Why is the left silent on murder of Libyan Ambassador

by The 99% Thu Sep 27, 2012 17:18

Eyal Sivan has documented some of this indoctrination in his 1990 film IZKOR, SLAVES OF MEMORY - http://www.eyalsivan.info/index.php?p=movingimg&id=6

"IZKOR, is a portrait of the Israeli society that has never been shown before, thirty days in the life of a State that lives to the rhythm of its memory. This award-winning film puts forward a passionate and severe analysis of the Hebrew state.

“IZKOR,” means "remember" in Hebrew and this film looks in depth at this imperative that is imposed on the children of Israel. In Israel during the month of April feast days and celebrations take place one after another. School children of all ages prepare to pay tribute to their country's past. The collective memory becomes a terribly efficient tool for the training of young minds."

The line is drawn from kindergarten to the moment in which every Israeli (except for the Orthodox and Arab-Israelis) fulfills their 'destiny', to do their military service.

The "Breaking the Silence" group (now approximately 800 ex-soldiers) speak about this eloquently, and heartbreakingly - because they were once children and believed what they were told. Equally heartbreaking is the Christian, or any other religion, indoctrination of children. Some of them have grown up to serve in the US military and play out their contempt for Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Download excerpt here - http://www.eyalsivan.info/medias/extraits/Izkor-SOM.m4v - NB: 240Mb video file -

by The 99% Thu Sep 27, 2012 17:12

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/i-pict...ation

How did it feel to imagine killing Arabs? “I felt happy” one girl answers.

She was one of several children who spoke about committing acts of violence in this video shot at the Israeli army museum by Israeli satirical filmmaker Itamar Rose.

But the children’s answers – in Hebrew and subtitled in English – are serious. As they climb all over tanks, sit at machine-guns positions, or explain how to use a hand-grenade, Rose asks them their views.

Without hesitation, the children express their readiness to kill. Asked what he imagined when he was sitting in a tank, one boy answers, “I picture a dead Arab.”

Of course, these children are no more ready to kill than any other children, nor can they be any more capable of understanding the import of their words, at least not yet.

The children in Rose’s film bring to mind the notorious image of Israeli schoogirls writing messages on artillery shells about to be fired into Lebanon during Israel’s 2006 assault that killed more than 1,200 Lebanese civilians and devastated much of the country.

Indoctrination

All these children are victims of Israel’s militaristic, settler-colonial culture. As (http://electronicintifada.net/tags/nurit-peled-elhanan) Nurit Peled-Elhanan documents in her important new book Palestine in Israeli School Books, (http://electronicintifada.net/content/book-review-how-i...11571) recently reviewed by The Electronic Intifada , Israeli schoolchildren are indoctrinated with negative stereotypes and outright hatred of Palestinians and Arabs from an early age.

Moreover, according to Peled-Elhanan, Israeli textbooks, “present Israeli-Jewish culture as superior to the Arab-Palestinian one, Israeli-Jewish concepts of progress as superior to Palestinian-Arab way of life and Israeli-Jewish behavior as aligning with universal values.”

Education is only one aspect; Israeli children grow up in a highly militarized settler-colonial culture where most know they are destined for the army where they will be ordered to occupy and kill. Indoctrination at an early age must be an important part of ensuring that (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel...nians) only very few will refuse to undertake such tasks .

Palestinian children in Israeli propaganda

Ironically, a staple of Israeli (http://electronicintifada.net/tags/hasbara) hasbara has long been that Palestinian children are ‘taught to hate’ in their schools – a claim (http://electronicintifada.net/content/textbook-case-isr.../3983)long-ago completely debunked .

Pro-Israel propaganda sites often revel in images of Palestinian children posing with weapons, as if such images prove that Palestinian children are indeed uniquely vicious, or deserve no sympathy or justice when killed.

This type of propaganda reflects what Joseph Massad has called (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152....html) "Arabopaedophobia" – the Israeli and Western fear, hatred and dehumanization of Arab children.

Children live with the consequences of Israel’s violent occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people, whether it is Israeli children indoctrinated to continue this oppression as adults, or Palestinian children brutalized and traumatized by the organized violence of occupation, colonialism and apartheid that pervades their lives.

This is never a reflection on the children, but on the adults who subject them to such ugliness.

by pat c Thu Sep 27, 2012 14:49

False flag operations are nothing new for The Israelis, in 1950 - 51 they bombed Jewish Cafes and Synagogues to encourage them to emigrate to Israel. Full article by Tony Greenstein at link.

When the Zionists Planted Bombs Outside Iraqi Synagogues.

The Israeli State is increasingly trying to balance the expulsion of the Palestinian refugees and the demand for the right of return or compensation with the alleged expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries, Iraq in particular The following article outlines the history of the exodus of the worlds oldest Jewish community, some 2,500 years old, from Iraq in 1950-1 and how the Zionist movement, in order to encourage them, planted bombs outside Jewish cafes and businesses, including the Masuda Shemtov synagogue.

The Zionist Destruction of the Iraqi Jewish Community

When the Zionist Underground Planted Bombs Outside Baghdads Jewish Cafes and Synagogues

http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-zionist-destru....html

by Rahul Wed Sep 26, 2012 16:16

>The Sick and Twisted pathology that is Zionism: Israel Defence Forces encouraging Innocent Children to kill non-Jews

>The video makes a fair point at the start - wherever Militarism is driving force in State, that state will inevitably produce Kids like >this - and will inevitably be Fascist in nature

This was so upsetting and yet powerful. An article on how these childrens minds are poisoned would be most effective.

by The 99% Wed Sep 26, 2012 15:47

The French "Satirical" rag Charlie Hebdo first took part in these Anti-Muslim campaigns when, in it's February 9, 2006 edition, it joined with Islamophobic bigots all over the Western World in publishing a series of cartoons specifically designed to insult Islam and Muslims.

Phillipe Val, the publisher of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo loudly proclaimed at that time, his love of 'Freedom of the press' while choosing to reproduce these cartoons, which he knew were certain to cause offense among Muslims.

Then a very short time later, in 2006, the very same Phillipe Val just as loudly sacked the satirist 'Sine' when he was accused of 'Anti-Semitism', following a rather ridiculously shrill uproar by France's Jewish community, when the satirist commented on the marriage of the son of Nichols Sarkosy to a rich heiress of Jewish extraction.

What he said was merely:

'He'll go a long way in life, this lad!'.

nothing more. Just that.

The piece was published without controversy - until several days later, when a radio presenter referred to it as 'anti-Semitic'.

For some reason Phillipe Val did not consider 'freedom of the press' to have any bearing on THAT particular matter. He even commented on the 'offense' it caused to France's Jewish community

For some reason Mr Val has no problem causing offense to people of the Muslim religious persuasion but appears very very reluctant to cause any sort offense to people of Jewish religious persuasion

Personally I believe that the press has the right to cause 'offense' to people of any religious persuasion, but when I see that they are very willing to offend Muslims but very very un-willing to offend Jewish People then I begin to suspect that "freedom of the Press" means nothing to these people, that it is merely a convenient cover to disguise their co-ordinated Hate-mongering campaign against a minority-grouping.

People such as the hypocritical Mr Val, published the Anti-Muslim cartoons because, rather than being noble defenders of the 'Freedom of the Press', they are a bunch of Anti-Muslim racist Hate-mongers, trying their damndest to create the "Clash of Civilisations" narrative first espoused by Racist Zionist Oxford&Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis.

So, who is Bernard Lewis?

Dick Cheney's friend, Bernard Lewis, was "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq." (AEI's Weird Celebration- http://www.slate.com/id/2161800)

Professor Bernard Lewis is a Zionist of Jewish background and has reportedly worked for British intelligence.

Lewis helped to invent the West's new enemy, known as 'Islam'.
For the British, it was once the Jewish terrorists who were seen as being the enemy.For the USA, it was once tiny Vietnam.

Wiki: Lewis, born in London in 1916, is a historian and 'expert' on Islam. In 1974, Lewis accepted a position at Princeton University.

In 1990, Lewis wrote an essay entitled The Roots of Muslim Rage. In this essay, Lewis argued that the struggle between the West and Islam was gathering strength.

In this essay Lewis invented the phrase "Clash of Civilizations", which got mentioned in the book of the same name by Samuel Huntington.

The phrase "Clash of Civilizations", was first used by Lewis at a meeting in Washington in 1957.

There has been speculation that Lewis, the intelligence services and people like Brzezinski want to make the Muslim world look bad, so that it can be more easily controlled and exploited.

Much of the world's oil lies in Muslim lands.

Israel sits on STOLEN Muslim land.

How do you make Muslim look bad?

Well, you can finance the extremists and help them into power - see recent events in both Libya and Syria

And you can also carry out false flag operations. . . . . . . . . . . . for instance, as mentioned in a post above (http://thepassionateattachment.com/2012/09/25/israel-lo...iran/), a Pro-Israel zealot has recently suggested just such a False-Flag attack might now be of use to the Israelis in order to trick the US into attacking Iran for them.

SO . . .Who or what is the REAL threat to peace in the region?

