency and fair play will
ultimately prevail.


M. Cherif Bassiouni is the  Distinguished Research Professor of Law,
DePaul University  and President Emeritus,
International Human Rights Law Institute

===

AS MUSLIM GROUP GOES ON TRIAL, OTHER CHARITIES WATCH WARILY
Neil MacFarquhar
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/us/17charity.html


The strained argument between the United States government and nonprofit groups
over how to deal with charities suspected of supporting terrorism is expected to
play out in federal court here with the trial of the largest Muslim charity in
this country, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

[Jury selection in the trial began on Monday, and was expected to take most of
the week.]

The government, in the lengthy indictment and other court documents, accuses the
foundation of being an integral part of Hamas, which much of the West condemns
as a terrorist organization. The prosecution maintains that the main officers of
the Holy Land foundation started the organization to generate charitable
donations from the United States that ultimately helped Hamas thrive.

The defense argues that the government, lacking proof, has simply conjured up a
vast conspiracy by claiming that the foundation channeled money through public
charity committees in the occupied territories that it knew Hamas controlled.
The federal government, the defense says, has never designated these committees
as terrorist organizations.

The defense is expected to liken a donation to the Holy Land foundation to one
to a Roman Catholic charity in Northern Ireland that ends up helping poor Irish
Republican Army sympathizers.

The case is being closely watched by a large number of charitable organizations,
as well as Muslim-Americans, because its outcome might well help determine the
line separating legitimate giving from the financing of banned organizations.

Critics of government policy say the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence at the Treasury Department has gone too far in using often secret
evidence to condemn charities. The process unfairly destroys them, the critics
say, though not one American charity itself has been convicted of supporting
terrorism since the practice started in 2001. Some individual officers have gone
to jail.

These critics say that in its zeal to prosecute, the government has lost sight
of the fact that the charities were delivering millions of dollars to the poor
and to victims of disasters.

They also say that undermining charities on the basis of little or no public
evidence tarnishes the United States' reputation among Muslims globally,
effectively helping the very groups the policy is supposed to subvert. . .

For American Muslims, whose religion stipulates that they give 2.5 percent of
their annual income to charity, the shuttering of so many of their organizations
without a hearing smacks of discrimination.

===

HLF TRIAL UPDATE: FOUR WITNESSES IN ONE DAY
The Holy Land Foundation Trial: The Family's Perspective
Freedom to Give
http://www.freedomtogive.com/node/51


His face was cherry red. He was outraged at this mockery of a trial. Defendant
Ghassan Elashi’s voice was loud and clear. As U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish
and jurors exited the courtroom after a mid-morning break Monday, August 20,
2007, Elashi let out his frustration toward the unjust judge. This is an
extension of the Zionist occupation. We can’t win the case with this judge
because he is a bigot, Elashi said. The judge later replied, We can’t have
outbursts like that. I’m warning you that a further outburst wont be tolerated.
If another outburst occurs, you will waive your right to be present in the
courtroom. The jurors followed closely as four witnesses were put on the stand.
The jury box was exceptionally colorful as the 15-member jury wore bright red,
green, yellow, purple and blue shirts. Maybe they were in a jubilant mood. Or
maybe they were eager to learn.

Defendant Mohammad El-Mezain’s attorney, Josh Dratel, continued the
cross-examination of Avi by displaying several posters that the prosecutors
showed the jury. He pointed out that most of the posters that the Israeli
government seized from the zakat committees in occupied Palestine were created
after the U.S. government shut down the Holy Land Foundation in 2001. He
specifically talked about a poster announcing the death of Hamas founder Ahmad
Yassin. He made clear that Israeli forces assassinated Yassin with a missile in
2004 as he was being pushed in his wheelchair on his way back from a mosque in
Gaza. Dratel wanted to conclude by showing the jury a 1993 document that would
prove that the Israeli government permit the construction of a Jenin hospital,
which was a zakat committee project partially funded by the HLF. The government
objected to the document on the grounds of hearsay and the judge sustained their
objection, thereby not allowing Dratel to discuss the document. This frustrated
many people, including Elashi.

Nancy Hollander, defendant Shukri Abu-Baker’s lawyer, began cross-examining Avi
by making it clear that some zakat committees are large and operate hospitals
while others are small and send livestock to family and friends. She also
pointed out that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
— a U.S. government organization — provided aid to the same zakat committees to
which the HLF is accused of sending humanitarian aid. USAID provided
Palestinians with food, water and urgently-needed medical supplies, the document
read. She also mentioned a few other American charities — such as CARE
International and ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid) — that supported the
Palestinian zakat committees. She concluded by stating that the U.S. has
financially supported four individuals from the Islamic University of Gaza, an
institution that Avi said is Hamas controlled. I’m not surprised, Avi said. The
U.S. didn’t support the institution, just the individuals.

Prosecutor Elisabeth Shapiro then redirected Avi. She began by stating that the
Palestinian Authority is aware that some zakat committee board members are
affiliated with Hamas. She also played a video showing the Palestinian detainees
that Israel dropped in the middle of a desert in southern Lebanon in 1992. She
said some of the detainees shown in the video are leaders in many zakat
committees. Shapiro also asked Avi about the photo in his office that Dratel
asked him about during cross-examination. Does it have a suicide belt? Is blood
dripping from anyone’s hands? Does the image include a Hamas symbol?, she asked.
No, he replied. Shaprio then said the HLF was created by design to support
Hamas. She then asked, Was USAID created for the purpose of supporting Hamas?
Avi’s response: No.

Dratel then re-crossed Avi by making it clear that none of the detainees
deported to Lebanon were charged of any crime.

Dawn Goldberg, an agent for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), was the
government’s next witness. Prosecutor Barry Jonas began by saying that the HLF
was a 501(c)(3) charity, a tax-exempt organization. HLF employees filled out
annual information returns — not tax returns — that became a public document,
Goldberg explained. Jonas then said the U.S. designated Hamas in 1995. So it
would be illegal to deal with Hamas financially after they were designated,
correct? That’s even if they were sending money for charitable purposes, Jonas
asked. Yes, it would be illegal. The charity, like other businesses, must assume
the responsibility of knowing what the law is, Goldberg answered.

During the short cross-examination Goldberg, Hollander asked her if the IRS ever
audited the HLF. Never, Goldberg said.

The next witness was Steve McGonigle, a reporter that covered the HLF for the
Dallas Morning News since 1996. He was subpoenaed to testify about his 1999 trip
to the occupied Palestinian territories, where he interviewed a couple Hamas
leaders and paid a surprise visit to the HLF office in Gaza. With his
salt-and-pepper hair and mustache, McGonigle said he went to find connections
between Hamas and the HLF. He interviewed Hamas affiliate Mahmoud al-Zahar and
Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin. During Yassin’s interview, McGonigle asked him if
the HLF had any connections to Hamas. McGonigle told the jury that Yassin said
Hamas had no connections with the HLF. After his two interviews, McGonigle
stopped by HLF’s Gaza office. There, McGonigle asked office manager Mohammad
Muharram if he could meet some HLF clients, or poor people who received funds
from the foundation.

Prosecutor Jonas then played two tapped conversations between Muharram, HLF
employee Haitham Maghawri and defendant Abu-Baker. Part of one conversation went
like this: The office manager in Gaza just informed me that Steve McGonigle will
be interviewing our clients. Do you want to cancel the meeting?, Maghawri asked
in Arabic. Abu-Baker replied, No. But make sure he doesn’t interview the family
of a martyr or a prisoner. Maghawri then said, Yeah, because if half a percent
of an interview did not impress him, then McGonigle will focus on that half a
percent. Abu-Baker said, This journalist is a Zionist. He’s not a friend. He’s
in cooperation with the Jewish lobby in the U.S. For the last few years, he’s
been trying to connect the HLF with terrorism. If he messes up this interview,
that is what we’ll need to finally sue the Dallas Morning News.

Hollander then started cross-examining McGonigle by asking him how long he
stayed in the Middle East during the 1999 visit. Two weeks, he replied. She then
asked him if the Ramallah Zakat Committee that he visited had posters or
political messages. No, he replied. He thought that the Richardson office of the
HLF did not know that he was visiting the Gaza office, he said. He concluded by
saying he was very affected by what he saw in occupied Palestine. The
Palestinian people lived in desperate conditions. They were in great need of
services — including food, school and medical, McGonigle said.

Linda Moreno, defendant Ghassan Elashi’s attorney, cross-examined McGonigle
next. She made it clear that McGonigle wrote about 10 articles on the HLF since
1996 and many thought the stories targeted and defamed the foundation. She asked
him if HLF employees and area Muslims thought the reporting was unfair. Yes, he
admit. Moreno went on: And some picketed and rallied in front of the Dallas
Morning News, is that right? His response: Yes. She also made it clear that HLF
employees contacted the president of the paper, wrote letters to the editor
about the unfairness and even filed a lawsuit against the newspaper.

During the redirect examination, Jonas made it clear that the lawsuit was
dismissed by the HLF.

As she re-crossed McGonigle, Moreno asked if the lawsuit was dismissed shortly
after the closure of the HLF. Yes, McGonigle replied.

The fourth witness of the day was Robert Miranda, an FBI agent who has worked in
the Hamas squad of the counter-terrorism department for the past decade. He
received his Bachelor’s degree from the Air Force Academy. He ended the day by
briefly discussing the speaker’s list of the HLF.

===

ISRAELI AGENT TESTIFIES AGAINST MUSLIM CHARITY
DAVID KOENIG
The Dallas Morning News
8/9/07
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/america/NA-GEN-US-Muslim-Charity-Trial\
.php


Identity concealed as he testifies about evidence from Palestinian groups


The federal judge presiding over the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial
ordered his courtroom cleared of spectators Thursday as a secret agent for the
Israeli Defense Forces took the stand.

The agent, referred to only by the pseudonym Major Lior, testified through a
translator about a cache of documents, videos and posters that his team of
commandos seized during raids on several charity committees in the Palestinian
territories between 2002 and 2004.

Prosecutors say these zakat, or charity, committees are controlled by Hamas and
contend that Holy Land's support of them amounts to illegal support of
terrorists.

No one was allowed to see the agent's face except the judge, the jurors, the
attorneys, the five defendants who helped organize Holy Land, and their
immediate family members, who were allowed to remain in the courtroom. Everyone
else went to an overflow courtroom with an audio-only feed.

Jurors were not shown the evidence, and the agent's testimony was mostly limited
to confirming the legitimacy of documents and tapes that the Israelis seized
during the raids. He wasn't questioned on their contents.

U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish said he would have to review before allowing the
testimony into the record.

Even defense attorneys did not know the man's true identity. The Israeli
government allowed him to testify in an American courtroom only if his name and
face were not made public.

The witness, one of two Israeli agents set to testify under similar security
conditions, drew the ire of defense attorneys, who had complained to Judge Fish
before the trial began that hiding the agents' identities violates their
clients' Sixth Amendment rights to confront their accusers.

"The circumstances are rarer than a unicorn," said Thomas Melsheimer, a former
Dallas federal prosecutor.

"It is highly unusual for a witness to take the stand under these
circumstances," he said. "The closest analogy I could make would be to some of
the Mafia trials where a witness might have a shielded identity. It makes it
extraordinarily difficult for the defense to cross-examine him in any meaningful
way."

This is only the second trial in which Justice Department prosecutors have put
Israeli secret agents on the stand. The other was a similar terrorism-support
trial of an Illinois used-car dealer and a co-defendant. That case ended in
acquittals.

Defense frustration seemed to spill over into the cross-examination of the
Israeli agent. Attorney Linda Moreno grilled him and his translator about
whether his team got any kind of court order, or warrant, before seizing the
documents.

"You're not contending the Fourth Amendment applies outside the U.S., are you?"
Judge Fish asked her at one point.

Later, as Ms. Moreno questioned the major about a school where his team seized
evidence, she asked whether his "soldiers knock on the door of the places they
are about to invade."

Prosecutors are expected to get into the details of what is in the evidence
later, when an agent with the Israeli Security Agency is to testify in the case.

It's unclear how the jurors will interpret testimony of a foreign government
witness requiring such security measures, experts say.

The heavy security could "alter the calculus of the process," said Peter
Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University who studies terrorism
prosecutions. He said that some jurors may view anonymous testimony with
suspicion, but that having such security measures may favor the government.

"Typically, if there's doubt about a case, jurors should acquit," he said. "But
when you have a case with a witness that requires all this security, jurors tend
to read that into the charges. If they have doubt, they reason, it's better to
be safe than sorry and lock them up."

The government argued in a brief that there is no other way to get such
evidence, as the Palestinian government is now ruled by Hamas, which won a
majority of parliamentary seats in election last year. And under U.S. law,
what's classified by the Israeli government is classified here.

"You can see why some level of protection is necessary," Mr. Margulies said.
"Outing people like this could have a significant impact on national security.
We fought that battle with respect to the Valerie Plame affair."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The War on Afghanistan Was Wrong, Too
by Jacob G. Hornberger
October 19, 2007
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0707a.asp


While most Americans have turned against the Iraq War, many of them
still think that the war on Afghanistan was morally and legally
justified. Their rationale is that the United States was simply
defending itself by attacking Afghanistan and retaliating against
those who had conspired to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Of
course, the last thing on people's mind was that the 9/11 perpetrators
themselves were retaliating for the bad things that the U.S.
government had long been doing to people in the Middle East.

In fact, the irony of the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq is that
both actions are simply a continuation of regime-change operations
that have long characterized U.S. foreign policy, operations that are
in large part responsible for much of the anger that foreigners have
for the United States.

For example, there was the regime-change operation in Iran in 1953,
where the CIA successfully ousted the democratically elected prime
minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with the shah
of Iran, whose brutal dictatorship ultimately culminated in the
Iranian revolution in 1979. Not surprisingly, Iranians are still angry
about that U.S.-imposed regime change.

There was also Guatemala in 1954, where the CIA successfully ousted
the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz,
which led to the decades-long civil war that killed hundreds of
thousands of Guatemalan citizens. There were Chile, Panama, Nicaragua,
and Grenada. And, of course, there were the unsuccessful regime-change
operations against Cuba.

In the Middle East, there was the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein,
including the furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to him to use
against Iranians, whose regime was no longer friendly to the United
States after the 1979 revolution. There was the Persian Gulf
intervention, which was followed by the brutal sanctions against Iraq,
whose purpose was to bring about regime change after the United States
turned against Saddam. There was the implicit U.S. endorsement of
Madeleine Albright's famous statement that the deaths of half a
million Iraqi children from the sanctions against Iraq had been "worth
it." There was the unconditional financial and military support of the
Israeli government. And there was the stationing of U.S. troops on
Islamic holy lands, with full knowledge of the adverse effect such an
action would have on Muslim religious sensitivities.

Long before the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists who had struck the World
Trade Center in 1993 had cited, as had Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda,
those foreign policies as the basis for their grievances against the
United States.

Therefore, it is ironic that U.S. officials used the 9/11 attacks to
do the kind of thing they had long been already doing and which had in
fact motivated the 9/11 attacks: regime-changing nations whose regimes
were not inclined to obey U.S. orders. In what has become a customary
perverse consequence of U.S. policies, the invasions of both Iraq and
Afghanistan have not only produced chaos, death, and destruction, they
have also ensured a steady stream of terrorist recruits to al-Qaeda
and other groups that hate the United States more than ever. It is
almost as if U.S. officials were saying after 9/11, "We are going to
show you that your attacks will not cause us to change our ways, and
our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will be our proof."

After the 9/11 attacks, here at The Future of Freedom Foundation we
recommended that the U.S. government not use the U.S. military to
attack Afghanistan as a way to get bin Laden. We recommended instead
that U.S. officials treat the attacks as a criminal-justice problem
rather than a military problem.

After all, that's the way that the federal government has always
treated terrorism — as a criminal violation of federal statutes
against terrorism. That was, in fact, how the government treated the
1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, in which one of the
perpetrators was a Kuwaiti man of Pakistani descent named Ramzi Yousef
who was residing in Pakistan. Rather than invade Pakistan to capture
or kill Yousef, which would have killed and maimed countless
Pakistanis, U.S. officials simply bided their time until he was
arrested in Pakistan and brought to New York for trial. It took time,
but that's the way the criminal-justice system often works. Sometimes
a criminal is arrested immediately, sometimes much later, sometimes
never. By the way, at Yousef's sentencing, he angrily cited U.S.
foreign policy as the basis for his grievances.

Recall that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there was a tremendous
outpouring of sympathy and empathy all over the world for the United
States. If U.S. officials had exercised wisdom, instead of reacting in
a knee-jerk military fashion, they could have capitalized on those
positive feelings by isolating bin Laden and the rest of his gang.
Immediately after the attacks, we recommended offering a huge
financial reward for the arrest of bin Laden and his cohorts and
bringing them to trial. We pointed to the "letters of marque" that are
authorized in the Constitution for such captures.

If President Bush had announced to the world that the United States
would not kill innocent people in the quest to bring bin Laden and
other members of al-Qaeda to justice, the entire world would have
remained sympathetic to the United States. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda
would have been isolated, not knowing who would turn them in to the
authorities. Compare that to the situation in the world today, where
countless ordinary people all over the world are filled with rage over
the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention
the torture and sex-abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and
elsewhere. Moreover, even U.S. intelligence agencies are admitting
that the continuous killings of Afghanis and Iraqis continue to
provide al-Qaeda with a steady stream of recruits.

The Taliban and bin Laden

Another major problem with the attack on Afghanistan was the one that
most U.S. presidents and, alas, most Americans, have chosen to ignore
for the past several decades: that the U.S. Constitution requires the
president to secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress
before waging war against another country. Bush failed to do that.

Why did Bush order an invasion of Afghanistan? Not because he believed
that the Taliban had conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11
attacks and not because he felt that the Taliban had committed some
act of war against the United States by knowingly "harboring" a known
fugitive.

Instead, Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for one reason: the
Taliban government refused to comply with his demand to
unconditionally deliver bin Laden to the United States. He always made
it clear that if the Taliban delivered bin Laden to the United States,
such action would spare Afghanistan from a U.S. invasion. The "offer"
that he made to the Taliban was not significantly different from that
made to Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf, a close friend
of the Taliban, after 9/11: play ball with us and you stay in power;
refuse to do so, and you're history.

So why did the Taliban refuse to turn over bin Laden? For one thing,
there wasn't any extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the
United States. And there is a long tradition in Muslim countries to
treat foreign visitors as guests. Nevertheless, the Taliban did
express a willingness to deliver bin Laden over to the United States
or to a third country if U.S. officials provided convincing evidence
that bin Laden had, in fact, been complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Was
the demand unreasonable? Well, it would be nothing more than any
government, including the United States, would expect in any
extradition proceeding.

Bush's response was that U.S. officials would not furnish any such
evidence to the Taliban government. The Taliban simply needed to
follow U.S. orders and turn bin Laden over to the United States, with
no guarantees of what would happen to him once he was in U.S. custody.
That is, there were no assurances that bin Laden would be brought back
to the United States for trial for terrorism in federal district court
instead of being turned over to the CIA for torture and execution.

The Taliban refused to accede to Bush's unconditional demand. The
result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban
from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled
by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to
capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by
ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States.

Moreover, Bush's conflation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda into one
amorphous "terrorist" group, when each group obviously had its own
reasons for resisting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,
ultimately set the stage for his "enemy-combatant" doctrine in the
"war on terror" and the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of the
"war on terror," which would later be used to justify the Guantanamo
Bay prison camp, Abu Ghraib, rendition, torture, and the military
power to indefinitely incarcerate Americans and foreigners.

Did the United States have the legal and moral right to invade
Afghanistan upon the Taliban's refusal to turn bin Laden over to the
United States? Many Americans would undoubtedly respond, "Yes,
absolutely. When a country experiences a terrorist attack, it has the
legal and moral right to attack and invade a sovereign and independent
country that refuses to comply with an unconditional demand to give up
the suspected perpetrators."

Venezuela's war on terrorism

Well, if that's true then how would such proponents respond if, say,
Venezuela attacked the United States for harboring terrorists? Would
the proponents say, "I'm going to fight on the side of Venezuela
because in the war on terror a country has the right to attack
countries that are harboring terrorists"? Not likely.

Yet the U.S. response to Venezuela's extradition of a suspected
terrorist named Luis Posada Cariles, a former CIA operative, not only
provides a good example of the hypocrisy of the U.S. government's "war
on terror," it also shows how such a war leads inexorably toward
endless international conflict and discord. After all, ask yourself,
Can a world in which each country has the right to wage a war on
terror under the principles followed by the U.S. government possibly
be harmonious?

Posada is a prime suspect in the terrorist bombing of a civilian Cuban
airliner whose flight originated in Venezuela in 1976. The plane
crashed, killing 73 people, including several young members of a Cuban
sports team. About a year ago, Posada made his way into the United
States, prompting Venezuelan authorities to demand his extradition to
Venezuela pursuant to the extradition agreement between the two nations.

U.S. officials, however, announced that they had no intention of
returning Posada to Venezuela, extradition agreement or not,
suggesting that they didn't care how much evidence of Posada's
involvement in the terrorist attack Venezuela was able to provide.
Their reason? While their stated reason for their decision is that
Venezuela might torture Posada on his return, the real reason was the
U.S. government's natural sympathy toward anti-Castro Cuban exiles,
including those who commit terrorist acts against the Cuban people.

But how is the U.S. government's response to Venezuela in the Posada
case different from the Taliban's refusal to turn bin Laden over to
the United States? If the U.S. government is going to refuse to turn
over a terrorist suspect because of the possibility that he might be
tortured, then how can it say that Afghanistan didn't have the same
right, especially since a suspected terrorist is as likely to be
tortured by the United States as he is by Venezuela? Or to put it
another way, if Afghanistan was "harboring" a terrorist by refusing
U.S. demands to turn him over, isn't the United States doing the same
thing by refusing Venezuela's extradition request of Posada?

In fact, the farcical, chaotic, and destructive nature of the U.S.
government's entire "war on terror" is easily exposed when one applies
its principles universally to every other nation. That is, if the U.S.
government has the right to wage a war on terror, then so has every
other nation. That means then that every nation has the right to
attack every other nation in which there are suspected terrorists.
Cuba, for example, would have the right to attack the United States in
order to kill or capture Posada and, for that matter, those
Cuban-American citizens who are funding anti-Castro terrorist activity
in Cuba.

Obviously, the only reason that the U.S. government is getting away
with its "war on terror," including regime-change operations against
Third World countries and military wars of aggression on sovereign and
independent nations, is that it has overwhelming military strength,
especially compared with Third World countries. In the U.S.
government's war on terror, might makes right. But as the U.S. empire
becomes increasingly overstretched by waging such a war, the American
people are going to inevitably discover what lies at the end of that
road: death, destruction, conflict, discord, terrorism, torture,
rendition, and infringements on liberty.


Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation.

This article originally appeared in the July 2007 edition of Freedom
Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

It May be Time to Walk out of Church
By Charles E. Carlson
Pharisee Watch
We Hold These Truths
http://www.whtt.org


Why Pharisee Watch? Jesus addressed the Pharisees of his day; the job
of Christ-followers is to address the Pharisees of our day.


A friend recently wrote to us saying he likes what we say but:

"Can you consider changing the name to something a little less?

Automatically offensive to Jewish people, a little less terminally (if
unintentionally) anti-Semitic, than "Pharisee Watch"? The
insensitivity of this name boggles the mind."

The writer expresses himself plainly, so he should appreciate Jesus'
words.  We chose "Pharisee Watch" as the title for our Internet
journal about five years ago, not in order to place blame on the
ancient Jews, but to place it squarely on the "Christians" of our day.
Our church leaders are the Pharisees. Of course there are exceptions;
we leave it to you to find them, and we want to hear about them when
you do.

Pharisee Watch is about those who say they are Christians. If the shoe
fits Jews, let them wear it. It is intended to be strong, in response
to the real ill in our society.  We have written about 150 Pharisee
Watch's, and any fair reader will have to admit we blame the
Judaized-Christianity leaders of present day evangelical churches for
their anti-life public policies, whether Democrat or Republican.

We could name and blame many celebrity icons that are trampling
Christianity into the gutter of racism.  One amazing case will be
mentioned later, but we prefer to talk about your pastor. He is the
real problem and the only one you can change.

Having said this, we would be remiss not to note that no one has
reason to enjoy the demise of Christianity more than the Rabbis, since
Judaism by definition denies Christ.

Our language cannot be too plain when dealing with the enormity of
what we are trying to get across.  When we call your church leaders
"Pharisees" we are not talking about someone else's church. We are
talking about yours, and we are asking you to do an organized,
tactical withdrawal from your church, unless yours is an exception.
Tactical withdrawal mean, first, confront the pastor privately; then,
write a good-by letter to everyone you know in your church stating why
you must leave; and then walk out to stay. This is the only way change
can happen.

A word to the not-evangelicals

Mainline and Catholic churches are not normally evangelical, or
"dispensational" as the popular self described term introduced by
Cyrus I Scofield calls them, but if Mainliners and Catholics fail to
speak out, they are no better than evangelicals who openly support
war. By their silence, they affirm, and they open their members to
being brainwashed in "home bible studies" conducted by mass marketing
dispensational organizations such as Precept Ministries, to name only
one, where "Dispensationalist" is sold as the only way to salvation.

Jesus set the standard for challenging religious leaders.

In talking to Pharisees, Jesus said (paraphrased):

"How terrible it is for you teachers of the law, Pharisees, you
hypocrites!  You lock the door of the kingdom of heaven in other
people's faces, but you yourself do not go in nor do you allow in
those who are trying to get in."

Jesus told the Pharisees they were unfit for the kingdom of heaven.
These are firm words found in Matthew 23:13.  The entire chapter is
startlingly direct.  In Jesus' time the Judeans were predominantly
Israelite-ish in at least the pretext of their religion, but it
appears they were confused and apostate in their practice of it.
Those who were honest knew they could not follow all the 600 odd laws
found in the 28the chapter of Deuteronomy, and they also knew the
Pharisees and others had corrupted what was supposed to be the faith
of Abraham into a hopeless man-controlled religion.  The source of
their corruption was the ruling faction Jesus referred to as Pharisees
and condemned to hell in Matthew 24.

By contrast there are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of Pharisees in
churches for every one in the synagogue.  Our political leadership
today depends on Judaized Christians (the so-called Christian Right)
for their rock hard political support. Pharisaic-Christianity is every
bit as political as Judean Pharisaism was. The Pharisees were in bed
with the Romans.  The evangelicals are in bed with the Israelis and
with every politician who is more patriotic to Israel than to their
own USA...

We Americans claim to be 80% Christian, perhaps 1/3 of these are
"evangelicals."  Politicians and parties depend on the votes of that
1/3 because they tend to vote in a block, other Christians tend to
split.  This in no way diminishes the power of AIPAC and other Jewish
groups who exercise their clout in our government.  We Hold These
Truths published a scholarly book named One Nation Under Israel on
this subject.  But it is the evangelicals who have the numbers and the
media access to prop up the faltering war agenda based on what they
believe to be scriptural grounds.

The Pharisees of our day repeat the error of the 1st century
Pharisees, who Jesus said, "shut themselves and those who follow them
from Christ's the Kingdom of Heaven." It is hard to imagine why Jesus
would not hold us to as high a standard when it comes to the shedding
of innocent blood, for the Pharisees shed His blood only hour after He
challenged them.

Why Judaized Christian Pharisees support serial wars

Judaized support for serial wars hinges upon the 100- year old altered
scripture found in study bibles and scores of related popular novels,
which place the focus on Israel instead of Christ

The modern State of Israel borrowed its name from an ancient story of
the lineage of Abraham, called Israelites. They were not called
"Israelis." The political State of Israel came into existence 40 years
after the first Scofield Reference Bible heralded it's coming.  Either
Mr. Scofield was a prophet, or someone who knew about Zionist plans
helped him write his pseudo-bible.  The Zionist state of Israel and
evangelical Christianity are a strange pair of Siamese twins,
inseminated at the same time, but born after different gestation
periods.  Neither came about as a result of Immaculate Conception.

