Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [osint] Hezbollah Communique / BD

Expand Messages
  • Toufic
    ... I can t say I agree with that, but happy birthday anyway, Brooks. Keep on the great job. toufic
    Message 1 of 7 , May 1, 2002
      30/04/02 20:00 - Brooks Isoldi wrote :

      > I would say it's just more proof that the
      > possibility of hezbollah attacks on US interests abroad does exist.
      I can't say I agree with that, but happy birthday anyway, Brooks. Keep on
      the great job.

      toufic
    • l0rRi
      No comment from me on the content. But when you say you re hosting it, does this mean that someone from Hezbullah sent the .rm file to Intellnet, or where does
      Message 2 of 7 , May 6, 2002
        No comment from me on the content. But when you say you're hosting it, does this
        mean that someone from Hezbullah sent the .rm file to Intellnet, or where does
        it come from? I'm curious about who the speaker is and towards what audience
        this sermon/speech (in English) was aimed.

        Happy birthday, by the way, to you and Pirate.
        lorri

        Brooks Isoldi wrote:
        >
        > I am hosting a real audio file on intellnet of a hezbullah communique. It
        > speaks out against Bush, Blair, Israel and the arab regimes which are
        > supporting us in Afghanistan. I would say it's just more proof that the
        > possibility of hezbollah attacks on US interests abroad does exist. The
        > link to the file is http://www.intellnet.org/media/100/050/158.rm. You are
        > also free to download it naturally.
        >
        > ---
        > Brooks Isoldi
      • Brooks Isoldi
        Lorri, No, this communique was not sent to IntellNet (I wish...). I followed a link to a server run by FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information Services) which
        Message 3 of 7 , May 7, 2002
          Lorri,

          No, this communique was not sent to IntellNet (I wish...). I followed a
          link to a server run by FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information Services) which
          left their materials open. Since I wasn't circumventing any security, I
          mirrored all of the materials. Included in them were a bunch of real
          audio/video files and that was one of them. I thought it was a good catch
          so I posted it, as well as a few others. FBIS is an organization which
          collects and analyzes OSINT on a VERY large scale on a daily basis.


          ---
          Brooks Isoldi
          The Intelligence Network
          http://www.intellnet.org
          877-581-3724 [Voicemail/Fax]

          "When in the Course of human Events, it
          becomes necessary for one People to
          dissolve the Political Bands which have
          connected them with another..."
          -Declaration of Independence (1776)
        • Brooks Isoldi
          *ahem* she got me a REALLY nice and expensive Targus laptop carry bag with lotsa little pockets and stuff, one of which holds my palm pilot very nicely.
          Message 4 of 7 , May 9, 2002
            *ahem* she got me a REALLY nice and expensive Targus laptop carry bag with
            lotsa little pockets and stuff, one of which holds my palm pilot very
            nicely. Ok...as for the Hezbollah communique, I have no information on the
            speaker. All I got was that file, however most likely he is a
            "spokesperson" for Hezbollah (if you can consider a terrorist organization
            as having spokespeople). The target audience is most likely the western
            states, otherwise it would be in Arabic. However, it is most likely to be
            used as recruiting material given the chanting in Arabic in the beginning.
            Also, the speaker is not speaking towards the US/UK, he is speaking OF the
            US/UK (i.e. he said "The US and UK have declared war on Islam..." not "You
            have declared war on Islam").


            ---
            Brooks Isoldi
            The Intelligence Network
            http://www.intellnet.org
            877-581-3724 [Voicemail/Fax]

            "When in the Course of human Events, it
            becomes necessary for one People to
            dissolve the Political Bands which have
            connected them with another..."
            -Declaration of Independence (1776)
          • Edward John Craig
            The target audience, I suspect, are the mill-and-mosque towns of the English midlands: Bradford, Burnley, Blackburn, Oldham, etc. ... From: Brooks Isoldi
            Message 5 of 7 , May 9, 2002
              The target audience, I suspect, are the mill-and-mosque towns of the English
              midlands: Bradford, Burnley, Blackburn, Oldham, etc.