The answer to that question is "Israeli Zionism"

by The 99% Wed Sep 26, 2012 15:01

The video makes a fair point at the start - wherever Militarism is driving force in State, that state will inevitably produce Kids like this - and will inevitably be Fascist in nature

If a hammer is your preferred tool of choice - then every problem looks like a nail

I mean, who WOULDN'T want to have neighbours like this? (/sarc)

Caption: Video Id: Qp67KehlVGU Type: Youtube Video
This is what happens when you country is run by people that borrowed their ideology DIRECTLY from the NAZIS

by Graphic Wed Sep 26, 2012 14:33

At this stage one would have to be an idiot or a liar to deny that US Foreign Policy through the Bush Admin to the Obama Admin (and before both) is heavily controlled by US-Based Jewish (and non-Jewish) ZIonist Neo-Cons

http://www.thedailybell.com/4337/Anthony-Wile-As-Predic...-East

Excerpt:

"Just yesterday, a staff report entitled, "Islam Yearns for a Third Way, US Intel Will Provide," predicted "a third way for Islam that will allow Western-style central banking and finance."

Right on schedule, just as if scripted, Libya has erupted once again as "moderate Islam" battles against "radicals."

It could not be clearer or, of course, more illogical. To make the script work, Western Intel planners conjuring this nonsense have to gloss over just how these "radical Islamic" entities got into Libya in the first place.

These al Qaeda types and "extremists" reportedly infiltrated Libya and then were then supported until Muammar Gaddafi's reign fell. Now they are expendable. But expendable or not, they are the same types of individuals apparently employed under Osama bin Laden – the same types now being insinuated into Syria.

We're not supposed to ask why al Qaeda-types are serving as the shock troops for these so-called youth revolutions. Of course, we already know why.

Radical Islam is a chisel that US Intel uses to reshape the world. It's not idle conjecture, at this point. Either one agrees with this scenario or one has to explain why Islamic fundamentalists have now fought with the support of NATO in Libya and Syria."

"The article mentions the "Rafallah al-Sehati Battalion," a Salafist group. Salafism, as we mentioned yesterday, is a variant of Saudi-Arabian Wahhabism. The West, and more specifically the US, has been sponsoring the Saud family and Wahhabism for decades.

It is to the advantage of the West to sponsor Islamic fundamentalism because fundamentalists can be used to destabilize Middle Eastern and upper African regimes. Then historical dialecticism can be brought to bear. Fundamentalists can be attacked by "moderates" – and Western style regulatory democracy can suddenly emerge. This is surely the Hegelian model being applied to Libya today.

Libya, of course, is in ruins. Sectarianism and violence are everywhere. Gaddafi may have ruled like a dictator but for many under his reign life was good. The basic necessity of water had finally become accessible. Houses and cars were affordable and so long as you didn't challenge the government directly, you could start a business, survive and even thrive.

Of course, human beings generally don't like to live in circumstances where they must moderate their views out of fear. But certainly Gaddafi's Libya was likely superior to today's faction-ridden, partially destroyed and hate-infested country.

We mention this because of what the Telegraph relates: "... Protesters held up placards commemorating Mr Stevens, who lived in Benghazi last year while coordinating American support for the revolution. 'We demand justice for Stevens,' said one, and 'Libya lost a friend' another."

We are supposed to believe these are the genuine sympathies of the Libyan people? We are supposed to believe that after being bombed and shot, after seeing the country invaded by ragtag mobs of "fundamentalists," that Libyans support those who supervised the damage?

It strikes me as more directed history, just as I noted yesterday in my RT interview. You can see that interview here: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzhHh9F1A7o#!

The US in particular, through its Teddy Roosevelt "big stick" policy, has unapologetically meddled in other countries' affairs around the world. In my view, the current situation in Libya is part of the same impulse. Nothing much has changed from that point of view.

But in another way a lot has changed, thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation. For instance, Western Intel seems to have had in mind creating the appearance of a religious war by planting an anti-Muslim film in the Middle East.

It was the appearance of this hateful film that was the proximate cause of the violence in Libya and elsewhere. Only it was not.

The Internet and the alternative media thoroughly debunked the film and its infiltration into the Middle East. What was obviously a Western Intel trick failed. And the administration was left scrambling to pro-offer a secondary justification – terrorism.

In fact, it is far more likely that all of this, including the placards, was orchestrated. The manipulation knows no boundaries and the same weary historical tricks are being applied over and over again.

They are not working nearly so well these days. As a result of the current manipulations, the Middle East is on fire, probably above and beyond what was expected. This is because Western manipulations are well known by now and people are furious.

They want to be left alone. Can you blame them?"

by pat c Wed Sep 26, 2012 13:19

More information emerges on CIA activities in Libya. Full text at link.

According to the New York Times, at least half of the nearly two dozen US personnel evacuated from the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi following the fatal attack on the US consulate and a secret “annex” were “CIA operatives and contractors.”

“It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,” a US official who had been stationed in Libya told the Times. “We got our eyes poked out.”
The Times report describes the mission of the CIA station in Benghazi as one of “conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city,” including Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militia that has been linked by some to the September 11 attack, and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.

It further states that the CIA “began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi” within months of the February 2011 revolt in Benghazi that seized the city from forces loyal to the government of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Stevens himself was sent into the city in April of that year as the American envoy to the so-called “rebels” organized in the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC).

What the Times omits from its account of CIA activities in Benghazi, however, is that the agency was not merely conducting covert surveillance on the Islamists based in eastern Libya, but providing them with direct aid and coordinating their operations with those of the NATO air war launched to bring down the Gaddafi regime. In this sense, the September 11 attack that killed Stevens and the three other Americans was very much a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

by The 99% Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:50

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.de/2012/09/west-attempts-....html
West Attempts to Trigger Clash of Civilizations

In France where people are sent to jail for “Holocaust denial,” considered by law a religious hate crime, it seems strange then that well timed, raunchy cartoons designed solely to insult and inflame hate against and amongst Muslims worldwide would be defended vigorously by French politicians who claim, according to the Christian Science Monitor, that “freedom of the press should not be infringed.”

With Neo-Conservative Pro-Israel warmongers behind a recent inflammatory film titled, “The Innocence of Muslims,” and their counterparts amongst radical sectarian extremists leading violent protests across the Middle East and North Africa, it would almost seem as if the publication of insulting cartoons by a French paper, “Charlie Hebdo,” was part of a grander strategy to create a manufactured conflict between Islam and the West, setting the stage for more overt military operations to take over faltering covert operations in Syria and beyond.

France (and the West - including Zionists /Neo-Cons in the US Gov't and other Gov'ts) Are Playing Both Sides.

It is a fact that France itself,(like virtually ALL the other members of the group of hate-mongering Pro-Zionist States: UK, US, Israel etc) has provided state sponsorship of terrorism from Libya to Syria, arming, funding, and politically backing the very groups taking to the streets, burning Western consulates, and killing bystanders, diplomats, and security forces alike.

by pat c Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:40

Interesting article from WSWS. Full text at link.

The ruling circles of Europe have responded to the protests by defending the anti-Islamic propaganda in the name of free speech, while suppressing demonstrations against these racist provocations and strengthening their own state apparatuses. The most striking example is France, where the government has banned all protests against the defamatory Muhammad cartoons published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

This buildup of state power is directed against the entire working class. The ruling class anticipates violent class struggles. Social contradictions and tensions in Europe are rapidly increasing as the euro crisis intensifies and a new recession gathers pace. ...

Rejection of the defamatory Muhammad cartoons does not mean giving support to a government ban, as demanded by figures in the German government parties who fear social upheaval. A number of these right-wingers have even argued for the reintroduction of the blasphemy clauses in the Criminal Code, which in the past served as an infamous weapon of clerical reaction. This is merely the flip side of the strengthening of the state apparatus demanded by the defenders of the Muhammad cartoons.

by Who is the REAL Threat to peace? Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:53

http://thepassionateattachment.com/2012/09/25/israel-lo...iran/

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
September 25, 2012

Last Friday, during question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”

As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”

Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

Caption: Video Id: fsvDWZTVP3E Type: Youtube Video
War-enthusiast Clawson begins his answer around the 1 hour 15 minute mark.

by Graphic Tue Sep 25, 2012 17:33

At this stage one would have to be an idiot or a liar to deny that US Foreign Policy through the Bush Admin to the Obama Admin (and before both) is heavily controlled by US-Based Jewish (and non-Jewish) ZIonist Neo-Cons

http://www.thedailybell.com/4337/Anthony-Wile-As-Predic...-East

Excerpt:

"Just yesterday, a staff report entitled, "Islam Yearns for a Third Way, US Intel Will Provide," predicted "a third way for Islam that will allow Western-style central banking and finance."

Right on schedule, just as if scripted, Libya has erupted once again as "moderate Islam" battles against "radicals."

It could not be clearer or, of course, more illogical. To make the script work, Western Intel planners conjuring this nonsense have to gloss over just how these "radical Islamic" entities got into Libya in the first place.

These al Qaeda types and "extremists" reportedly infiltrated Libya and then were then supported until Muammar Gaddafi's reign fell. Now they are expendable. But expendable or not, they are the same types of individuals apparently employed under Osama bin Laden – the same types now being insinuated into Syria.

We're not supposed to ask why al Qaeda-types are serving as the shock troops for these so-called youth revolutions. Of course, we already know why.

Radical Islam is a chisel that US Intel uses to reshape the world. It's not idle conjecture, at this point. Either one agrees with this scenario or one has to explain why Islamic fundamentalists have now fought with the support of NATO in Libya and Syria."

