Focused on providing independent journalism.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

The threat of Boko Haram and NATO's obliteration of Libya

Libyans in Benghazi last year in front of a Libyan flag, right, and a Qatari flag painted on the wall.

© Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Libyans in Benghazi last year in front of a Libyan flag, right, and a Qatari flag painted on the wall.



This article was first published by Black Agenda Report on May 14, 2014 and by Global Research on May 16, 2014.

Seemingly out of nowhere, Boko Haram burst into the awareness of people around the world as a shadowy group of Islamists with the ability to carry out audacious attacks that paralyzed the army of the most populous country in Africa. People now want to know the group's origins, where they came from, why they are kidnapping girls and how they became such a powerful threat. All important questions - but questions that cannot be answered by just looking at the internal politics of Nigeria, as important as those are, because Boko Haram is incomprehensible when decontextualized from the destabilization, death and destruction unleashed across Africa from the Sahel into West Africa as a result of one historic event - the vicious NATO obliteration of the state of Libya.


African Union Commission chief Jean Ping warned NATO, during its bombing campaign and arming of so-called rebel forces in Libya, that the weapons they provided the "rebels" would end up in the hands of al Qaeda throughout Africa. He said,



"Africa's concern is that weapons that are delivered to one side or another ... are already in the desert and will arm terrorists and fuel trafficking."



Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo expressed what many in Africa feared from the NATO attack on Libya:

"We knew that at the end of the Libya operations, there would be fallouts. And the fallout would be where would all the weapons go? Where would be some of those who have been trained how to use weapons [and] how would they be accounted for? ... Part of what is happening in Mali is part of the fallout from Libya, and we should not expect that Mali will be the last."


Reports from the United Nations, the Guardian newspaper and many other sources reveal how Boko Haram benefited from the destabilization of various countries across the Sahel following the Libya conflict, receiving arms and training from an emboldened al Qaeda and its Saudi backers.


That is just one reason why the Benghazi hearing is important, especially for people concerned about the abduction of the school girls in Nigeria. The destruction of Libya not only led to the strengthening of Boko Haram - it also led to arms being transferred out of Libya to Syria, in violation of international law, to overthrow the sovereign government of Bashar al-Assad. This ended up increasing the military capacity of right-wing Salafi/Jihadi Islamists in a half dozen countries and setting the stage for the blowback on the anniversary of 9/11 that resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. citizens.




But of course there is significant opposition to the hearings.

In what House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi characterized as a "political stunt," "subterfuge" and a "diversionary tactic," House Republicans voted last week to form a 12-member committee to investigate the Obama Administration's handling of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.


Claiming that they now have a "smoking gun," with the forced release of previously suppressed emails that suggest the Obama Administration deliberately misled the U.S. public about what it knew about events that led to the attack and death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, House Republicans appear poised to give the Obama Administration its Iran-contra affair - not with the objective to further weaken the Administration, but rather to destroy Hillary Clinton.


The response from the Democrats has been predictable. Democrats already lined-up behind a Clinton campaign understand that no matter what comes out this inquiry, Benghazi has the potential to become a permanent yoke that wears down the Clinton candidacy. But in another bizarre display of political and ideological subordination to the Democrat Party and its rightist elite, elements of the left have also expressed opposition to this inquiry.


One would think that those on the left would support this inquiry, as limited and partisan as it will be, on the democratic principle that the people have a right to know what occurred before, during and in the aftermath of the attack. But even more importantly, by demanding a more comprehensive examination of all the activity of the U.S. in Libya in the aftermath of the destruction of that state, including the mission of the CIA in Benghazi, the left can and should raise serious questions that expose the dangerous strategy of empowering anti-democratic, right-wing forces, from al Qaeda-connected jihadists in Syria to neo-fascists in Ukraine.


We understand that there will be an attempt to keep the focus narrow. Members of both parties and everyone in the higher echelons of the military/intelligence community knew that the U.S. had aligned with groups in Eastern Libya that were known to be jihadists. The fact that both parties supported the NATO intervention knowing that jihadists affiliated with al Qaeda played a major part in the overthrow of Gaddafi and that the largest CIA station in North Africa was established in Benghazi where it provided arms and was used as staging ground for inserting jihadist's forces into Syria, means that both parties share an interests in avoiding the serious legal and moral implications of U.S. actions in Libya.


I welcome the hearings and could not care less about the implications for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton or the reputation of Barack Obama. I am more interested in curbing the rightward militarist trajectory of U.S. policy. As an African American the plight of the more than 200 school girls captured by Boko Haram holds a special outrage for me. But I am also outraged by the murder of people defending their rights to self-determination at the hands of U.S.-supported thugs in Odessa Ukraine, outraged by the fact that people are daily terrorized by the constant buzz of U.S. drones that kill women and children in wedding parties and individuals who may "act" like they might be so-called terrorists, outraged that people can call themselves moral and even progressive and support the brutal Israeli occupation and de-humanization of Palestinians.