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Brooks Isoldi [mailto:bjisoldi@...]
              Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:03 PM
              To: osint
              Subject: Re: [osint] Hezbollah Communique


              *ahem* she got me a REALLY nice and expensive Targus laptop carry bag with
              lotsa little pockets and stuff, one of which holds my palm pilot very
              nicely. Ok...as for the Hezbollah communique, I have no information on the
              speaker. All I got was that file, however most likely he is a
              "spokesperson" for Hezbollah (if you can consider a terrorist organization
              as having spokespeople). The target audience is most likely the western
              states, otherwise it would be in Arabic. However, it is most likely to be
              used as recruiting material given the chanting in Arabic in the beginning.
              Also, the speaker is not speaking towards the US/UK, he is speaking OF the
              US/UK (i.e. he said "The US and UK have declared war on Islam..." not "You
              have declared war on Islam").


              ---
              Brooks Isoldi
              The Intelligence Network
              http://www.intellnet.org
              877-581-3724 [Voicemail/Fax]

              "When in the Course of human Events, it
              becomes necessary for one People to
              dissolve the Political Bands which have
              connected them with another..."
              -Declaration of Independence (1776)



              --------------------------
              Brooks Isoldi, editor
              bisoldi@...

              http://www.intellnet.org

              Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
              Subscribe: osint-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


              *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use
              has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a
              part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to
              OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
              the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
              intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
              techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
              intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational
              purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the
              copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright
              Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own
              that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
              owner.
              For more information go to:
              http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Edward John Craig
              On Hizbullah s English audience: Farrukh Dhondy is a BBC producer, journalist, and novelist living in England. The following is from the Autumn 2001 issue of
              Message 6 of 7 , May 9, 2002
                On Hizbullah's English audience:

                Farrukh Dhondy is a BBC producer, journalist, and novelist living in
                England. The following is from the Autumn 2001 issue of City Journal.

                Our Islamic Fifth Column

                Farrukh Dhondy

                My first name gives rise to confusion. It's a common Muslim name, so people
                I meet, or who read my byline, assume that I am of the faith.

                Most recently, in response to a column I write for an Indian paper, in which
                I confessed to having met a few terrorists in my time and attempted to
                analyze their limited grasp of the world, I received a lot of hate mail.
                Some of the e-mailers clearly thought I was a Muslim apostate and reminded
                me that the penalty for that sin was death. One, who signed himself Zahir
                Pathan, was more strident. He graphically said I was a Muslim sin cojones,
                as Hemingway would have put it, because I failed to face up to what had to
                be done. He went on to say, presumably as part of what needed doing, that
                preparations were under way for the bombing and destruction of Bombay. His
                tone was swaggering, his e-mail rage directed against one who had, he
                thought, reneged on Islam.

                I haven't. I was born a Zoroastrian, in India, a descendant of refugees from
                the Muslim conquest of Iran by Arab armies in the seventh century. The India
                of my childhood was full of superstition, of faith in myriad manifestations
                of the unseen, but even then one knew that Islam and its followers were
                distinctive. From the Shia mosque in Poona, where I grew up, there emerged
                every Moharrum night, the end of Ramzaan, a procession of chanting Muslims
                in black shirts, cutting themselves with chains and little daggers strung
                together, in frenzied and bloody penance through the night-a demonstration
                of a belief beyond the threshold of pain. They believed that theirs was the
                only creed, that their book was dictated by God, that Hindus were idolators
                and the worshipers of trees and monkeys, that Zoroastrians were
                fire-worshiping infidels, and that Christians were an ancient military
                enemy. Their faith seemed to me even at the time to exclude what it had not
                invented.