Israel existed very much in the plans of the World Zionist movement in
1908 when a Zionist-friendly Oxford University Press published the
Scofield's book.  In its footnotes it legitimized a Jewish "return" to
Palestine and the tale of God's unfulfilled promises to give the land
of the ancient Canaanites to the ancient Israelites.  Scofield helped
an absent-minded god remember his long-forgotten promise, (they
claimed) not to the ancient Israelites and their descendants, but to
the European immigrants to Israel.

Oxford University Press gave evangelicalism its first big promotional
boost.  It did it by loading the evangelical's seminaries with
Scofield Bibles.  When the State of Israel was finally born in 1948,
Oxford rewrote the book to welcome the return of the European
"Israelites" to Palestine, proclaiming it to be the fulfillment of Old
Testament Prophesy.

Respected European, Theodore Herzl, legitimatized political Zionism--a
movement to establish political rights to land for a Jewish state--.
His 1895 books, Der judenstaat, promoted a plan to raise money to buy
out the land from the residents of Palestine, and he promised that no
one would ever be cheated or displaced.  But more aggressive Zionists,
beginning with Chaim Weisman, took over the movement, and Herzl died
unhappy, ended up in the trash bin of world Zionism, later to have a
mountain named for him in Israel.

Today, the strongest support for the most ruthless wing of the Zionist
movement comes from "Christians" who preach it in thousands of
churches.  These support endless wars in the Mideast, wars that Israel
lets them know to be beneficial to its interest, for example, the
destruction of Iraq.  Evangelicalism is now a giant
cross-denominational sect that Pharisee Watch has named
Judaized-Christianity.  It has been politicized into the largest and
most unified voting block in America, centering not on Christian
morality but on the political wants of the most radically racist and
bloodthirsty factions in the State of Israel.

One such international Pharisee in the news is Kay Arthur, the founder
and leader of Precept Minisries.  Its dispensatinal, Isael first
teaching are claimed to reach into 120 countries and the majority of
Ameican churches, including Mainline and Catholies.  At a Jerusalem
interview in early June she told of plans to lobby the Israeli Knesset
against Israel giving any concessions to Palestinans.  She is one of
those who seem to believe the Paletinians must go, on foot or in body
bags.  She told Haaretz; "God has chosen Israel above all the nations
of the earth, and because I love God, I have to follow God's heart and
be dedicated to the land and the people of Israel."  Arthur reaffirmed
her previous statement:

"If I had to choose between America and Israel, I would choose Israel."

Kay Arthur's Israeli Patriotism is her own business, but the blood on
her hands is staining those who follow here, and her political
lobbying for war costs live and lot of dollars everywhere.  It is our
business.  She operates tax-free.

Evangelicals are taught that the Old Testament is fulfilled in the
creation of the political state of Israel.  This is blasphemy.  In
contrast, for two thousand years followers of Christ have always
believed that only He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Why?
Because Jesus said so.

In the book of Matthew, Jesus called the Judean Pharisees "a
generation of vipers." But he also left the door open to any
individual among them who had the courage to leave Pharisaism and
follow him.  Among those who did were the Apostle Paul and several
others who are named.  Among those who failed the test were a high
priest and the rich young man found in the parable of the camel and
the needle.  Jesus never rejected any individual who was willing to
follow him, but many rejected him. He condemned the Pharisees to hell
because they rejected him.

"You snakes and children of snakes, how do you expect to escape from
the condemnation of hell?"  Matthew 23:33

Pharisees are, by Jesus definition, the leaders of most (but not all)
evangelical churches.  Their mission is every bit as deadly and bloody
as those Jesus challenged almost 2000 years ago.  These leaders can
change.

Words for your friend's pastor (if not your own):

My dear friend and pastor, I know by your words and acts that you are
enablers of war in the Mideast.  I know you sincerely believe that war
is good for Israel, and therefore a duty to America.  But I can no
longer ignore the suffering and death of so many.  It puts too much
innocent blood on my hands when I support you, not to mention your
hands.  I am pro-life; I cannot tolerate this death and war in the
name of religion anymore. Now I ask you to change and let this church
know you are changing. I want to know right now if you can and will do
so?  If you cannot do it, I must leave. (You will also find many
letters to pastors on our Project Strait Gate page)

Where do I go if I leave my church?

If you don't know a church that follows Christ toward peace, and you
probably do not, you might join the unincorporated home church
movement; it's growing fast. Several of our Advisors have started one
called Strait Gate Ecclesia.  Ecclesia means church.  Save your money
and tithes. It is not Godly to give to the ungodly.

Project Strait Gate is confrontational because Jesus was.  He said he
came to "divide;" He said meant by this to divide those who would
follow from those who would not.  Jesus was speaking of the corrupt
religious system of his day when he said: "Come out of her, my people,
that ye not partakers of her sins and that you receive not her
plagues."  Might he be saying the same thing to us today?
(Revelations 18:4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
----------------

ATTENTION

Please visit the WHTT Blog at
http://whtt-christianzionism.blogspot.com/. There you can comment and
give your opinion on everything we post to Pharisee Watch.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Bhutto 'blamed' for Karachi deaths
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2007
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/765093B8-1CF3-46B4-8467-0C28CC741197.htm


More than 140 people died in Thursday's attack on Bhutto's homecoming
procession in Karachi [AFP]

An opposition politician says Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani
prime minister, "has only herself to blame" for the attack on her
homecoming parade in Karachi.

Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricket captain, said in an interview
on Sunday that Bhutto had made herself a target by striking a deal
with Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president.

"The bombing of Benazir Bhutto's cavalcade as she paraded through
Karachi on Thursday night was a tragedy almost waiting to happen. You
could argue it was inevitable," Khan wrote in Britain's Sunday
Telegraph newspaper.

The criticism came as Bhutto visited some of the wounded in Karachi
hospital.

More than 140 people were killed and about 400 wounded in the suicide
attack as hundreds of thousands gathered to cheer Bhutto hours just
hours after she returned to the country.

Democracy 'undermined'

Khan said: "Everyone here knew there was going to be a huge crowd
turning up to see her return after eight years in self-imposed exile.
Everyone also knows that there has been a spate of suicide bombings in
Pakistan lately."

Bhutto has condemned the bombing as an "attack on democracy", but the
former cricketer said that the deal with Musharraf, which gave her
amnesty from corruption charges, had undermined democracy.

"The sad thing is, she didn't need to do it. Musharraf was sinking and
isolated. He was on the point of declaring a state of emergency. Just
when it looked as if he had no lifelines left, Benazir came back and
bailed him out," Khan said.

"Worse, by publicly siding with a dictator, she has deliberately
sabotaged the democratic process."

Bhutto has also been criticised by her niece, Fatima Bhutto, who
accused her of exposing the crowds to danger for her own "personal
theatre".

The newspaper columnist and poet said of her aunt: "She insisted on
this grand show, she bears a responsibility for these deaths and for
these injuries."

Public appearance

But on Sunday about 100 supporters cheered the former prime minister
as she made her first public appearance since the assassination attempt.

Surrounded by security guards carrying automatic weapons, Bhutto waved
to supporters before getting into a four-wheel-drive vehicle at the
entrance of Karachi's Jinnah hospital, where many of the badly wounded
were taken after the blasts.

Although Bhutto has pledged to contest next January's parliamentary
elections, the attack on her parade has cast doubt on her plans to
tour the country to drum up support in the coming months.

Three men were being questioned by police on Sunday. A senior
investigator told the Associated Press news agency that they were
linked to a vehicle that police believe was used by one of the
attackers, who threw a grenade at the convoy.

Police detained the them in southern Punjab province and brought them
to Karachi for questioning.

===

Bhutto: 'I know exactly who wants to kill me'
Declan Walsh in Karachi and Mark Tran
Friday October 19, 2007
Oct 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1835


Benazir Bhutto today accused supporters of the former Pakistani
military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq for the assassination attempt
that turned her homecoming into a bloodbath.

"I know exactly who wants to kill me," she told the French magazine
Paris-Match. "They are dignitaries of General Zia's former regime who
are behind extremism and fanaticism."

Nobody has yet claimed responsibility for one of Pakistan's deadliest
bombings, which killed at least 136 people and injured 290.

In a subsequent press conference at the Karachi home of her
parents-in-law, Ms Bhutto said she had been warned on her flight to
Pakistan about a plot involving army officers and told three unnamed
people were behind it.

Ms Bhutto, wearing a black armband, said she had not wanted all her
top party leadership to travel in her truck as she "knew" there might
be an assassination attempt.

She praised those who died while protecting her as heroes, and said
she did not blame the government for the attack. However, she called
for an inquiry as to why street lights had been switched off during
her procession.

"If the street lights had been on, we would have spotted the suicide
bombers," she said. "The guards had floodlights on, but it was
difficult to scan the crowds as there were so many people".

Denouncing her would-be assassins as trying to destroy Pakistan and
saying they had damaged Islam, she added: "It is against our religion
to kill innocent people".

The Pakistani government has blamed Islamist militants for the
assassination attempt. Police are focusing on militants linked to the
Taliban and al-Qaida based in tribal regions bordering Afghanistan,
where they have stepped up attacks on Pakistani troops.

However, Ms Bhutto pointed to Pakistan's powerful intelligence
services, the ISI.

General Zia seized power in a coup against Ms Bhutto's father,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in 1977. The general, who died in a mysterious
plane crash in 1988, had Mr Bhutto tried on trumped-up charges and
executed.

"We have to purge elements still present in our services," Ms Bhutto
told Paris-Match. "Many went into retirement and then were taken back.
Today, they hold much power. For them I represent a danger - if I
bring back democracy to the country, they will lose influence".

The Pakistani president, General Pervez Musharraf, said he was "deeply
shocked" by the attack, and appealed for calm. He promised an
exhaustive investigation and severe punishment for those responsible.

Well before Ms Bhutto's return, Taliban commanders had made threats
against her life, fearing she would help US troops hunt for Osama bin
Laden and other fugitives. One commander, Baitullah Masood, vowed to
send suicide bombers to kill her.

"Definitely, it is the work of the militants and terrorists," Javed
Iqbal Cheema, an interior ministry spokesman said, adding that it was
too early to say which group was involved.

Manzoor Mughal, a senior police official involved in the
investigation, told Reuters that the first of last night's blasts had
been caused by a hand grenade. "The second was the suicide attack," he
said. "The attacker ran into the crowd and blew himself up."

The bombings happened shortly after midnight, more than 10 hours after
Ms Bhutto had arrived home from eight years in exile. She escaped
unhurt and was evacuated to her residence in the city.

A procession that had attracted several hundred thousand of her
supporters was abandoned in chaos.

Local television stations captured the two blasts, which occurred in
quick succession near a heavily-protected truck carrying Ms Bhutto and
her party leaders.

Television footage showed onlookers running towards the vehicle after
the first blast, only to be caught in the second explosion. Party
official Qasim Zia said Ms Bhutto had descended into the vehicle to
use the bathroom at the time of the explosion.

TV stations showed graphic images of mutilated bodies lying on a
street littered with debris, body parts and lumps of charred flesh. A
blazing police vehicle stood beside the deserted Bhutto truck, which
was emblazoned with the slogan "Long Live Bhutto".

Many of the dead were thought to be police and party security
officials who had formed a moving security cordon around the vehicle.
A local television cameraman also died.

"People were shouting for help, but there was no one to help them out.
It smelled like blood and smoke," the Associated Press photographer, B
K Bangash, who was 50 metres from the explosion, said.

The government had mounted a huge security operation. Around 20,000
security personnel lined the route and sophisticated anti-bomb jamming
devices were fitted to Ms Bhutto's vehicle.

Mobile phone signals were blocked in the area, and armed bodyguards
accompanied the truck.

Ms Bhutto returned from exile hoping to win a third term as prime
minister at general elections due to be held by mid-January. With
encouragement from the US, she has been holding power-sharing talks
with Gen Musharraf.

Pakistan's deputy information minister, Tariq Azim Khan, said Ms
Bhutto had disregarded warnings to delay her return.

"She was given friendly advice she should delay her return," he said.
"Obviously, she did not take it."

Asked what extra measures the government could possibly have taken
given the size of the crowd, he said: "There can never be 100%
foolproof security, but you can provide extra efforts. We tried to
make the maximum effort possible."

The attack will be seen as a wider assault on the political system in
Pakistan. Violent extremists have gathered force in the country this
year. In July, an eight-day siege of the extremist Red Mosque in
Islamabad in July left more than 100 people dead.

Last night's violence could endanger Ms Bhutto's power-sharing talks
with Gen Musharraf, who has threatened to impose emergency rule or
martial law if his plans to retain power are frustrated.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

UAE task force clears over 6,800 mines in Lebanon
06 October 2007
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=13760&t=1&c=33&cg=4


LEBANON. The administration of the UAE Project for Support and
Reconstruction of Lebanon has made another achievement. The task force
has succeeded in clearing 7.5 million square metres of the mine
infested Southern Lebanon and have declared those areas free of mines
and cluster bombs.

According to Captain Ibrahim Ali Al Falahi, about 7.5 million square
metres of land in Southern Lebanon had been cleared of mines, cluster
bombs and other unexploded and dangerous projectiles since his group
started work up to the end of September 2007.

He said 6,824 mines and cluster bombs had been retrieved and
destroyed, adding that the demining work covered 68 villages, which
have now been certified free of any mine and cluster bomb danger.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Paradigmatic Career of David Horowitz
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni @ aol.com)


David Horowitz' career provides a lens through which the intellectual,
political and social developments of an important segment of the
American Jewish community can be analyzed for the period from the
1930s until today.

David Horowitz was born in 1939. His parents were Russian Jewish
American communists loyal to the Soviet Union at least until
Khrushchev denounced Stalin.  While he was an undergraduate at
Columbia, Horowitz passed through a phase of Schachtmanism, which was
a variant of Trotskyitism less hostile to the Soviet Union.  As a
graduate student at Columbia, he was active in the New Left. After his
graduate studies, he became an editor at the leftist magazine
Ramparts. At this time period he become involved with the Black
Panthers as an expression of his civil rights activism. An accountant
friend was killed while she tried to straighten out Black Panther
finances, and an attorney friend was crippled while attempting the
Black Panthers.. As a consequence, according to Horowitz he became
disenchanted with the Black Power movement, and the mass killings of
Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge in combination with the apologetics of
the Left and growing left hostility toward Israel eventually caused
him to break with the Left and become a Neocon even if he rejects this
label for himself.  Horowitz differs with Christian evangelical
conservatives primarily because of his support for homosexual rights.

Nowadays, Horowitz despises affirmative action and rejects reparations
for slavery. In 1989 he founded the Center for the Study of Popular
culture whose name was changed to the David Horowitz Freedom Center in
2006. This think tank has raised about $1 million per year primarily
from the ultraconservative Olin and Scaife foundations. Horowitz
opposed US intervention in Kosovo but has supported every US military
action against Muslims since the 1970s. Controlling academic discourse
especially with respect to Israel is a major project of the Freedom
Center, and since 2001 the Center has been heavily involved in
inciting Islamophobia.

The secular Russian-Jewishness of Horowitz' career is striking.
Russian Communism was to a large extent the revenge of Russianized
populations that were denied the same political access as the Russian
elite. Russian Jews took leadership roles in Russian communism because
of their higher level of education and experience in organizing.
Russian Jewish Americans brought this pattern to the USA even though
the degree of exclusion of Jews from positions of power in the USA was
nowhere as strict as it had been in Czarist Russia. Jews became union
organizers and leaders in left-wing and radical politics. Support for
African American civil rights was to some extent opportunistic because
the higher African Americans rose socially and politically, the less
alien American Jewish elites began to appear to traditional American
white Christian elites. Jewish activists in the civil rights movement
also tended to manipulate African American leaders to support Israel,
and David Horowitz' career with the Black Panthers shows examples of
such behavior.

Stokely Carmichael and other Black Power leaders drove the Jewish
leadership from the civil rights movement when they lost patience with
Jewish activists, who like Horowitz were using civil rights activism
as a means of advancing Jewish interests. In the 70s Horowitz came
into direct contact with some of the wealthiest Americans while he and
Peter Collier were researching a series of books on America's monied
elite. During the same time period a portion of unaccounted cash aid
to Israel as a result of the Egypt-Israel peace was diverted to the US
to promote Israeli interests. One can imagine that a higher income
might have begun to look quite attractive to Horowitz, and he began to
move away from leftism to a political position that could serve both
the interests of the wealthiest Americans and the State of Israel
while he enriched himself in ways that working for leftist causes
never could.

In the pattern of secular or messianic Eastern European Jewish
antinomianism that goes back to the 17th century, Horowitz dumped and
married several wives while he kept company with a succession of
college students as he worked on academic freedom issues that served
as cover for the goal of making sure that colleges indoctrinated ideas
favorable to the conservative white racist and Jabotinskian Zionist
political agenda. In attacking academics David Horowitz has pioneered
the google-smear tactic, which Professor Juan Cole of the University
of Michigan describes as follows.

It seems to me that David Horowitz and some far right wing friends of
his have hit upon a new way of discrediting a political opponent,
which is the GoogleSmear. It is an easy maneuver for someone like
Horowitz, who has extremely wealthy backers, to set up a web magazine
that has a high profile and is indexed in google news. Then he just
commissions persons to write up lies about people like me (leavened
with innuendo and out-of-context quotes). Anyone googling me will
likely come upon the smear profiles, and they can be passed around to
journalists and politicians as though they were actual information.

The attempt to control or intimidate academic discourse corresponds to
a Central and Eastern European Jewish pattern. The Downfall of the
Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany by R. S. Levy
describes in detail how German Jewish advocacy organizations like the
Zentralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central
Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith) used the legal system

     * to force perceived enemies into bankruptcy,
     * to attack members of the academic community believed unfriendly,
     * to ban books or
     * to force publishers to change offending passages.

Horowitz works with Daniel Pipes's CampusWatch in the ongoing attempt
to intimidate university professors under the aegis of the following
Freedom Center programs describe at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center.

     * FrontPage Magazine -- an online "conservative" political
magazine and website, edited by Horowitz, that is the successor to
Heterodoxy (see below). Its main focus is on issues pertaining to
foreign policy, war, and terrorism.
     * Discover the Networks (previously, and still often referred to
as, "Discover the Network") - A database of what it describes as
organizations and "activists for leftwing agendas and causes --
egalitarians, socialists, and opponents of American 'imperialism'",[7]
with a Java applet to display their interconnections in graphic
form.[8]This description can include Jihadists, "anti-American"
strains of anti-Iraq War activists, etc. After two years of
development, went online in February, 2005, with a staff of two at a
cost of about $500,000. [9]
     * Students for Academic Freedom- claims chapters on 150 campuses.
Opposes "indoctrination".[10]
     * Wednesday Morning Club - In 2006 the Center held twenty-one
Wednesday Morning Club events with speakers ranging from former
Speaker Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson, Wafa Sultan, General
Georges Sada,Judge Charles W. Pickering, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele
and Melanie Morgan with Catherine Moy. Speakers in 2007 include Dinesh
D'Souza, Dore Gold, Bruce Herschensohn and John O'Sullivan. In
previous years speakers have included then-Governor George W. Bush
(1999), then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Robert Bork,
Representatives Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde, Senators Trent Lott, Bill
Frist and Joseph Lieberman, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Kristol, Fred
Barnes and George Will.[11]
     * Jihad Watch (or Jihadwatch; also Dhimmi Watch) - blogs and
articles on the ongoing "Jihad".[12]
     * The Individual Rights Foundation - Organization of lawyers to
fight speech codes and political correctness on campuses and
elsewhere. Participated as Amicus Curiae in Boy Scouts of America v.
Dale, the successful defense of the Boy Scouts of America against the
ACLU in the Supreme Court. [13][14]
     * Libertas - A forum for promoting conservative films in
Hollywood. It presents the conservative Liberty Film Festival.[15][3]
     * Restoration Weekend - Annual conservative fundraising and
networking event.

Note that JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch is for the most part run by the
non-Jewish Robert Spencer, who lately has been meeting with the
European extremist anti-Muslim right in order to coordinate
anti-Muslim political efforts. (See
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-21-200\
7/0004686363&EDATE=
.)

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is the latest Islamophobic project of
the Freedom Center. If Horowitz is trying to increase suspicions of
American Muslims, the silliness of his program seems to create
contempt for the Freedom Center while it inspires non-Muslim American
interest and conversion to Islam.

According to http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/horowitz-islamofacism/,

     Kareem Shora, the Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti
Discrimination Committee, said that Horowitz was dramatically
overstating the number of participating schools:

           o We contacted those institutions, alerting them to the fact
that their name was being used, and wondering what exactly was taking
place. … It's important to note though, after we contacted those
institutions, most of those institutions indicated that no such events
is taking place on those campus. And many contacted the sponsors and
told them, "do not use my institution's name in your campaign,"
including some very renowned universities such as Yale and Princeton.

     Shora also said that the president of Liberty University, the
evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell, also had their name
removed from Horowitz's list.

Much of the criticism that Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week speakers make
about Islam also applies to Orthodox Judaism. Possibly Horowitz et al.
are so ignorant of Judaism that they are unaware of the similarities
of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but it is more probable that the
Islamophobes are just trying to recast Islamophobia according to the
model of late 19th and early 20th century anti-Semitism and are
focusing on critiques that worked against Judaism in the past.

Horowitz may not care about the effectiveness of Islamo-Fascism
Awareness Week. He may be able to raise money simply on the basis of
presence at American universities and the degree of controversy that
he creates. If such is the case, attempts to suppress Islamo-Fascism
Awareness Week may benefit Freedom Center fundraising.  Instead of
becoming defensive, American Muslims should go on the offensive and
strengthen alliances with progressive and conservative non-Muslims,
who are aghast at the damage that Zionists and extremist American Jews
have managed to do to American society and to US foreign policy..

If it is legitimate to open up discussion of Islamo-Fascism on
American campuses, can American Jews and prejudiced Judeophiles object
to a Zionazism Awareness Week? The late but highly respected
University of Wisconsin professor George Mosse discussed the
similarities of German Nazi and Zionist ideology extensively while
Harvard Professor Jay Harris has mentioned in his classes the
superficial likeness of German Nazism and Zionism.  Zionists so
casually commit atrocities against the native population of Palestine
that "superficial" is probably an inappropriate adjective.
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is an opportunity for Muslims to open up
a discussion of the legitimacy of the Zionist state, of the damage
that the US Israel alliance does to America, and of the excessive
influence that Jewish fanatics have in the USA.

===

David Horowitz unites the Ummah
Sunday, October 21, 2007
World View News Editorial


I was surprised and delighted to find that David Horowitz managed to
do what no one else could ever do - get every major Islamic and Arab
association and every personal opinion of every Muslim as well as
anyone even remotely progressive on the same page as each other -
united against "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week," united against his
Judeo-Supremacist hate campaign.

David Horowitz has moved the boundary of rational discourse on Islam
and Arabic politics so far to the right that previously unacceptable
Islamophobia and Arabophobia became acceptable or even moderate
positions in American public discourse. Juan Cole has identified
Horowitz as a pioneer of the "google-smear" method of discrediting a
political opponent where lies "can be passed around to journalists and
politicians as though they were actual information."

I have to disagree with the mainstream Muslim organizations that
"dawah" or "explaining Islam" is the best method of counter-attack
against the liar pundits who are using Muslims as scapegoats to
distract from the wars the neo-conservatives are forcing America to
wage, pay for and die for. For every lying sentence someone like
Dershowitz or Horowitz might say, it would take an hour to unravel all
the falsehoods and racist misconceptions. This is the neo-con method
of argumentation. They are not trying to understand Muslims or help
Muslims, they are trying to defeat Muslims politically and socially.
It is therefore necessary to use normal political debate tactics to
gain the upper hand. There is no evidence that dawah will likely solve
the problem of the David Horowitz's of the world. They have more money
and more media connections and they can do what they want. A more
useful approach is to work on discrediting them by talking about THEM.
Not by insisting we don't support terrorists. They are trying to wedge
you into a corner and force you to say that you support Israel's right
to murder Palestinians and take their property and sell it for
subsidized rates to American Jews at discounts funded by our tax dollars.

The important thing to point out is that pro-Israel fanatics are
disloyal to America and that they are traitors. David Horowitz in his
FrontPage newsletter openly supported putting Prof. Sami Al-Arian in
prison on secret evidence (read: no charges) and he wants all Muslims
deported. He also wants Muslims to be imprisoned. He uses the very
1980's topic of "female circumcision" as a debate tactic when the real
question is why are innocent women giving birth to babies on floors
covered in shit and why are they being raped and sodomized by US
soldiers in Guantanamo? Whose idea was that?

David Horowitz, like most pro-Israel Jews in America, wanted very much
for the US to invade Iraq and imprison its population and murder the
children. He is also strongly supportive of bombing Iran for no good
reason except for his seething hatred against the United States. The
neo-cons want to end the era of the American Constitution. David
Horowitz supports trials without evidence, without charges, Muslims
being locked up for life and tortured like Jose Padilla, who was given
so much LSD he lost his mind and was unable to speak for himself at
his own trial.

David Horowitz is part of a network of well-funded Jewish think tanks
whose goal is to enslave the American population so that we will
eternally subsidize the Israeli economy, send our children to die
fighting Israel's enemies both real and imagined, and to give up our
sovereignty.

I think it's really great that the Muslims and Arabs have united
against David Horowitz's hate campaign. But what people still don't
understand is that the anti-Islam speech is just a circus show. What
this clown is advocating is the end of the United States Constitution.
The end of civil liberties. The end of human rights. He advocates
everything that Israel stands for. He wills the destruction of the
American economy and our very moral fabric. Look at what
frontpagemag.com wrote about Prof. Sami-Al Arian, about mosques around
the country. He wants every person who is loyal to the ideals of the
United States to rot in prison.

===

`ISLAMO-FASCISM' WEEK SPEAKER MEETS WITH EUROPEAN 'NEO-NAZIS'
Robert Spencer is main speaker for upcoming Islamophobic campus tour


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/21/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) revealed today that the main speaker for an upcoming
series of "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" lectures at university
campuses nationwide recently offered a keynote address at a European
gathering that included representatives of racist or "neo-Nazi"
political parties.

Author Robert Spencer, who is scheduled to appear beginning next week
at universities such as Brown, DePaul and Dartmouth, is regarded by
American Muslims as one of the nation's worst Islamophobes. His
virulently anti-Islam website promotes the idea that life for Muslims
in the West should be made so difficult that they will leave.

Spencer recently spoke at a so-called "Counterjihad Brussels 2007"
conference in Belgium attended by those with links to far-right
parties such as Filip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang (Belgium) and Ted
Ekeroth of Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden). Both parties have been
accused of either having a racist platform, a neo-Nazi past or having
links to neo-Nazis and other racists.

Vlaams Belang is the successor to the Vlaams Blok party, which was
banned in 2004 for being an illegal racist political faction. (Vlaams
Belang's founders were Nazi collaborators in World War II.)

Of Sverigedemokraterna, the International Herald Tribune wrote:
"Sverigedemokraterna, or the Sweden Democrats, have been part of this
country's political landscape for almost 20 years, but they were
considered too close to the Nazi-inspired far-right to contend for
large numbers of votes."

Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch Board Vice President "Hugh Fitzgerald"
wrote on that hate site: "Only one group, only one belief-system,
distinguishes itself by appearing incapable of fitting in. And that is
Muslims, and Islam ... if one really knew what Islam contained ...
then how could any decent person remain a Muslim?"

He also recommended that western nations be "Islam-proofed the way a
house is child-proofed," compared Muslims to Nazis and urged that they
be boycotted: "[I]t should not be hard to find ways to limit the
spread or practice of Islam. And if in addition to whatever local,
state and federal government officials do, private parties simply
conduct their own boycott of goods and services offered by Muslims, in
the same way that they would have refused to buy, in 1938, a German
Voigtlander camera..."

Other speakers on the "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" tour include Ann
Coulter, who refers to Muslims as "rag heads," and Daniel Pipes, a
supporter of the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II and
of the views of French racist Jean-Marie Le Pen.

"All those who value religious tolerance and diversity should be
concerned about the growing links between European racists and
American Islamophobes," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.

Publicity for the tour got off to a bad start when it was revealed
that the poster promoting the campus events used a photograph that
purportedly showed a Muslim woman being stoned to death, but which was
in fact an image from a fictional movie.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices
and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the
understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties,
empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice
and mutual understanding.

CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or
202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@...; CAIR Communications
Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail:
rahmed@...; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin,
202-488-8787 or 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@...

===

Local Muslims upset by UW campus event
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times
The Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003963479_islam20m.html


A controversial week of events, billed as Islamo-Fascism Awareness
Week, launches at the University of Washington and some 100 other
colleges next week — drawing condemnations from Muslim groups here and
across the country.

The UW College Republicans, organizer of the local events, say the
week is intended to foster awareness of the terrorist threat posed by
a small number of extremists within Islam.

But some local Muslims say the week fosters Islamophobia and racism
and attempts to paint all Muslims as terrorists.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, launched this year by a recent graduate
of Duke University and sponsored by the Los Angeles-based David
Horowitz Freedom Center, is intended to "confront the two Big Lies of
the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and
that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the
terrorist threat," according to its Web site.

The Web site includes suggested campus activities such as holding
sit-ins outside women's studies departments to protest "the silence of
feminists over the oppression of women in Islam" and holding a
memorial service for the "victims of Islamo-Fascist violence around
the world."

The UW week won't include all those elements.

"What we're going to be focusing more on specifically is the terrorist
threat," said Auggie Eck, vice president of UW College Republicans.

Beginning Monday, the group plans to hand out information sheets
describing what the week's activities are all about.

And it's hosting two events open to the public: a showing of "Suicide
Killers," a documentary about suicide bombers, at 7 p.m. Wednesday in
Smith Hall, and a talk by conservative author and talk-show host
Michael Medved at 7 p.m. Thursday in Kane Hall.

Tom Walker, president of UW College Republicans, says they're not
saying that all of Islam is dangerous.

"Our main point is raising awareness of what we feel is an extreme
brand of Islam that is spreading rapidly around the world and posing a
threat to America and the Western world," he said.

Amin Odeh, a board member with the local Arab American Community
Coalition, said he agrees that "radical anything is dangerous —
radical Muslims, radical Christians, radical Jews. Education is needed."

But Odeh says Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week makes too general a link
between extremism and Islam, and that the term "Islamo-fascism" links
fascism with an entire religion.

"Unfortunately, when people hear the term they don't think of only a
small group of extremists, but of Islam in general," he said.

Hala Dillsi, a member of the UW Muslim Student Association, believes
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week promotes fear and intolerance. She is
distributing green armbands and encouraging people to wear T-shirts
that are green — traditionally the color associated with Islam — on
Wednesday in solidarity with local Arabs and Muslims.

The student group also is organizing a forum Oct. 29 in which
professors and local Muslims discuss and answer questions about Islam.

Members of the Muslim Student Association, along with other
organizations, also plan to hold protests outside Wednesday and
Thursday evening's Awareness Week events.

Assistant Chief Ray Wittmier with the UW Police Department said his
department is meeting with student organizers on all sides "to make
sure everybody stays safe."

Janet I. Tu: 206-464-2272 or jtu @ seattletimes.com

===

NOT IN OUR VOICE: JEWISH ALLIANCE REPUDIATES
`ISLAMO-FASCISM AWARENESS WEEK'
Shira Gordon, Alana Krivo-Kaufman, Josh Schwartz and Shlomo Bolts
Columbia Spectator
10/22/07


We, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, repudiate the mission of David
Horowitz's "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." We reject the manner in
which he manipulates Jewish grief over the Holocaust and the situation
in Israel. As Jews and members of a larger campus coalition community,
we speak out as allies of our fellow Muslim students.

Horowitz does not speak for us. Instead, he uses symbols and rhetoric
which exploit Jewish communal memory and grief. He uses the fear
brought about by the Holocaust as well as by terrorist attacks against
our fellow Jews. He juxtaposes images of Nazi propaganda with current
Islamic extremists. By associating these images with broad groups
haphazardly labeled "Islamo-Fascist," Horowitz seeks to replace
intellectual discussion with panic. Such malevolent tactics are of no
service to the Jewish people; rather, they are an attempt to induce
Jews into sacrificing their values for a world view of oversimplified
fear.

Horowitz claims to support moderate Islam, but does nothing of the
sort. Horowitz's "Student's Guide" features a petition "appeal" aimed
at Muslim Student Associations across the country. This "appeal" is in
fact a loyalty oath, in which Muslims are forced to choose between
denouncing their entire religion as a danger to humanity and being
branded as terrorist sympathizers. Such a narrow-minded approach does
not aid moderates, but seeks to strand them between two radical and
untenable positions.

Horowitz's anti-Muslim week of action aims to create a dangerous and
false dichotomy between "Judeo-Christian Civilization" and Islam, both
on our campuses and in the world. Horowitz points to the atrocities of
extremist regimes, which are driven by a range of historical,
political, and economic factors, and claims such atrocities embody the
essence of Islam. By this logic, geopolitical conflict can only be
resolved with the end of Islam. Such a headstrong and stubborn
conviction could only result in enflaming tensions, and provoking a
New Crusade against Islam.

We refuse to lend our voice to those who attempt to parasitically draw
on the support of the Jewish community. We are not fooled by pundits
who co-opt progressive activists' language and protest forms. Instead,
we stand as allies with communities of faith and our fellow students.
Mr. Horowitz: You will not further your campaign of hate and
intolerance in our voice.

Shira Gordon is a senior in Barnard College. Alana Krivo-Kaufman is a
junior in Barnard College. Joshua Schwartz is a senior in List
College. Shlomo Bolts is a sophomore in Columbia College. The authors
are all members of the Progressive Jewish Alliance.

===

MN: ISLAMO-FASCISM A RACIST CONCEPT
Fedwa Wazwaz
Minnesota Daily
10/22/07


In his Oct. 17 letter "Not racist to criticize," Matt Kleiber states
that one of the potential speakers in the Islamo-Fascism Awareness
Week was not a racist for suggesting that Western culture is superior
to Arab culture.

Kleiber needs to understand that the very notion of Islamo-Fascism is
a racist concept and any speaker that speaks in such an event is a
racist. These speakers are not criticizing any Arab country or
particular policy but instead are attacking the faith of 1.5 billion
people by likening Islam to Fascism. A better analogy is a conference
held by the KKK attacking Jews or holding a Judeo-Fascism Awareness Week.

Or how would Kleiber feel about a West-Fascism Awareness Week that
seeks to show how Western women are oppressed as sex objects and
citing the human trafficking problem where women are sold as sex slaves?

Not everything Muslims do is right; Muslims do not always represent
Islam, just as Christians and Jews do not always represent their
faiths. There are many problems in the Muslim world today and there
are just as many in the Western world. Both societies need to own up
to them by forums that open up an exchange of ideas and educate the
masses.

However, there is a difference between a forum that criticizes
cultural practices in a given society and one that demonizes a group
of people. An awareness week that paints all Muslims with the same
brush does not promote understanding but rather increases intolerance,
fear and bigotry in a climate of prejudice toward Muslims that is
already at an unprecedented level.

It is documented that campaigns that demonize an entire group of
people are one of the many gradual steps toward genocide. Please read
"The six Steps from Discrimination to Extermination" by Bart Charlow.
Charlow mentions that step one is to spread myths or stereotypes about
people that result in denigration and social distancing from them.

Freedom of speech when embraced in the spirit of elevating the truth
is a needed value in every society. However, it is important to
understand that hate speech which vilifies an entire group can have
dangerous consequences in the form of hate crimes and violence.

Fedwa Wazwaz is a University staff member.

===

`ISLAMOFASCISM' - DEBUNKING A CONSERVATIVE SMEAR TACTIC
Annika Carlson and Sarah Dreier
Campus Progress
10/22/07


In the days following 9/11, Americans across the ideological spectrum
united in support of increased protections against terrorist attacks
on U.S. soil. But a handful of conservatives used the attacks to
promote division among Americans and their allies abroad. For example,
conservative writer Stephen Schwartz employed the term "Islamofascism"
in a Weekly Standard article to describe the ideology of America's
enemies in its newly minted "war on terror." Unfortunately, the
moniker stuck with many prominent conservatives. Right-wing pundits,
policy makers, and journalists started using the term, and even
President Bush has employed it to describe terrorist networks in the
Middle East.

That's a shame, because Islamofascism is a misleading and harmful
label: Instead of correctly identifying America's enemies, it
inaccurately describes modern terrorism, wrongly demonizes Islam as a
violent religion, and dangerously obscures America's real national
security threats.

Here are the top four reasons why conservatives should stop using the
term Islamofascism, and an explanation of what ideas and policies they
should be promoting instead.

Islamofascism misrepresents modern terrorism and Islam.

It makes little sense to use the word "fascism" to describe today's
terrorism threat. Al Qaeda and other 21st century terrorists do not
rely on the nation-state concept that defined 20th century fascism.
Whereas fascists used violence to create control out of disorder,
contemporary terrorists derive ammunition from chaos. (MORE)

===

CA: WEEK'S FOCUS STIRRING CONTROVERSY
Bruin Republicans' "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" met with criticism
from Muslim students
Lucy Benz-Rogers
Daily Bruin
10/22/07


A weeklong series of events called Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, put
on by Bruin Republicans, is beginning today amid some controversy.

Similar events will be held at hundreds of campuses across the nation
as part of a terrorism-awareness project started by conservative
writer and activist David Horowitz.

"The idea is to raise awareness about the threat of Islamic terror and
Islamic radicalism," said David Lazar, chairman of Bruin Republicans
and a former Daily Bruin Viewpoint columnist.

Horowitz emphasized that, while his group developed the idea for the
event, the specific details were up to student coordinators such as Lazar.

The week will focus on abuses against women, such as genital
mutilation and honor killings, Lazar and Horowitz both said.

"This isn't about a problem we have with Islam," said Lazar. "Our
focus is on things that I hope we are all able to condemn as
horrible," he added.

Event organizers stressed that they encourage moderate Muslims to join
them in opposing Islamic fundamentalism, though Lazar admitted he did
not expect much support from Muslim Student Association members.

The reason for this is Lazar's definition of the term moderate, said
Naqib Shifa, president of the Muslim Student Association, which he
believes does not align with that of most Muslim students.

Randa May Wahbe, president of Students for Justice in Palestine, agreed.

"The way the week is stamped ... is that it's not a moderate week. I
don't see it as a week that would draw moderates at all," she said.

In response to the event, those opposed to it will be wearing green,
and Shifa said his group plans to set up a table on Bruin Walk to pass
out information about Islam to peacefully counter what he called the
"hate-themed" events.

Shifa said that, while the Muslim Student Association condemns human
rights abuses in the name of Islam, he still believes the way these
issues are being presented is offensive to Islam. (MORE)

===

PA: SANTORUM'S SPEECH ON MUSLIMS SPARKS ANGER
Brett Lieberman
Patriot-News
10/22/07


Ten months after leaving office, former Sen. Rick Santorum is back in
the thick of controversy over whether he and other conservatives'
"hate speech" is stirring up anti-Muslim sentiments.

Santorum is headlining an event on the campus of Penn State University
Tuesday night that is part of a controversial line-up of conservative
speakers in Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.

Commentator Ann Coulter also is scheduled to speak at campuses in
California and Louisiana. The talks are part of a series of events at
more than 100 colleges being organized by the Los Angeles-based David
Horowitz Freedom Center.

===

IN: ISLAMO-FASCISM AWARENESS MISFIRES BY TARGETING PROFESSORS
Indiana Daily Student
10/22/07


Starting today, a coalition of conservative organizations will be
holding "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" at college campuses across the
country. Organized by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the event
will include demonstrations, petitions, distribution of political
materials and speeches by figures such as Horowitz, Ann Coulter and
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who will all confront "the two Big Lies of
the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and
that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the
terrorist threat." Islamo-Fascism Week's protests are directed against
the "academic left," who, the organizers claim, serve as apologists
for radical Islamist terrorism and work to undermine the U.S.
government's efforts against it.

And herein lies our problem with Islamo-Fascism Week: It's less about
educating students about radical Islamist terrorism than it is about
bashing liberals. Groups like al-Qaida do murder innocent civilians in
order to intimidate populations into surrendering to their despotic
rule. They wish to force women to become subservient, second-class
citizens; to execute gays, non-Muslims and anyone who doesn't abide by
their cultural rules;. But, instead of focusing on this genuine
threat, Islamo-Fascism Week's organizers would rather invent one
namely left-leaning professors. "Never mind those with the bombs,"
they seem to think. "It's academics who criticize U.S. foreign policy
and society, who are reticent about military force, who keep repeating
that the vast majority of the world's Muslims aren't terrorists and
that Westerners need to better understand their cultures, and who fret
about global warming who are the real enemy." This is a load of rubbish.

If the event's organizers really want to combat "Islamo-Fascism," they
need to have actual scholars (not conservative pundits) teach about
how terrorist groups work, familiarize students with the political and
cultural context that gave rise to these groups, sponsor debates on
how to counter them and otherwise do things that are actually
educational. (MORE)

===

WI: `ISLAMO-FASCIST' MONIKER MEANINGLESS
Michael Crichton
Badger Herald
10/22/07


As a former military intelligence soldier with eight years in uniform
and two tours in Iraq under my metaphorical belt, I would like to
point out how freaking idiotic the "Islamo-Fascist" neologism really
is. For one, "fascist" and "totalitarian" are not synonyms, no matter
what Bill O'Reilly might have told you. The only way to describe
al-Qaeda as "Islamo-Fascists" is to stretch that category so wide that
Stalin and Mao become "Communo-Fascists" and Louis XIV is dubbed a
"Solar-Monarcho-Fascist."

You'd be slightly more accurate in describing the Islamists as
"Islamic Totalitarians," but even that has problems. Many of them
don't want a single, monolithic state, which is a prerequisite for the
"totalitarian" label. They'd rather have a relatively weak central
government with most of the authority handled by regional councils of
"the faithful." In this way, they're not so different from the small
government conservatives we have over here. Why not just say "Islamic
militants" or "fundamentalists?" You know, the labels that are
actually accurate?

In summation, would people please stop using words they don't know the
meanings of to describe groups whose methodology and motivations they
don't understand? Those of us who actually know something about the
matter in question would appreciate it.

===

No need for students to fear right wing blowhards
Rebecca Mahfouz
10/23/07
http://media.www.themichiganjournal.com/media/storage/paper255/news/2007/10/23/P\
erspectives/No.Need.For.Students.To.Fear.Right.Wing.Blowhards-3050520.shtml


President George W. Bush is asking taxpayers for another $46 billion
to maintain his Iraq destroying hobby, the global economy is a
shambles and Americans are being spied on (mostly during phone calls,
as they chat about how their jobs have been outsourced and how they
can't afford to see a doctor). All these minor happenings aside, the
issue that, according to the far right, Americans should really be
focusing on is why it's still important to hate Muslims.

That's right folks, it's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. David Horowitz
and his frantic minions will spend this week visiting universities
across the country to inform us all that the "Islamofascists" have
taken over our universities and are especially likely to be lurking in
women's studies departments.

According to the Terrorism Awareness Project's Web site, "The nation
will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest
ever--Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on
200 university and college campuses." The University of Michigan is,
of course, included on the list of campuses about to be "rocked."

The week's festivities will include sit-ins at women's studies
departments and campus women's centers "to protest their silence about
the oppression of women in Islam," as well as "teach-ins" on the very
same subject. Additionally, the list of luminaries who have signed on
to speak at campus events is astonishing. Such intellectual giants as
Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes will lend their paranoiac screechings to
the cacophony of hysterical anti-Muslim voices set to converge on
America's universities.

Although the group is trying to frame the event in terms of "raising
awareness" and fighting back against the "lies of the political left,"
it's actually an opportunity for Horowitz to give vent to his
pathological hatred of Muslims and for his followers to intimidate and
harass students and faculty who don't share their hateful views. There
will, of course, be those students who are willing to jump on board
the Muslim-bashing train, but I'm confident that most will let this
silliness pass unremarked. A few will protest, or try to shut down the
ersatz crusader gatherings on their campuses, but really, there's no
need to put up much of a fuss in the face of this particular display
of far-right idiocy.

Naturally, many students are distressed at yet another attack on
Muslims, and are worried that the events and speakers will feed
Islamophobia among college students. Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,
however, will likely have the opposite of its intended effect. While
the aim of the week's theatrics is to dehumanize Muslims and blame all
the world's ills on a single religion and its adherents, the
organizers seem unaware that universities are where the educated and
those who intend to become so tend to congregate.

By using a Bushism in the very title of their event, by accusing
benign organizations like the Muslim Student Association of ties to
terrorist groups and by inviting the foulest of right-wing hatemongers
to represent them, they've made it unnecessary for reasonable people
to so much as acknowledge the presence of the loons on their campuses.
The melodramatics of the organizers of "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"
undermine whatever small credibility it might have had.

===

Horowitz Inflates Number Of Schools Participating In His Divisive
`Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week'
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/horowitz-islamofacism/


On college campuses across America this week, conservatives are
gathering together to listen to right-wing luminaries such as Ann
Coulter and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) as part of David
Horowitz's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.

Horowitz is claiming that it will be "the biggest conservative campus
protest ever" and "a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and
college campuses" about "the enemy." But on CSPAN's Washington Journal
this weekend, Kareem Shora, the Executive Director of the
American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, said that Horowitz was
dramatically overstating the number of participating schools:

     We contacted those institutions, alerting them to the fact that
their name was being used, and wondering what exactly was taking
place. … It's important to note though, after we contacted those
institutions, most of those institutions indicated that no such events
is taking place on those campus. And many contacted the sponsors and
told them, "do not use my institution's name in your campaign,"
including some very renowned universities such as Yale and Princeton.

Shora also said that the president of Liberty University, the
evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell, also had their name
removed from Horowitz's list. Watch it:

Horowitz's efforts have come under fire from critics, who say it will
spread "racism and religious hatred" through the use of a loaded
political phrase like Islamo-fascism. Others, such as Middle East
expert Juan Cole, say that "Fascism is not even a very good
description of the ideology of most Muslim fundamentalists."

Former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid has said that "even adding
the word Islamic" is counterproductive to keeping extremism "from
becoming mainstream."

The tactics encouraged by Horowitz and his followers, however, are
intentionally fashioned to stoke negative reactions from moderate
Muslims "as evidence that they're on the side of `our terrorist
adversaries.'" For instance, Horowitz is distributing a "student
guide" that encourages participants to draft offensively-worded
petitions in an intentional effort to stir divisiveness on campuses by
forcing groups to "declare their allegiances":

     Perhaps most importantly, a petition forces students and faculty
to declare their allegiances: either to fighting our terrorist
adversaries or failing to take action to stop our enemies. For this
reason, we encourage you to make a special effort to bring this
petition to those groups who might be least likely to sign it, for
example to campus administrators, student government officers, and the
Muslim Students' Association.

As Ali Eteraz notes, "this `awareness' week is not about awareness at
all, but using anti-Muslim animus to achieve political ends" by
attacking Horowitz's true "enemy": "the political left."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

FBI Spied on Martin Luther King's Widow
By ERRIN HAINES,AP
http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/fbi-spied-on-martin-luther-kings-widow/200708310\
72609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


ATLANTA - Federal agents spied on the widow of the Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr. for several years after his assassination in 1968, according
to newly released documents that reveal the FBI worried about her
following in the footsteps of the slain civil rights icon.


Photo Gallery: Under Surveillance

Arnold Michaelis, Time Life / Getty Images Coretta Scott King poses
for a portrait in the late 1960s. Newly released documents show that
government agents spied on her for years after her husband, Martin
Luther King Jr., was assassinated.


In memos that reveal Coretta Scott King being closely followed by the
government, the FBI noted concern that she might attempt "to tie the
anti-Vietnam movement to the civil rights movement."

Four years after Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, the FBI closed its
file on Coretta Scott King, saying, "No information has come to the
attention of Atlanta which indicates a propensity for violence or
affiliation of subversive elements," according to a memorandum dated
Nov. 30, 1972.

The documents were obtained by Houston television station KHOU in a
story published Thursday. Coretta Scott King died in January 2006 at
the age of 78.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who served as president of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference - which King co-founded in 1957 - said
the documents illustrate the FBI's pattern of "despicable and devious"
civil-rights-era behavior against the organization and those
affiliated with it.

What's Your Take?

"The FBI kept a microphone everywhere they could where the SCLC was
concerned," said Lowery, who said the agency had a member of the
SCLC's staff on its payroll.

"Since we had nothing to hide, it was no great problem for us. But we
don't put it past the FBI; (then-FBI Director) J. Edgar Hoover hated
Martin Luther King and everything that the SCLC stood for."

Andrew Young, a lieutenant of King's during the civil rights movement,
agreed. But he said he was surprised that the government would focus
on Coretta Scott King.

"I didn't know it and I don't think she knew it," Young said. "If ever
there was a woman that had the makings of a saint, it was Coretta. I
don't know what they were looking for, I don't know what they were
expecting to find. I don't know why they wasted the government's money."

Also included in the documents:

The FBI suggested that Ralph Abernathy, a close aide to Martin Luther
King, be made aware of threats against his life for the benefit of
"the disruptive effect of confusing and worrying him."

An intercepted letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1971 to the
National Peace Action Coalition, in which she said the Vietnam War has
"ravaged our domestic programs."

One memo shows that the FBI even read and reviewed King's 1969 book
about her late husband, "My Life with Martin Luther King Jr." The
agent made a point to say that her "selfless, magnanimous, decorous
attitude is belied by ... (her) actual shrewd, calculating,
businesslike activities."

There is also evidence that the Nixon administration and
then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were kept informed of the
FBI's nearly constant surveillance.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s activities were known to have been monitored
by the federal government as he led the civil rights movement in the
1960s. Intelligence gathering on famous Americans and war critics
became so infamous that rules to curtail domestic spying were put in
place in the 1970s.

King's nephew, Isaac Newton Farris Jr., said on Thursday that the
surveillance of his aunt comes as no surprise.

"We knew she was surveilled," said Farris, who is also chief executive
officer of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change. "The only surprise is the intensity of the surveillance after
his death. It appears it was as intense as the surveillance on my uncle."

Farris said there was no reason to monitor either one of them, since
they were law-abiding citizens who were standing up for their
constitutional rights.

"This is a woman who basically was trying to raise four kids and honor
her deceased husband," Farris said. "I don't know how that was a
threat to anybody's national security."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The "Protocol of the Elders of American Neoconservatism"
and the Blood of American Soldiers
by Walter Uhler
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/protocol.html


As virtually every literate citizen on our planet knows, since the
nineteenth century anti-Semites have been extolling the crackpot and
wicked Protocols of the Elders of Zion in order to prove a conspiracy
by Jews to rule the world. Even today, alas, the Protocols remain
popular and believable throughout the world, especially the Middle East.

Yet, since the end of the Cold War there has been little in the
political behavior of the Jews among America's neoconservatives to
refute such beliefs. After all, it was people with the names Paul
Wolfowitz, Irv Lewis Libby and Eric Edelman, who "in 1992…co-authored
a security doctrine for the United States that aimed at perpetual
hegemony and implied perpetual aggression to prevent the emergence of
'peer' powers." [Juan Cole, "Informed Comment," July 21, 2007]

Moreover, throughout the 1990s many Jews among America's
neoconservatives demonstrated an alacrity to play fast and loose with
the lives of America's soldiers. For example, in 1995 Charles
Krauthammer urged the United States to "unashamedly" lay down "the
rules of world order" and be "prepared to enforce them." In 1996
Robert Kagan wrote "Military strength alone will not avail if we do
not use it actively to maintain a world order which both supports and
rest upon American hegemony." [Quotes from Andrew J. Bacevich, The New
American Militarism, pp. 84-85]

Granted, America's neocons were not the only people eager to expend
American military blood on the battlefield during the 1990s, witness
the now infamous question by Madeleine Albirght to Colin Powell in
1993: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always
talking about if we can't use it?" [Ibid, p. 24] But the neocons
established a stranglehold on warmongering, especially when it came to
attacking Iraq.

Simply recall the three chicken hawk American neoconservative Jews,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who signed on in 1996
to write a policy paper -- "A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the
Realm"-- for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, Feith
and Wurmser recommended that Israel find pretexts for waging wars of
aggression that would roll back its Arab neighbors. Moreover, "The
centerpiece of their recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein
as the first step into remaking the Middle East into a region
friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel." [James Bamford, A Pretext
for War, p. 262]

Arguably, such behavior constituted treason. According to James
Bamford: "It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and
potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to
become advisers to a foreign government. More unsettling still was the
fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could
be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks
from the American public." [Ibid, p. 263]

A year later, as Scott McConnell has written, William Kristol and
Robert Kagan wrote an article, "Saddam Must Go," in which they
asserted: "We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground
attack to take Baghdad. But it's time to start thinking the
unthinkable." [Scott McConnell, "The Weekly Standard's War,"The
American Conservative, September 21, 2005]

Explicitly willing to shed the blood of America's servicemen and
women, in January 1998, Kristol and Kagan also wrote an Op Ed titled,
"Bombing Iraq isn't Enough," which the New York Times was reckless
enough to publish. (At this point, it's worth noting the observation
made by Robert Parry: "Under principles of international law applied
from Nuremberg to Rwanda, propagandists who contribute to war crimes
or encourage crimes against humanity can be put in the dock alongside
the actual killers." [Consortium News, Posted August 21, 2006])

Nevertheless, on January 26, 1998, Kristol and Kagan "along with more
than a dozen other neoconservative luminaries sent a letter to
President Bill Clinton denouncing the policy of containing Iraq as a
failure and calling for the United States to overthrow Saddam
Hussein." [Bacevich, p. 90] Subsequently both houses of the
Republican-controlled congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,
which the impeachment-threatened Clinton signed into law -
notwithstanding the fact that it violated U.S. treaty obligations
under the Charter of United Nations.

In 2001, months before the attacks on 9/11, neocon Michael Ledeen
wrote that Mao was correct when he asserted that revolution sprang
"from the barrel of a gun." It was America's "inescapable mission to
fight for the spread of democracy." [Bacevich, p. 88]

After 9/11, the neocons' drumbeat for shedding American military blood
became deafening. Krauthammer asserted: "the way to tame the Arab
street is not with appeasement and sweet sensitivity but with raw
power and victory…. The elementary truth that seems to elude the
experts again and again…is that power is its own reward." [Ibid, p.
93] (In light of the fact that the reckless spilling of American
military - and innocent Iraqi - blood has produced a proliferation of
terrorists and terrorist attacks around the world, it's surprising
that jingoist Krauthammer still has his job at the Washington Post.)

Three months before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Joshua Muravchik observed,
"Military conquest has often proved to be an effective means of
implanting democracy." [Ibid, p. 85] And, three months into the war,
Max Boot (another neocon chicken hawk warmonger who, subsequently,
even attempted to excuse the war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib),
urged the spilling of American military blood for the purpose of
"imposing the rule of law, property rights and other guarantees, at
gunpoint if need be." [Ibid. p. 33]

But perhaps the worst of all the bloviating "gutless wonders," who
demanded the spilling of American military blood after 9/11 was effete
William Kristol. After 9/11, it was Kristol's Weekly Standard that
incessantly beat the war drums for invading Iraq. And it did so by
repeating the BIG LIE: Saddam was linked to al Qaeda.

According to Scott McConnell, in the very first issue published after
9/11, the Weekly Standard "laid down a line from which the magazine
would not waver over the next 18 months." Their line was "to link
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to
join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then lay out a
strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating
al Qaeda." [McConnell, "The Weekly Standard's War," The American
Conservative, September 21, 2005]

Neocon Douglas Feith supported the Weekly Standard party line from
inside the bowels of the Pentagon. It was Feith's Policy
Counterterrorism Evaluation Group that devoted almost a year after
9/11 to hyping shards of evidence already dismissed by the officially
responsible intelligence agencies in order to falsely assert that
Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.

Neocon Richard Perle did something similar, but in the public realm.
In October 2002, Perle criticized the intelligence about Iraq coming
from the CIA while assuring Judith Miller of the New York Times, that
Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) "has been without
question the single most important source of intelligence about Saddam
Hussein." [Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco, p.57] Shamefully, Miller became
the Times' stenographer for Chalabi and the neocons.