"The article mentions the "Rafallah al-Sehati Battalion," a Salafist group. Salafism, as we mentioned yesterday, is a variant of Saudi-Arabian Wahhabism. The West, and more specifically the US, has been sponsoring the Saud family and Wahhabism for decades.

It is to the advantage of the West to sponsor Islamic fundamentalism because fundamentalists can be used to destabilize Middle Eastern and upper African regimes. Then historical dialecticism can be brought to bear. Fundamentalists can be attacked by "moderates" – and Western style regulatory democracy can suddenly emerge. This is surely the Hegelian model being applied to Libya today.

Libya, of course, is in ruins. Sectarianism and violence are everywhere. Gaddafi may have ruled like a dictator but for many under his reign life was good. The basic necessity of water had finally become accessible. Houses and cars were affordable and so long as you didn't challenge the government directly, you could start a business, survive and even thrive.

Of course, human beings generally don't like to live in circumstances where they must moderate their views out of fear. But certainly Gaddafi's Libya was likely superior to today's faction-ridden, partially destroyed and hate-infested country.

We mention this because of what the Telegraph relates: "... Protesters held up placards commemorating Mr Stevens, who lived in Benghazi last year while coordinating American support for the revolution. 'We demand justice for Stevens,' said one, and 'Libya lost a friend' another."

We are supposed to believe these are the genuine sympathies of the Libyan people? We are supposed to believe that after being bombed and shot, after seeing the country invaded by ragtag mobs of "fundamentalists," that Libyans support those who supervised the damage?

It strikes me as more directed history, just as I noted yesterday in my RT interview. You can see that interview here:

Anthony Wile on RT News: Arab Winter - http://www.thedailybell.com/4330/VIDEO-Anthony-Wile-on-...inter

The US in particular, through its Teddy Roosevelt "big stick" policy, has unapologetically meddled in other countries' affairs around the world. In my view, the current situation in Libya is part of the same impulse. Nothing much has changed from that point of view.

But in another way a lot has changed, thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation. For instance, Western Intel seems to have had in mind creating the appearance of a religious war by planting an anti-Muslim film in the Middle East.

It was the appearance of this hateful film that was the proximate cause of the violence in Libya and elsewhere. Only it was not.

The Internet and the alternative media thoroughly debunked the film and its infiltration into the Middle East. What was obviously a Western Intel trick failed. And the administration was left scrambling to pro-offer a secondary justification – terrorism.

In fact, it is far more likely that all of this, including the placards, was orchestrated. The manipulation knows no boundaries and the same weary historical tricks are being applied over and over again.

They are not working nearly so well these days. As a result of the current manipulations, the Middle East is on fire, probably above and beyond what was expected. This is because Western manipulations are well known by now and people are furious.

They want to be left alone. Can you blame them?"

by Graphic Tue Sep 25, 2012 16:06

http://middleclassdub.blogspot.de/2011/10/islamophobia-....html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...l3Dkw

by Graphic Tue Sep 25, 2012 16:04

Below are quotes which highlight the disturbing similarities between Islamophobic messages from people such as Robert Spencer and fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley and NAZI messages.

Ten statements by 'anti-jihad' writer Robert Spencer and Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher are compared.

Julius Streicher was the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi paper that spread vicious Antisemitic propaganda from 1923-1945. As Nazi Party leader in Nuremburg he organized the destruction of synagogues in the city.

He was not directly involved in the Holocaust but was convicted of crimes against humanity after WWII. He was found guilty of inciting hatred against Jews in Der Stuermer and was executed in 1946.

Robert Spencer is a prominent critic of Islam who runs the Jihadwatch.org website. He is the author of several best selling books on Islam and he has spoken on Fox News, CNN, NBC and other news channels.

He has organized protests against the construction of mosques in New York. He has advised the FBI on Islam and his books were recommended by the FBI for its agents.

The following is a comparison of their views on Muslims and Jews respectively.

1 Muslims/Jews have a religious duty to conquer the world.

“Islam understands its earthly mission to extend the law of Allah over the world by force.”

Robert Spencer.

“Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament orders the Jews to consume and enslave the peoples of the earth?”
The Mosque is by the very nature of Islam the preparation ground for the imposing of Sharia Law on every population, including on the working class.
Julius Streicher.

" The Mosque is by the very nature of Islam the preparation ground for the imposing of Sharia Law on every population, including on the working class."
fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

2 The Left enables Muslims/Jews.

“The principal organs of the Left...has consistently been warm and welcoming toward Islamic supremacism.”

Robert Spencer.

“The communists pave the way for him (the Jew).”

Julius Streicher.

"YOU GET MY POINT ON THIS. WHEN GELLER AND SPENCER LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOW WHAT DO THEY SEE. THEY SEE THE LEFT IN BED WITH ISLAM, TRYING TO BRING IN ASPECTS OF SHARIA."

&
"Indymedia Ireland rats run for cover into their Sharia loving rat holes. "

fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

3 Governments do nothing to stop Muslims/Jews.

“FDI* acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials...in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

(Freedom Defense Initiative, Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller organisation).

“The government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people expect action to be taken.”

Julius Streicher.

"Obama is a pro-Islam Antisemite

Almost all goes back to the election of Obama and how the Media lied about his background. Obama was a Muslim, according to Pipes until he reached the age of 29. That has all been hidden.

Obama has been and is a tool in the Antisemitic Palestinian Narrative, a pack of lies which accuses the Jews of causing the “Palestinian Refugees”. "

fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

4 Muslims/Jews cannot be trusted.

“When one is under pressure, one may lie in order to protect the religion, this is taught in the Qur'an.”

Robert Spencer.

“We may lie and cheat Gentiles. In the Talmud it says: It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles.”

From The Toadstool, children's book published by Julius Streicher.

"Mosques need to be supervised by the working class"

fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

5 Recognizing the true nature of Muslims/Jews can be difficult.

“There is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims.”

Robert Spencer.

"Just as it is often hard to tell a toadstool from an edible mushroom, so too it is often very hard to recognize the Jew as a swindler and criminal."

From The Toadstool, children's book published by Julius Streicher.

6 The evidence against Muslims/Jews is in their holy books.

“What exactly is ‘hate speech’ about quoting Qur’an verses and then showing Muslim preachers using those verses to exhort people to commit acts of violence, as well as violent acts committed by Muslims inspired by those verses and others?”

Robert Spencer.

“In Der Stuermer no editorial appeared, written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers, in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament, or from Jewish historical works of recent times.”

Julius Streicher.

7 Islamic/Jewish texts encourage violence against non-believers.

“'And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter...' -- 2:191.”

Koranic verse quoted by Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch.org.

“'And when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally: men and women and children, even the animals.' (Deuteronomy 7:2.).”

Biblical verse quoted by Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer.

" Sharia Law is not really about religion at all. Sharia Law is the physical organization of society and is fascism (Nazism) in action."
fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

8 Christianity is peaceful while Islam/Judaism is violent.

“There is no Muslim version of 'love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you' or 'if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also'.”

Robert Spencer.

“The Jew is not being taught, like we are, such texts as, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' or 'If you are smitten on the left cheek, offer then your right one.'"

Julius Streicher.

9 Muslims/Jews are uniquely violent.

"(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers."

Robert Spencer.

"No other people in the world has such prophecies. No other people would dare to say that it was chosen to murder and destroy the other peoples and steal their possessions."

Julius Streicher.

10 Criticising Muslims/Jews is not incitement to violence against Muslims/Jews.

“There is nothing in anything that I have ever written that could be reasonably construed as an incitement to violence against anyone.”

Robert Spencer.

“Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of Der Stuermer as such were not (incitement). During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, 'Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.' Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.”

Julius Streicher.

" No I do not think Judaism should be mocked. . . . . . In a situation say in Muslim countries where Christians are being driven out by the Jihad, in those conditions Christianity should not be mocked, but the religion of those who are doing the persecution should be mocked."
[Judaism should never be mocked - Islam should be mocked]

fake-socialist and fake Irish Man (in reality a non-Irish Zionist) Felix Quigley

Robert Spencer quotes;

(1) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.p...54008
(2) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/anders-breivik-and-th....html
(3) http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/about.html
(4) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
(5) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/08/australian-pol-to-opp....html
(6) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/daniel-greenfield-in-....html
(7) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/wapo-do-critics-actua....html
(8) http://books.google.ie/books?id=eanFm7hiM1cC&pg=PA27
(9) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/01/what-is-a-moderate-mu....html
(10) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00hz34g

Sources for Julius Streicher quotes;

http://propagander.tripod.com/js2.html
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/story5.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/S....html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/G....html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/s....html

www.twitter.com/colmobroin

by Graphic Tue Sep 25, 2012 14:49

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm#

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.

In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.

....... Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely,

William Kristol

Ken Adelman Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Ellen Bork Linda Chavez Eliot Cohen Midge Decter

Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin Frank Gaffney

Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan John Lehman Tod Lindberg

Rich Lowry Clifford May Joshua Muravchik Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Daniel Pipes Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Marshall Wittmann

by Graphic Tue Sep 25, 2012 14:45

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/09/23/who-are-neocons-wha...tism/

Who Are These Neocons Who Have Hijacked The Romney Campaign?

I learned recently that many people do not really know who the neocons are or what they stand for. They know that Commentary, the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, and the editorial page of the Washington Post are neocon.

But beyond knowing that neocons are hawkish Likudniks, few know what that means.