                In the searching years of adolescence, when we all tried to come to terms
                with the great ideas of democracy, liberalism, the possibilities of life
                embodied in literature, only the pious Muslims among us seemed impervious to
                taking part in the passionate arguments. They seemed to have an inbuilt view
                of the world and of history, formed and sanctioned by the Quran. Even then I
                wondered: if they would not assimilate the world, how would the world
                assimilate them?

                I arrived in Britain at 20, just when the Muslim migration there,
                principally from India and Pakistan, was under way. The immigrants were
                leaving circumstances of grinding poverty and little hope to better
                themselves materially. They took it for granted that they would be afforded
                the right to work and live within the cultural and religious freedom that
                Britain's liberal civilization guaranteed.

                During my years in England, I acquainted myself with various groups from the
                subcontinent who were part of this migration. Most were from peasant
                backgrounds. The Bangladeshis came to London's East End and found work in
                the garment industry. The Mirpuris, who came from the part of Kashmir that
                Pakistan occupied, went to work in the old cotton and woolen mills of
                Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the Midlands. They cohered around the mosque, the
                central symbol of discipline in their lives, and around the small shops that
                sold the spices, the lentils, the halal meat that made these towns feel like
                home. The first generation that arrived imagined making some money quickly
                and, some time in the future, returning home. That future never arrived.
                Their children and grandchildren have now grown up as Lancastrians and
                Yorkshiremen-Muslim Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen.

                These antiquated mills went out of business in the 1980s. The
                population-white, brown, and black-had no jobs. The general depression of
                the mill-and-mosque towns reflected itself in run-down, restless schools,
                without ambition or excellence. The activists and ambulance chasers of the
                Left demanded more multiculturalism in these schools-which gave cover to the
                ex-peasant community's demands for the Islamization of the schools' ethos
                and curriculum. They demanded-successfully, in some cases-that girls and
                boys be taught separately, that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs,
                that the schools serve halal meat, that Arabic and the Quran be taught, that
                British history classes depict Britain primarily as an exploitative, demonic
                nation. Principals who resisted these demands were branded racists.

                In 1989 came the most significant divide in the multicultural history of
                Britain: the Rushdie affair, which uncovered a multicultural fifth column,
                whose literary criticism entailed book burning and death threats. The
                British Muslim community echoed the call of the Ayatollah Khomeini to hunt
                down and kill the writer. There were denunciations of Rushdie in every
                mosque by mullahs and crowds who had only handled a copy of the book to burn
                it. Not one mullah-not one-raised a voice in support of the principle of
                freedom of creativity; no mullah ventured the opinion that the fatwa was
                wrong or against Islamic teaching. Though the supposedly liberal Muslim
                commentators whom the British press retains were not in favor of the death
                sentence, none would extend himself to a defense of the book. In Bradford,
                an ugly book-burning rally was led by one Kalim Siddiqui, who was forced to
                admit to an investigating press that he and his operation were financed by
                the government of Iran. He subsequently set up a "Muslim Parliament of
                Britain," which professed to dispense laws and promulgate rules for the
                Muslims of Britain.

                In the first week of the fatwa against Rushdie and his book, I appeared on a
                television panel. Among the Muslim panelists, all of whom favored condemning
                the book, were two zealots: the same Kalim Siddiqui; and Yusuf Islam, the
                Muslim convert pop singer of Greek Cypriot origin formerly known as Cat
                Stevens. The moderator asked if, in my role as a commissioning editor of
                Channel 4 UK, I would contemplate turning The Satanic Verses into a film. I
                said that I would judge the cinematic merits of the script, and that no
                other consideration would rule it out. Kalim Siddiqui and Yusuf Islam
                snarled, warning that the sentence of death on Rushdie would extend to all
                those who forwarded his book in any way.

                We had all come from London to Manchester to record the "discussion." The
                producer had a word with me when it was over: would I feel more comfortable
                if he changed my hotel, away from the threateners and their entourage?