Darth Cheney also was an eager recipient of Chalabi's disinformation.
It was Cheney, in the fall of 2002, who complained: "We're getting
ready to go to war, and we're nickel-and-diming the INC at a time when
they're providing us with unique intelligence on Iraqi WMD." [The New
Republic, December 1, 2003]

Unfortunately, as Americans learned after the invasion, every piece of
intelligence supplied by Chalabi's INC informants proved to be bogus.
Did Chalabi care? No. When asked whether he felt any remorse about his
role in duping Americans into an invasion of Iraq, Chalabi responded:
"No. We are in Baghdad now." [Ibid, p, 389] Given that Chalabi was
sponsored by the neocons, one is compelled to ask: Was this stupidity
or was it treason?

Consequently, given the eagerness of America's neoconservatives to
spill American military blood, perhaps it's time to reconsider the
words of Stanley Fish: "Much of the world has been opposed to the Iraq
war from its beginning, and now after four years 70 percent of
Americans share the world's opinion. Some who deplore the war believe
that those who got us into it and cheered it on did so, at least in
part, out of a desire to improve Israel's position in the Middle East.
Those who hold this view (and of course there are other analyses of
the war's origins) fear that the same people - with names like
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, Kristol, Kagan, Krauthhammer,
Wurmser, [the convicted felon] Libby and Lieberman - are pushing for a
strike against Iran, arguably a greater threat to Israel than Iraq
ever was." [Fish, New York Times online on March 4, 2007]

A glaring omission from Fish's list, of course, is the name of Norman
Podhoretz, a Jew who fervently hopes that President Bush will bomb
Iran. Yet, Professor Fish wrote his inflammatory words precisely to
condemn their implicit anti-Semitism. And properly so!

Keep in mind that the majority of America's Jews opposed the invasion
of Iraq. Consequently, it's America's neoconservatives, including it
Jewish members, who deserve America's condemnation, not America's
Jews. Thus, rather than give anti-Semitic believers of the old
"Protocols" any further reason to nurture such nonsense about Jews, I
suggest that the American public, especially America's men and women
in uniform, focus their attention instead on the willingness of
America's neocons (both Jewish and Gentile) to establish a new
"Protocol" - the "Protocol of the Elders of American Neoconservatism."

Under this new "Protocol," American neoconservatives are permitted to
urge the spilling of American military blood for neoconservative
objectives - including world domination -- but without having to
fight, kill or die for those objectives themselves.

Were America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to push back
against such cowardly warmongering, they just might save themselves
from the worst excesses of this "Protocol." For example, when William
Kristol recently wrote about progressives, "They Don't Really Support
the Troops," our troops should keep in mind that his real objective
was to mask his own criminal complicity - and the complicity of
America's neocons -- in the deaths of more than 3,600 American
soldiers, as well as tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

For, as readers of Thomas E. Ricks' book, Fiasco already know, by
clamoring for war, it was the neocons who failed to support the
troops. How so? Because many of America's senior military leaders
(both active and retired) opposed the very invasion of Iraq that the
neocons begged for.

In fact, the neocons have fostered the spilling of American military
blood in Iraq in at least three different ways. First, through their
drumbeat for the unprovoked, illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, a
country that had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al Qeada
and no initial connection to Bush's so-called war on terrorism. (Iraq
became connected only after Bush's blunder drew jihaidsts like flies
to that God-forsaken country.)

Second, through their ideologically inspired negligence, the neocons
helped to create the debacle that our troops now face in Iraq. The
negligence of neocon Douglas Feith deserves particular scorn. He
simply blew off his responsibilities to plan for the post-invasion
occupation. Consider the words of a Bush administration official:
"Feith ought to be drawn, quartered and hung…He's a sonofabich who
agitated for war in Iraq, but once the decision is made to do it, he
disengages. It was clear there were problems across the board - with
electricity, with de-Baathification, with translators, with training
the Iraqi police - and he just had nothing to do with it. I'm furious
about it, still." [Ricks, pp. 167-68]

Even worse than Feith's negligence, was the ideologically inspired
negligence of Paul Wolfowitz. Remember Wolfowitz's asinine assertion:
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide
stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war
itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his
army. Hard to imagine." [George Packer, The Assassins' Gate, pp. 114-15]

Thus, thanks, in part, to Wolfowitz, the U.S. military went into Iraq
with insufficient troop strength, and thus proved unable to prevent
either the widespread looting or the subsequent emergence of the
insurgency, which soon blossomed into a civil war. As a consequence,
more American military blood was spilled (and continues to be spilled)
in Iraq than was necessary.

Finally, nothing better establishes the failure of the neocons to
support the troops than the opposition of their views to the sobering
assessments made by America's military leaders.

First, consider the words about the "surge" recently uttered by
William Kristol: "[T]hese soldiers, fighting courageously in a just
cause, could still win the war." [Weekly Standard , 30 July 2007]

Putting aside his "just cause" canard, simply contrast Kristol's
disingenuous words with the assessment made more than three years ago
-- on May 12, 2004 -- by Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Gen. Richard Myers: "[T]here is no way to militarily win in Iraq."

Better yet, contrast Kristol's words with the assessment made by
Bush's Joint Chiefs' nominee, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, just three days
ago: [T]here is no purely military solution in Iraq."

Clearly, Kristol's encouraging words were designed to service the
"Protocol of the Elders of American Neoconservatism."

Second, juxtapose the airy words (now signifying nothing) uttered by
Robert Kagan in 1996 with the recent assessments made by retired
General William Odom and the vary same Adm. Mullen.

Kagan: "Military strength alone will not avail if we do not use it
actively to maintain a world order which both supports and rest upon
American hegemony."

Odom: "No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained
combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World
War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days
on the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods…In Iraq, combat
units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making
soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or
mortar fire each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a
single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing
limbs or eyes, or suffering serious wounds." [Odom, "'Supporting the
Troops' Means Withdrawing Them," Neiman Watchdog, 5 July 2007]

Mullen: American forces are "not unbreakable." [William Branigin,
"Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq
Drawdown," Washington Post, August 1, 2007]

Sidney Blumenthal recently wrote an exceptionally thoughtful article
for salon.com ("Operation Iraq Betrayal"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/07/26/cheney/ ), which
demonstrated that the Bush administration and its neocon supporters
have escalated their stab-in-the-back blame game for losing Iraq. Eric
Edelman's ill-considered slap down of Senator Hillary Clinton and
William Kristol's attack on The Nation and The New Republic are but
two recent examples of this slimy phenomenon. Bush's recent warning to
congress, lest it vote to withdraw our troops, constituted a third.

But, as the evidence presented above clearly demonstrates, it has been
the American soldier who has been stabbed in the back. America's
neoconservatives have repeatedly demonstrated that they are quite
willing to fight to the last drop of American military blood (but not
their own!) for the sake of America's empire, the world's oil and Israel.

If only our American servicemen and women knew!


Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose
work has been published in numerous publications, including The
Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military
History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is
President of the Russian-American International Studies Association
(RAISA).

waltuhler @ aol.com

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Iraqi women prisoners languish in jail without trial
Kareem Zair, Azzaman
October 8, 2007
www.uruknet.info?p=37018


A visit to a women prison in a Baghdad neighborhood has revealed that
Iraqi authorities are paying lip service to human rights and rule of law.

The visit by Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi found the jail over
crowded with many women afflicted with contagious diseases due to lack
of medicine and medical care.

"The tour has exposed a difficult and tragic situation in the whole
process, starting with detention and ending with the horrific
conditions of the prison," a statement by Hashemi's office said.

The prison is in the neighborhood of Kadhimiya and is believed to hold
mainly Sunni Muslim women.

Many of the prisoners, the statement said, were detained because their
husbands or sons were suspected of having links to forces resisting
U.S. occupation.

"This means if anything that the women are taken hostages to exert
pressure on their husbands who are wanted by the authorities," the
statement said.

There were teenage women among the prisoners some of whom had spent
several years behind bars, the statement added.

One women prisoner, Suaad Aziz, had told Hashemi that she was arrested
while looking for her son who had disappeared for more than one year.

"I was a principal of a school in the Amiriya district of Baghdad.
They have sentenced me to death and no one has ever asked me a single
question why I was here," the statement reported Aziz as saying.

Thousands of Iraqis languish in scores of prisons in Iraq. U.S. troops
have their own jails which they have constructed specifically to
detain suspects. Iraqi authorities run their own prisons.

There are more than 30,000 Iraqis in jails run by the U.S. and Iraqi
government and most of them have been incarcerated merely on suspicion
and held without trial.

===

Radio journalist missing in Baghdad, driver killed
22 Oct 2007
Source: Reuters
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22468746.htm


PRAGUE, Oct 22 (Reuters) - A correspondent for the U.S.-funded Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) went missing while on her way to an
interview in Baghdad on Monday morning, the radio station said.

"Police found the body of her driver, shot and dumped in the street,"
RFE/RL said in a statement.

"There is no trace of the car or RFE/RL's correspondent."

Police in Baghdad had no immediate comment on the report.

The radio station, based in the Czech capital Prague, did not reveal
the name or the nationality of the reporter, who works for RFE/RL's
Arabic-language Radio Free Iraq service.

"RFE/RL is focusing all attention now on finding out what has happened
to our colleague," RFE/RL President Jeffrey Gedmin said in the statement.

"We are working with the authorities in Baghdad and are in constant
touch with friends and family. We remain hopeful we will get her back
safely."

RFE/RL said Radio Free Iraq had lost two journalists in Iraq this
year, Nazar Abd al-Wahid al-Radhi and Khamail Muhsin Khalaf.

===

Penniless Iraqi widows wait for jobs at Baghdad street corner
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/d4a014a60dc53534a052c06a75a4bf62.h\
tm


Most of the women are widowed or have been abandoned by their
husbands, and have no brothers or sons to help them feed their large
families.   Clad in head-to-toe black robes, they converge early in
the morning at the Baghdad Gate in the northwest of the capital.

They wait for growers to hire them to work for a day in the fields for
wages of about 3,000 dinars (1.50 dollars).

They will pick dates, eggplant or peppers, depending on the season.

A pick-up stops. "I need five women," says Zaki Elwan. Negotiations
start. Elwan yells out "3,000 dinars" but one woman shouts back: "No,
4,000", to which he responds: "You know that is not the rate."

None of the women budge. After a while, the man pretends he's leaving.
One woman then suggests "3,000 and you give us some dates." A deal is
cut and five women jump on the truck.

"Every day it's the same thing. They rush to me, ask me what I offer
and we start to discuss the price," says Elwan, 41.

Badria Mohammed Jassem is left on the pavement, something she
half-expected. "I'm old, they don't want me," said Jassem, who puts
her age at 70.  "Sometimes I stay four, five days without working, I
live on bread and tea, " says Jassem, whose husband left her when she
was young.

Mohammed Hussein, a 46-year-old merchant, says he knows "those who
work well and the others."

"There's nothing humiliating about it. They are employees, they start
young until they are no longer useful." Pointing to one of the women,
he says: "In one year that one will die."

For the women, who say they no longer receive the social aid they got
under Saddam Hussein, a day without work means their families will go
hungry.

Mariam Jassem, 50, widowed in 1990, has six daughters and six sons to
feed. Sabiha Lazim, 46, has a sick husband and three children. A
16-year-old orphan whose mother is sick, has worked since she was nine.

As they wait, often in vain, they are frequently insulted or mocked by
passing motorists.

Eman Mohammad, a mother of four is exhausted.

"I wake up at three, I prepare breakfast for the children. I take two
taxis to get here, alone at night with the risk of being attacked.
People insult us and sometimes hit us. It is humiliating. We are
decent, we are not accustomed to sitting like that in the street, but
we have no choice."

===

Iraq Death Toll Rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian Killing Fields
By Joshua Holland
September 17, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62728/


A new study estimates that 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths
since Bush and Cheney chose to invade.


According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths
since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate of war-related
fatalities yet. The study was done by the British polling firm ORB,
which conducted face-to-face interviews with a sample of over 1,700
Iraqi adults in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Two provinces -- al-Anbar
and Karbala -- were too dangerous to canvas, and officials in a third,
Irbil, didn't give the researchers a permit to do their work. The
study's margin of error was plus-minus 2.4 percent.

Field workers asked residents how many members of their own household
had been killed since the invasion. More than one in five respondents
said that at least one person in their home had been murdered since
March of 2003. One in three Iraqis also said that at least some
neighbors "actually living on [their] street" had fled the carnage,
with around half of those having left the country.

In Baghdad, almost half of those interviewed reported at least one
violent death in their household.

Before the study's release, the highest estimate of Iraqi deaths had
been around 650,000 in the landmark Johns Hopkins' study published in
the Lancet, a highly respected and peer-reviewed British medical
journal. Unlike that study, which measured the difference in deaths
from all causes during the first three years of the occupation with
the mortality rate that existed prior to the invasion, the ORB poll
looked only at deaths due to violence.

The poll's findings are in line with the rolling estimate maintained
on the Just Foreign Policy website, based on the Johns Hopkins' data,
that stands at just over 1 million Iraqis killed as of this writing.

These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals
the great crimes of the last century -- the human toll exceeds the
800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994,
and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia's
infamous "Killing Fields" during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

While the stunning figures should play a major role in the debate over
continuing the occupation, they probably won't. That's because there
are three distinct versions of events in Iraq -- the bloody criminal
nightmare that the "reality-based community" has to grapple with, the
picture the commercial media portrays and the war that the
occupation's last supporters have conjured up out of thin air.
Similarly, American discourse has also developed three different
levels of Iraqi casualties. There's the approximately 1 million killed
according to the best epidemiological research conducted by one of the
world's most prestigious scientific institutions, there's the
75,000-80,000 (based on news reports) the Washington Post and other
commercial media allow, and there's the clean and antiseptic
blood-free war the administration claims to have fought (recall that
they dismissed the Lancet findings out of hand and yet offered no
numbers of their own).

Here's the troubling thing, and one reason why opposition to the war
isn't even more intense than it is: Americans were asked in an AP poll
conducted earlier this year how many Iraqi civilians they thought had
been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation, and the median
answer they gave was 9,890. That's less than a third of the number of
civilian deaths confirmed by U.N. monitors in 2006 alone.

Most of that disconnect is probably a result of American
exceptionalism -- the United States is, by definition, the good guy,
and good guys don't launch wars of choice that result in over a
million people being massacred. Never mind that that's exactly what
the data show; acknowledging as much creates intolerable cognitive
dissonance for most Americans, so as a nation, we won't.

But there's more to it than that. The dominant narrative of Iraq is
that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by
Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility. That's wrong morally
-- we chose to go into Iraq despite the fact that public health NGOs
warned in advance of the likelihood of 500,000 civilian deaths due to
"collateral damage." It's also factually incorrect -- as Stony Brook
University scholar Michael Schwartz noted a few months ago, the
Johns-Hopkins study looked at who was responsible for the violent
deaths it measured and found that coalition forces were directly
responsible for 56 percent of the deaths in which the perpetrator was
known. According to Schwartz's number crunching, based on the Lancet
data, coalition troops were responsible for at least 180,000 and as
many as 330,000 violent deaths through the middle of last year.
There's no compelling reason to think the share attributable to
occupation forces has decreased significantly since then.

Like the earlier study in the Lancet -- one that relied on widely
accepted methodology for its results -- this new research is already
being dismissed out of hand. The strange thing is that common sense
alone should be enough to conclude that the United States has killed a
huge number of Iraqi civilians. After all, it's become conventional
wisdom (based on several studies) that about 90 percent of all
casualties in modern warfare are civilians. We know that the military,
in addition to deploying 500 missiles and bombs in the first six
months of this year alone, has had trouble keeping up with the demand
for bullets in the Iraqi theater. According to a 2005 report by Lt.
Col. Dean Mengel at the Army War College, the number of rounds being
fired off is enormous (PDF):

[One news report] noted that the Army estimated it would need 1.5
billion small arms rounds per year, which was three times the amount
produced just three years earlier. In another, it was noted by the
Associated Press that soldiers were shooting bullets faster than they
could be produced by the manufacturer.

1.5 billion rounds per year … more bullets fired than can be
manufactured. Given that the estimated number of active insurgents in
Iraq has never exceeded 30,000 -- and is usually given as less than
20,000 -- that leaves a lot of deadly lead flying around. Everyone
agrees that the U.S. soldier is the best-trained fighter on earth, so
it's somewhat bizarre that war supporters believe their shots rarely
hit anybody.

If it weren't for the layers of denial that have been dutifully built
up around the American strategic class, these figures might put to
rest the notion that U.S. troops are preventing more deaths than they
cause.

Recall that the stated reason for the invasion was to reduce the
number of countries suspected of having an illicit WMD program from 36
to 35. Amid all the talk of troop deaths and the billions of dollars
being thrown away in Iraq, it's important to remember that it is the
Iraqis that are paying such a dear price for achieving that modest goal.

With a Congress frozen into inaction, all that remains to be seen is
what the final death toll from the Iraq war will be. The sad truth is
that we may never know the full scope of the carnage.

===

IRAQ: Hundreds forced to scavenge for food in garbage bins
18 Oct 2007
http://www.IRINnews.org


More  BAGHDAD, 17 October 2007 (IRIN) - Barira Mihran, a 36-year-old
mother of three, scavenges every day in other people's dustbins in
Baghdad for leftovers on which to feed her children.

Widowed and displaced by sectarian violence, the unemployed mother
said she had no other way of providing for her children.

"In the beginning it was very difficult. I never imagined that one day
I was going to be forced by destiny to feed my children from the
remains of other people's food," Barira said. "We always had good food
on our table when my husband was alive but since he was killed in
August 2005, my life has gone from bad to worse."

"My children are under age and so cannot work or beg in the streets,"
she said.

"Sometimes you have to fight for a dustbin. Many women know which
houses have good leftovers and so they wait for hours near the houses
until the leftovers are thrown in the bins outside. Then you can see
at least 10 people, women and children, running to get it, and I will
be in the middle of the crowd, for sure," Barira added.

Survey

Barira, an educated woman, has now joined hundreds of other mothers
who rummage through rubbish bins for food to feed their children,
according to the Baghdad-based Women's Rights Association (WRA), which
conducted a survey of displaced families and people living on the
streets in 12 provinces (excluding the Kurdistan region) between
January and August 2007.

Mayada Zuhair, a WRA spokeswoman, said the survey showed an increase
of 25 percent, since the previous survey in December 2005, in the
number of mothers who fed their children either by scavenging in
people's rubbish bins or by becoming sex workers. Of the 3,572
respondents, 72 percent were women (mainly widowed) and of these 9
percent said they had resorted to prostitution and 17 percent said
they scavenged for food in dustbins and at rubbish tips. The survey
was published and distributed to non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
and local government offices.

"This is now a common sight, especially in Baghdad - mothers standing
near dustbins trying to find some food for their children," Mayada said.

Government food rations

Government monthly food rations - including rice, beans, lentils,
flour and cooking oil - are in principle available to Iraqi families
regardless of income, on production of proof of citizenship and a
fixed address.

The system was introduced by former President Saddam Hussein to offset
the impact of sanctions and paid for by Iraqi oil under UN
administration. The system is currently reaching only 60 percent of
its target, and quality and quantities are in decline, Iraqi officials
say. (see: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74196)

Those without identity papers have particular problems: Mayada said
many families have lost their documents, which means they cannot
access the rations.

"The women who feed their children from leftovers have lost everything
- homes, husbands, relatives, documents and respect," Mayada added.

"Women require urgent support but few NGOs are able to help and these
street children are suffering from diarrhoea, malnutrition and some
are starving," Mayada said.

Zahra'a Abdel-Lattef, a senior official at the Ministry of Labour and
Social Affairs, said there were no projects helping such families:
"Some mothers approach us for help and we do whatever we can. We try
to give some of them new food ration cards; to others we offer
mattresses and blankets and in a few cases we are able to find [them]
a job," she said.

Vulnerable to attack

According to the local police, many homeless women, walking around
with their children on the streets of the capital, are victims of
violence.

"We have some cases of women who were raped, and their children
attacked and sometimes even killed while out looking for food or a
place to spend the night," Col Hassan Abdul-Khaaliq, head of
Bab-al-Muadham police station in Baghdad, said.

"They need a safe place to stay because the streets in Iraq are very
dangerous today and walking alone at night... leaves them open to
attack by militants or insurgents," Abdul-Khaaliq said.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Imam loses fight to stay
Deportation to Tunisia set for today
The Gazette
Monday, October 22, 2007
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=592740ea-46c5-497d-949c\
-af3f7c5b0dc5


An outspoken Montreal imam lost his attempt yesterday to persuade a
Federal Court to stop his deportation to Tunisia scheduled for today.

Saïd Jaziri, who has been one of Quebec's most quoted Muslim leaders
during the debate on reasonable accommodation, was ordered deported
after his refugee status, granted in 1998, was revoked last June.

It was revoked after authorities discovered Jaziri, a Tunisian native,
had not disclosed a criminal conviction in France in 1994. That
conviction was related to his role in an assault on an individual
whose actions had led to the closing of a prayer room.

Jaziri, spiritual leader of a Bélanger St. E. mosque, is married and
expecting a child with his wife, Nancy Ann Adams of Laval. He was
arrested last Monday after he was judged likely not to show up for his
deportation.

Jaziri, who has bragged about converting at least one Quebec woman a
week to Islam over the past few years, drew criticism recently for
stating in a television interview with TV5 host Luck Mervil that
homosexuality was an illness.

He also has complained about alleged heavy infiltration of mosques by
federal intelligence operatives.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Switzerland is known as a haven of peace and neutrality. But today it
is home to a new extremism that has alarmed the United Nations.
Proposals for draconian new laws that target the country's immigrants
have been condemned as unjust and racist. A poster campaign, the work
of its leading political party, is decried as xenophobic.


Has Switzerland become Europe's heart of darkness?
By Paul Vallely
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2938940.ece


At first sight, the poster looks like an innocent children's cartoon.
Three white sheep stand beside a black sheep. The drawing makes it
looks as though the animals are smiling. But then you notice that the
three white beasts are standing on the Swiss flag. One of the white
sheep is kicking the black one off the flag, with a crafty flick of
its back legs.

The poster is, according to the United Nations, the sinister symbol of
the rise of a new racism and xenophobia in the heart of one of the
world's oldest independent democracies.

A worrying new extremism is on the rise. For the poster - which bears
the slogan "For More Security" - is not the work of a fringe neo-Nazi
group. It has been conceived - and plastered on to billboards, into
newspapers and posted to every home in a direct mailshot - by the
Swiss People's Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) which has
the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of
the country's coalition government.

With a general election due next month, it has launched a twofold
campaign which has caused the UN's special rapporteur on racism to ask
for an official explanation from the government. The party has
launched a campaign to raise the 100,000 signatures necessary to force
a referendum to reintroduce into the penal code a measure to allow
judges to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes once they have
served their jail sentence.

But far more dramatically, it has announced its intention to lay
before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under
the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed.

It will be the first such law in Europe since the Nazi practice of
Sippenhaft - kin liability - whereby relatives of criminals were held
responsible for their crimes and punished equally.

The proposal will be a test case not just for Switzerland but for the
whole of Europe, where a division between liberal multiculturalism and
a conservative isolationism is opening up in political discourse in
many countries, the UK included.

SWISS TRAINS being the acme of punctuality, the appointment was very
precise. I was to meet Dr Ulrich Schor - one of the men behind the
draconian proposal - in the restaurant at the main railway station in
Zurich at 7.10pm. As I made my way through the concourse, I wondered
what Dr Schor made of this station of hyper-efficiency and cleanliness
that has a smiling Somali girl selling pickled herring sandwiches, a
north African man sweeping the floor, and a black nanny speaking in
broken English to her young Swiss charge. The Swiss People's Party's
attitude to foreigners is, shall we say, ambivalent.

A quarter of Switzerland's workers - one in four, like the black sheep
in the poster - are now foreign immigrants to this peaceful,
prosperous and stable economy with low unemployment and a per capita
GDP larger than that of other Western economies. Zurich has, for the
past two years, been named as the city with the best quality of life
in the world.

What did the nanny think of the sheep poster, I asked her. "I'm a
guest in this country," she replied. "It's best I don't say."

Dr Schor is a small affable man. But if he speaks softly he wields a
big stick. The statistics are clear, he said, foreigners are four
times more likely to commit crimes than Swiss nationals. "In a suburb
of Zurich, a group of youths between 14 and 18 recently raped a 13-
year-old girl," he said. "It turned out that all of them were already
under investigation for some previous offence. They were all
foreigners from the Balkans or Turkey. Their parents said these boys
are out of control. We say: 'That's not acceptable. It's your job to
control them and if you can't do that you'll have to leave'. It's a
punishment everyone understands."

It is far from the party's only controversial idea. Dr Schor has
launched a campaign for a referendum to ban the building of Muslim
minarets. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter
immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot
filled with Swiss passports. And its leading figure, the Justice
Minister, Christoph Blocher, has said he wants to soften anti-racism
laws because they prevent freedom of speech.

Political opponents say it is all posturing ahead of next month's
general election. Though deportation has been dropped from the penal
code, it is still in force in administrative law, says Daniel
Jositsch, professor of penal law at Zurich University. "At the end of
the day, nothing has changed, the criminal is still at the airport and
on the plane."

With astute tactics, the SVP referendum restricts itself to symbolic
restitution. Its plan to deport entire families has been put forward
in parliament where it has little chance of being passed. Still the
publicity dividend is the same. And it is all so worrying to human
rights campaigners that the UN special rapporteur on racism, Doudou
Di, warned earlier this year that a "racist and xenophobic dynamic"
which used to be the province of the far right is now becoming a
regular part of the democratic system in Switzerland.

Dr Schor shrugged. "He's from Senegal where they have a lot of
problems of their own which need to be solved. I don't know why he
comes here instead of getting on with that."

Such remarks only confirm the opinions of his opponents. Mario Fehr is
a Social Democrat MP for the Zurich area. He says: "Deporting people
who have committed no crime is not just unjust and inhumane, it's
stupid. Three quarters of the Swiss people think that foreigners who
work here are helping the economy. We have a lot of qualified workers
- IT specialists, doctors, dentists." To get rid of foreigners, which
opponents suspect is the SVP's real agenda, "would be an economic
disaster".

Dr Schor insists the SVP is not against all foreigners. "Until war
broke out in the Balkans, we had some good workers who came from
Yugoslavia. But after the fighting there was huge influx of people we
had a lot of problems with. The abuse of social security is a key
problem. It's estimated to cost F50m a year. More than 50 per cent of
it is by foreigners."

There is no disguising his suspicion of Islam. He has alarmed many of
Switzerland's Muslims (some 4.3 per cent of the 7.5 million
population) with his campaign to ban the minaret. "We're not against
mosques but the minaret is not mentioned in the Koran or other
important Islamic texts. It just symbolises a place where Islamic law
is established." And Islamic law, he says, is incompatible with
Switzerland's legal system.

To date there are only two mosques in the country with minarets but
planners are turning down applications for more, after opinion polls
showed almost half the population favours a ban. What is at stake here
in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of
Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to
the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and
the US. It is about how we live in a world that has changed radically
since the end of the Cold War with the growth of a globalised economy,
increased immigration flows, the rise of Islam as an international
force and the terrorism of 9/11. Switzerland only illustrates it more
graphically than elsewhere.

Switzerland is so stark an example because of the complex web of
influences that find their expression in Ulrich Schor and his party
colleagues.

He is fiercely proud of his nation's independence, which can be traced
back to a defensive alliance of cantons in 1291. He is a staunch
defender of its policy of armed neutrality, under which Switzerland
has no standing army but all young men are trained and on standby;
they call it the porcupine approach - with millions of individuals
ready to stiffen like spines if the nation is threatened.

Linked to that is its system of direct democracy where many key
decisions on tax, education, health and other key areas are taken at
local level.

"How direct democracy functions is a very sensitive issue in
Switzerland," he says, explaining why he has long opposed joining the
EU. "To the average German, the transfer of power from Berlin to
Brussels didn't really affect their daily lives. The transfer of power
from the commune to Brussels would seriously change things for the
ordinary Swiss citizen."