Here is the (http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm) basic document of neoconservatism that was incorporated into a letter to President Bush in 2002. As you can see, it is pretty much all about Israel. In fact, neoconservatism is all about Israel (although it is a movement that is far from exclusively Jewish and few Jews support the movement.)

It is also not really conservative.

Commentary, which is the leading voice of the movement, is not conservative. It only mouths support for conservative causes to ingratiate neocons with real conservatives and therefore achieve dominance over conservative foreign policy. It only feigns interest in US domestic issues; its eye is always and only set on Israel. (Even the writing deteriorates when the (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/23/the-last-c...tion/) Commentariat t ries to discuss US issues.)

The “fake conservative” strategy worked to get the neocons top jobs in the Bush administration and appears even more successful with the Romney campaign. Romney’s foreign policy apparatus has been taken over by neocons like (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/senor_dan) top adviser Dan Senor. (Also, op Romney fundraiser Sheldon Adelson would be a neocon if he knew the word.) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secr...peace Romney himself is now openly neocon, saying that he opposes the Middle East peace process and favors letting Prime Minister Netanyahu decide our Middle East policy for us.
In any case, this is the original document that spells it all out. As unbelievable as it sounds, no neoconservative has ever repudiated it. If Romney wins, this is the foreign policy blueprint he will rely on. An Israeli foreign policy for….America.

by T Sun Sep 23, 2012 17:23

It has been know for some time that Mitt Rommey who happens to be a Mormon has surrounded himself with Neocon as his foreign policy advisers. These are the same people are behind PNAC and brought us the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Rommey is also very pro-Israeli and has already said he wants a war with Iran.

Then we have since this film came out, the Israeli PM, Netanyahu saying that the United States has got to go on a path to war with Iran.

What appears to be happening is that the Neocons are trying to get back into power and this is essentially a plot to discredit Obama and open the way for Rommey to get into power. In many ways it is similar to the way Carter was deposed and Reagan ushered in. As people may recall, during the election campaign of Carter there were American hostages in Tehran which dominated the campaign and Carter was very badly discredited when the special forces rescue mission spectacularly failed (the helicopter crashed and blew up, although it has been speculated they were sabotaged). Behind the scenes the Reagan-Bush operatives (later involved in the Iran-Contra affair) were holding secret meetings with the Iranians to arrange the release of the hostages after the election. And famously on the day of Reagan's inaugural speech it was announced the hostages had been released.

Thus the killing of the Ambassador is supposed to invoke similar types of embarrassments for Obama and to whip up and shape public opinion to favour Rommey presumably because Obama is not tough enough or something like that. To some extent the actions of Hilary Clinton in this light can be seen as more a damage limitation and an exercise to calm the whole thing down because they would know the whole thing is just another faction of the intelligence establishment working against them.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:21

One thing that is most noticeable about Geller, Spencer, Kincaid and all others in that field is that they equate the American Communist Party as being Marxist.

It is of course not in the slightest bit Marxist. It is Stalinist.

But then Spencer and Geller can be forgiven for doing this because the Left, for example wsws.org, is joining with the Muslim Jihadists AGAINST the First Amendment.

YOU GET MY POINT ON THIS. WHEN GELLER AND SPENCER LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOW WHAT DO THEY SEE. THEY SEE THE LEFT IN BED WITH ISLAM, TRYING TO BRING IN ASPECTS OF SHARIA.

By eliminating Saddam Hussein Bush also eliminated the main counter to the Khomeini Islamist Revolution, really a counter revolution against the Iranian workers. Saddam was relatively speaking a secularist.

As I said at top Obama travelled to Cairo in June 2009 and insisted on the Muslim Brotherhood being present even though Mubarak had them well boxed in and illegal. Obama was in that promoting the Jihad, the replacement of secular with Sharia. That has been the pattern of US and European policy.

Who will suffer from Sharia. Primarily minorities, such as Christian Copts, or Christian Syrians.

Then the Jews of Israel and Israel finds itself more and more surrounded by Sharia and Jew Hating states.

How is therefore this US elite on the side of Israel. it is not.

Bush did enormous damage by elinating Saddam. But that is only a fraction of what Obama has done.

And the Republican Party as well as the Democrats are involved in this betrayal of the principles of the Great American Revolution. Whatever happens in the election this is not going to be over. The American people are based on the GAINS of the Great American (Bourgeois) revolution.

But if the Left cannot defend Free Speech, the First Amendment, then of course it cannot call itself Left in any case.

by An Drighneán Donn Sat Sep 22, 2012 04:28

I have to laugh when I see people writing that the US ruling class is against Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a petty bourgeois religion, which makes private property and the accumulation of wealth a sacred virtue. Christianity can't do that. The US ruling class has been building up radical Islam for decades as a weapon against secular Socialist states. If private property is threatened in the US and Western Europe, expect to see Salafist groups on the warpath here too - funded by the US and European ruling classes.

by pat c Fri Sep 21, 2012 22:32

And here we have a genuine Islamophobe (a much misused word). Full text at link.

The Army officer who once taught that the U.S. ought to consider “Hiroshima tactics” for a “total war” on Islam has put America’s top general on notice for a possible lawsuit. Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is accusing the government of concealing “the truth about Islam” at a time when proponents of his view of an inevitable clash between Islam and the West have succeeded at fanning precisely those flames.

On Thursday, attorneys for Dooley told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey that Dooley is considering “a potential civil action,” said Marine Col. David Lapan, a spokesman for Dempsey. The written notice does not indicate that they’ve actually filed a lawsuit against Dempsey.

But Dooley’s lawyers, who have defended one of the most prominent anti-Islam voices in the United States, aren’t just flirting with legal action against the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They’re launching a PR strike as well. A press release announcing that Dooley has retained them accuses Dempsey of compromising “the final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon” to “the enemy.” And it’s language that comes as Americans worry about Islamic radicals targeting U.S. embassies in the Middle East.

As Danger Room first reported in April, Dempsey shut down an elective course Dooley taught at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia, which is under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The course instructed senior officers at the lieutenant colonel, commander, colonel and Navy captain level that “there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” and that wartime protections against civilians of Islamic countries were “no longer relevant.” ...

by pat c Fri Sep 21, 2012 19:29

Kill the Wahabi! Kill the Wahabi!

by fred Fri Sep 21, 2012 16:11

I think the bugs cartoon is exaggerating and playing on the fact that because there are no actual pictures of mohammed, what constitutes his image is arbitrary, a moveable feast, and for all we know, bugs bunny will be next to be offensive because it looks vaguely like somebody's subjective idea of the prophet but with mocking bunny ears and teeth. ( But it could also be some daft french pun. Mon dieu! ;-)

by Felix Quigley - 4international Fri Sep 21, 2012 13:00

it does not matter about content. All that matters is right to publ;ish

Patc

"I defend the right of the magazine to publish them"

That is all I am talking about. i have not seen the film or cartoons.

THAT is the Great First Amendment.

by pat c Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:44

There are a lot of assertions in the posts you refer to, some are just opinion, others claim to be fact. Perhaps you would respond to the ones which on a surface level appear to be factual.

As for the cartoons, I defend the right of the magazine to publish them but they are extremely juvenile in content and execution. Satire should make a political point, these, imho, do not.

Perhaps someone would help me with the cartoon below. Is a pun lost in the translation? I realise Bugs Bunny title in France may not be a literal translation.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:19

If you were a Kerryman and the Dubs tried these tactics and the ref did nothing, then the whole Kerry team would be advised to take the train to Tralee coz no justice here!!!!

And oh yes guys of left in Ireland, keep on blaming the Jeeews, that will help eh!

by Fact Check Thu Sep 20, 2012 17:05

Zionists, Neo-Cons, Neo-Nazis and Islamophobic Hate-mongers are all working together

Robert Spencer has been mentioned in the media a number of times in connection to both Anders Breivik's Massacre of innocent children in Norway, and the recent Anti-Muslim video.

The video itself seems to have been produced by what looks like a Coptic front-group for the Geller/Spencer wing of Zio-Fascist hate merchants

So who is Robert Spencer?

Is he a Zionist?

Well, let's follow the money trail and see where it leads, shall we?

Robert Spencer's website says: "ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center." http://jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Who is David Horowitz?

A Zionist hate monger, known for spewing the most vile racist and Islamic tripe imaginable - see for your self - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000

The David Horowitz Freedom Center was established with funding from conservative philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

Olin Foundation has closed down.

Both the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation have made major donations to the The Project for the New American Century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Foundation

Who is The Project for the New American Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_Americ...ntury

They are the Zionists behind the American Wars of Terror in the Muslim world.

"The Bradley Foundation has provided funding for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC brought together prominent members of the (George W) Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy, including sending a letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq."

Zionists are financing the Anti-Islamic bigoted hate-mongering Websites that motivated the Norwegian Terrorist Brievik, as well as bank-rolling front groups to produce Anti-Muslim propaganda

Zionists are attempting to stir-up a religious-hate war in Europe, between Christians and Muslims - and in the case of both Anders Behring Breivik and the Anti-Muslim video, they succeeded

by Graphic Thu Sep 20, 2012 14:48

Anders Behring Breivik and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100249#comment282362

"This is from Craig Murray's website.http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/norwegia...-edl/ It appears to confirm that the suspect was a zionist fundamentalist.