                Before the fatwa and the Muslim solidarity it generated, the race industry
                that arrogates to itself the leadership of immigrant opinion had assumed
                that, with a few concessions, and with some exotic and welcome additions to
                British cuisine, the new immigrant communities would be assimilated into
                British life with hiccups but not convulsions. The fatwa affair-when the
                entire Islamic community united behind the condemnation-should have put an
                end to the idea. This was one bridge that Muslim immigrants were not willing
                to cross.

                In fact, after the Rushdie affair, Muslim spokesmen and their supporters
                demanded that the law of blasphemy, which still existed in Britain, be
                extended to apply to Islam. The Muslim clerics would then determine what was
                blasphemous. Thankfully, nothing came of it. The book burners and novelist
                killers, recognizing only one book as the fount of truth, cannot countenance
                a literary tradition, established through centuries of struggle against
                censorship and obscurantism, that allows the sacred to be prodded
                critically, even to be profaned. The liberal, democratic freedom to think
                and speak that the West enjoys has been won in part through this prodding
                and provocation. That freedom allows people to vilify a writer, to
                demonstrate their antagonism to his fiction, even to burn a few books. But
                it does not bestow the freedom to call for the execution of anyone.

                The affair of the Verses demonstrated that successive generations of Muslim
                immigrants to Britain, despite their broad Midland accents and their
                (admittedly rather curtailed) education in the Western intellectual
                tradition, identified themselves primarily as Muslims. They declared their
                allegiance not to the traditions that allowed them to settle, to worship, to
                have the Prince of Wales visit their mosques and proclaim himself their
                protector, but rather to a religious philosophy that emanates from a
                different place and different age.

                It was in the early eighties that this identity with a freshly militant
                universal Islam emerged as a politically distinct force in Britain. While
                the earlier generation of Muslim immigrants had gone their way without
                bothering to adopt Western dress, their children grew up wearing Air Jordan
                sneakers, baggy trousers, and Hilfiger tops, in imitation of American
                blacks. The great cliche of their generation, enshrined in endless articles
                and now in facile novels, is that they were caught between two cultures.
                Some of these second- and third-generation Muslim Britons resolved this
                tension by adopting the politics, philosophy, and culture of fundamentalist
                Islam. On college campuses, some students began to dress in what they
                imagined was a fashion decreed by an Islamic identity. They reformed their
                lives, their speech, their friendships. They assumed a mission and
                characterized the evolution of civil liberties-the gains of feminism for
                instance-as immorality. Their puritan disgust for the West's popular culture
                and sexual license, their support for laws that decree the stoning to death
                of adulteresses and the beheading of apostates, became the profession of an
                allegiance alienated from the Britain that allows them the freedom to assume
                and argue these positions.

                All these new zealots were brought up in a traditional Muslim way by parents
                whose religious views were generally orthodox but not extremist. But in the
                1980s, a new Muslim leadership of mullahs inspired and paid for by various
                Islamic powers around the world was entering the country and setting up
                bases in Britain, thanks to an immigration-law loophole that allows
                religious personnel open-ended permission to stay. Iranian money, Saudi
                money from worldwide foundations for the promotion of Islam, was
                establishing mosques and setting up madrasas, schools that purvey primitive
                religious instruction and teach the Quran by rote. Adolescents attracted to
                this new radical preaching, young people whose childhood religious
                observances had already set them apart from their British contemporaries,
                came under the domination of a stricter observance with the allure of an
                ideology. The new mullahs were offering a single-minded, luminously simple
                explanation of the cosmos and promising membership in an organization that
                would dominate the world. "We carry Islam as a political belief, a complete
                system," says Omar Bakri Muhammad, a poisonous cleric who runs a London
                Muslim organization. "We don't carry Islam as a religion. It's an ideology."

                If you prostrate yourself to an all-powerful and unfathomable being five
                times a day, if you are constantly told that you live in the world of Satan,
                if those around you are ignorant of and impervious to literature, art,
                historical debate, and all that nurtures the values of Western civilization,
                your mind becomes susceptible to fanaticism. Your mind rots.