Switzerland has the toughest naturalisation rules in Europe. To apply,
you must live in the country legally for at least 12 years, pay taxes,
and have no criminal record. The application can still be turned down
by your local commune which meets to ask "Can you speak German? Do you
work? Are you integrated with Swiss people?"

It can also ask, as one commune did of 23-year-old Fatma Karademir -
who was born in Switzerland but who under Swiss law is Turkish like
her parents - if she knew the words of the Swiss national anthem, if
she could imagine marrying a Swiss boy and who she would support if
the Swiss football team played Turkey. "Those kinds of questions are
outside the law," says Mario Fehr. "But in some more remote villages
you have a problem if you're from ex-Yugoslavia."

The federal government in Berne wants to take the decision out of the
hands of local communities, one of which only gave the vote to women
as recently as 1990. But the government's proposals have twice been
defeated in referendums.

The big unspoken fact here is how a citizen is to be defined. "When a
Swiss woman who has emigrated to Canada has a baby, that child
automatically gets citizenship," Dr Schor says. But in what sense is a
boy born in Canada, who may be brought up with an entirely different
world view and set of values, more Swiss than someone like Fatma
Karademir who has never lived anywhere but Switzerland?

The truth is that at the heart of the Swiss People's Party's vision is
a visceral notion of kinship, breeding and blood that liberals would
like to think sits very much at odds with the received wisdom of most
of the Western world. It is what lies behind the SVP's fear of even
moderate Islam. It has warned that because of their higher birth rates
Muslims would eventually become a majority in Switzerland if the
citizenship rules were eased. It is what lies behind his fierce
support for the militia system.

To those who say that Germany, France, Italy and Austria are nowadays
unlikely to invade, he invokes again the shadow of militant Islam.
"The character of war is changing. There could be riots or eruptions
in a town anywhere in Switzerland. There could be terrorism in a
financial centre."

The race issue goes wider than politics in a tiny nation. "I'm broadly
optimistic that the tide is moving in our direction both here and in
other countries across Europe, said Dr Schor. "I feel more supported
than criticised from outside."

The drama which is being played out in such direct politically
incorrect language in Switzerland is one which has repercussions all
across Europe, and wider.

Neutrality and nationality

* Switzerland has four national languages - German, Italian, French
and Romansh. Most Swiss residents speak German as their first language.

* Switzerland's population has grown from 1.7 million in 1815 to 7.5
million in 2006. The population has risen by 750,000 since 1990.

* Swiss nationality law demands that candidates for Swiss
naturalisation spend a minimum of years of permanent, legal residence
in Switzerland, and gain fluency in one of the national languages.

* More than 20 per cent of the Swiss population, and 25 per cent of
its workforce, is non-naturalised.

* At the end of 2006, 5,888 people were interned in Swiss prisons. 31
per cent were Swiss citizens - 69 per cent were foreigners or asylum-
seekers.

* The number of unauthorised migrant workers currently employed is
estimated at 100,000.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Children the Main Victims of Summer Marriages
Lulwa Shalhoub
Arab News
http://arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=98725&d=20&m=7&y=2007


JEDDAH — The summer season is known as a primetime for male Saudi
tourists to marry women from other countries while on holiday abroad.
These marriages are generally unplanned. Most men undergo such
marriages with an intention of enjoying their vacation in the company
of women who are "religiously" legal for them.

The marriages are ones of convenience. While men look for fun, the
women are usually experiencing financial difficulties and see summer
marriages as a way to be spoilt and have money spent on them. The real
victims of such marriages are their children.

According to Abdullah Al-Hamoud, chairman of Awasser, a Saudi charity
that looks after the welfare of Saudi families abroad, the Kingdom
protects the rights of children from marriages between Saudi men and
non-Saudi women. He added that such marriages are usually done without
the prior-permission of the Interior Ministry. (Saudi law demands
Saudis seek permission when marrying abroad).

"Such marriages are not only restricted to the summer season," he
said. "They happen throughout the year. Sometimes Saudi husbands don't
want to bring their foreign wives to the Kingdom. They prefer keeping
them outside the Kingdom and frequently fly abroad to visit them," he
added.

The charity has offices abroad at Saudi embassies in Egypt, Syria,
Lebanon, Yemen, Morocco and Indonesia. The organization also runs
awareness campaigns for Saudis, warning them against visiting
unscrupulous matchmaking offices.

"Children from such marriages are entitled to come to the Kingdom and
be registered in their fathers' family cards. However, wives can't
come unless they're accredited. They also can't get listed in their
husband's family card until then," said Al-Hamoud.

"In cases of fathers denying they are related to a child, we make them
undergo DNA tests to prove their identity. However, we haven't faced
such a scenario as of yet," he added.

Awasser has also found that 70 percent of Saudis living abroad are the
children of cross-cultural marriages. The society has succeeded in
bringing 32 poverty-stricken children of Saudi fathers into the
Kingdom in the past 18 months.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Dark side of Jewish dream
Ed O'Loughlin, Jerusalem
The Sun-Herald Australia
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/dark-side-of-jewish-dream/2007/08/26/\
1188066926247.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2


The Jewish National Fund's blue collection boxes have long been a
familiar sight in diaspora schools, workplaces, shops and homes - a
chance for ordinary Jews to contribute their private cash to the
Zionist dream.

These "pennies from the pushka" were used from 1901 onwards to
purchase land for Jewish settlements in the Turkish and later British
territory of Palestine, stepping-stones towards the creation of a
Jewish state.

Yet sixty years after the birth of the state of Israel the JNF
continues to thrive - and to generate controversy.

Last month Israel's parliament overwhelmingly endorsed the first stage
of a bill which would formally allow the JNF to continue its
established practice of barring non-Jews from leasing land and housing
held in its name - 13 per cent of the area of Israel, much of it now
prime real estate.

The Knesset bill has led to renewed accusations both in Israel and
abroad that the JNF denies Israel's 20 per cent Arab minority access
to what is in practice state land.

Under the headline "A Racist Jewish State" an editorial in the
center-left Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote that "the Jewish National
Fund's land policy counters the interests of the state and cannot
discriminate by law against the minority living in Israel ... Even
though the Jewish National Fund purchased the lands for the Jewish
people in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has already been
established and these lands must now serve all its citizens."

Other Israeli commentators have pointed out that the move comes just
as the Israeli government and international Zionist bodies are trying
to stifle moves by trades unions in Britain and South Africa to
boycott Israel as an apartheid state.

Most government figures, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have
avoided taking a stand on the issue. The JNF and its many supporters
say that its activities do not discriminate against anybody.

It says that the forests and parks it has built in its more recent
environment role - many on bulldozed Arab villages - are open to all
visitors, whether Jewish or not, and that it employs many Arabs there.
It says that Bedouin herders are permitted to graze their sheep and
goats in JNF forests.

"[JNF] land has been legally purchased penny by penny over the last
106 years, by Jews from all around the world in order to fulfill the
dream of creating a secure Jewish homeland in the land that was from
biblical times, the Land of Israel," said a statement from the Fund's
office in Israel.

"To use these donations for any other purpose would be to breach the
trust and desecrate the sacrifices of these Jews, many of whom were
later to perish in the Holocaust and whose sole desire was to use the
little they had to secure land for the benefit and security of the
Jewish People, who like any other legitimate purchasers of land
anywhere in the world have the right to decide, subject to the laws of
the land how to manage, maintain or otherwise utilise the land that
they have legitimate title to."

But historians say that much of the JNF's almost 3000-square
kilometres of real estate was not legitimately purchased from its
legal owners.

At the birth of the state the JNF had only purchased less than 1000 sq
kms of land from willing sellers, but Prime Minister David Ben Gurion
then hurriedly and illegally sold it another 2000 sq kms which had
been seized from native Arab owners displaced by the fighting or by
military orders.

Ben Gurion's aim was to block any possible implementation of a recent
United Nations resolution calling on Israel to allow the displaced
Arabs to return to their homes and property in the new Jewish state.

The "transaction of millions", as it was known, left the JNF holding
much of what is now Israel's most valuable urban real estate. It was
also a way to channel diaspora money into the new state's depleted
coffers.

The close ties between the state and the JNF became formal in 1961,
when the JNF agreed to manage its lands in tandem with the state-owned
Israeli Land Administration (ILA). In return the privately-owned JNF
was given half of the seats on the board of the ILA, collectively
owning and managing 93 per cent of the state of Israel.

In recent years the twin organisations have lost two high court
challenges accusing them of blocking non-Jews from leasing homes and
property (ILA and JNF land is only leased, usually to long-term
tenants, and never sold as freehold).

But the courts would not apply the precedents generally, and rights
groups say that in practice Jewish housing developments are still able
to exclude non-Jews by means of committees which vet the "suitability"
of would-be new residents.

In Palestinian territories under Israeli military occupation the JNF's
commercial subsidiary, Himnuta, has used agents and middle men to
covertly buy Arab property in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In
2005 Israeli police charged that some of this land was stolen from its
Palestinian owners by corrupt Israeli officials and middle men who had
forged bills of sale.

The new Knesset bill is sponsored by ultra-nationalist deputy Uri
Ariel and was backed by a crossparty majority of 64-16 on its first
reading. Its introduction was prompted by an order from Israel's
attorney-general earlier this year directing both agencies not to
discriminate against non-Jews, even when the property in question
belongs to the JNF.

Despite its political/ethnic agenda in Israel the JNF continues to
enjoy tax-free charitable status in many Western countries, including
Australia, where it presents itself as a primarily environmental
organisation.

Gordon Brown agreed to serve as a patron of the JNF shortly after
becoming British Prime Minister, while its Australian branch recently
co-hosted John Howard at a gala award ceremony to recognise his
support for Israel.

In Israel the JNF has renamed a forest on the edge of the Gaza Strip
after Mr Howard, and there are JNF forests in the Galilee named after
former prime ministers Bob Hawke and Robert Menzies.

The Australian Jewish National Fund has adopted the Bnei Shimon
community council near the southern Israeli city of Beersheva as its
main fundraising project. AJNF's web site says it hopes to raise
between $5 million and $8m dollars to provide water facilities to the
council, which aims to double the number of Jews living amidst the
area's marginalised and deeply underprivileged Israeli-Arab majority.

Nuri Elokbi, 65, a locally-born Bedouin Arab, said that the Australian
money is helping to build the new Jewish community of Givot Bar on his
tribe's land, from which the IDF expelled it under false pretences
when he was still a boy.

"I've heard that the Australians once did exactly the same thing to
their original natives that the Israelis are doing to us," he said,
manning his lone protest tent on a dirt road near Givot Bar. "The
difference is that this is the modern times. Today it's supposed to be
forbidden."

The chief executive officer of the Australian JNF, Rob Schneider, has
strongly backed the Knesset's new bill to prevent non-Jews from having
access to JNF land.

"It is a question of exercising ownership over land that was purchased
historically by Jews for the benefit of Jews," he was quoted as saying
in the Australian Jewish News.

Yet the Knesset bill has disturbed many Jews in other parts of the
diaspora.

In the United States the leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, the
world's largest Jewish congregation, condemned the move.

"It's very hard to imagine any circumstance where a Jewish minority in
any diaspora country would accept with equanimity a bill that would
forbid Jews from purchasing land," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the union's
president.

"Therefore it is essential that when the Jewish majority in Israel
exercises power, it extend to others the rights it always demanded for
itself when we were in the minority."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

FLORIDA TV STATION DROPS ANTI-ISLAM PROGRAM


(TAMPA, FL) – The Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR-Tampa) announced today that a local television station
has dropped a program that promoted hatred of Islam and Muslims.

CAIR-Tampa said WTOG-TV (CW 44) dropped "Live Prayer with Bill Keller"
after the station and its parent company CBS received a letter from
and had discussions with the Islamic civil rights and advocacy group.

Keller told the St. Petersburg Times: "Ultimately, it was pressure by
CAIR that intimidated these people into taking me off the air. It was
not mutually agreeable. They told me they were taking me off the air,
period."

SEE: Televangelist: I Lost My Show Over Muslim Remarks (St. Petersburg
Times)

In its letter to CBS President Tom Kane and WTOG-TV's general manager,
CAIR-Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier wrote:

"In the hate-filled program, `Live Prayer with Bill Keller,' Islam and
Muslims are referred to in the most vicious and bigoted of terms. For
example on May 2, 2007, host Bill Keller said: `Islam is a
1400-year-old lie from the pits of hell. It's leading a billion
peoples [sic] to hell. . .those who follow this false religion will
die and be lost for all eternity.' On the same program, he also said,
`The false religion of Islam is about hate, lies and death.'

"It is our belief that anti-Islamic rhetoric like that used in `Live
Prayer with Bill Keller' is exactly the type of language that is
likely to incite hate crimes against the American Muslim community."

To view examples of Bill Keller's Anti-Muslim Bigotry, go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF33pcljDRU

"While we strongly support freedom of speech and religion, the public
airwaves should not be used to promote hatred and bigotry," Bedier
said today. "We commend WTOG-TV and CBS for rejecting any association
with those who would demonize a minority group."

Bedier noted that a Muslim family's home in Sarasota, Fla., was
recently torched by arsonists who spray-painted Islamophobic slurs on
the walls.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices
and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the
understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties,
empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice
and mutual understanding.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Woman gets 8 months in hate note case
By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 24, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_re_us/hotel_manager_threatened_1


PHILADELPHIA - A woman who sent her Arab-American boss a threatening
note that warned "Remember 9/11" and "You and your kids will pay" was
sentenced Wednesday to eight months in a federal halfway house.

Kia Reid, who described herself as Christian, donned gloves to craft
the note from magazine clippings and then left it in Nina Timani's
office, prosecutors said.

Timani said during a victim impact statement that she had spent months
wondering who sent the anonymous note and fearing that her two young
children would be harmed.

Timani said she was stunned when an FBI investigation led to the
35-year-old Reid, whom she had mentored and befriended during nine
years together at a Philadelphia hotel.

"How could you — when you have written that you want to tie my kids to
the fence — play with my daughter at a ... picnic?" Timani asked.

Reid said she sent the letter in anger, not in hatred, after she had
been unable to get help with a workplace dispute at the airport
Sheraton Suites Hotel.

"I thought all of the nonsense that was going on would stop," the
mother of three teenage children explained Wednesday to U.S. District
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.

Reid did not detail the nature of the work dispute. The Philadelphia
woman was arrested in October 2006 after an FBI informant recorded her
discussing the note.

She later pleaded guilty to one count of sending a threatening hate
note, a misdemeanor.

The judge probed Reid's cultural attitudes at length before announcing
the sentence. Prosecutors had sought a one-year prison term.

Timani, a practicing Muslim born in Egypt, said she sought help from
the FBI over the objections of her husband. "I defied convention
because I had to know who was going to kill me and my kids," she said.

Timani said that her father, a California surgeon, could not fly after
the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks because he was mistakenly listed on
a no-fly list. Her brother took an American name to blend in after his
Dallas home was egged and stoned, she said.

"I came forward for my kids," she said. "I have found my inner peace
by helping spread tolerance to people of other faiths," she said.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Suicide Bombings - A Favourite US Counter-Insurgency Tactic
Aeneas
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_press&Number=295711999#\
Post295711999


Since 9-11 reports of "suicide bombings" have increased exponentially
in the news. We are led to believe by the experts that it is one of
the favorite weapons of the insurgency against the occupation forces,
since it is a cheap and simple way to create chaos. Hardly a day goes
by without at least one bombing in Iraq or Afghanistan being
immediately seized upon by the media as the work of Iraqi insurgents.

It is one thing for an insurgency to commit suicide bombings against
the occupation forces, it is another thing entirely to use them to
target and kill civilians. We have been brainwashed into believing
that the insurgents in Iraq are such brutal, uncivilized, fanatical
crazy extremists that they will anything to fight 'freedom' - even
kill their own people.

This picture presented to us by the US government and mainstream media
is so insane that Joe Quinn, in response to the massive 'suicide'
bombings in Mosul that killed 350+ people last week, felt confident to
say:

"The person who can present a convincing argument (i.e. logical and
backed up with reliable data) that explains why any anti-American Arab
or Islamic group, "terrorist" or otherwise, would kill hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis as a response to the US occupation of Iraq, will
receive a prize of 1 million USD."

Looking at this from a historical perspective, precedence for the type
of bombings in Iraq that are attributed to the insurgency or
"al-Qaeda" is virtually non existent. During world war II, a number of
countries were occupied by the Nazis. Countries such as France,
Denmark, Norway and many others all had resistance movements who used
various tactics to hamper the Nazi take over. Yet, there are no
records whatsoever that the resistance fighters resorted to the mass
murder of their fellow country men in an effort to evict the Nazis.
Sure there was factional infighting, but nothing on the massive scale
that we are seeing in Iraq. And of course, how could there be? It
defies all logic.

Fast forward to the Vietnam war and here too we find no evidence that
the Vietcong waged a campaign to kill their own fellow citizens as
part if the fight against American forces.

Of course, there are those who would suggest that Muslims are a
different breed, that they, like so many other ungrateful peoples who
attempted to throw-off the chains of empire, are little more than
uncivilised savages and we cannot therefore hope to understand their
mentality or actions. Such an ill-informed attitude however is in no
way backed up by any evidence and must therefore be dismissed for the
obvious racism that it is.

When the Iraqis first fought the British Empire in the 1920's, there
was no "suicide bombings" by insurgents against Iraqis. On the
contrary and according to good strategy, they united despite minor
cultural and religious differences to confront the common British enemy.

Likewise in Afghanistan during the 10 year war with the Soviet union
there were no instances of suicide bombings targeting Afghan
civilians. Here too, the Afghan tribes united despite previous
disagreements against the common aggressor.

Does no one find all of this even mildly odd? After 9-11, suddenly
this bizarre phenomenon of an insurgency using suicide bombings
against their own people rather than the invaders appears, as if to
provide supporting evidence for the reality of the crazed "suicide
bombing" hijackers that attacked America - or so the official story goes.

Could the answer be as simple as that what is being touted as suicide
bombings are in fact the work of US/British/Israeli counterinsurgency
teams? In Iraq, are we in fact dealing with the what are better know
as "false flag operations"?

This certainly would explain a lot of the confusion over why Iraqi
groups would kill their own people in response to a US invasion of
their country. After all, the people who are dying by the hundreds
every day in Iraq are the people who support the insurgency, and the
US, British and Israeli forces in Iraq are fighting that insurgency,
so who benefits from the daily mass murder of the supporters of the
insurgency?

Past counterinsurgency tactics involved such things as ethnic
cleansing ("draining the dam" as this tactic was known) and/or the
destruction of crops like with agent orange in the case of Vietnam.
But these methods had little success.

In recent years it seems that devious and deviant minds in the employ
of the military industrial complex came up with much more insidious
modern tactics.

Roger Trinquier, an immensely influential French counter-insurgency
expert, suggested in his book Modern Warfare: A French View of
Counterinsurgency (1961) (Available online here) three simple
principles of Counter Insurgency:

• separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him;

• occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from,
making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the
guerrilla movement;

• coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that
the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could
support him.

Remote controlled bombings masquerading as "suicide bombings" that are
carried out by the US, British and Israeli occupation forces fit these
principles very neatly. By detonating bombs on a daily basis across
Iraq and Afghanistan and via the propaganda organs touting them as
being the work of Iraqi/Afghani "suicide bombers" belonging to the
insurgency, the occupying military hopes to achieve several goals:

cut off the widespread support base that the insurgency have amongst
the Iraqis

create tensions between religious lines, especially by ascribing the
faked "suicide attacks" to either Shias or Sunnis.

In other words divide and conquer.

The sheer carnage shown on TV back in the West only supports the idea
that the Iraqis/Afghans can't take care of their own country without
help from the occupation forces or that they are uncivilised savages.
This propaganda reinforces the US government's persistent claim that
it would be dangerous to pull US troops out of Iraq and for the
American military grunts on the streets of Iraq it helps them to
rationalise their continued presence. Either they are trying to show a
lesser class of human how to become civilised, or they are doing god's
work in wiping them out.

There is ample evidence for the inquiring reader to discover that
so-called suicide bombings against civilians are not the product of
the insurgency. Some will say that it is the product of "al-Qaeda",
which is true if you first clarify that "al-Qaeda" is simply a tool of
the very same counterinsurgency, namely CIA/MI6/Mossad. Always ask
yourself, "who benefits?", and in this case it is pretty obvious who
doesn't benefit.

For years Israel has very effectively used 'suicide' bombings as a
tool in the perpetration of its slow genocide of the Palestinian
people, with the effect that, today, the world's sympathy lies with
the perpetrator (Israel). As a result, all peace initiatives have been
stalled and the world has provided tacit if not outright approval of
Israel's covert genocidal policies.

The knowledge gained by the Israelis has certainly been passed on to
the their counterparts in MI6 and the CIA as this SOTT editorial from
September 2005 illustrates:

"Today in Basra, Southern Iraq, two members of the British SAS
(Special Ops) were caught, 'in flagrante' as it were, dressed in full
"Arab garb", driving a car full of explosives and shooting and killing
two official Iraqi policemen.

This fact, finally reported by the mainstream press, goes to the very
heart and proves accurate much of what we have been saying on the
Signs of the Times page for several years.

The following are facts, indisputable by all but the most self-deluded:

• Number 1:

• The US and British invasion of Iraq was NOT for the purpose of
bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqi people, but rather for
the purpose of securing Iraq's oil resources for the US and British
governments and expanding their control over the greater Middle East.

• Number 2:

• Both the Bush and Blair governments deliberately fabricated evidence
(lied) about the threat the Saddam posed to the west and his links to
the mythical 'al-Qaeda' in order to justify their invasion.

• Number 3:

• Dressed as Arabs, British (and CIA and Israeli) 'special forces'
have been carrying out fake "insurgent" attacks, including 'car
suicide bombings' against Iraqi policemen and Iraqi civilians (both
Sunni and Shia) for the past two years. Evidence would suggest that
these tactics are designed to provide continued justification for a US
and British military presence in Iraq and to ultimately embroil the
country in a civil war that will lead to the breakup of Iraq into more
manageable statelets, much to the joy of the Israeli right and their
long-held desire for the establishment of biblical 'greater Israel'

Coming not long after the botched London bombings carried out by
British MI5 where an eyewitness reported that the floor of one of the
trains had been blown inwards (how can a bomb in a backpack or on a
"suicide bomber" INSIDE the train ever produce such an effect), more
than anything else today's event in Basra highlights the desperation
that is driving the policy-makers in the British government.

British intelligence would do well to think twice about carrying out
any more 'false flag' operations until they can achieve the
'professionalism' of the Israeli Mossad - they always make it look
convincing and rarely suffer the ignominy of being caught in the act
and having the faces of their erstwhile "terrorists" plastered across
the pages of the mainstream media. "


As in Israel, 'suicide' bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan often occur
at a time that most benefits the occupiers. A recent 'suicide' bombing
in Afghanistan illustrates this aspect well:

Seventeen civilians, a dozen of them schoolboys, were killed and 30
others wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up near a NATO
convoy in southern Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday.

The timing just couldn't have been better. NATO had been under a lot
of international pressure due to their random use of Aerial bombings
with very large numbers of civilian casualties. This incident (as in
most cases) harmed no troops, most victims were children. The desired
effect of the bombing was described in the article:

The UN representative in Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, was shocked.

"I am especially concerned by the reports I am seeing of a large
number of children being among the dead from todays bomb," he said in
a statement." Such utter disregard for innocent lives is staggering
and those behind this must be held responsible."

You see? The enemy is uncivilised, crazy, half human in contrast to
the civilised benevolent white crusaders who sacrifice so much in the
fight against evil. The article concludes:

"There have been more than 70 suicide attacks in Afghanistan this
year, as compared with about 140 in all of 2006. Most are aimed at the
security forces but civilians are usually the primary victims."

It should be pointed out that these so-called suicide bombings seem to
be a speciality of Western intelligence agencies and their client
regimes. In recent months we have also heard a lot about suspicious
suicide bombings targeting civilians in Pakistan, whose intelligence
agency, ISI, has close ties to the CIA.

In Chechnya there have been 28 acts of suicide bombings from June 2000
until 2006. The difference is that these attacks were against Russian
civilians and not their own people. Perhaps the defining point is that
Western (US/British/Israeli) counterinsurgency teams are not involved
in these attacks because they do not wish to hand the Russians a
victory. Certainly suicide bombings would demonise the Chechnyan
rebels and provide propaganda value to the Russians. This is not to
say that Russia does not engage in its own counter-insurgency, it is
just that faked suicide bombings do not appear to form a core part of
their strategy.

As mentioned before, during the 10 years of Russian occupation of
Afghanistan, no suicide attacks were carried out by the insurgency
against the Afghan population. Why? It certainly didn't benefit the
Americans to kill Afghans who were engaged in killing Russians, the
key enemy of the Americans at the time. The Americans were heavily
involved in recruiting and supplying the insurgency with all kinds of
military hardware. Now however, the situation is different. In
Afghanistan it serves the American agenda to murder as many Afghani
civilians as possible under the cloak of Taliban "suicide bombings"
because it provides the justification for the troops to stay there to
fight this manufactured "evil". In Iraq, the goal is the same, with
the added element of the Neocons' desire to destroy the real Iraqi
resistance by dividing and alienating them from the ordinary people
that support their fight against a brutal occupier. It seems that the
American, Israel and British tactic in Iraq is that if the ordinary
Iraqi people will not be intimidated into accepting occupation and
rejecting the real insurgency, then they will be murdered. Plain and
simple.

Despite Joe Quinn's offer of 1 million dollars then, he can rest
assured that it is unlikely that he will have to go and talk to the
bank anytime soon.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

AMERICAN ZIONIST PRESS AGAINST THE VATICAN


Our good friend François Costes brought out this timely paper
substantiating accusations that the case of abusing priests was
brought forth and motivated by Israel Lobby to stop the Church from
opposing Israeli and American policies. Costes compared the
anti-Church publications and real-time events: the calls to attack
Iraq, bombardment of Palestine etc. They fit to a tee!

Below: the  short version of the Costes paper; full and quite long
with all dates  is on  http://www.israelshamir.net/Documents/Doc1.htm


AMERICAN ZIONIST PRESS AGAINST THE VATICAN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
CAMPAIGN "SCANDALS IN THE CHURCH"
FEBRUARY 1, 2002 | AUGUST 31, 2002


STATISTICS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of texts published on the Church "scandals"
(articles, editorials, statements, readers' letters, dispatches, related):

  More than 475

Number of photos/graphics/cartoons:

  More than 285

Number of issues dealing with the topic (in the March-June period):

  93% (114 issues out of 122)

Article or reference on the front page of the NYT (in the March-June
period):

  63% (77 issues out of 122)

During the standoff of the Church of the Nativity in Palestine (April
2-May 10, 2002), the New York Times published at least 182 texts and
138 photos/graphics/cartoons related to the "scandals".
In other words, an average of 4.67 texts and 3.54 photos/graphics per
day for more than 5 weeks...

(Some February 2002 figures are still missing.)