"Anders Behring Breivik posted links to the Atlas Shrugs website of the Tea Party’s Pamela Geller. * Pam Geller is a Zionist nutjob and promotes the racist policies of the English Defence League. The EDL frequently displays Zionist symbolism at it's rallies

Here you can see him under the name of Anders Behring (his middle name) posting links to Geller’s “Atlas Shrugs” site. That cache page is being translated from Norwegian.

Here is a video of Pamela Geller addressing the Tennessee Tea Party convention. This is a list of links I just copied off her Atlas shrugs website to a stream of virulent anti-Norwegian Muslim articles Geller has been publishing:


January 2009: NORWAY: Jewish children are not allowed to play outdoors –

April 2011: Norway: Muslim Taxidrivers Refuse to Drive Jews to Synagogue

May 2009: More Jewish Graves Desecrated in Norway

2009: OSLO: ANTI-ISRAEL RALLY TURNS VIOLENT

2011: Norway: ALL Rapes In Past 5 Years Committed By Muslims

2008: Jewish Genocide watch: Jew Hatred in Norway Part II

2009: JIHAD ON THE JEWS: Something rotten in the state of Norway

2008: ISLAM ATTACKS – Death for Writer! Norway Hides

2007: Massive Islamic Terror Plots: Germany, Norway, Denmark

2007: Email from Norway

2006: Norway calls for Israel Boycott


The links themselves appear to have been disabled. You could still see the links on Atlas Shrugs here as I type this. Someone more technically proficient than me might want to grab a screenshot before the list vanishes.

Geller has been actively promoting links between the Tea Party and the English Defence League. Geller states on her website that she had been in Oslo to attend a pro-Israel rally. It would be interesting to know whether Anders Behring-Breivik was also on that rally.""

by Graphic Thu Sep 20, 2012 14:28

http://theflowerthrowers.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/the-l...lims/

The Links Between The anti-”Ground Zero” Mosque Movement & Anti Muslim video

Unfortunately the makers of the image omitted mention of the links between Pamela Geller , Robert Spencer and Anders Behring Brievik, the man that murdered so many children in Norway, not so long ago, for the 'crime' of not being Pro-Isreal

The Links Between The anti-”Ground Zero” Mosque Movement & Innocence of Muslims

by Justin Thu Sep 20, 2012 14:20

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/18/the-pro-i...ideo/

Public records show a filming permit was taken out by “Media for Christ,” an outfit run by one Joseph Nasrallah Abdelmasih. His group sponsors Christian programming in Arabic, including “The Way,” a production that has featured such prominent Islamophobes as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

The Geller-Spencer collaboration goes back to the protests against the New York City “Ground Zero” mosque in which the duo achieved national notoriety: Nasrallah was one of the speakers at their rally. The idea for just such a movie as Innocence showed up on Geller’s blog in February, in a post entitled “A Movie About Muhammad: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim and board member of Geller and Spencer’s “Stop the Islamization of Nations,” exhorted Geller’s readers to support his movie project . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .Nasrallah’s recent involvement with the Geller-Spencer crowd coincided with a very profitable time for his organization: Media in Christ’s income has recently skyrocketed, according to public records, with receipts totaling under $200,000 in 2009 and prior, rising to $633,516 in 2010 and $1,016,366 in 2011. Where did all that money come from?— was it Mr. Sina’s “substantial angel”? Nakoula claims he funded his movie project with money from “over 100 Jewish donors.”

When Nakoula spoke to the Associated Press, he described himself as an “Israeli-American” real estate developer operating out of California: this was soon debunked, however, when inquiring reporters outed him as an Egyptian of the Coptic faith. They also discovered he’s a convicted felon — not only for a check-kiting scheme, but also for drug-dealing (methamphetamine). He’s an unlikely hero for the right-wing Christians who have made a martyr out of him, although to ostensible “libertarians” like Matt Welch, who thinks Nakoula & Co. are on the same level as Salman Rushdie, the meth conviction is doubtless a plus.

The idea that these vermin, who deliberately set out to make a “movie” that would inflame the Muslim world, are “free speech” heroes is worse than nonsense: it is valorizing villains.

We don’t yet know where the money, or the impetus to make the film, came from, but what we do know is this: the driving force behind Innocence was a desire to create an international incident that would bring discredit on the United States, and empower radical Islamists who hate America and everything it stands for. And the promoters of this garbage pose as “patriots”!

Free speech has nothing to do with this issue: the President requested of YouTube that they reconsider the video’s place on YouTube in light of their terms of service. YouTube refused, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, however, that’s not the end of this imbroglio, the consequences of which we’ll be living with for a long time to come.

There is an ugly sore festering under the skin of the West, and its first manifestation — or should I say symptom? — surfaced when Anders Behring Breivik committed his ghastly crime, slaughtering the attendees at a Norwegian Labor Party youth camp. He, too, wanted to “stop the Islamization of nations,” and his online manifesto cited Geller, Spencer, and the writings of the movement their hateful rantings have energized. The English Defense League — a sorry collection of skinheads, neo-Nazis, and soccer hooligans — which Geller endorses, has mounted a campaign of violent intimidation aimed at British Muslims, inspiring imitators in several European countries. These groups feed off the more radical elements of the Zionist movement: Geller and her supporters claim to be “defending Israel,” and the EDL regularly flies the Israeli flag at their hate rallies.

Defense of the Jewish state is a major theme of the Islamophobe network: they use it as a shield to deflect criticism. A key leader of this network is former New Leftist and Black Panther groupie David Horowitz: his “David Horowitz Freedom Center” (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), sponsors [Robert] Spencer’s “Jihad Watch.” Horowitz’s “Frontpage” site — ablaze with stories decrying the “betrayal” of Israel by the American government and the perfidy of all things Islamic — recently speculated Innocence was created by the very Salafists now leading the protests. Since the video sprang from the same bigoted milieu of which Frontpage is the online Jerusalem, this “theory” isn’t merely ironic — it’s a moral obscenity.

It isn’t hard to imagine where the money to create this deadly provocation came from. Of the many millions in neocon money sloshing around this country, it’s hardly inconceivable a hundred thousand or so would find its way into the hands of a twice-convicted felon and all around dubious character like Nakoula, who is, I suspect, just a con man rather than an ultra-Zionist ideologue like the promoters of his “work.”

Although, to be sure, the difference is altogether negligible.

by Zionism=Racism Thu Sep 20, 2012 13:43

http://rt.com/news/anti-american-protests-live-updates-053/ - over in France:

10:38 GMT: France announced it would close embassies and schools in around 20 countries, fearing backlash triggered by the cartoon that satirize the Prophet Mohammed.

Earlier the French PM Jean-Marc Ayrault spoke out in support of the publication of the caricatures, saying that France “is a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed.”
“If people really feel that their sensibilities have been offended and think there is enough evidence, they can refer the matter to the courts,” said Ayrault, adding that France is a “secular state.”

07:31 GMT: Protests against the film Innocence of Muslims will be forbidden in the center of Paris. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault announced on Wednesday that “We received an official request to hold a demonstration and it was denied. There is no reason to allow conflicts to occur in our country that have no relationship to France.” The announcement coincides with the publication of the latest edition of the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”, which has promised to run caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in its Wednesday release. Any representation of Mohammed is forbidden under Islamic law and considered offensive. Security has been increased at the magazine’s offices.
etc

=========

meanwhile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.[23]

So France allows freedom of speech except in regard to anything which might upset Jewish people.
And the French Govt. prevents protests against the very racist images that incite against another, different, Non-Jewish people.

Meanwhile, German law has this:

§ 130 Public incitement
In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in (although is not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as the Swastika and the SS runes.

apparently there's a saying regarding 'glass houses and stones'

by Felix Quigley - 4international Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:57

"It just shows your imperialist arrogance that you think people on an Irish website would give a shit about your slavers \ genocidists constitution"

Unfortunately you do not understand. the right to free speech is contained within the First Amendment.

If the American people lose that then the American working class lost that as well. And as you know the working class is also international as well as national.

people like us will then be hounded off the public scene and even imprisoned.

You cannot surrender basic democratic rights. That is not even common sense. Others must come in on this...please!

by An Drighneán Donn Wed Sep 19, 2012 18:32

It just shows your imperialist arrogance that you think people on an Irish website would give a shit about your slavers \ genocidists constitution, or the amendments made to it - to allow the wealthy landowners even more freedom to smash the landless masses than they already had.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:40

You write:

Is the Left are bleeding heart Liberals, who think every gobshite should have his say, then the Left should defend the asshole who made this film. If, on the other hand, the Left is Workers Power, then this asshole should be hung up by the balls and then sent to a political re-education camp for twenty years of hard labour.

You have just made my case. You have just exposed what a political "asshole" you are.

You cannot even defend the First Amendment.

Fortunately however YOu are not the left, and a real socialist Trotskyist leadership will be built in Ireland, as elsewhere, and it will be done in opposition to the dogma of the WSWS, SWP and their likes.

by An Drighneán Donn Wed Sep 19, 2012 01:14

Is the Left are bleeding heart Liberals, who think every gobshite should have his say, then the Left should defend the asshole who made this film. If, on the other hand, the Left is Workers Power, then this asshole should be hung up by the balls and then sent to a political re-education camp for twenty years of hard labour.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Tue Sep 18, 2012 13:12

You sit on the fence patc as regards the First Amendment.

Plus that is the Irish left position towards Islam.

The Mosque is by the very nature of Islam the preparation ground for the imposing of Sharia Law on every population, including on the working class.