                Worse, it can become the instrument of others who send you out on suicidal
                missions. Three years ago, the Yemeni police caught eight young men with
                plans and equipment to bomb British targets in that country: the offices,
                homes, and churches of the British diplomatic and expatriate community. Six
                of these young Muslims, all of Pakistani origin, held British passports.
                Three were from the Midlands, two from the North, and one from London, the
                stepson of a Muslim preacher in the Finsbury Park mosque. The Yemeni courts
                tried and convicted them of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

                Their cover stories were pathetic. They said they had gone to Yemen to learn
                Arabic: that's like going to Pakistan to learn English. The Foreign Office
                in London instructed the British diplomats in Yemen to extend their support
                to these citizens. One can imagine the conversation: "I say, old chap, you
                didn't really come here to blow me and my children up, did you? Ah well-we'd
                better see you safely back to old Blighty, hadn't we?"

                I set out to write about these adventurers at the time. Their wives or
                partners-young white women wearing headscarves and ankle-length skirts, like
                the Albanian peasants who beg on the London Underground-appealed on TV for
                the British government to secure their release. The men in Yemen denied that
                their aim was terrorism and begged for their freedom, alleging that the
                Yemeni police had tortured and sexually assaulted them. They, their lawyers,
                and their families claimed the protection of the British state; and Britain,
                accepting an obligation to them as British subjects, made representations on
                their behalf to the Yemeni government. Where did these young men, British by
                birth and schooling, develop the hatred that would take them to Islamic
                guerrilla training camps in Yemen and then on a mission to kill British
                diplomats and their families?

                Journalists traced the roots of their mission back to Finsbury Park in north
                London, to the mosque situated in a largely Turkish Cypriot area of the city
                and to a preacher called Abu Hamza, a one-eyed mullah with a claw, like
                Captain Hook's, for a right hand. I asked him where he had lost his hand.
                His reply was: "I didn't lose my hand; I gained it."

                I persisted, and he claimed that he had been a mujahid in Afghanistan and
                lost his hand in the fighting, though it seemed to me that its amputation
                was consistent with the premature explosion of a bomb. He boasted to me that
                he had sent young men to training camps. He would not say what they trained
                for or where, but his general contention was that, as Muslims, they must
                fight for the conversion of the world to Islam. The young men in Yemen were
                part of the worldwide jihad. He would not say which one of the professed
                worldwide campaigns he was part of. He seemed proud that his own stepson was
                involved in the murdering foray into Yemen and said that, if they had gone
                to destabilize the Yemeni government, he would not condemn their enterprise.
                I pointed out that Yemen was a Muslim country and that these British men and
                their Algerian co-conspirators were being tried under Islamic law. His
                contention was that any court that did not support the attack on Western
                interests in the Middle East was insufficiently Islamic.

                The Yemeni incident should have alerted Britain and its government to the
                rise of a phenomenon that couldn't be explained by any theories of race
                relations. It didn't. Liberal opinion, while not admitting that the Yemeni
                six were out to kill Britons, called again for an examination of the British
                racism that had alienated them.

                Then, in the summer of 2001, riots broke out in several of the
                mill-and-mosque towns. A few hundred masked "Asian" (which in Britain means
                Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi) youths took to the streets after dark and
                began torching shops, pubs, cars, and buses. They fought the riot police
                with staves and stones. Oldham, Bradford, and Burnley exploded in riots. The
                pundits and the Home Office officials in charge of race relations were
                bewildered. Their explanations were classic-cliched and mistaken. They
                attributed these "Asian" riots to the "failure of years of race relations,"
                to resentment of poverty and unemployment, and to rumors that neo-fascist
                anti-immigrant organizations like the British National Party were invading
                these towns.