HOTTEST DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers of texts published per day

   1.   Tuesday, April 23, 2002 : 11
   2.   Tuesday, April 30, 2002 : 11
   3.   Wednesday, April 10, 2002 : 10
   4.   Thursday, April 25 : 10
   5.   Friday, April 26 : 10
   6.   Saturday, June 15, 2002 : 8
   7.   Sunday, April 21 : 7
   8.   Monday, April 22 : 7
   9.   Sunday, April 28 : 7


REPORTERS HIT-PARADE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five publications or more about the "Scandals in the Church"

   1. Pam Belluck
   2. Daniel J. Wakin
   3. Laurie Goodstein
   4. Sam Dillon
   5. Anthony DePalma
   6. Melinda Henneberger
   7. Adam Liptak
   8. Fox Butterfield
   9. Francis X. Clines
10. Frank Bruni
11. Jodi Wilgoren
12. John Tagliabue
13. Dean E. Murphy
14. Richard Lezin Jones

TITLE TERMINOLOGY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most frequent words used in the NYT titles

   1. Archbishop, archdiocese, bishop, cardinal, clergy, diocese, prelate
   2. Priest
   3. Abuse, abusive
   4. Church
   5. Sex, sexual
   6. Scandal, crisis
   7. Pope, Vatican
   8. Accused, accuser, accusation
   9. Pedophile, pedophilia, rape, raping, molestation, pornography
10. Sin
11. Victim
12. Boy, girl, child, children
13. Charge, charged
14. Parish, parishioner
15. Suit
16. Catholic
17. Secrecy, secret


TABLOID TITLES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most smearing titles

"The 2 Faces Of A Priest: Protector, Predator"
National edition
Fox Butterfield & Jenny Hontz
Sunday, May 19, 2002 (front page article w/ 3 photos)

"Is The Pope Catholic?"
National edition
Bill Keller
Saturday, May 04, 2002

"Let Us Prey"
National edition
Bill Keller
Saturday, March 09, 2002

"A Priest Abuses a Child: Who Pays the Price?"
National edition
(readers' letters)
Wednesday, March 06, 2002

"Sins of the Church"
National edition
Frank Bruni
Monday, April 08, 2002

"Sent To California On Sick Leave, Boston Priest Bought Racy Gay Resort"
National edition
Nick Madigan
Monday, April 15, 2002

"Am I My Brother's Keeper?"
"David Clohessy spent more than 10 years angrily unearthing the
church's dark secrets of sexual abuse."
National edition (5-page article in the NYT Magazine)
Frank Bruni
Sunday, May 12, 2002

"The Vatican Rag"
National edition
Maureen Dowd
Sunday, March 24, 2002

"Priests and Sex: Europe Has Problems, But Not Like America's. Maybe."

National edition
John Tagliabue

Sunday, April 21, 2002

"Crime and Punishment: Prosecuting the Church"

National edition
Frank Bruni

Sunday, April 14, 2002

[ source: François Costes, Chapel Hill, USA ]

===

WHAT WAS GOING ON IN 2002 WHILE THE NEWSMEDIA SMEARED THE CHURCH?


Death and Lies in Palestine
By Ali Abunimah
The Electronic Intifada
26 November 2002
http://electronicIntifada.net/v2/article920.shtml


I did not know Mr. Iain Hook, the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for the Palestine Refugees' (UNRWA) official who was killed
on November 22 by Israeli occupation forces in Jenin Refugee Camp.
But I do know many people -- Palestinians and internationals -- who
have worked for the agency. They are, to a person, amongst the most
dedicated and compassionate professionals I have the privilege to
know. Through a sense of humanitarian commitment they have helped
Palestinian refugees to meet their basic needs for more than fifty
years, often in the most dire and dangerous conditions. The vast
majority of UNRWA's staff are themselves Palestinian refugees,
meaning that the agency has not been a source of charity, but of
empowerment and work for those who through ethnic cleansing and war
lost everything.

Iain Hook was killed in the line of duty, armed not with a gun, but
with compassion and courage. Palestinians mourn with Mr. Hook's
family, and share their pain at his tragic death. It should not take
a tragedy like this to remind us all to say thank you once in a
while to the people at UNRWA for all they do and have done.

When it became undeniable that Mr. Hook was killed by an Israeli
occupation soldier, Israel was quick to produce excuses. When one
excuse was exposed as a lie, another was substituted. First, Israel
claimed that Mr. Hook had been killed in "crossfire" when occupation
soldiers were firing back at Palestinian gunmen shooting from the UN
compound where Mr. Hook was working. When it became clear that there
was no fighting in the area, another version emerged -- that the
soldier who shot him mistook the cellular telephone Mr. Hook was
carrying for a weapon.

The UN has categorically rejected Israel's versions of events. Paul
McCann, the UNRWA spokesman, said that the preliminary inquiry into
the killing "does not agree with the statement that firing could
have come from the UNRWA compound. In fact, it is quite clear from
our inquiry so far that this report of firing coming from the
compound is totally incredible." McCann added, according to
Ha'aretz, "the compound is very small and at no stage did we lose
control of it. There were no Palestinian militants in the compound."
(26 November 2002)

UNRWA also said that prior to being shot dead with a single bullet
to the back at a time when there was no military action in the area
of the UNRWA compound, Mr. Hook had been on his cell phone trying to
arrange an evacuation from the area.

McCann told the Independent on Sunday, "we requested repeatedly to
the Israelis that they cease fire long enough for us to be able to
evacuate not only UN staff, but also a disabled woman who was living
in the building opposite the one the Israeli operation was centered
on," but the Israelis ignored the pleas. (24 November 2002)

Speaking from her hospital bed in Jenin, where she was being treated
for a gunshot from Israeli troops, Irish eyewitness Caoimhe Butterly
told Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now that at one point she saw Hook
come out of the UN compound with a big blue UN flag, to alert the
Israeli soldiers to the UN presence, only to be told over a
loudspeaker, "We don't care if you are the United Nations or who you
are. F**k off and go home!" Butterly added:

"There had been resistance early in the morning from a few fighters
in the camp. I witnessed personally the very small group -- who was
fighting -- moved to another neighborhood a good two hours before
the Israelis opened fire on the compound, before the sniper hit
Iain...There had been no gunman inside the compound... There had
been resistance going on close to the compound because a lot of
Israelis stationed in the camp were down in that area....it wasn't
from within the compound and it was a good two hours before the
Israelis opened fire into the compound."

After Hook was shot, Israel prevented ambulances from reaching him
for more than forty five minutes.

Israel's ever-changing story fits a clear pattern of deliberate
deception designed to mislead the international media. This was most
clearly on display recently when the Israeli foreign minister
Benjamin Netanyahu claimed falsely that a November 15 ambush on
Israeli occupation forces in Hebron had been an appalling "Sabbath
massacre" of defenseless "Jewish worshippers." When this was exposed
as fiction, Netanyahu simply changed his story to the equally untrue
claim that the Palestinian fighters who had been lying in wait for
the soldiers had been trying to get inside the Israeli colony of
Kiryat Arba to attack defenseless civilians.

Israel's official narrative is that Israeli occupation forces never
shoot innocent, unarmed people. All who are killed are by definition
"terrorists," or at least being used by "terrorists" as human
shields. In addition to claiming that fire was coming from the UNRWA
compound, an Israeli army statement about the killing of Hook
contained the usual lurid and infantile claim that "In two cases
terrorists opened fired while using civilians as human shields. In
one of the cases, a terrorist opened fire while taking cover behind
a woman holding an UNRWA flag." (23 November 2002)

It is no wonder that Israel grabs for the most implausible excuses,
given the enormous number of children it kills and injures on a
daily basis. On November 19 in Tul Karm, 15-year old Amr Qudsi was
shot dead by the occupation forces. Israel said he was throwing
bombs. On November 25, 8-year-old Jihad al-Faqih was shot dead in
Nablus, when Israeli occupation forces opened fire on schoolchildren
breaking the permanent curfew that has been imposed on the city for
six months. Witnesses and hospital officials said the boy had been
standing in a side alley when he was shot. "The IDF [Israel Defense
Forces]", according to Ha'aretz, "said the boy threw two explosive
devices at troops carrying out operations in the Casbah." (26
November 2002)

On the same day that Hook was killed, 12-year-old Muhammad Bilalweh
was also shot dead in Jenin by Israeli occupation forces. Three
other children were injured by Israeli bullets and shrapnel,
according to the human rights group LAW. The Israeli army statement
said absolutely nothing about the children it had killed and
injured, and expressed "regret" at the death of Mr. Hook without
even bothering to name him. Meanwhile, a clear sense of where the
army's priorities and values lie was demonstrated by its admission
that "Three IDF jeeps and the personal gear of an Israeli soldier
were damaged." (23 November 2002)

No matter what the case, whether it is a 53-year-old British UNRWA
official, or an 8-year old-boy standing next to his house, the lie
is always the same. The victim was a "terrorist" or appeared to be a
"terrorist," who with a cell phone, a rock, his bare hands, or even
a Pepsi bottle full of solvent, threatened the lives of heavily
armed occupation troops riding around in 65-ton Merkava tanks in the
middle of a refugee camp.

Because Mr. Hook is a senior UN official, the Israeli claims were
not allowed to pass unchallenged. But in the case of so many
hundreds of Palestinians, the Israeli lie passes as "news" if the
incident is even reported at all. The child killed at the door of
his home was "throwing a molotov cocktail," the farmer killed while
tending his fields was an "armed terrorist attempting to infiltrate
an Israeli settlement," the Bedouin woman and her children blown to
bits by flechettes while sleeping in a tent were a "terrorist cell."
And so on.

Butterly, speaking to Democracy Now, observed:

"The types of human rights violations and war crimes that were seen
so blatantly in April go on on an every day basis and I think it's
just the fact that internationals were involved -- that Palestinian
blood has been so cheapened that it doesn't normally get mentioned
-- that this is nothing new. Really, the hospital is normally
jam-packed full of the casualties of the everyday struggle to
survive in Jenin where going to the market, or to the school, or to
the mosque, is a potentially suicidal act at this stage."

Earlier this year, UNRWA was the target of a vicious campaign of
incitement by Israel and some of its staunchest allies in the U.S.
Congress, who accused the agency of assisting Palestinian
"terrorists." Mr. Hook's two sons had not yet arrived in Jerusalem
to take their father's body home before Raanan Gissin, spokesman for
Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, was launching new accusations
at UNRWA. The Associated Press quoted Avi Beker, Secretary-General
of the World Jewish Congress declaring that "UNRWA has been
transformed into a shield for terrorism." (26 November 2002)

While Iraq is threatened with invasion if one of its officials so
much as forgets to mention something to a UN official, will Israeli
troops be allowed to shoot a UN official dead with total impunity?
Will the UN give up on its stated aim to investigate Mr. Hook's
killing in Jenin as quickly as it abandoned the UN Security
Council-mandated investigation into Israeli war crimes in the same
camp earlier this year? And will the media ignore the repeated
lesson that when they rely on Israeli government statements to
justify and explain the killings of so many unarmed men, women and
children in the Occupied Territories, they are habitually misleading
their audiences? Let us hope that the answer to all of these
questions is "no," and that Mr. Hook's sacrifice will not have been
in vain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 2001-2002 electronicIntifada.net unless otherwise noted. Content
may represent personal view of author. This page was printed from
the Electronic Intifada website at electronicIntifada.net. You may
freely e-mail, print out, copy, and redistribute this page for
informational purposes on a non-commercial basis. To republish
content credited to the Electronic Intifada in online or print
publications, please get in touch via electronicIntifada.net/contact

SUPPORT OUR PROJECT: Our work needs funding. We accept donations via
credit card and cheque. U.S. donations are tax deductible. More info
at http://electronicIntifada.net/contact/

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

MIT grad student tracks the 'jihad effect'
Sarah H. Wright
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/kaplan-0829.html


An MIT graduate student has received a fellowship from a U.S.
Department of Homeland Security-funded research center to study the
"jihad effect" - that is, how wars impact the trajectory of terrorist
movements.

Stephanie Kaplan, a Ph.D. candidate in political science, plans to use
the funds she receives from the National Consortium for the Study of
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) to support her work on
the relationship between armed conflicts and terrorism.

Kaplan is particularly interested in the way the Iraq war has shaped
and will shape the future of al Qaeda. Ultimately, she hopes to
contribute to improving the formulation and practice of U.S.
counterterrorism policy.

"Regardless of how the war ends, whether the United States leaves Iraq
now or stays in the months and years ahead, we must understand how the
conflict has mobilized new assets on behalf our enemies--skilled
people, weapons, money, social bonds and legitimacy--and to what end
those assets will be deployed in the future," Kaplan says.

"It is far better to begin this conversation now than years from now,
when the jihad effect will be felt in full force," she adds.

Based at the University of Maryland, College Park, START is a
Department of Homeland Security "Center of Excellence" charged with
researching how terrorist groups form and behave and on how societies
may best respond to terrorist threats.

For Kaplan, MIT provides an ideal venue to develop new concepts for
understanding terrorism within the field of political science.

"When it comes to counterterrorism, all too often the focus remains at
the operational level--catching the next operative and foiling the
next attack. This is a matter of mindset, but it is also a matter of
time--in Washington, very few people have the luxury to step back and
process the information coming at them in a long-term, strategic
manner. I came to MIT so that I could figure out what that big picture
is and do so in a rigorous way. And the political science department
and Security Studies Program here at MIT are perfect homes in which to
do that," she says.

This year, Kaplan will work as a teaching assistant in a political
science course, American Public Policy for Washington Interns,
designed for MIT students in the Institute's summer Washington
internship program.

Before coming to MIT, Kaplan worked in several policy capacities in
Washington, D.C., including as a staff member on the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, known as the
9/11 Commission.

Kaplan, who was managing editor of the commission's final report,
treasures one memory of her experience above all others - a late-night
walk around ground zero after a marathon session with the staff
investigating New York City's emergency response.

"The gravity of 9/11 combined with the responsibility of carrying out
the investigation really hit home," she says.

A native of Arlington Heights, Ill., Kaplan received a B.S. in foreign
service from Georgetown University in 2000; she came to MIT in 2004.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Afghanistan 'is going down fast'
Terry Friel
October 13, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22575334-2703,00.html


THE bloodshed in Afghanistan has reached levels not seen since the
2001 invasion as anger at bungling by an ineffective Government in
Kabul and its foreign backers stokes support for the Taliban and other
extremist groups.

The death of Trooper David Pearce underlines the rising dangers for
Australia's 1000 soldiers in Afghanistan, most of them deployed in the
Taliban's southern heartland -- a region some of Canberra's NATO
allies consider too dangerous to fight in.

"This place can only go up or down, and it's going down fast, which is
something the international community simply will not understand,"
said a security analyst who has been working in and out of Afghanistan
for 30 years.

Almost six years after the hardline Islamist Taliban were ousted,
their insurgency is gaining strength, fuelled by resentment at NATO
bombing of civilians, billions of dollars of wasted aid, a lack of
jobs and record crops of opium, the raw material for heroin.

The fighting is spreading to places once relatively safe, including
the capital and the western and northern parts of the country.

"This is a guerilla movement but it does seem to have a real momentum
behind it at the moment," said Joanna Nathan, an analyst for the
International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank headed by
former foreign minister Gareth Evans.

In Kabul, where suicide bombs have killed almost 50 people in two
weeks, foreigners are increasingly ordered into "lockdown" -- barred
by employers from leaving their heavily protected compounds, often
behind armed guards, razor wire and concrete blast walls.

"It's all now too close -- people are jumpy," said a UN official who
has lived in the dusty, chaotic city ringed by mountains for four years.

The revitalised Taliban have switched tactics back to traditional
guerilla warfare after attempts to take on foreign troops under
separate NATO and US commands in pitched battles last year resulted in
heavy casualties.

"They never evaporated into thin air. The Taliban were there, they
have been there and they are here now," said government adviser and
former minister Hamidullah Tarzi, carrying his trademark silver pistol.

"One reason for their renewed strength is that the people are more or
less amenable to what they are doing and maybe some of the (NATO)
bombardments have not been very wisely executed.

"That has helped the people get closer to the Taliban. They are dying
and they feel that they are the same (as the Talibs) from the
religious point of view."

Scores, possibly hundreds, of civilians have been killed in air
strikes, mainly called in to support ground troops fighting rebels.
The US-led NATO force, government officials and village leaders differ
over details and numbers.

The Taliban-led insurgency is also being bolstered by drugs money --
the UN reported a 50per cent jump in this year's opium crop -- local
and tribal disputes, and a lack of jobs.

With the wrecked economy and the dangers of getting crops to market,
being a paid fighter for the Taliban is often the only way isolated
Afghans can feed their families.

"It's important to emphasise: I don't think the Taliban themselves are
wildly popular," Ms Nathan said.

"I don't think people want Taliban times back. It is a broad
dissatisfaction with what is happening in the country now. I think the
Taliban are very clever at appealing to people or groups that are
locally disenfranchised or disempowered."

The Taliban shelter and train in neighbouring Pakistan -- once the
group's main sponsor -- and President Pervez Musharraf faces
international pressure to do more to stop them.

But the border, a random line in the sand drawn by British colonial
rulers, passes through rugged, inhospitable territory and divides
fiercely loyal ethnic groups who have never been fully controlled by
any government for centuries. General Musharraf and NATO generals say
stemming the flow of fighters is a tough task.

While some analysts say Tehran may be supporting the Taliban, most say
no firm evidence has surfaced, rejecting Defence Minister Brendan
Nelson's suggestion that the bomb that killed Trooper Pearce might
have been made with supplies from Iran.

"He made that comment before any proper investigation had been done,"
said one soldier serving with NATO.

Much of the violence in Afghanistan is rooted in ordinary crime as the
conflict erodes security and the rule of law and young men desperately
seek money.

"Some of my friends don't have jobs. They just walk the streets. They
talk among themselves of kidnapping a foreigner just to make some
money," said "Sayed", a university business student who did not want
his real name used.

Guns are easy to come by and drug addiction in the country that
supplies almost all the world's opium is rising.

Unemployment is near 40 per cent and many Afghans live in appalling
conditions, with no running water, sewerage or electricity. Roads are
poor and in the capital -- crammed with tens of thousands of squatters
camped in mud brick huts -- most middle-class residents are lucky to
have power a few hours a day.

"People thought democracy would give them everything -- jobs, roads,
electricity, water -- but nothing of this sort has happened," Mr Tarzi
said.

"In fact, it's getting worse. There is a lack of jobs, a lack of
employment. Overall, nothing much has been done.

"The money that has come in has not been productive in relation to
industrialisation."

Confidence in the Afghan Government, the first democratically elected
administration in three decades, is fading fast.

President Hamid Karzai, 49, the philosopher and former freedom fighter
who has ruled this country since 2001, faces criticism for his failure
to stamp out the Taliban and raise living standards.

Dubbed "the mayor of Kabul", because he rarely leaves his palace and
his Government's writ barely extends beyond the capital, Mr Karzai is
battling to balance the demands of the people who elected him with
those of the foreign backers who prop up his Government.

He is also undermined by the fact his administration has control over
only a small share of the billions of foreign aid dollars spent in his
country.

Mr Karzai is not a popular leader, his critics say, accused of being
ineffective and indecisive. In Kabul and many parts of the country his
public portraits and banners are dwarfed and outnumbered by those of
Ahmed Shah Masood, a popular mujaheddin leader assassinated by
al-Qa'ida two days before the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001.

Domestically, Mr Karzai relies on a ragtag collection of former
warlords, mujaheddin freedom fighters, ex-communists and others for
support and is locked in a power struggle with his parliament. The
President and the legislators -- a large number of whom are illiterate
-- are coming to grips with democracy as much as with each other.

Mr Karzai has been criticised for failing to sack or prosecute corrupt
officials and of handing out jobs as political favours to shore up
support.

His Government has also failed to make serious inroads into the
$3.3billion-a-year opium industry, which is tightly intertwined with
the conflict and has been breaking production records almost every
year since the Taliban's fall.

"The narcotics and insurgency feed into each other," said Ms Nathan.

Trooper Pearce, 41, a father of two, was killed when his convoy was
hit by a roadside bomb in southern Uruzgan province, a major opium
centre where Australian and Dutch troops are working on reconstruction.

Although it is a volatile area and a centre of Taliban support, the
Dutch forces had forged close links with community leaders, cutting
down the fighting, until a botched poppy eradication program by a US
private security firm a few months ago, analysts say.

"Uruzgan was going OK until they went in with tractors and started
ripping the poppy fields up," said the Kabul-based security analyst.
"The Dutch had a good relationship with the people down there, the
local leaders, but when they rip up your crop, what do you do? You
grab your gun. They didn't even do that much damage to the crops in
the end."

Australian troops make up a fraction of the 50,000 foreign forces in
Afghanistan, and opinion is divided about how effective Canberra's
contribution is.

"It's more symbolic," Mr Tarzi said. "I think (John) Howard is trying
his best to see what (US President George W.) Bush is thinking, and
he's going along that line.

"He should concentrate more on what his people, the Australians,
think. He is just following MrBush."

But Australia is one of a small group of countries -- along with the
US, Britain, Canada and The Netherlands -- willing to send its
soldiers to where most of the fighting is.

Some European countries refuse to deploy their troops to the volatile
south. Several members of the NATO-led force impose tough -- and,
critics say, absurd -- limits, or caveats, on how their soldiers can
be used, with some barring their units from fighting in the snow,
above certain altitudes or at night.

Ms Nathan said: "It is incredibly important to have nations who are
prepared to go south in a robust way, to go down there not laden by
caveats; to go down there to do what is needed, when it's needed, how
it's needed."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Gitmo Prisoner Releases "Torture Diary"
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1184649745230&pagen\
ame=Zone-English-News/NWELayout


"When he gets out I fear he will not be normal Omar. I'm sure he will
have changed," said Deghayes' mother, Zohra Zewawi.


CAIRO — The family of a British resident being held at the US
Guantanamo Bay prison camp have released a graphic diary detailing
abuse he faced at the hands of his captors, the Guardian reported
Saturday.

"I worry that something has happened to his mind. He is being
tortured. I read his diary. When he gets out I fear he will not be
normal Omar. I'm sure he will have changed," Zohra Zewawi, the mother
of Libyan national Omar Deghayes, told the Guardian.

Deghayes, 37, is one of five men who Britain asked the United States
to release from the controversial camp in Cuba last week.

Deghayes was arrested in Pakistan after the US invaded Afghanistan in
late 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks before being taken to Bagram
in Afghanistan and then to Guantanamo.

His family says he had gone to Pakistan to start a business exporting
dried fruit to a leading supermarket.

He grew up in Brighton and studied law at Wolverhampton University and
then studied in Huddersfield.

Deghayes's case drew international headlines in 2005 after his lawyer
revealed that he was left blinded in one eye after a soldier plunged
his finger into it.

But this released diary, which he gave to a lawyer who visited him in
prison, contains far more graphic details than previously made public.
Torture Journey

"It is very distressing and sad to go through and remember again,"
Deghayes says in his diary.

Deghayes's nightmarish experience began long before Guantanamo when he
was arrested in Pakistan where he says sadistically tortured by
electric shocks.

"The more I scream they will laugh and do it again ... my screams all
in vain," he said.

He was then handed over to the Americans, who took him hooded to the
US military base in Bagram on one of the notorious rendition flights.
"Two soldiers locked their arms into mine and lifted me off the
ground. All my [weight] borne by my arms which were shackled behind my
back.

"I was thrown in the plane. There were many others in the torture
position," he said in his diary.

In Bagram, Deghayes says, he was chained in a cage "with hands
stretched above [my] head ...causing suffocation."

He was subject there to a miscellany of torture techniques, the lesser
of which were electric shocks.

"They hold me naked in the night, freezing cold, and throw buckets of
water and fill the bucket and throw [it] again. I shiver and shake
badly and try to sit down to gain warmth. They kick and punch and say
stand up until I fall to the ground in weakness," he said.

Deghayes further witnessed two prisoners being killed by American
soldiers.

The first one was shot dead after he had gone to the aid of a
prisoner, who was being beaten and kicked by the guards.
The second was beaten to death.

"One by the name of Abdaulmalik, Moroccan and Italian, was beaten
until I heard no sound of him after the screaming. There was
afterwards panic in prison and the guards running about in fear saying
to each other the Arab has died. I have not seen this young man
again," Deghayes says.

Other prisoners were luckier that they did not die, but left paralyzed
and mentally damaged after rounds of beating, he noted.
Deghayes also faced starvation in Bagram, going without food for 45
days, which caused him hallucinations.

Forget About Law

In Guantanamo, US guards welcomed Deghayes with beating on his first
day and he came to realize that the kicks and assaults were a fixed
routine.

The Guantanamo prisoners, he says, were also given mystery injections.
Deghayes further confirmed that US guards threw a copy of the Noble
Qur'an in a toilet, which provoked him and his colleagues to revolt.
As a punishment his head and beard were shaved.

In Guantanamo, he says, "sexual abuse did occur", but says he can not
bear to relive the details until he is freed.

"It is very distressing and sad to go through and remember again."
Deghayes says he was told by FBI interrogators law does not apply to
Guantanamo.

"Many times one FBI interrogator by the name of Craig said, 'Omar, it
is nothing like the law you studied in the UK. There will never be a
proper court and lawyers etc, it would be only a military tribunal to
determine your future and your life. Your best choice is to cooperate
with me," he said.

Parts of Deghayes' counts are consistent with those from former
detainees, the Guardian said.

They further challenge US President George Bush's repeated claims that
the US does not use torture.

===

Mauritanian Guantanamo detainee details abuse,
says Americans desecrated Quran
The Associated Press
Friday, October 5, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/05/africa/AF-GEN-Mauritania-Guantanamo-Pr\
isoner.php


NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania: A Mauritanian man who spent nearly five years
incarcerated at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay on Friday accused
American soldiers of desecrating the Quran by urinating and stepping
on it.

Though never tortured himself, Mohamed Lemine Ould Sidi Mohamed
compared his detention to torture, telling The Associated Press in an
interview: "Humiliating words against religion and against Muslims
were a kind of currency they used every day."

U.S. authorities handed Mohamed to Mauritania last week, and he was
briefly detained here. He was released Tuesday by Mauritanian officials.

During his incarceration by the Americans, Mohamed said he witnessed
the abuse of the Muslim holy book.

"The soldiers urinated on the holy Quran to humiliate us. They stepped
on the holy book and told us we are a nation that does not understand
civilization," Mohamed said in Mauritania's desert capital, Nouakchott.

Afterward, he and other inmates he claimed witnessed similar incidents
went on a hunger strike, and U.S. officials force fed him, he said.

The inmates decided thereafter not to take Qurans into their cells to
protect the book, relying instead on memorized passages, he said.

Following media reports that sparked protests around the world, a U.S.
inquiry in 2005 found nine incidents in which Guantanamo civilian and
military personnel had mishandled the Quran. They also found 15 cases
of abuse of the book by detainees. Officials say guards are trained
not to show disrespect to the Quran and are careful not to do so.

"We respect and support the detainees' right to worship," a Guantanamo
spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, said Friday, adding that the
military provides the men there with prayer rugs and prayer along with
Qurans in multiple languages.

"Allegations from detainees is common behavior and in keeping with
tactics taught to al-Qaida members through their training guide," he said.

In Mauritania, Mohamed said he did not know why he was arrested and
said he had never had any connection to al-Qaida. He was returned to
Mauritania on Sept. 26 after being cleared for release by a U.S.
military review panel.

Mohamed said earlier this week that he had been attending an Islamic
school in Pakistan when he was arrested by Pakistani police in 2002
and handed over to U.S. authorities.

"I spent five years in Guantanamo, but I don't know anyone in al-Qaida
and I have no relations with those people," Mohamed said.

Mohamed said he was not abused himself at Guantanamo, but he believed
others were. "Each time people were interrogated, we heard the screams
caused by torture," he said.

Mauritanian police spokesman Mohamed Abdallahi said earlier in the
week that police were questioning Mohamed about his life in Pakistan
and his activities in that country in order to determine whether to
file charges.

Two other Mauritanians remain in custody in Guantanamo. They are
Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a technology engineer who was living in Germany
when he was taken into custody in November, 2001 and Ahmed Ould
Abdelaziz, who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

In Academic Circles, Criticism Of Israel Is Increasingly Off-Limits


America's New McCarthyism
By Larry Cohler-Esses
Oct. 28, 2007
The Nation
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/26/opinion/main3415521.shtml


Conservative activist David Horowitz, founder of Students for Academic
Freedom, addresses a public hearing Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2006, at Temple
University. His FrontPage magazine was one of the first to criticize
Barnard College professor Nadia Abu El-Haj's book, "Facts On The
Ground." (AP)


Meet Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj, a notorious Barnard College professor
now up for tenure who:

claims the ancient Israelite kingdoms are a "pure political fabrication,"

denies the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE and instead blames its
destruction on the Jews,

does not speak or read Hebrew yet had the temerity to publish a book
on Israeli archaeology that demanded such expertise,


is so ignorant of her topic that she quotes one archaeologist on how a
dig might have damaged the ancient palaces of Solomon - oblivious to
the fact that those palaces, if they existed, were far from the site
in question.

None of these charges are true. You could look it up. I did, in
El-Haj's book "Facts on the Ground," about which these charges are
made. The statements for which a network of right-wing critics assail
her book are not there.