Sharia Law is not really about religion at all. Sharia Law is the physical organization of society and is fascism (Nazism) in action.

You have criticised above Jihadwatch. Of course it gets facts wrong, so do you and so do I. But that is its position towards Sharia and Islam. It conflicts with you and the Irish Left. Despite being pro capitalism, on this issue they are more progressive.

IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU DO NOT DEFEND THIS FILM MAKER UNCONDITIONALLY.

EVEN IF HE WAS RACIST AGAINST SHARIA AND AGAINST THE STATE THE LEFT MUST DEFEND THE FILM MAKER UNCONDIONALLY.

SUCH A DEFENCE DOES NOT IMPLY POLITICAL AGREEMENT.

IT IS THE SAME DEFENCE I USED TO DEFEND GADHAFI AND IT IS THE SAME I USE TO DEFEND MARION PRICE.

by pat c Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:59

I believe all religions should be mocked, Islam cannot be an exception. Religion is not Race therefore those it cannot be racist to just mock religion.

This film from the trailer looks terrible - from an artistic viewpoint. I'd like to see the full film before I'll say that I would defend it unconditionally. There may be a racist portrayal of Arabs in it. I'd love to see a Life Of Mo' but I doubt if this is it. If its just mocking Islam then I'll defend it. But there is something odd about the whole affair.

While Religion is not Race, it is not unknown for racists to use Religion to advance their views. If Racists were attacking a Mosque then I would physically defend it.

But if ex Muslims were attacking a Mosque I'd stand aside.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:55

The issue of the film is about censorship in America.

That is the single, ringing, clear issue that comes out of this film issue. in this Obama and Clinton BY ATTACKING THE FILM have proved that THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE GREAT AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

That is essentially the issue that will determine if Obama and Clinton win in November and move towards an American Fascist/Shia compliant state.

Romney tries his best to combat Obama on this issue, but he is deficient, largely because Romney has not turned his back against the Antisemitic Palestinian narrative, which IS the Muslim Jihad in action, in that case against Jews and Israel.

All of these things are involved here:

* The Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis in which the Jihad was complicit (through the Arab leader Hajj Amin el Husseini)

* The subsequent turn against Israel and the Jews BY THE WHOLE WORLD and the forcing of a Palestinian State onto the Jews and Israel.

ROMNEY HAS NOT CLEARED THE REPUBLICAN DECKS ON THAT ISSUJE. ALL PAST PRESIDENTS INCLUDIONG REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS WERE INVOLVED IN THIS, ESPECIALLY IN OSLO.

The position of Romney and the Republicans has thus onthis key and central question (of Israel and the Jihad against Israel) been deficient towards the traitor work of Obama.

Romney needs to come out and state in ultra clear and simple language that he defends to the nth degree the right of an American to make and distribute this film.

Instead Government Agencies have come knocking on the door of the FILM MAKER.

That indeed is the issue. THAT is the step towards a Nazi America. If Romney cannot fight Obama on that basis then he loses in November.But if Obama and his Democrats win Nazism in America will take a big step forward

by Felix Quigley - 4international Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:52

Patc You misunderstand totally that this post and discussion is about the opposition to censorship. Why post such Sharia hate without stating your own position!!!

by pat c Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:34

When Hassan Nasrallah suddenly appeared on the podium in person, there was almost a stampede as the crowd of tens of thousands of his supporters surged towards him.

They're used to seeing him at such occasions - but on a big screen via a video link from a secret location.

Nasrallah knows he is under constant threat, especially after the 2006 war. His predecessor, Abbas Musawi, was killed in a pinpoint Israeli air strike in 1992.

His appearance, and the delivery of a full, if brief, 12-minute speech, was a measure of the importance he attaches to what he says is the most serious insult to Islam in living memory.

He had told his supporters to let the world see their anger in their faces, their fists and their slogans.

But there was not a hint of violence or menace in the air, in contrast to disturbances by Sunni militants in Tripoli, north Lebanon, last Friday, when they clashed with police and set fire to American fast food outlets.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:49

Can those who have posted state their organization and if they defend the First Amendment in relation to this film?

by Contrarian Mon Sep 17, 2012 21:51

http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2011/10/cats-on-cross-c....html

As you can see, the photo was reported in a blog in 2011 as being from Ghana. (And, in fairness to Jihadwatch, this was pointed out further down their page.) So, its not from Nigeria and it's not in response to the Mohommad film. But it does appear to have been done deliberately to insult Christians. I wonder by whom? Any guesses?

by pat c Mon Sep 17, 2012 20:38

jihadwatch isn't the most reliable of sources so it should be noted that the picture of the crucified cat originally came from Nigeria News.

Muslim Youths In Nigeria Crucify A Cat On The Cross To Protest Anti-Islam Film
http://news2.onlinenigeria.com/news/top-stories/195435-....html

by Felix Quigley - 4international Mon Sep 17, 2012 18:52

I think all fair minded people in Ireland should click on this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/nigeria-muslims-cruci....html

by Contrarian Mon Sep 17, 2012 18:40

Hello again, Dick!

I notice you have not taken up my offer to post a reasoned critique of what I write and engage in a proper debate. Oh well, your choice. However, you do post some ill-informed information about Iran (and SHIA Islam) that needs clearing up.

EG: And furthermore, the people making these daft statements that we outlaw freedom of speech are SUNNI muslims…. However the Iranians are SHIA muslims.

Well, the facts just don’t bear that out. You see, Dick, it’s BOTH the Sunni AND the Shia branches of Islam that are calling for restrictions on freedom of speech in the West.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/17/262105/west-mus...film/
Evidence Item 1: Here, for instance, is what the Leader of the Islamic Revolution (no less) Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says: “the US and some European countries must practically prove that they have played no part in the production of the anti-Islam movie…”

The dear leader goes on to point the finger at the US (naturally) and “certain European governments” (which ones, I wonder?) and demand that the “leaders of these countries must prove that they were not accomplices in this big crime in practice by preventing [the repetition of] such crazy measures,” Seems fairly clear to me. His ayatollahness wants the US and Europe to prevent any repeat of such crazy measures. Which cannot be done without restricting or outlawing freedom of speech. And he’s a SHIA muslim leader. Right?

http://www.presstv.ir/breakingnews.html
Evidence Item 2: As I write, the breaking news section of PressTV (the mouthpiece of the Iranian SHIA Islamic government is reporting : “ANTI-US UPRISING "Muslims must urge intl. community to criminalize insulting religion"

No ambiguity there, I would have thought. SHIA muslims calling for restrictions on freedom of speech in the West.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/17/262124/iran-urg...ovie/
Evidence Item 3: Again from that impeccable source, much beloved of Indymedians, and much lamented when it was removed from the Sky TV EPG, the ever-reliable PressTV:

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has called on the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to take action against a US-made anti-Islam movie which has infuriated Muslims worldwide.

“All of us should feel obliged to express our hatred toward profane actions against all religions, and condemn such actions as hate crimes,” Salehi wrote in a letter to Ban on Monday.
“We should also take legal action against the perpetrators of such crimes and insulting acts so that they would be held accountable for their irresponsible measures,” the letter read.

Get the picture? Need I go on? Or can you accept that IRANIAN SHIA muslims ARE actually demanding an end to the concept of freedom of speech regarding religious affairs that we all take for granted?

Over to you Dick? (Sorry if the injection of a few facts into the debate “muddies the waters” but, hey, if you make patently wrong claims on the internet, that’s what happens.)

by An Drighneán Donn Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:32

As a Communist, I'm delighted that the Americans got a taste of their own medicine. I hope Obama and Hillary Clinton decide to take a holiday in Benghazi with their Al Qaeda chums.

As for the cretin who made the movie, well, Comrade Stalin had the right way to deal with his sort.

by dickwatch Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:20

And furthermore, the people making these daft statements that we outlaw freedom of speech are SUNNI muslims. The people attacking embassies are extreme SUNNI muslims or SALAFISTS.

However the Iranians are SHIA muslims.

Perhaps your attacks should be aimed at Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar felix. Those are the homes of the SUNNI muslims and salafists. NOT IRAN!

Iran was a secular state under Mossadegh. Iraq was secular under Saddam. Libya was secular under Gadaffi. Egypt was fairly secular under mubarrak. Syria is fairly secular under Assad.

The US etc are toppling all the ordered (if harsh) secular muslim states, making way for chaotic SUNNI religious messes to replace them. This pleases their allies in Saudi Arabia no end. Also,chaos means corruption and weaker negotiating positions regarding the selling off of their resources, etc etc.

There will be a little blowback but this is more than compensated for by the excuse it gives for military spending consolidation of power and dismantling of rights at home, nice high profitable oil prices for corporations and weapon sales up the wazoo so the muslims can all kill each other.

US is happy to work with iron handed religious police states like Saudi led by corrupt leaders where ordinary people have no proper rights. If the whole of north africa ends up this way or stays divided in religious / tribal chaos, either way it will be weaker and thus easier for the US to exploit.

by Felix Quigley Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:01

You try to steer away from this vital discussion. please play the ball

by dickwatch Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:39

nutjob Israeli zionists have around 300 nuclear weapons
nutjob Iranian Islamists have 0 nuclear weapons and haven't invaded anyone for 200 years.
nutjob Israeli zionists are always expanding their territory at the expense of muslims and are constantly threatening to attack Iran, thus probably starting WWIII

nutjob US christians have 7000 nuclear weapons and their economy depends on making and selling weapons to everyone, and are always invading people. They are the only ones to ever use nukes. They did so (completely unnecessarily) on civilian targets. Twice!!.