                The BNP had undoubtedly established a small presence among the white
                citizens of the mill-and-mosque towns, capitalizing on fears of the
                unemployed and unemployable "Asian" youths hanging around the streets. As
                for race relations, Britain has long been acting like Florence Nightingale:
                selfless, dedicated, bandaging every wound, but ignorant about the genesis
                and gestation of gangrene. What the newspapers failed to mention was that
                these weren't "Asian" youths-not Gujeratis, not Hindu Punjabis, not Sikhs.
                They were Muslims whose parents or grandparents came from Mirpur or
                Bangladesh. The difficulties Muslim culture places in the way of
                assimilation has produced a generation of disaffected youth, highly
                susceptible to the incitements of Islamic militants.

                The pundits didn't seem to notice that the stone-throwing impulse and the
                hanky masks were in imitation of TV pictures of Arab youths in their street
                battles with Israeli police. They failed to engage with the fact that among
                these rioting Muslims were members of semi-clandestine Islamic
                fundamentalist quasi-organizations, gathering under the aegis of a mosque or
                a college society. And though none surfaced publicly in the wake of these
                riots to claim responsibility, behind them there were preachers like Abu
                Hamza of Afghanistan and Finsbury Park.

                I had a foreshadowing of this connection in conversations I had with some of
                these young Muslims in Oldham before the riots. They wore the fundamentalist
                uniform-the cap, the beard, the white tunic and trousers. They said that
                Western civilization deserved to be destroyed.

                "So where are you going to start? In your own hometown?" I asked.

                Their spokesman smiled. "Everywhere," he said.

                The riots had no targets, symbolic or strategic. They didn't seem to protest
                against unemployment. The riots were swagger and mayhem, and the rioters in
                successive towns vied to outdo one another. The race-relations lobby's claim
                that this was an "Asian" protest against maltreatment and racism-and the
                lobby needs racism to keep it in business-is worse than unhelpful, for it
                obscures the real problem and the real danger: the antagonism among some
                British Muslims that condemns all of Western civilization as rotten and
                immoral.

                After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Hamza
                was wheeled out again, together with the poisonous Omar Bakri Muhammad, who
                had been expelled from his native Syria and is funded by missionary money
                originating in Saudi Arabia. They both said that they supported the jihad,
                that the laws and sensibilities of men did not matter, and that only the law
                of the book and the will of God, as interpreted by them, of course, could
                govern the thinking of the Muslim. After all, "Muslim" means the one who
                submits.

                Established Muslim organizations of Britain, the sort that talk to the Home
                Office and get invitations to Downing Street, expressed their regret at the
                atrocity. The Prince of Wales went to prayers at the East End mosque to
                demonstrate his solidarity with Britain's Muslims. Tony Blair, staunch
                supporter of President Bush's anti-terrorist initiatives, appeared on TV,
                flanked by leaders of Muslim organizations. As a group, they condemned the
                attack and denounced Hamza and Bakri as "clowns."

                Despite these denunciations, outside the mosques of Britain, young men of
                the jihadi persuasion mount soapboxes with hateful slogans supporting the
                atrocity, exhorting the arriving or departing worshipers to "join the war"
                against the wickedness of America and demanding nothing less than its total
                destruction.

                Outside the Regent Street mosque, the largest in London and the one regarded
                as the central place of worship for all Muslim denominations, groups of
                these youth, who would not say when challenged whether they were followers
                of Hamza or of Bakri, distributed leaflets. The leaflets called for the
                worshipers to defend Islam against the imminent American war and called on
                the British government to dissociate itself from the American-led aggression
                against Islam. Uniformed London policemen stood by to ensure their freedom
                of speech.

                And now, even as I write, a young Muslim from Burnley, Lancashire, has been
                taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance Afghans. He had come to Afghanistan
                to fight for the Taliban. The deputy prime minister of Britain, John
                Prescott, rallied to his defense, perhaps, like so many Labour politicians
                with Muslim constituents, looking for votes. Instead, he should send MI5 and
                MI6 to investigate where and how this young man was recruited and whether
                there are other terrorist cuckoos in this same nest.