And I am outraged knowing that U.S. policy-makers don't give a damn about the school girls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the Northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the South and to block the Chinese in Nigeria.


Exposing the whole sordid story of the destruction of Libya and the role of Al-Qaeda as the "boots on the ground" for U.S. geo-strategic objectives in North Africa and the Middle East represents the only strategy that an independent and principled left could pursue in wake of the fact that the hearings are going to occur. Anything other than that is capitulation, something that the left has routinely done over the last six years, and some of us still struggle against in the hope that one day the "responsible" left will eschew the privileges that stem from its objective collaboration with the interests and world-view of neo-liberal white power and re-ground itself in authentic radical principles and the world-wide struggle against Western domination.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Six skiers killed after massive slide of snow and ice on mountain in French Alps


© Getty

Tragic: Six skiers have been killed following a huge avalanche in the French Alps



Six experienced skiers have been killed in one of the deadliest avalanches ever in the French Alps.


The bodies of the four men and two women, aged between 50 and 70, were found in the Queyras valley, in the Haute-Alpes department, today.


The party had set off on Saturday the range straddling France and Italy, but triggered the massive slide of snow and ice within a few hours.


Pierre Besnard, the Haute-Alpes prefect, said 'the bodies of three of the skiers were found overnight Saturday to Sunday', while the rest were recovered this morning.


All were French nationals, and had spent many years skiing, said Mr Besnard, who said rescue teams had worked tirelessly to try and find them.


A helicopter and rescue dogs were all involved in the emergency effort, with police saying an entire plate of compacted snow and ice had dislodged.


The skiers had begun their ascent by ski life in the resort of Ceillac, and they were found at an altitude of 2500 meters.


All had been expected back on Saturday, but the alarm was raised by relatives and friends when there was no sign of them.


'When they set off, the sky was clear and the risk of avalanche estimated at 3 out of 5', said Mr Besnard.


An investigation into the tragedy has been opened by the high mountain police Briancon, coordinated by French state prosecutors, while surviving family of the deceased are receiving psychological care.


Two skiers, including a guide, were found dead in the nearby Ecrins range, also in the Hautes-Alpes, on Thursday morning, after being swept away by an avalanche.


And on Friday a British skier fell hundreds of metres to his death while descending the north face of the Tour Ronde close to the French resort of Chamonix.


Some 17 people have died in avalanches in France since the beginning of this season, with the number rising to 30 across the entire Alps range.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Dead pilot whale washed ashore at Fairy Meadow, Australia


© Colin Douch



A five metre long whale carcass has been found washed ashore between Fairy Meadow and Towradgi beaches this morning.

The female adult pilot whale died at sea from natural causes according to the Organisation for the Rescue and Research of Cetaceans in Australia (ORRCA).


''The whale was showing clear signs of illness, it was underweight and excessive lice was found in its mouth,'' said ORRCA spokeswoman Shona Lorigan.


ORRCA members reported the whale's condition to the National Parks and Wildlife Service before working with Wollongong City Council to remove the body.


While there have been numerous recent reports of deceased marine life found ashore on the South Coast, there was nothing unusual about the beached carcass, according to ORRCA.


''It's actually quite common for whales to die of natural causes such as disease at sea and to be washed ashore,'' Ms Lorigan said.


''It's important for people to let us know in these cases so we can get members down there and get information quickly through to the National Parks service.''


The carcass is in the process of being buried.


Wollongong City Council has asked people to avoid the area.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


SOTT Exclusive: Goldman Sachs couldn't do God's work without City of London, the Western oligarchy's 'European Headquarters'




The British Empire’s seamless integration into a US-led Western Empire has been so successful that its enemies rarely know what they’re fighting against. Above, the ‘belly of the beast’ in Europe, the City of London, Inc.



Noam Chomsky once wrote, regarding censorship, that while you will not find the truth on the front pages, it's very often in plain sight on the business pages. The following gem in yesterday's isn't quite 'splainin' things up front, but with geopolitics and Western oligarchs' 'balance-of-power' strategy in mind, it's not difficult to see what 'God's emissary' was getting at:

Britain must remain in Europe, says Goldman Sachs president


- Sat, 24 Jan 2015


The head of one of the world's leading investment banks has said Britain should remain in the EU, describing London as "a great financial capital of the world".


Goldman Sachs' president and chief operating officer Gary Cohn said it is the best thing "for all of us" that the financial services industry stays in London.



"All of us", of course, refers to other Western oligarchs like Cohn.

Mr Cohn told the BBC: "I think for the UK it's imperative to keep the financial services industry in London."We all want to stay in London - it is our European headquarters.



i.e., London is the Western oligarchy's base of operations for ruling over Europe.


"I think that having a great financial capital of the world staying in the UK and having the UK be part of Europe is the best thing for all of us."Prime minister David Cameron has pledged to hold an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU if the Conservatives regain power in the general election in May.



Same old Tories, same old liars. That's exactly what Cameron promised his 'base' in order to win the last elections.