Nutjob Israeli zionists have a huge lobbying presence in the US so the nutjob US christians have to appease them to get elected.

So...who do we most need to fear? Hint: It ain't the Iranians!!

by pat c Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:20

YouTube user "Abdalgadar Fadi" has uploaded a video on the arabic language version of the video sharing site purporting to show US Ambassador Christopher Stevens dragged from the consulate in Benghazi.

The translation of the text below the video reads: "Moment directed the U.S. ambassador before his death" and the headline translates to: “U.S. Ambassador and the people of Benghazi rescue attempt before his death.”

The victim in the video appears to be wearing the same pants, belt and t-shirt seen in this photo of Amb. Stevens.
The validity of the video and the accuracy of the description of the events it depicts are still under investigation, but through Twitter and Facebook the video has already taken a life of its own.

UPDATE 9:15 PM ET
Various tipsters have offered differing interpretations of what they hear and witness on this video. The shouts of "Allauha Akbar" are clearly heard and many assume that the cry is meant as a celebration of the attack on the consulate and Amb. Stevens.
However, Arab-speaking readers have pointed out that they hear people saying “Lift him” and "bring him out." But they can’t discern why the crowd is cheering.
Jenan Moussa, who identifies herself as a "Roving Reporter for Arabic Al Aan TV from Dubai" took to Twitter when the video first broke. Moussa claims that some men in the video were saying "he's alive" and "lift him" (referring to Amb. Stevens.) She writes that after reviewing the video she believes the crowd began cheering because the man was found alive.

UPDATE 10:05 PM ET
The New York Times now offers their translation to the events int he video:
“I swear, he’s dead,” one Libyan says, peering in.
“Bring him out, man! Bring him out,” another says.
“The man is alive. Move out of the way,” others shout. “Just bring him out, man.”
“Move, move, he is still alive!”
“Alive, Alive! God is great,” the crowd erupts, while someone calls to bring Mr. Stevens to a car.

Caption: Video Id: yMSnyOMRXos Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by Felix Quigley - 4international Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:19

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.org writes the following:

"Muslims in twenty-one countries demonstrated against a YouTube movie about Muhammad Friday. Adding to the death toll that began with Ambassador Chris Stevens and his associates in Libya, three people were killed as Islamic supremacists stormed the U.S. embassy in Tunisia, and one was killed in Lebanon as Muslims marched from a mosque, stoned police, and set fire to a KFC restaurant, apparently as a symbol of the hated United States. The savage and random murders were all in service of an overarching goal: to intimidate the United States into abandoning the freedom of speech. And worst of all, Barack Obama seems willing.

Islamic leaders worldwide called for an end to the freedom of speech. Dr. Ahmed el-Tayyeb, the grand imam of the most prestigious and influential institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar in Cairo, on Saturday asked the secretary general of the United Nations to pass a UN resolution that would “prohibit insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam by some fools and misguided, who do not know the value of social peace among peoples and agitate seditions among them.” Tayyeb called for “criminalizing insulting symbols of Islam and other religions” and “punishing those who committed such heinous acts and insulted Prophet Muhammad of Islam,” although he didn’t specify what punishments he had in mind.

Meanwhile, Arab News reported that Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, “called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood said that “hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” and declared that “assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions” should be rendered illegal.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57-government Muslim body that has been pushing for years now at the United Nations for restrictions on the freedom of speech, was in I-told-you-so mode, saying that the violence “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression that OIC had consistently been warning against.” "

Comment on this by F Quigley

You do not have to like Spencer or agree with him. You only have to answer the question "is it true?"

And if it is true then this holds the greatest implications for the Irish Left who through their blind devotion to the Palestinian Arabs, actually in this matter always apeing the Irish bourgeoisie, have kept the truth about Islam hidden.

As my critique of the comments show.

But I am feeling charitable. It may just be ignorance as my critique of "T" above shows.

by pat c Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:12

Probably the most telling is a quote from Sean Smith, one of the State Departments Officials killed during the raid-apparently he was an IT specialist and was involved in the EVE community (a MMO game). Vile_Rat was his username-he posted one of the following in one of the chat lines the night before the raid-

(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures

by Felix Quigley - 4international Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:04

As is not uncommon with the Irish left they find it hard to focus on the main issue, which is:

"Main issue is defence of the right to publish"

The issue of the anti-Muslim film and the grizzly torture, rape and murder of Ambassador Stevens is all about the right to freedom of speech, freedom to speak about anything, criticise anything.

Will people on the left, who think of themselves as left, such as on Indymedia Ireland and other groups in Ireland, now defend with everything they have got the maker of the film Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?

I did mean what I wrote above. Where is the Irish left on this, say the SWP?

There is a real agenda here on the part of Islam. They all seek to stop the investigation as to what is Islam, in particular to investigate it historically.

T at 13.41

But to turn to the Islam fundamentalism again. This is something that has been very intentionally crafted and promoted through all the regimes in the Middle East and it has been pushed to its absurd extremes. All these societies/countries were probably a lot less fundamental in the belief and practices many decades ago and in fact most of these countries had quite a large Left wing element in their political system.

Read that again please paying attention to the word “probably”. I emphasise T's use of the word “probably” because it betrays the fact that he has not studied the history of Islam.

Or to put it another way he is venturing OPINION without having done the necessary groundwork.

Time that sort of “chancing the arm” was ended on the Irish left.

Patc writes just above:

"Iran’s military brass say the outrage against the anti-Islamic film cannot justify the killing of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans, last Tuesday.

"Definitely this did not warrant killing," Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari told a news conference in Tehran."

This is a complete red herring for obvious reasons. My post above is not at all about the horror of the murder of Stevens. It is about how the film is being used to block the investigation of Islam.

Iran may say THAT while at the same time they are part of the campaign to scrap The First Amendment in America.

And how serious would that be:

Laws can be introduced which block the investigation of Islam.

...or Catholicism, or Protestantism, or 9-11, or the investigation of Islam in Ireland, or how the Church opposed the Dublin General Strike in 1913.

Now it seems to me that the forces of Islam, Hisbullah being the latest, are upping the ante in order to make it a crime to attack Islam. And according to the Pope's visit to Lebanon, the Vatican is complicit.

And Obama is complicit as is Mrs Clinton.

So is Romney so far.

By the way so far I can find nobody on Indymedia who defends uncondionally the right of this man to make and distribute this film.

by Felix Quigley - 4international Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:29

Patc writes

"Good point but we have to get info and opinion from somewhere. Practically every MSM outlet is compromised in some manner. We won't be able to get all of our info from alternative media"

That is a most important issue for the left in Ireland. A deep issue. Patc is right on this

by Contrarian Sun Sep 16, 2012 22:33

Bit of an artificial distinction there, pat. The Iranian government is entirely controlled by the religious establishment and this is written into their constitution. Extemely doubtful that this foundation could be independent of the government in any realistic way.

In any event, the report from PressTV that I quoted states that IRAN has increased the bounty on Rushdie's head. Obviously they don't see the distinction that you do, and they should know, being the mouthpiece of the regime.

And what's with the necessity for regime change to come from within and below. A bit difficult in practise when all opposition and dissent from within and below is brutally and ruthlessly suppressed, no? An evil regime is an evil regime and support from all quarters (of lesser evil!) should be welcomed. After all, how long would Hitler have remained in power if your within and below principle held sway.

by pat c Sun Sep 16, 2012 22:19

Khomeni is dead since 1989. This is one religious institution, it doesn't speak for the government.

Its obvious that the Iranian regime do not want this mayhem to spread. Yes, they are annoyed about the film and if the afore mentioned institution were to put a reward on the head of its maker then they likely wouldn't intervene to stop it. But they do not want attacks on embassies. That is the agenda of Al Qaeda.

I am a critic of the Iranian Regime and have made that clear here on many occasions, but any regime change must come from within and from below.

by Contrarian Sun Sep 16, 2012 22:00

The Iranian religious establishment IS the political establishment. Ayatollah Khomenei, who instituted the Rushdie fatwa was the supreme political leader, was he not? Islamic Republics don't really do separation of church and state, do they?

by pat c Sun Sep 16, 2012 21:21

Caretaker of 15th of Khordad Foundation, Ayatollah Sheikh Hassan Sane’ei made the remarks in a statement issued on Saturday following worldwide protests against the production of a sacrilegious movie in the US, which insults Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), ISNA reported.

He added that the bounty, which was announced by late Imam Khomeini on the writer’s head, is now increased by $500,000 to $3,300,000.

Sheikh (in)Sane'ei speaks only for a religious foundation. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari was speaking on behalf of the Iranian government.

by Contrarian Sun Sep 16, 2012 20:25

Oh yeah, Serf? PressTV reports http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/09/16/261803/apostate/ that Iran has increased the bounty on "apostate" Salman Rushdie's head by $500,000 to $3.3million.

"Iran has increased the bounty on the apostate writer Salman Rushdie’s head by $500,000 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)..."

Yep, them boys are the rational ones, all right. Nice fellows.

by serf Sun Sep 16, 2012 19:48

So now, it seems, Iran is the rational face of Islam, wheras the nutjob AlQaeda jihadists supported in Libya (and now Syria) by the US are the wacky irrational side of Islam. How deliciously ironic!! ;-)

by pat c Sun Sep 16, 2012 18:55

Iran’s military brass say the outrage against the anti-Islamic film cannot justify the killing of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans, last Tuesday.