I asked Paula Stern, the Barnard alum who has organized an online
petition demanding that El-Haj be denied tenure, how she squared her
petition's charges with El-Haj's book. "The petition takes pieces of
criticisms from experts. It may not be quoted 100 percent accurate,"
she admitted. Still, more than 2,500 people, including many Barnard
and Columbia alumni, have signed on to its claims. Tellingly, Stern,
who now lives in the West Bank, voiced astonishment at being asked to
justify her charges in terms of what El-Haj's book actually says.
"I've spoken to many newspapers," she said. "No one has done what
you've done."

I looked that up, too. In the key media venues, at least, Stern was
right; and not just with regard to her target. In case after case, a
network of right-wing activists has started an online furor based on a
mélange of distorted or provably false charges against someone
involved in Middle East studies. They supported these charges with
quotes yanked out of context or entirely made up and wielded a broad
brush of guilt by association. Right-wing media megaphoned the
charges, stoking the furor. And mainstream media ultimately noticed
and responded, often focusing their stories on the furor rather than
the facts.

Under pressure from these assaults, some academic institutions buckle
and a professor's career is derailed; in other cases it is permanently
stained. More insidious, even when tenure puts an academic beyond the
reach of his or her assailants, more vulnerable junior faculty and
grad students take note. "There certainly is a sense among faculty and
grad students that they're being watched, monitored," said Zachary
Lockman, president of the Middle East Studies Association. "People are
always looking over their shoulder, feeling that whatever they say -
in accurate or, more likely, distorted form - can end up on a website.
It definitely has a chilling effect."

This is the modus operandi of the New McCarthyism. It targets a new
enemy for our era: Muslims, Arabs and others in the Middle East field
who are identified as stepping over an unstated line in criticizing
Israel, as radical Islamists, as just plain radical or as in some way
sympathetic to terrorists. Its purveyors include Campus Watch, run by
Arab studies scholar Daniel Pipes; the David Project, supported by the
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation; and David Horowitz's
FrontPage Magazine (in October Horowitz organized an "Islamo-Fascism
Awareness Week" on campuses across the nation).

Their efforts often appear to be linked. As first noted by blogger
Richard Silverstein, the earliest web attack on El-Haj's book was
posted simultaneously by Campus Watch and FrontPage, in October 2005.
Alexander Joffe, identified as a professor at SUNY, Purchase,
published a harshly negative review of the book in The Journal of Near
Eastern Studies that same month. The prestigious journal did not note
- and was not informed - that he was then-director of Campus Watch.
Soon after, he became research director for the David Project. Less
prominent researchers like Stern, the online PipeLine News and writers
such as Beila Rabinowitz and William Mayer provide raw material to the
more well-known portals, such as Pipes and Horowitz. Pipes's and
Horowitz's material is, in turn, picked up by key conservative papers
like the New York Post and New York Sun.

There is an undeniable security threat, but as in the 1950s the New
McCarthyites use it as a base for demagogy. Their distinguishing
feature is not concern about this threat but cynical indifference to
the truth or decency of their charges. Take the case of Debbie
Almontaser, the New York City public high school principal forced to
resign in August as head of a new Arabic/English secondary school. The
furor revolved around her attempt in an interview with the Post to
explain the meaning of, rather than simply condemn, T-shirts bearing
the words Intifada NYC. This provoked a firestorm. United Federation
of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten, a key supporter of Almontaser's
school, condemned her in a letter to the Post. The next day Almontaser
resigned - a move publicly welcomed by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein
and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Almontaser has since stated she was told
to resign or the school, which she founded, would be closed.

In its obscuring, anodyne postmortem on the affair, the New York Times
vaguely described Almontaser as a victim of the city's "treacherous
ethnic and ideological political currents" rather than of specific
charges that were demonstrably false - like Pipes's widely publicized
claim, based on a truncated quotation, that she denied Muslims or
Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Times report on El-Haj
adopted a similar hands-off stance, simply quoting supporters and
attackers. It did not once compare the activists' charges with what
El-Haj actually said in her book.

As it happens, Almontaser's forced resignation was the city Education
Department's second dive in the face of pressure from the New
McCarthyites. Three years ago it dismissed Professor Rashid Khalidi,
the esteemed director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, from
lecturing teachers enrolled in professional development courses. The
dismissal came in response to a Sun article claiming Khalidi had
denounced Israel as "a 'racist' state with an 'apartheid system.'"
Khalidi denied the quote fragments as they were used in the story. "I
do not think Zionism is racist," he told the Forward. "When we talk
about some of the contemporary laws, there are policies that I
consider racist and discriminatory." Asked if the department had
verified Khalidi's purported remarks before dismissing him, a
department spokesman avoided answering Times columnist Joyce Purnick.

Khalidi still has his day job, as does - so far - a nontenured
Columbia colleague, Joseph Massad, who according to a special school
investigative committee was falsely accused several years ago of
discriminating against Jewish and Israeli students. The same cannot be
said for Norman Finkelstein, who was terminated at Chicago's DePaul
University in September after the school's president - in a rare
departure from standard procedure - rejected the overwhelming tenure
approval Finkelstein had received at both the departmental and college
levels. Finkelstein's scholarly work has accused Jewish groups of
exploiting the Holocaust and Israel of egregious human rights
violations. He had incurred the special wrath of Harvard law professor
Alan Dershowitz, whose book defending Israel Finkelstein had devoted
an entire book to savaging. Dershowitz, in turn, tried unsuccessfully
to prevent the University of California Press from publishing
Finkelstein's book, and sent Finkelstein's tenure committees a dossier
that he said documented his "most egregious academic sins, and
especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions."
Clearly, the tenure committees were not impressed by Dershowitz's
claims. DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider, for his part, denied
that Dershowitz's intervention affected his decision.

Beshara Doumani, a University of California history professor, has
mapped the systemic strategy of the New McCarthyism, highlighting that
more than just its targets are new. First and foremost, private
advocacy groups, not Congressional committees, are by and large
today's means of pressuring academic administrations - at least, so
far. These groups often retain important ties to government figures.
But they are most focused on organizing alumni and students, with an
eye toward generating public outrage and eventually government and
donor pressure.

"I'm worried about untenured professors trying to get tenure," said
Doumani, co-chair of the Middle East Studies Association's Committee
on Academic Freedom. "I'm worried about entire departments saying, 'We
need people in Middle East positions, but we're not going to hire
certain kinds of people. It involves too much headache, too much
risk.' How do you quantify that? You can't. But it's going around. I
can tell you, it's a real issue."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Mohammed al-Dura lives on
By Gideon Levy
Ha'aretz
Oct 7, 2007
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909972.html


The concern Israel demonstrates for the fate of one Palestinian boy
touches the heart: Again, note what a fuss is being made about the
case of the killing of Mohammed al-Dura. Our heart is impervious to
the fate of other children who have been killed. Just little Mohammed
continues to haunt us. But the question of who killed al-Dura is not
important. And maybe he is even alive, as some eccentrics claim.
Perhaps he committed suicide, as the strange investigations are liable
to suggest.

All of these are tasteless questions designed to divert attention from
the truly important issues: According to data collected by human
rights group B'Tselem, Israel is responsible for killing more than 850
Palestinian children and teenagers since al-Dura was killed, including
92 in the past year alone. Last October, we killed 31 children in
Gaza. This is what should have raised a storm and not the measurements
by the former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, Yom
Tov Samiyeh, aimed at proving that his soldiers did not kill al-Dura,
or the "investigations" by the physicist Nahum Shahaf. In an eccentric
obsession, Shahaf has devoted the past years to this affair, after
previously having also obtained "amazing material" on the murder of
Yitzhak Rabin.

Al-Dura refuses to step down from the stage because he has become an
icon of the Palestinian struggle and a symbol of Israeli brutality. A
thousand Nahum Shahafs will not succeed in blurring the unequivocal
fact that a scandalous killing of children is taking place in the
territories.


Even if the director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, is
right in determining that the film made by the reliable and
experienced French journalist Charles Enderlin was "staged," and even
if he succeeds in clearing Israel from responsibility for this
killing, what will we say about the other children who have been
killed? That their killing was also "staged?" That the IDF did not
kill them through carelessness and contempt for their lives; by being
trigger-happy and even acting with premeditation? If Israel were
really interested in improving its "public relations," it would
embrace the al-Dura family instead of all the foolish investigations.
It would provide compensation to the family and show the world that it
is truly and sincerely sorry about the death of one child.

The question of who killed al-Dura is like the question of what Joseph
Trumpeldor mumbled before his death. The myth in both cases is already
stronger than any investigation. Al-Dura became a symbol because his
killing was documented on videotape. All the other hundreds of
children were killed without cameras present, so no one is interested
in their fate. If there had been a camera in Bushara Barjis' room in
the Jenin refugee camp while she was studying for a pre-matriculation
test, we would have a film showing an IDF sniper firing a bullet at
her head. If there had been a photographer near Jamal Jabaji from the
Askar camp, we would see soldiers emerging from an armored jeep and
aiming their weapons at the head of a child who threw stones at them.
But these children did not become symbols; there are no stamps bearing
their portraits, no streets named after them and no songs composed for
them as with al-Dura because they were not filmed at the time of their
deaths.

Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol, a
shrine for the masses of dead and the anonymous heroes. The assumption
that the IDF soldiers firing at Palestinians at the Netzarim junction
killed the boy cradled in his father's arms exactly seven years ago is
the most reasonable one. As far as we can remember, there has been no
other case in which Palestinians fired at the IDF and hit a
Palestinian child.

But even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed
and is killing children. So this ridiculous focus on who killed
al-Dura, a question that will never be resolved, is no more than a
tempest in a putrid teapot. There should be a tempest, a great and
mighty one, but one focused on an entirely different issue: Why is the
IDF continuing to kill children at such a frightening pace, and why
doesn't Israel take responsibility for this and compensate the
families of those killed? But no one is conducting "investigations"
about this.

===

Israeli army raids refugee camp
Associated Press (Nablus)
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070026515&ch=9/18/2007\
%201:56:00%20PM


One Palestinian youth was killed on Tuesday when Israeli troops raided
a West Bank refugee camp before dawn, Palestinian residents said.

The army said troops were involved in exchanges of fire and
encountered stone-throwing riots in their search for militants in the
Ein Beit Ilmeh camp in the centre of Nablus.

Palestinian residents said one youth, was killed in the shooting.

Palestinian witnesses said some Israeli soldiers were wounded in an
explosion. The Israeli army said one soldier was lightly injured.

Residents as shields

Witnesses claimed that soldiers used a resident as a shield as they
moved house to house to search of suspected militants.

The army did not immediately comment on the charge.

Israel's Supreme Court has ruled the practice is illegal. The army
says it has respected the ruling.

But Palestinians and human rights groups say that in some cases the
army has continued to use civilians as ''human shields'' during
operations in crowded urban areas.

Troops imposed a curfew in the crowded camp of 5,000 and searched from
house to house, knocking down walls to get from one building to the
next, witnesses said.

The Israeli army frequently raids Palestinian areas of the West Bank,
especially in Nablus since it is known as a hotbed of anti-Israeli
activity.

===

Footage of Israeli Soldiers Beating Palestinian Children
Fadi, KABOBfest


The Israeli Apartheid Force is undoubtedly the most cowardly army in
the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bdbA2Ka3Bo

Ramallah, 19-08-07: Footage captured by an independent American
filmmaker on Wednesday 15 August, showing Israeli soldiers beating,
spitting on and throwing stones at three Palestinian children offers
yet further proof that Israel's 543 permanent and 610 'flying'
checkpoints "are sites of systematic torture and human rights
violations against Palestinian civilians", said veteran human rights
activist, Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi MP at a press conference held in
Ramallah today.

The footage was captured at the Ras at-Tira checkpoint in the
Qalqiliya District, and shows the three children attempting to cross
the checkpoint in a horse cart when they are stopped by two Israeli
soldiers. The female soldier is clearly shown beating the boys before
spitting on them and sending them back the way they came. Her male
colleague is then seen picking up stones from the ground and throwing
them at the children as they drive away.

Dr. Barghouthi said the beatings were reminiscent of the physical
assault of 18-year old university student Mohammad Jabali by Israeli
soldiers near the notorious Huwwara checkpoint in Nablus on 18 March
2007. Four Israeli soldiers punched and kicked Jabali in the face,
head and genitals, causing bleeding and a blood clot in his right
testicle. Jabali was forced to undergo surgery and to have part of
the testicle removed.

source:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m35516&hd=&size=1&l=e


*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Israeli state is trying desperately to foreclose all exceptions to
its unequivocally racist land laws, writes Jonathan Cook in Nazareth


Anthology of Bigotry
Jonathan Cook
Al-Ahram, Egypt
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/855/re92.htm


Israel's parliament last week approved by an overwhelming majority the
first reading of a bill to ensure that much of the country's inhabited
land remains accessible to Jewish citizens only -- a move described by
one leading local newspaper as turning Israel into a "racist Jewish
state".

The private member's bill, called the Jewish National Fund Law, has
received cross-party support. The first reading was approved by 64
legislators, with 16 -- most of them Arab MKs -- opposed. Supporters
ranged from former premiere Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud
Party, to Ami Ayalon, a recent challenger to head the Labour Party.

The legislation is designed to nullify the threat posed by a Supreme
Court judgment, reached in 2000, that potentially opens the door to
thousands of Arab families leaving the tightly controlled areas
assigned to them and choosing where they live. Currently Arab
citizens, who comprise a fifth of the population, are barred from
buying homes in most of the country.

The move is the latest in a series of battles since Israel's
establishment in 1948 to ensure exclusive Jewish control of land
through an international Zionist organisation known as the Jewish
National Fund (JNF). By the time of Israel's founding, the JNF had
bought about six per cent of historic Palestine for Jewish settlement.
Rather than demanding that these territories be handed over by the
JNF, the new state authorities assigned the organisation a special,
quasi- governmental status. The JNF was also given a significant share
of the lands and property confiscated from hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians expelled during the 1948 War.

Today, the state has nationalised 80 per cent of land inside Israel,
and the JNF holds another 13 per cent. Neither sells land to private
owners on the grounds that it is being held in trust for worldwide
Jewry. Instead, they offer long-term leases on the land in their
possession.

The JNF has far more power than the division of land suggests,
however: its 13 per cent share is reported to include some 70 per cent
of the country's inhabited land; it effectively controls a government
body known as the Israel Lands Authority that manages the 93 per cent
of land owned by the state and the JNF; and it dominates committees
set up to vet applicants to hundreds of rural communities.

Because the JNF charter forbids it from selling or leasing land to
non-Jews, this arrangement has allowed the JNF to discriminate against
Arab citizens on behalf of the government. The JNF's control of the
Israel Lands Authority and the vetting committees has ensured that
Arab citizens are excluded from most of the 93 per cent of
nationalised land.

Instead they have been restricted to the three per cent of Israel on
which Arab communities already exist or which is privately owned by
Arab citizens, though even much of this land falls under the
jurisdiction of Jewish regional councils that refuse to allow Arab
families to build on it. Dozens of other Arab communities are
classified as illegal because the state refuses to recognise them,
even though they predate Israel's establishment.

The JNF's stranglehold on the management of Israeli land was finally
challenged in 2000 when the Supreme Court compelled the vetting
committee of a rural community, Katzir, to consider the application of
an Arab family, the Kaadans, for a plot of land advertised for sale.
Katzir's committee, which until the ruling had been refusing even to
deal with the Kaadans' application, subsequently rejected the family
on the grounds that they were not "socially suitable". Seven years
later the court has yet to offer the Kaadans proper redress.

However, the Kaadans ruling opened the way for other Arab families to
demand the right to bid for homes in communities designed only for
Jews. The JNF has twice tried to market homes in a new neighbourhood
of Karmiel, a town in the Galilee, but has been forced to cancel the
tender on each occasion when families from a nearby Arab community,
Sakhnin, applied. A petition to the Supreme Court submitted in 2004 on
behalf of the Arab families has yet to be heard.

In the meantime, the JNF is reported to be considering withdrawing
from the long-standing arrangement that places the Israel Lands
Authority in charge of managing all public land, including JNF land.
As the court ruling applies only to land managed by the Israel Lands
Authority, the JNF would be still entitled to discriminate if it
marketed its own housing schemes without the help of the Israel Lands
Authority.

The government has been desperately seeking a way both to maintain its
relationship with the JNF and not to provoke a second court ruling
against it. Earlier this year it announced that land was to be offered
to Jews and Arabs without discrimination. In compensation, the JNF
would be given state land of equal value every time it was forced to
lease land to an Arab family.

The scheme has been criticised by human rights groups which fear it
will perpetuate and ultimately exacerbate discrimination by increasing
the amount of land under JNF ownership: the JNF will still own the
land it is leasing to Arab families but it will also be sold
additional land from the state.

The new bill seeks to prevent even the government's proposed minor
concession by nullifying the Supreme Court ruling. The legislation
states: "the leasing of JNF lands for the purpose of settling Jews
will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination." Before the
legislators voted, the Knesset's legal adviser, Nurit Elstein, cleared
the bill of accusations that it was racist.

Arab Knesset member Wassel Taha, of the National Democratic Assembly,
said: "Only an insane Knesset would pass a racist law that affirms the
great land theft of 1948 and turns it into Jews- only property."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The children were reportedly to be adopted by families in France who
had paid 2,800-6,000 euros to the charity


Trafficked Darfur Children
IslamOnline.net & News Agencies
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1193049150290&pagen\
ame=Zone-English-News%2FNWELayout


N'DJAMENA — A French charity is facing a "severe punishment" in Chad
over an attempt to smuggle a hundred children from Sudan's troubled
region of Darfur to France. "Those responsible will be severely
punished," Chadian president Idriss Deby said Friday, October 26, on
flying back from Libya to sign a peace deal with rebels, reported
Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Deby described an attempt by French charity Arche de Zoe (Zoe's Ark)
to fly 103 Darfuri children from the eastern town of Abeche to France
as "inhumane," and "unacceptable".

Nine French citizens, mostly members of the French charity, were
arrested Thursday just before a plane carrying the children was due to
leave for France.
Three journalists were among those arrested, said sources on condition
not to be named.

Chadian authorities have accused the members of the French charity of
child trafficking.

The children, aged between one and eight years, were reportedly to be
adopted by families in France who had paid 2,800-6,000 euros
(4,000-8,600 dollars) to the organization.

The French charity described the move as a bid to "save from death"
youngsters orphaned by the Darfur conflict and have them "welcomed"
into French homes.

"Our motives were simple: we just wanted to rescue them from death,"
said Stephanie Lefebvre, secretary-general of l'Arche de Zoe.

But experts say the children would have been exploited in sex trade
and child labor in European countries.

Chad is home to about 236,000 refugees from the Darfur conflict in
Sudan across the border from its eastern regions.

The Darfur conflict erupted in February 2003 after rebel groups
attacked government targets, accusing Khartoum of neglect and
discrimination.
According to UN estimates, at least 200,000 people have been killed
because of the combined effects of war and draught while more than two
million have been displaced.

Kidnapping

France condemned the charity's operation as tantamount to "kidnapping".

"Taking them like this is in my view illegal and irresponsible," said
French secretary of state for human rights Rama Yade.
French authorities have launched an investigation into the incident.

Yade, how travelled to Darfur earlier this week, said the French
government had been aware of the charity's operation for several
months and had warned the charity that its operation in Darfur could
be breaking the law.

"We know absolutely nothing about how these children were gathered. We
don't know their origins, their nationality or the reality of their
family situation," she said.

The UN children's agency UNICEF also blasted the charity's behavior.

The Geneva-based organization said that the French charity's mission
-- dubbed Children Rescue -- "took place in violation of international
rules."
UNICEF's French chief Jacques Hintzy said that most of the 103
children were not orphans.

He told French television that he had been "shocked" by what they had
been through but were in good health.

UNICEF, whose workers have been granted access to the social center in
the eastern town of Abeche where the children are being kept, said
that all the children bear a bracelet with an identification number.

"We do not know what that signifies ...," said spokeswoman Veronique
Taveau.

"Even if a child's mother or father is dead, it's still possible they
can find other relatives who are still alive, or a household to take
them in."

===

Invisible Children
Online Documentary about Ugandan orphans

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3166797753930210643&q=movie&total=128147\
9&start=50&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3


*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

PRODUCER EYES BETTER TV, FILM ROLES FOR MUSLIMS
Omar Sacirbey
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/06/26/producer_eyes_better\
_tv_film_roles_for_muslims/


When Labid Aziz of Natick thinks about "Never Mind Nirvana," he sees a
missed opportunity. A 2004 pilot for an NBC sitcom, it was centered on
the travails of an Indian-American doctor, his pregnant white
girlfriend, and his traditional parents, who move in. It was written
by Indian-American novelist Ajay Sahgal, directed by "Friends" star
David Schwimmer, and starred Kal Penn of "Harold and Kumar go to White
Castle." But the show didn't make NBC's final cut, losing out that
year to "The Office" and "Joey."

South Asians like Aziz, 32, a Bangladeshi-American Muslim and aspiring
producer, saw in "Nirvana" a wellspring of roles that didn't involve
playing a terrorist or convenience store clerk while portraying the
South Asian community, or a slice of it, in a way that might inspire
empathy rather than incite resentment. On this fall's schedule, Aziz
has a second opportunity: The CW network is unveiling a new sitcom
called "Aliens in America" about a Muslim exchange student from Pakistan.

In Aziz's view, Americans are ready for a prime-time televi sion show
featuring dignified South Asian characters. It's just that most
television executives are too conservative to try it, he said.

"If they think a show with a certain cast is going to hinder viewers,
why would they do it?" said Aziz . "But that's from their perspective.
I think it can work."

Aziz is out to prove it. After nearly 10 years in Boston producing
commercials and public service announcements for nonprofits,
businesses , and other clients, Aziz moved to Los Angeles in December
to pursue his dreams of becoming a Hollywood producer. But Aziz, who
still splits his time between LA and Boston, wants to do more than
just make movies. He wants to challenge what he sees as stereotypes of
South Asians, Arabs, Muslims, and other ethnic and religious groups in
film and television while showing younger people of the same
backgrounds that not only can they make it in film and television but
that film and television need them.

"I want to help redefine what it is to be a South Asian Muslim -- not
just for the South Asian community but other communities, too," Aziz said.

Growing up, Aziz followed a fairly typical script as the son of
well-educated, hard-working immigrant parents. He wanted to be a
pediatrician, a notion he took all the way to Brandeis University,
where he enrolled in the pre-med program, got excellent grades, and
was cruising toward medical school. But half way through his junior
year, Aziz woke up one morning feeling that "something was missing."

"I was just living by going through the motions," he said. "I didn't
have a reason to be."

After taking a year off, Aziz returned to Brandeis for his final year
and enrolled in a documentary filmmaking class. He made a short film
about cliques at Brandeis that he screened at a campus event and, a
few weeks later, learned that a professor showed the film in one of
his classes. "That feeling that I got that day, that a teacher was
using something that I created to teach people, to start a discussion,
was the best feeling that I ever felt. And I was like, 'I want to feel
like this every day of my life.' "

Aziz persuaded Brandeis to let him return for one more year so he
could learn filmmaking and fund it by making commercials, recruitment,
and other videos for the university. On one project, Aziz met Arnie
Reisman, an Emmy-winning filmmaker who became his mentor, gave him his
first jobs , and still works with him today.

"This is like walking off a long plank into a big ocean," Reisman said
of Aziz's decision to go into film, but he added that he thinks the
young Bangladeshi can make it. "He has his head screwed on, he knows
what he wants, and he can spot a phony a mile away."

Aziz's PSA and video work for such groups as the United Way and the
American Civil Liberties Union hasn't made him rich, but it has let
him use his skills toward activism while paying his bills so he can
pursue bigger projects.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Aziz has taken a special interest in how South
Asians, Arabs , and Muslims are portrayed -- or not portrayed -- in
film and television. The list of films and television shows in which
these ethnic and religious groups are depicted as terrorists,
buffoons, or sheiks is a long one. On the other hand, while many South
Asians, Arabs , and Muslims work in American hospitals, there are no
South Asian doctors on any of the many hospital shows on TV, with the
exception of Parminder Nagra on "ER."

"Let's stop portraying South Asians, Arabs , and Muslims as
terrorists, as 7-Eleven owners, as cab drivers," Aziz said. "Let's
have characters who are real and who have depth."

Part of the problem, industry guild officials said, is that these
groups -- and women and minorities in general -- are under represented
in the jobs that film and television studios give to actors,
directors, and writers.

"There's no question that if we had more diversity in terms of
directors and producers, and anybody behind the camera, there would be
more opportunities, the roles would be more complex and less
stereotypical," said Angel Rivera, director of diversity at the Screen
Actors Guild in California. He has written to producers of television
hospital shows, reproaching them for not casting more South Asians.

Recent reports from the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of
America, and the Writers Guild of America show that minorities and
women are underrepresented in their industries. And when they are
underrepresented in "behind-the-camera" positions, they'll be
underrepresented on the screen as well, Rivera said.

"I go out there, and there are not enough roles for me, and there's
not writers writing roles, and there's not enough producers taking
risks," said actor Samrat Chakrabarti, who like Aziz is a Bangladeshi
Muslim from the Boston area who graduated from Brandeis and recently
moved to LA. "I'm going after roles that are named Owen and David."

But change is happening, if one considers the popularity of films like
"Monsoon Wedding" and "Bend It Like Beckham," as well as the celebrity
status achieved by people like Indian-American director M. Knight
Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense") and Indian-Muslim actor Aasif Mandvi,
who has become widely known as a correspondent on "The Daily Show."
"Little Mosque on the Prairie," a sitcom that premiered this year on
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and regularly netted a million
viewers per episode, was screened to American television executives in
April.

Many South Asian, Arab, and Muslim actors increasingly feel compelled
to challenge the stereotypes they see, said Mandvi, who is producing a
film about a Muslim family that has nothing to do with terrorism or
fundamentalism or even religion.

"There's a sense of responsibility on some level, as an artist of
color and as an artist from that part of the world who is American, to
explore this stuff with a certain amount of complexity, and to present
the complexity and nuance to what is often lacking nuance and
complexity," said Mandvi.

Or, as Chakrabarti put it, "We want to paint the town brown."

Since venturing west, Aziz has joined a team of writers and directors
including Luis Guzm an that was given the film and television rights
to "Next Stop: Growing Up Wild Style in the Bronx," a memoir by
first-time author Ivan Sanchez, recently acquired by Simon & Schuster.
Aziz is also developing a sketch comedy show with a mainly South Asian
cast that he described as a combination of "The Daily Show," "Saturday
Night Live," and "In Living Color." He's tentatively calling it "How
Now Brown Cow." He's also developing a documentary about Guantanamo Bay.

Aziz said he understands that such entertainment might not appeal to
everyone in America, but that there are enough South Asians, Arabs,
Muslims, and other Americans who'd be interested in the material --
possibly on television, or at least as a DVD or Internet download.

"It's not about making a killing," he said. "It's about establishing
an audience and giving your audience what they want."

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

AMERICA'S BEST KEPT SECRET
Malcolm LaGauche
http://www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html


The most powerful forces in Desert Storm were not the bombs or
missiles dropped on Iraq. Without firing a shot, the U.S. media
ensured the destruction of Iraq. Their acquiescence to U.S. government
demands stopped all discussion of a negotiated settlement of the
crisis. Schwarzkopf said it all on the day after the cease-fire. At a
press conference, he laughed as he told the journalists, "You printed
everything just the way we said it."

If the media tried to find the truth, or gave both sides a chance to
be heard, there is a possibility that there would have never been a
Desert Storm. The U.S. public had no idea of why Iraq went into
Kuwait, or the history of the area. To this day, because of biased
media coverage, the American public, for the most part, thinks Saddam
Hussein was attempting to take over the world.

During Desert Shield, the buildup to the massacre, there was much talk
about impending military action. For months, we heard many voices,
however, those who supported military action dominated the debate.
Occasionally, an opponent of a military solution was given a chance to
speak, but the message was usually negated by the opposition and the
moderators of radio and TV shows.

Politicians were allowed to tell the U.S. public outrageous lies about
the situation. The press was remiss in challenging these untruths, so
more and bigger lies followed. The media, the military, politicians
and administration officials were exempt from having to tell the truth.