                The governments of Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen may not be able to root out the
                fundamentalists in their midst who resort to terror, but Western countries
                have no option. One can't shelter in one's home those who would kill you.
                Britain has given extended permission to stay to the likes of Hamza and
                Bakri. The very liberalism against which they preach has nursed this fifth
                column. It must be rooted out.

                Muslim states, including Libya, have mouthed their support of the U.S. and
                its people in their hour of bereavement with an ironic brazenness. Some of
                them, apostles of Islamist terror themselves, do it to avert the judgment
                and vengeance of an aroused America; others because they have their own
                local terrorist problem, with which they would welcome assistance. From
                within the U.S., several voices of the Muslim community have expressed their
                sorrow, dismay, and outrage.

                And yet even when liberal Muslims declare that what was done to the victims
                of New York, of the Pentagon, and of the four airliners was an atrocity
                contrary to the tenets and teachings of the Quran, that it was indeed a
                sinful transgression of Islam that will not lead to paradise but to hell,
                the majority of Muslims around the world don't believe them, because they
                have been convinced by the interpretation of the fundamentalist, whom
                liberal Muslims allowed to remain unchallenged for so long.

                Ironically, this terrible act is destined to mark a day of judgment for
                world Islam. In its 1,400 years, Islam has inspired and incorporated the
                great mystical movement of the Sufis. It has also suppressed it. It has
                spawned in its time liberal jurisprudence, great art, scientific endeavor,
                and the simple idea that what is not forbidden by the Quran is allowed. And
                yet Islam has, in the twentieth century, funded by oil and inspired by the
                work of Mohammed Wahab, an eighteenth-century fundamentalist, led its
                followers back to the book.

                Apart from the Muslims of Arabia, all Muslims are converts to Islam. As V.
                S. Naipaul eloquently argues in his books and essays of travel and discovery
                (see "Our Universal Civilization," Summer 1991), they date their history
                from the birth of the prophet. They adopt the history of Islam, the
                movements and conquests of the desert tribes, as their history, despite
                being themselves the descendants of the world's most ancient civilizations.
                Five years ago, Iranian fanatics, the descendants of Muslim converts from
                Zoroastrianism, set out to destroy the ruins of the ancient Zoroastrian city
                of Persepolis. This year, the Taliban of Afghanistan destroyed the world's
                inheritance of the Bumiyan Buddhas that happened to be on the land that they
                have usurped. Persepolis ultimately escaped demolition only because members
                of the Islamic regime saw a commercial opportunity in opening the site to
                tourism, making some money while preserving their contempt for the site's
                historical and cultural significance.

                The creed that leads these vandals to disown and destroy anything that is
                deemed "un-Islamic" leads them to a mission to challenge and convert the
                world, through terror if necessary. They don't for a moment consider that
                the world doesn't want a religion that suppresses women, adopts a medieval
                creed of crime and punishment, forces people to prayer at the behest of the
                police, forbids the writing of novels, the making of films, and the playing
                of music, and destroys the minds of its young and leads them to fanatical
                acts of suicidal terror in which they murder upward of 6,000 innocents.

                This barbaric interpretation of Islam has inevitably come into moral and now
                mortal conflict with the West and its dominant state power. As the cowboy
                movies say, this earth ain't big enough for the both of them. And this fight
                to the obliterative finish ultimately cannot be a matter of killing people
                and toppling regimes. It has to involve a revolution within Islamic thinking
                itself.

                What Islam needs is a reformation, and if this very concept is forbidden in
                the unchangeable word of the Quran, there is enough Islamic history to
                support a reforming and radical interpretation of the law of living with
                others. There have been movements in Islamic history that are by no means
                inimical to peace, tolerance, and even to democratic and liberal principles.

                But where is the will today to affirm such a history, to promulgate such a
                theology, and to found an authoritative reformation of the modern Islamic
                mission?