"Definitely this did not warrant killing," Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari told a news conference in Tehran.

by pat c Sun Sep 16, 2012 18:11

Good point but we have to get info and opinion from somewhere. Practically every MSM outlet is compromised in some manner. We won't be able to get all of our info from alternative media. Indeed we depend on the MSM (good as RT is, its still part of the MSM) and leftwing sites for most of our info regarding North Africa and the Middle East unless we are in personal contact with people in those countries. Its a question of applying a filter based on past experience of the authors articles and of the overall reliability of the outlet. And of course the message thats being put across.

by serf Sun Sep 16, 2012 15:17

just wanted to point out that "the slate" website is partners with the infamous "foreign policy" website.

by T Sun Sep 16, 2012 13:41

First off, I would sympathise with Steven's family and relatives and all those others who have died since Stevens is not the only one.

As for defending free speech whilst as The Slate (website) says this was just someone's quite amateurish production with a tiny budget, it somehow got traction, I would say given the sensitivities and the recent history of the Middle East where the Western powers have murdered over 1 million people in Iraq and beyond, this was always going to be a raw issue and given that context, then in my opinion this video was more a case of incitement to violence and very few people think it is a good idea to air these kinds of things less defend them.

The reaction of the Islam fundamentalists, certainly to those who are not, would seem to be a gross over-reaction, but this trait is not unique to just Islam fundamentalism, it is common to all types of fundamentalism. That is to say to over-react, to take things literally and to be high offended and indignant. For example the Christian fundamentalists of the midwest US, or the far end of the anti-abortion fundamentalist, or the far right neo Nazi types all have these traits and can turn violent. In common they all have a good sprinkling of denial of reality and a lack of respect for others which in this case took the form of actually murdering people.

On the political side of things, this event did not occur in a vacuum. The political, financial and military establishments which collectively make up the driving force for the modern form of (financial backed up by military) imperialism of the past four or five decades very likely are aware of the chaos they sow and do not give a damn about Stevens or anyone else. To them he is just a relatively small bit player and is part of the collateral damage and in all likelihood they will milk this to stir up the excuses to carry out more bombing and drone attacks and covert operations. For them it might even bring in a fresh wave of recruits into the military to be used and then spat out like all the other soldiers. Actually it is nauseating to listen to Hillary Clinton or any of the other technocrats of the system go on about life and liberty, when for one example alone the drone attacks in Pakistan in the past few years have resulted in the killing of at least 2,000 civilians. Attacks ultimately signed off by these same hypocrites.

But to turn to the Islam fundamentalism again. This is something that has been very intentionally crafted and promoted through all the regimes in the Middle East and it has been pushed to its absurd extremes. All these societies/countries were probably a lot less fundamental in the belief and practices many decades ago and in fact most of these countries had quite a large Left wing element in their political system. Alas though the Western powers and the right-wing leaning elements did not like this and as part of an effort to channel all that political energy, discussion and even anger, this was redirected very safely into religion itself where it could do no harm to threaten the puppet regimes of the Western capitalist system and ensure the oil flowed freely and at a good price too.

Had these puppet monarchies, dictatorships and so called governments acted against the interests of the West, then that would have been stopped.

So it should be clear then that this massive multi-decade continuous exploitation, manipulation, attacks, wars of aggression and continual intervention of the affairs of the Arab and Islam countries has generated enormous pain and suffering both physically and culturally on these people and it is not surprising that we are in the situation that we are in. The mainstream media though is unlikely to want to present or frame coverage of this issue in its proper context.

by pat c Sun Sep 16, 2012 13:29

An article by the ISG, a supposedly Trotskyist group and a response from Tony Greenstein. I would disagree with some of the points that Tony makes but imho it is an important contribution to the debate.

Racism and Riots: Why the Protesters are Right
David Jamieson defends recent protests in the Middle East and attacks Western, liberal hypocrisy.

Published 13th September, 2012

David Jamieson is an activist in the International Socialist Group at Glasgow Caledonian University.

Another day, another racist provocation from the west directed at
Muslims. And, of course, another opportunity for western politicos,
journalists and assorted others to portray Muslims as irrational and
intolerant when they choose to protest.

There is a long history of this vicious cycle – the most memorable
example being the so called `Salman Rushdie affair'. The version most
westerners get to hear goes like this: brave artist lampoons dangerous
religion and is threatened by book burning fundamentalists. The real
story is that Rushdie wrote a semi-literate anti-Muslim polemic, `The
Satanic Verses', which portrayed Muslim men as sexual predators and
Muslim women as inviting of sexual violence.

Rushdie knew what he was doing of course; his accusations are
established slanders against Muslims. Liberals were sent into a
senseless frenzy by protests against the book. To be frank if I found a
crowd of Jews burning copies of a book that perpetrates the blood libel
I'd pass some matches, my attitude to the `Verses' is much the same.

Our controversy is over a similarly disgusting work that portrays
Muslims as infantile, sexually perverse, violent and insane. But this is
not the full context for the rioting at embassies in Libya, Egypt and
Yemen. These countries have long suffered under the heel of the United
States – Libya is currently the subject of violent U.S intrusion, Egypt
labours under a U.S backed military dictatorship and Yemen suffers near
constant bombing.

Imagine, then, the reaction in the protesters minds to Hillary Clinton's
claim that the film is "no excuse for violence" (what excuses does she
have?). And no wonder U.S officials are investigating whether the
killing of a U.S ambassador in Benghazi is actually a more routine
political assassination un-connected to the film.

Muslims around the world have ample reason to protest outside western
embassies and this vile piece of hate cinema is just more fuel for the
justified fire.
http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/rac...ight/

The attack on Rushdie is shameful. What the ISG appear to be saying is that a critique, any critique of the Muslim religion is racist or pro-imperialist. That is a very dangerous road to go down, since they end up in the arms of the Taliban.

The film that apparently led to the killing of the US Ambassador is a different matter and appears, like similar efforts by the far-right in the US, to constitute an attack on all Muslims by denigrating their religion. There is a difference. But it's an important difference.

Last year a book came out 'The Myth of the Jewish Nation' by Shlomo Sand, which debunked virtually every aspect of the Old Testament, doubting whether King David even existed. It was topped the best seller's lists in Israel despite furious Zionist denunciations. I assume that the ISG would have defended it.

Under the Nazi regime there were constant attacks on the Jewish religion as another way of attacking Jews as Jews. E.g. a ban on Jewish ritual slaughter was the first anti-Jewish law.

Attacks on Muhammed as a paedophile etc. are similarly racist and trying to draw connections with Muslims today. They ignore any context, such as the fact, whether we like it or not, that historically men did have sexual relations with young girls and it wasn't thought of as wrong. Times change but to draw an equation between yesterday and today is to ignore how society has developed. In fact Abraham also took child brides.

But historical criticism of a religion, any religion, is a different matter. E.g. Muslim fundamentalists have successfully put pressure on Channel 4 not to repeat Tom Holland's 'Islam - the Untold Story', which does to Islam what Sand does to the Jewish religion. Not to understand that is to abandon any pretence of Marxism or class analysis and to end up in bed with the same Political Islamists who butchered thousands of socialists in Iran.

To compare Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which I haven't read but have read about, with 'a crowd of Jews burning copies of a book that perpetrates the blood libel' is to display complete ignorance. The blood libel, that Jews sacrificed non-Jewish children at Easter to use their blood to bake unleavened bread for the Passover was indeed the depths of racist depravity. Countless Jews lost their lives in the most appalling circumstances because of it. It was mainly a Christian fable and it is noticeable that its main appearance in the Middle East was when Dominican monks, with the tacit support of the French government, spread this libel in Damascus in 1840, when a no. of Jews were tortured into making confessions etc.

Unfortunately it would appear that the ISG is incapable of understanding the difference between a racist attack on religion and a critique of religion on rationalist lines. As such they are somewhat behind even bourgeois democrats like Tom Paine and Stuart Mill.

Tony Greenstein

by pat c Sat Sep 15, 2012 22:48

A Slate article about the whole controversy. Full text at link.

Dear Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews,

You’re living in the age of the Internet. Your religion will be mocked, and the mockery will find its way to you. Get over it.

If you don’t, what’s happening this week will happen again and again. A couple of idiots with a video camera and an Internet connection will trigger riots across the globe. They’ll bait you into killing one another.

Stop it. Stop following their script.

Today, fury, violence, and bloodshed are consuming the Muslim world. Why? Because a bank fraud artist in California offered people $75 a day to come to his house and act out scenes that ostensibly had nothing to do with Islam. Then he replaced the audio, putting words in the actors’ mouths, and stitched together the scenes to make an absurdly bad movie ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed. He put out flyers to promote the movie. Nobody—literally nobody—came to watch it.

He posted a 14-minute video excerpt of the movie on YouTube, but hardly anyone noticed. Then, a week ago, an anti-Muslim activist in Virginia reposted the video with an Arabic translation and sent the link to activists and journalists in Egypt. An Egyptian TV show aired part of the video. An Egyptian politician denounced it. Clerics sounded the alarm. Through Facebook and Twitter, protesters were mobilized to descend on the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The uprising spread. The U.S. ambassador to Libya has been killed, and violence has engulfed other countries.