It would take thousands of pages to chronicle the deficiencies of the
media in their lapdog role during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, but
one portion of history was totally ignored by the U.S. press — former
U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark's formation of a war crimes
tribunal and the following trial and judgement against the U.S.
government.

In February 1991, Ramsey Clark visited Iraq during the height of
allied bombing. He did not see a pretty sight. Clark returned with
much videotape and tales of horror of Iraq's civilian population being
bombed, despite the U.S. government's denial. No videotape was shown
on U.S. television and Clark's message went unheard and unseen.

Shortly after the cease-fire, Clark formed a Commission of Inquiry to
travel to Iraq to see if there was enough evidence to put the U.S.
government on trial for war crimes and crimes against peace. The
Commission found a wealth of evidence and returned to the U.S.

For the next nine months, Clark and various members of the Commission
traveled worldwide to gather further evidence of war crimes. The
results were overwhelming. People came forward to give evidence of
atrocities perpetrated against Iraq's population, its military, the
environment, and citizens of other countries. Whenever the Commission
took evidence, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East, the
media of many countries were in attendance. Despite the large
attendance at meetings, the U.S. media were absent.

On February 29, 1992, in New York City, the International War Crimes
Tribunal convened to try George Bush, Dan Qualye, James Baker, Dick
Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and others
on 19 charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and
other criminal acts and high crimes. The Martin Luther King High
School auditorium was filled to capacity (more than 1,500) and many
others lined up outside to hear the proceedings over loudspeakers. The
broadcast media of various countries carried the trial live, but,
despite the attendance and international coverage, the event was
totally ignored by the U.S. press.

The panel consisted of 21 people from assorted countries and it ruled
on the following 19 counts:

The U.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989
intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military
action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.

President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended to prevent any
interference to his plan to destroy Iraq militarily and economically.
President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to
civilian life and economic productivity in Iraq.

The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial
and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches,
shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and
civilian government offices.

The U.S. intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.

The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi personnel, used
excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in
disorganized flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and
randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel
after the cease-fire.

The U.S. used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and
inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both
military and civilian targets. [Clark is referring to uranium weapons,
or depleted uranium (DU).]

The U.S. intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing
dangerous substances and forces.

President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama resulting in the
deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands
of private dwellings, public buildings and commercial structures.

President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations
functions as a means of power to commit crimes against peace and war
crimes.

President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means
of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and other
high crimes.

The U.S. waged war on the environment.

President Bush encouraged and aided Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds to rebel
against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence,
emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness, and thousands of deaths.

After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of
Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility
within Iraq.

President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential
medicine, potable water, food and other necessities.

The U.S. continued its assault on Iraq after the cease-fire, invading
and occupying at will.

The U.S. has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil
liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the U.S., in Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
The U.S., having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations
which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with
famine and epidemic.

President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed,
misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant
support in the media for his military and political goals.

The U.S. has by force secured a permanent military presence in the
Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of
the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf region.

When the trial concluded, there was a verdict. According to the
Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal:

The Tribunal panel concluded an afternoon of testimony by finding U.S.
President George Bush and his associates and allies guilty of war
crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. They based
this decision on clear violations of international law. The Tribunal
panelists included internationally-known civil rights activists, legal
workers and freedom fighters. Some have served in the governments of
their countries, others in prisons; some have done both. They reflect
a diversity of cultures, nationalities and ideologies. When it came
time to vote a judgement, they were unanimous. The crowd broke into
shouting and applause as Attorney Deborah Jackson of the U.S. read the
verdict: Guilty on all 19 counts of war crimes.

How could a trial held in the U.S. against the U.S. government be
ignored by the press? The subject matter alone should have piqued the
media's curiosity. The blackout was not due to lack of notice from the
International War Crimes Tribunal — many press releases were sent and
many phone calls were made in an attempt to gain publicity.

I tried to discover why there was a lack of coverage. First, I talked
to Irv Cass, news director of Channel 39, and NBC affiliate in San
Diego, California. He explained, "There could be a variety of reasons
why we didn't cover it. We get news from a variety of sources, such as
AP, NBC Network and CNN."

Could AP (Associated Press), the agency from which thousands of
television stations, radio stations, and newspapers gain their
information be the culprit? According to Adrianne Weil Parks of the AP
office in New York, the AP has a clean record on this issue. She said,
"Sure. I put all their (Tribunal) stuff on the wire. Believe me, I've
put them out."

Three major wire services (AP, UPI and Reuters) were given much
information from the Tribunal. UPI admitted to receiving the
information, but could not verify if it was sent over the wires.
Reuters did send the story. According to Art Spiegleman of Reuters,
"We sent out the story a couple of days before it (the trial) took place."

At least two of the three major wire services announced the War Crimes
Tribunal, leaving the media one less excuse for not running the story.
Paul Ahuja was the press director for the Tribunal. He mentioned some
publications that did not cover the story because of its controversial
nature. Ahuja recalled a conversation with Sidney Schanberg of Newsday
in which Schanberg told him, "I can't cover this story. I'd get fired."

The New York Times was just as squeamish. Staff at the publication
told Ahuja, "This story is editorial suicide."

Ramsey Clark was critical of the press coverage of Desert Storm and
the lack of coverage of the Tribunal. He said, "The press has totally
defaulted. It began with Grenada." His reference of Grenada alluded to
the U.S. government's blackout of press coverage of the invasion of
the island by U.S. forces in 1983. Clark added, "They (the press)
complained for a while, but they soon forgot."

During Desert Storm, Clark was vocal about his opposition; however, he
and many other opponents were totally shut out by the media. Clark
said, "The press led the American people to celebrate a slaughter."

Clark called the media remiss in attempting to get the facts. He stated:

The morning of January 15, 1991 was the saddest moment for American
journalism. There, at the cashier's desk (at the Al-Rashid Hotel in
Baghdad), checking out were the journalists. Here you have the press,
whose duty it was to cover the facts for the public, checking out.

According to Clark, the journalists used the excuse of imminent danger
for their exit. He said, "It's like a fireman saying, `Hell, that's a
big fire. I'm not going in there.'"

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright
Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal
By Grant F. Smith


Foreign Agents
Book Review by Terry Walz
Council for the National Interest Foundation, DC
http://cnifoundation.org/


Many citizens concerned by the undue influence of the Israel lobby are
dismayed by the action of the US Congress that adopts resolution after
resolution favoring Israel with nary of word about its failure to make
peace with the Palestinians, whose land it inhabits, or with its
neighbors, whose borders it abutts.  Last year Stephen Walt and John
Mearsheimer, two professors from prestigious American universities,
began a public debate on the power of the lobby - a cause long
advocated by the Council for the National Interest - giving hope that
a public airing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), its work, financing, and political connections would help
Americans understand the gross misdirection of Middle East foreign
policy over the last forty years.  Grant F. Smith's new book, Foreign
Agents, decisively pushes this debate forward and shows just how
brazen and criminal the lobby has acted since its beginnings.

Smith traces the development of AIPAC from its early days under
founder Si Kenen, who in 1947 registered with the US Department of
Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as an employee of
the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. He was representing
himself then as an agent working for Israel.  He continued to register
as a foreign agent during the late forties and fifties, working for
various organizations funded by the Israel government, but in 1959,
the name of the American Zionist Committee was changed to the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to better reflect, as Kenen
said, that it "raised its funds from both Zionists and non-Zionists."
Its focus of work never changed, which was to promote the cause of
Israel in both the executive and legislation branches of government,
yet the organization no longer filed as a foreign agent.  AIPAC
eventually developed an extensive grassroots national network of
organizations that engaged in all manner of illegal activities, from
transgressing federal elections laws, to economic and industrial
espionage, to flouting congressional laws regarding the use of arms
exported to foreign countries, and passing classified and secret
information to the Israeli government via the Israeli embassy in
Washington. In 2005, after a nine-year investigation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, two of AIPAC's top officials were arrested
for espionage, and the role that AIPAC played over the years as a
covert agent for Israel was given unusual light.

The book uses as a primary source the historic and remarkable hearings
that Senator William Fulbright held in 1963 to investigate the
"activities of agents of foreign principals in the United States." The
Committee's aim was to look at the work of all organizations working
on behalf of foreign countries, but in the process it discovered that
the American Zionist Committee (AZC) was funded by the Jewish Agency,
an arm of the Israeli government, and by the Israeli embassy, although
its principals were not registered as foreign agents. The hearings
disclosed the secret world of the AZC and the Jewish Agency, finding a
pattern of money laundering that became a hallmark of AIPAC in the
years to come. Both the Agency and the embassy typically hid the
support that they provided by using private foundations and
individuals as fronts so that it would appear the AZC was funded by
American, not foreign, sources.  Thus they bypassed the terms of the
Foreign Agent Registration Act and sought to obscure their aim, which
was to represent the interests of the Israeli government.

To measure the influence of the emerging lobby, Smith covers a wide
spectrum of illegal and criminal activity.  He begins by examining
AIPAC's efforts to promote Israeli economic interests to the
disadvantage of American workers. During the 1984 negotiations that
preceded the creation of a "US-Israel Free Trade Agreement," AIPAC
obtained a copy of the classified document spelling out the American
negotiating strategy.  Thus Israeli negotiators were aware of American
positions well in advance of the meeting.  AIPAC then managed to
persuade the House Ways and Means Committee to provide special
protections for Israeli imports of certain products should a
free-trade zone be established.   Even Congressional members, with
long experience in Israeli lobby tactics, couldn't help but notice
AIPAC's heavy hand in this instance.

The pressure exerted by AIPAC during congressional and presidential
elections is well known, though consistently denied by the
organization.  Smith here focuses on the California Senate race of
1986 and the role played by Michael Goland, a real estate developer,
who contributed $1 million via various conduits to derail a potential
dangerous opponent of Sen. Alan Cranston, who was seeking reelection
that year and was an AIPAC favorite.  Goland was convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment for election fraud.  Goland had been a
member of the board of AIPAC and had been highly visible in AIPAC's
successful effort to unseat Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois in 1984.

AIPAC also had a hand in the defeat of Sen. Fulbright in 1968, and of
Congressman Paul Findley in 1986. Findley's series of books about the
lobby, especially his Dare to Speak Out, have been noted for the light
they have thrown on the power of the lobby and its illegal activities.

AIPAC set up a series of political action committees (PACs), all with
innocuous names, with the aim of influencing the election of
congressional representatives all over the country. It made sure that
internal firewalls, as Smith describes them, were set up so that no
one could detect AIPAC's hand.   But the line between them and the
actions of the committees was hardly invisible. One "activist," a
Chicago businessman, attempted to explain in a New York Times
interview in 1987 how he and AIPAC operated independently, in the
course of which it became apparent that the opposite was true, that
there was tight coordination between AIPAC and dozens on pro-Israel
committees. In 1988 the Washington Post published an internal AIPAC
memo, reproduced in Foreign Agents, revealing now active AIPAC was in
illegally coordinating PAC distributions to favored candidates.

The many instances of election fraud prompted a group of former US
government officials to sue the Federal Election Commission for
failure to require AIPAC to publish details of its income and
expenditures, which political action committees are required to do.
Among this group were George Ball, former secretary of state, Paul
Findley, former congressman and founder of the Council for the
National Interest, Andrew Kilgore, publisher of the Washington Report
for Middle East Affairs and former ambassador to Qatar, and James
Akin, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia.  The FEC delivered a report
on the complaint that cleared the PACs but professed a desire to
further study the actions of AIPAC, but in fact the chief complaints
were ignored.  Appeals to the Supreme Court were turned aside on
various points and the case remains in legal limbo to this day.

In the last twenty years, AIPAC has continued to develop its political
networks.  Steve Rosen, AIPAC Director of Policy, notoriously likened
the lobby to "a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the
sun."  It funds dozens of congressional "educational" trips to Israel
every year through its affiliate the American Israel Education
Foundation; it continues to publish Si Kenen's Near East Report, which
serves as a propaganda arm of the Israel government; it established a
"think tank," the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which
maintains a roster of "experts" providing cover for Israeli government
positions (many of whose Board members have served as Board members of
AIPAC); it maintains a large public relations office in Manhattan; and
works in tandem with the new Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
whose president, Martin Indyk, was deputy director of AIPAC and a
former US ambassador to Israel.  Thus Middle East policy at Brookings
Institution, once a formidable independent think tank, has been
usurped by pro-Israeli interests.

The growing arrogance of AIPAC, which in recent years acted with
brazen impunity, was not unnoticed by the FBI counterintelligience
which began probing the organization's activities as far back as 1999.
In 2005, Col. Lawrence Franklin, who was working in the office of
Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, was arrested and
charged with giving classified documents to two top officials at AIPAC
who passed them on to the Israeli embassy.  The information concerned
US positions toward Iran.  The AIPAC officials were also arrested and
charged with espionage. Lawrence was found guilty and sentenced to 12
years and seven months in prison and fined $10,000 for passing
classified information to AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat.  The trial
against Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman has been delayed on several
occasions and is now scheduled to begin in January 2008.  The
espionage charges have been dropped. A full analysis of the trial and
its various permutations can be found in Smith's Chapter Five.

The case appropriately summarizes the extent of the illegalities that
AIPAC has engaged in since its beginnings some fifty years ago.
Senator Fulbright was on to something much bigger than even he could
have imagined.  Spawned by the Jewish Agency, it has abetted efforts
that have encouraged "charitable" organizations in the US to
contribute more than US $50 billion to illegal settlements in Gaza and
the West Bank while appropriating and developing lands that belong to
Palestinians. The money laundering activities of the Agency and the US
donors have been brought to the attention of the US Department of
Justice, thanks to work by the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern
Policy and the Council for the National Interest but as yet no action
has taken place to stop the illegal operations.  As Smith states,
"This follows an established pattern of law enforcement failures since
the Fulbright foreign agent hearings."

Foreign Agents shines light on the murky world of AIPAC and its
efforts to divert policy and push Israel's rightwing interventionist
agenda in Washington. It garnered support for a war and occupation of
Iraq in Congress.  Contrary to the assertions of many now claiming how
AIPAC was not promoting war, Smith documents how it helped prompt the
American invasion of Iraq and now threatens to coordinate an
intervention by the US in Iran.  The consequences for the American
public have been huge, as the response to Hurricane Katrina made
clear, and has rendered the US the least popular country in the world.
The book also discusses in detail how tenuous are AIPAC's claims to
even be a legally constituted nonprofit corporation.  Most of all, it
serves to remind us that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
does not serve US interests, but works as a foreign agent for the
government of Israel and should be required to register as a foreign
agent.  Only then will be operations and financing be made transparent
and public. In fact, this book makes a convincing case that America -
and the world - would be better off without AIPAC.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Report: Global Executions on Rise
By NICOLE WINFIELD
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFFSx-Ym77E8r1IIgRpnOVf7ygVg


ROME (AP) - More people were put to death last year - 5,628 than in
either of the previous two years, with China alone accounting for
5,000 executions, an anti-death penalty group reported Thursday.

The Rome-based Hands Off Cain said that while countries are
increasingly renouncing the death penalty, the overall number of
executions rose because more nations that have capital punishment on
their books actually used it in 2006.

In its annual report on the death penalty, Hands Off Cain said the
gradual trend of abolishing capital punishment continued, with 51
countries retaining the death penalty compared to 54 in 2005. But it
said 27 countries had resorted to the death penalty in 2006, up from
24 in 2005.

"More countries are becoming abolitionists, but where the death
penalty remains we see it applied more harshly," said Elisabetta
Zamparutti, the report's editor.

As a result, the number of executions increased, to at least 5,628
last year compared to 5,494 in 2005 and 5,530 in 2004.

Overall, 146 countries and territories have renounced the death
penalty to some extent, either through outright abolition or a
moratorium, Hands Off Cain said.

The report said China remained the top executioner, with unconfirmed
reports that as many as 8,000 people are put to death annually. The
report cited Chinese officials and academics as saying executions had
decreased, however ?in part because of a new amendment requiring the
Supreme Court to confirm all death sentences and for public hearings
for appeals.

Iran came in second in the group's top execution rankings. Hands Off
Cain said Tehran doubled the number of people it put to death in 2006,
executing at least 215 people compared to 113 in 2005, though it said
the real number may be even higher.

Zamparutti said the numbers on executions in China and Iran were based
on non-governmental agencies' accounts and news reports.

Pakistan also nearly doubled the number of executions in 2006, putting
at least 82 people to death last year compared to 42 the year earlier.

Hands Off Cain said both Iran and Pakistan executed minors in
violation of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The United States was the only country in the Americas that carried
out a death sentence in 2006. Fifty-three people were executed in the
U.S. last year, down from 60 in 2005 and 59 in 2004, the group said.

Hands Off Cain gave an award Thursday to Rwandan President Paul Kagame
for his role in ending the death penalty in his country. Earlier this
year, the Rwandan government approved a bill abolishing capital
punishment, in part to encourage European and other countries to
extradite suspected masterminds of the country's 1994 genocide.

"It would be helpful if more commitment (to extradition) was shown
internationally," Kagame said at the awards ceremony in Rome.

Rwanda has also signed on as a co-sponsor to a U.N. General Assembly
resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions. Hands Off
Cain said it believed the U.N. resolution - which has failed in
previous years - now has enough support to pass.

On the Net:

     * Hands Off Cain: http://www.handsoffcain.info

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Vatican rebuffs Muslim outreach:Quran cited as the main obstacle
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
http://www.amperspective.com/html/vatican_rebuffs_outreach.html


Vatican has rebuffed a massive outreach effort by 138 Muslim religious
leaders and scholars who sent a letter to Pope Benedict XVI in an
attempt to improve Christian-Muslim relations.

The letter, titled "A Common Word Between Us and You," which is also
addressed to Christianity's other most powerful leaders, including the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and
Baptist churches, seeks to recognize similarities between Islam and
Christianity as a way of fostering mutual understanding and respect
between the two religions.

It compares texts from the Bible and the Koran to argue that
Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  Both believe in "the
primacy of total love and devotion to God," and both value love of
neighbor and a peaceful world.

In a belated response to the Oct. 13 letter, Cardinal Jean-Louis
Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue in the Roman Curia, told the French Catholic daily La Croix,
on Friday (Oct. 26) that a real theological debate with Muslims was
difficult as they saw the Quran as the literal word of God. "Muslims
do not accept that one can discuss the Quran in depth, because they
say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute
interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."

Another reading of his comments suggests that the Vatican does not
want a dialogue with Muslims unless they change their belief in Quran
as a revealed book. Like most Christian theologians, the Muslims have
to believe that sacred scriptures are the work of divinely inspired
humans.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran's comments echo Pope Benedict's statement.
In the summer of 2005, Pope Benedict devoted an annual weekend of
study with former graduate students to Islam. During the meeting he
reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam's openness to change given
the conviction that the Quran is the unchangeable word of God.

Vatican response to the Muslim outreach is significant because in his
Regensburg, Germany, speech last year Pope Benedict implied that Islam
was violent and irrational religion. His remarks sparked bloody
protests in the Muslim world and prompted the Muslim scholars to unite
to seek better inter-faith understanding.

Pope Benedict recently re-established an office for interfaith
dialogue that he had shuttered, but the Roman Catholic Church has
taken hard line stance towards Islam since the death of John Paul II
in 2005, supporting diplomacy but not theological discussion. Pope
John Paul met with Muslims more than 60 times over the course of his
pontificate to build bridges. In May 1999, Pope John Paul II received
a delegation of Iraqi Muslims who presented him Islam's holy book, the
Quran. The Pope bowed to the Quran and he kissed it as a sign of respect.

However, as a cardinal in the Holy See, the Pope Benedict was known to
be skeptical of his predecessor John Paul II's pursuit of
conversation. One of his earliest decisions as pope was to move
Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, one of the Catholic Church's leading
experts on Islam, and head of its council on inter-religious dialogue,
away from the centre of influence in Rome, and send him to Egypt as
papal nuncio.

Benedict has spoken publicly of Christianity as the cornerstone of
Europe and against the admission of Turkey into the European Council.
He had said Turkey should seek its future in an association of Islamic
nations, not with the EU, which has Christian roots. However, during
his visit to Turkey in November 2006, Benedict softened of his
opposition to Turkey's long-sought membership in the European Union.

According to Marco Politi, the Vatican expert for the Italian daily La
Repubblica: "Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very
dear to John Paul II - the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have
the same God and have to pray together to the same God." Recently Pope
Benedict promoted the old Latin Mass, which contains references to the
conversion of the Jews. The Latin mass, largely abandoned after
Vatican II, has long been hated by Jews for its emphasis on the Jewish
role in turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion and for its
call for Jews to come into the church.

Reverting to the 29-page letter that was welcomed by various leaders
and institutions, including the Baptist World Alliance and the Most
Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader to
the world's 17 million Anglicans. Rev. Williams said: 'The letter's
understanding of the unity of God provides an opportunity for
Christians and Muslims to explore together their distinctive
understandings and the ways in which these mould and shape our lives.'

The Evangelical Alliance in Britain welcomed the letter's call for
peace and understanding, but also pointed to differences between the
two faiths. Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali said that the letter
seems to undercut the role of Jesus by emphasizing a part of the Quran
that urges non-Muslims not to "ascribe any partners unto" God. The two
faiths' understanding of the oneness of God is not the same, he told
the Times of London. "One partner cannot dictate the terms on which
dialogue must be conducted," he said. "This document seems to be on
the verge of doing that."

The letter offers interpretations of both the Quran and the Bible on
the love of God, love of neighbor and other spiritual concepts that
are similar in Christianity and Islam. It pointed out that finding
common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter
for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders and
added that: Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest
religions in the world and in history.

The two faiths account for more than half the world's population, the
letter notes. "Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third
and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more
than 55% of the world's population, making the relationship between
these two religious communities the most important factor in
contributing to meaningful peace around the world."

"If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at
peace."

The letter is signed by no fewer than 19 current and former grand
ayatollahs and grand muftis from countries as diverse as Egypt,
Turkey, Russia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Iraq. Signatories include
Shaykh Sevki Omarbasic, Grand Mufti of Croatia; Dr Abdul Hamid Othman,
adviser to the Prime Minister of Malaysia and Dr Ali Ozak, head of the
endowment for Islamic scientific studies in Istanbul, Turkey. They
also include Shaykh Dr Nuh Ali Salman Al-Qudah, Grand Mufti of Jordan
and Shaykh Dr Ikrima Said Sabri, former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and
Imam of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Jordan's Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman has
been working for more than three years to prepare this letter. The
Royal Institute was also responsible for the widely read Open Letter
to the Pope following his controversial speech last year, which was
signed by 38 high-level Muslim leaders.

The Jordanian Institute is hopeful that this historic letter would
provide a common ground for the many organizations and individuals who
are currently busy in interfaith dialogue all over the world.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Kremlin intensifies reprisals against
Muslims in the North Caucasus

By Andrei Smirnov
5 October 2007
The Jamestown Foundation
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/10/05/8940.shtml


Repression against practicing Muslims has significantly intensified in
the North Caucasus this year. Disappearances or kidnappings of devout
young Muslims have become more frequent in such Caucasian regions as
Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Kabardino-Balkaria. During an official
conference in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, on June 6, the
director of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Nikolai Patrushev,
expressed concern that radical Islam in the North Caucasus is pushing
away more traditional forms of Islam. In his talk at the conference,
Patrushev also pointed to the fact that a growing number of Caucasian
Muslims are receiving religious education abroad. "During the last ten
years, thousands of young men have gotten training in religious
institutes abroad," Patrushev said. "Some of these students have
become active agitators of ideas that are alien to Russian traditional
religious values" (Interfax, June 6).

Patrushev's speech was a signal to security officials in the North
Caucasus to intensify their activities in searching and detaining
devout practicing Muslims in the Caucasus. Imams of regional mosques
play a key role in this activity. They provide the police and the FSB
with the names of those who visit a mosque too often or whose way of
praying differs from the others. There is a difference in praying
between Sufi Muslims (Sufism is the dominant school of Islam in some
regions of the North Caucasus; the Russian authorities regard Sufism
as a less dangerous branch of Islam than the other branches,
especially Wahhabism or Islamic fundamentalism) and others. The noon
prayer of a Sufi in the Caucasus lasts a little bit longer than the
prayer of an ordinary Muslim. If a man regularly finishes his noon
prayer a little bit earlier and then leaves the mosque, this could
mean that he is not a Sufi, but an adherent of another branch of
Islam, including Salafism or Wahhabism. It should be noted that the
majority of the Muslims in the world do not have prayers that are as
long as those of the Sufis of the North Caucasus, so if a man leaves
the mosque earlier than the others do, this is not necessarily proof
that he is an adherent of Salafism or Wahhabism.

All of the imams of the mosques in such Sufi dominated Caucasian
regions as Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya have special instructions
from the police and the FSB to report on all those who leave the
mosque before the end of the noon prayer. Arresting or kidnapping a
man who is on an imam's blacklist is a common thing in the Caucasus.
At the end of the last year, a young man who had had arguments with an
imam of a local mosque in Makhachkala over how to pray was detained by
the police and found dead the day after his arrest. According to Lev
Ponomarev, head of the For Human Rights movement, 18 men were
kidnapped in Dagestan during April and May this year, all of them
devout practicing young Muslims.

A Muslim who simply goes to mosque too often can also be regarded as a
suspicious person. During the last two years, the police carried out
several raids on mosques in Makhachkala in the early morning, during
morning prayer. Security officials believe that only a true Muslim can
attend a mosque so early, and they regard all true Muslims as
potential rebels.

The hunt for practicing Muslims is currently under way in Ingushetia.
As the Ingushetiya.ru website reported, during a recent meeting of
police officers, Musa Medov, the republic's interior minister,
declared that the lists of the names of those who leave mosques at
noon earlier than others had been coordinated with the Spiritual
Directorate of Muslims of Ingushetia (the official Muslim
organization). Medov added that persons on the lists were Wahhabis and
should be eliminated.

The Galaev brothers from the Ingush village of Sagopshi are the first
victims of this new campaign in Ingushetia to eliminate those who pray
"in a wrong way." On September 27, Said Galaev and Ruslan Galaev were
killed by a squad of special forces who had raided their house. The
policemen said that the brothers tried to resist and shoot at them,
but Bamatgiri Mankiev, head of the Human Rights Commission of the
Ingush parliament, told the newspaper Kommersant that the Russian
policemen shot them while they were still in bed. Mankiev insists that
the only thing the Galaevs were guilty of was being on the blacklist
(Kommersant, September 28).

Sometimes the hunt for the "wrong Muslims" becomes so absurd that
young men who simply have a healthy lifestyle also become victims. As
the Chechen journalist Ruslan Sultanbekov told Jamestown, his friend
in Chechnya had been arrested and called a Wahhabi simply because he
did not smoke or drink alcohol.

In the western part of the North Caucasus - Kabardino-Balkaria,
Karachaevo-Cherkessia, and Adygeya - where there are practically no
Sufis and Islam does not have such deep roots as in the East, Muslims
who do nothing more than pray in public and go to the mosque can be
added to the blacklist. After a period of relative calm that lasted
for about one year, repression against practicing Muslims has again
intensified in the western part of the North Caucasus. According to
the "For Human Rights" movement, this past summer, the anti-organized
crime unit of the police in Karachaevo-Cherkessia detained dozens of
practicing Muslims. Human rights activists say that all of the
criminal cases that were initiated against the detained Muslims were
fabricated with only one aim: to send as many local Muslims as
possible to prison for a long time and thus secure the region before
the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014 (Karachaevo-Cherkessia is
adjacent to Sochi).

As for Kabardino-Balkaria, the reprisals in the region are even worse,
because practicing Muslims are not only arrested, but are often
kidnapped and disappear without a trace. On September 26, Daymokh
website reported the disappearance in Kabardino-Balkaria of two young
businessmen known in the republic as devout Muslims.

The aim of such reprisals is clear: in detaining practicing Muslims,
the security officials are trying to neutralize potential rebels and
sympathizers of the insurgency. It is likely, however, that even the
FSB leadership is not absolutely certain that these reprisals will
work. The lack of other effective methods is forcing the FSB to resort
to the dubious practice of targeting young Muslims.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com