                The U.S. has in the last three decades countenanced the immigration of
                millions of Muslims from the Indian subcontinent, from the Middle East, and
                North Africa. Some of them died in the World Trade Center, where they had a
                mosque on the seventh floor. The Muslims of America now live in what, with
                all its imperfections, is a free, advanced, democratic society. Many of them
                are professionals-doctors, dentists, engineers, software and hardware
                experts, scientists, pilots, even members of the armed forces. Their right
                to the pursuit of happiness will ensure their right to embrace Islam. They
                must now see that an interpretation of the Quran that belittles all
                preceding human history and that refuses to be modified by the discoveries
                of the Enlightenment, of scientific advance and social liberty, cannot
                coexist with the rest of the modern world.

                The vast number of Muslims in Britain and the U.S. who are educated in
                Western disciplines and culture, who live by the demands of Western ways of
                work, are riven by a conflict between the prescriptions of Islam and the
                freedom to think, speak, and associate, and to be protected by democracy and
                Western jurisprudence. These Western Muslims will have to resolve their
                dilemma by seeding the reformation in Islam.

                Western Muslims must now discover in their own history and theology that
                nothing forbids the rise of a single or collective Martin Luther who will
                defy the medievalist mullahs (a self-appointed rather than an anointed
                clergy) and will pin new theses, renouncing world conquest, on the doors of
                every mosque.

                The development of Islam, though constantly hijacked by fundamentalist sects
                like the Wahabis, has always had a strong, non-proselytizing, mystical Sufi
                current, to which 80 percent of the world's Muslims have some connection.
                And Islam has always had in its theological armory the sanctioned concept
                and tradition of ijtihad, which means coming to conclusions about
                prescription, behavior, and morality through argument and the application of
                reason rather than through dogma. It is in a sense parallel to the reliance
                of the Christian Reformation on the supremacy of conscience. True, passages
                in the Quran urge believers to "kill those who join other gods with God
                wherever ye shall find them" and to wage war on neighboring infidels. But a
                hundred suras of the Quran also enjoin the faithful to tolerance: one
                specifically says that killing one innocent person is akin to the murder of
                the whole world. An Islamic Reformation would delegitimate literal
                interpretations of Quranic passages stoking intolerance and emphasize those
                that resemble the Golden Rule.

                As for the officials of America and Britain, they need to redirect the
                effort and money that they have poured into race relations and
                multiculturalism into a clear, reasoned, energetic defense of the values of
                freedom and democracy. Their future depends on it.


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Brooks Isoldi [mailto:bjisoldi@...]
                Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:03 PM
                To: osint
                Subject: Re: [osint] Hezbollah Communique


                *ahem* she got me a REALLY nice and expensive Targus laptop carry bag with
                lotsa little pockets and stuff, one of which holds my palm pilot very
                nicely. Ok...as for the Hezbollah communique, I have no information on the
                speaker. All I got was that file, however most likely he is a
                "spokesperson" for Hezbollah (if you can consider a terrorist organization
                as having spokespeople). The target audience is most likely the western
                states, otherwise it would be in Arabic. However, it is most likely to be
                used as recruiting material given the chanting in Arabic in the beginning.
                Also, the speaker is not speaking towards the US/UK, he is speaking OF the
                US/UK (i.e. he said "The US and UK have declared war on Islam..." not "You
                have declared war on Islam").


                ---
                Brooks Isoldi
                The Intelligence Network
                http://www.intellnet.org
                877-581-3724 [Voicemail/Fax]

                "When in the Course of human Events, it
                becomes necessary for one People to
                dissolve the Political Bands which have
                connected them with another..."
                -Declaration of Independence (1776)



                --------------------------
                Brooks Isoldi, editor
                bisoldi@...

                http://www.intellnet.org

                Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
                Subscribe: osint-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use
                has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a
                part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to
                OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
                the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
                intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
                techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
                intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational
                purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the
                copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright
                Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own
                that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
                owner.
                For more information go to:
                http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.