Cohn's comments came after the chancellor, George Osborne, told an audience in Davos that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU provided certain treaty changes could be agreed.He risked angering Britain's European partners by saying that continental countries needed to follow Britain's economic model in order to foster growth.



What Cohn, as head of a leading Western oligarchial institution, is cheering for is the Anglo-American arrangement that has brought the Western Empire undisputed hyperpower status. London's primary purpose in the EU is to facilitate 'balance-of-power' control of Europe, lest it be lost to Eurasian integration, ie Continental Europe realizing - in the course of conducting normal trade relations - that its natural allies lie to the East, not the West.

That's why the UK is perennially non-committal about its integration within Europe: ideologically, the British liberal elite European 'socialist notions' about long-term investment capital in public infrastructure (ya know, things that would actually benefit ordinary people), and so it only 'keeps its foot in the door' in order to periodically sabotage European moves in that direction, which might lessen Europe's dependence on American military 'protection'.


We get a hint of this 'ideological divide' in the article's last sentence: 'Britain's economic model' is the economic model that has destroyed whole countries and populations over the last several hundred years - the psychopathic, Chicago School, 'Shock Doctrine' stuff, which amounts to, "You give this to me for free, I gamble it for both of us on the Great London Casino, where I reap whirlwind profits and some of it trickles back down to you... some day. Maybe. If you don't agree, I'll kill you and your family and take it all anyway."


European countries are also fond of the British model, hence their own blood-stained colonial history, and ongoing flirtation with casino capitalism. Nevertheless, the 'continental model' has shown that it can accommodate more civilized economic thinking and normal, fair trade relations - "I build this for you, you pay me with goods and/or cash."


The British and American elites lose no opportunity to denigrate anything that doesn't conform 100% to neo-liberal 'free trade' because they have learned that it is in the crucible of such industrial furnaces that threats to their hegemony arise.


Given the way in which the psychopathic Western oligarchs see the world - where 7-some billion of its inhabitants are property to be moulded and traded - this means, of course, that the City of London's overarching mandate as a financial 'forward base' goes beyond just controlling the EU: it uses financial weapons of war - speculative attacks on non-compliant countries' currencies, blockades in the form of economic sanctions, etc. - to maintain and entrench Western hegemony over the entire planet.


So the UK - 'Airstrip One', as Orwell aptly termed it in - will voluntarily leave the EU; suggestions along that line are just hot air from the British Foreign Office to stir paranoia among other European leaders that they'd somehow 'suffer' without the presence of the UK and its hive of financial terrorism in the EU.


There is still an opportunity, however slim, for someone smart to take power in Europe and call London's bluff: boot the UK out of the EU and be done with the noose around Europe's neck.[1]


Notes


[1] No, I'm not talking about another Hitler. It's no coincidence that that imbecile - besides being an absolute monster - had a strategic vision that involved Nazi-occupied Europe playing a subservient, vassal-state role to the Western Empire. Which is pretty much the status of the EU today. Funny that...



In a discussion witnessed by Hitler's official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler told Mussolini he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to destroy the British Empire. "It is, after all, a force for order in the world," insisted Hitler.


Hitler had written in 1924 in about Germany's future and the need for Lebensraum:



"If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia's expense, and then the new Reich would again have to start marching along the road of the Knights of the Order of former times.


For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe - England. With England alone, one's back being covered, could one begin the new Germanic invasion... To gain England's favor, no sacrifice should have been too great. Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare British industry our competition."



In 1940, Hitler's outlook had changed very little. Rudolf Hess was constantly at his side to remind him as well of his earlier lessons in geopolitics. As Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, half Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and now most of France all had been incorporated into the New European Order of the Third Reich, Italy, and Spain bound to it by alliance, Hitler came back to the idea of re-carving the world between a land empire of Eurasia dominated by Germany, and a global oceanic empire dominated by Britain.

Hitler was preparing for the great battle, and it was to be in the east, not the west. He wanted England's assurance that she would "cover Germany's back," or at least not embroil the Reich once more in a catastrophic two-front war.


Von Rundstedt's senior staff officer, General Gunther Blumentritt, described a private meeting of Hitler with his military command in the days after Dunkirk, and his surprisingly generous settlement with Vichy France. At the discussion, Hitler had told the officers the war with France would be over in some few weeks.


"After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us," Blumentritt recalled, "by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world." Hitler told his generals, "All he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere."


Von Rundstedt told Blumentritt after that meeting, "Well, if he wants nothing else, then we shall have peace at last." Von Rundstedt was as naive about the agenda of his adversary, England, as was Hitler. It was a fatal flaw they both shared with the entire leadership of the anti-Hitler opposition within the German General Staff and Foreign Office.


Fritz Hesse, an adviser to Ribbentrop in the Foreign Ministry, recounted a discussion he had held with Foreign Office Under-Secretary Ernst von Weizsaecker. Von Weizsaecker had told Hesse, referring to England, that the circle of Hitler opponents in high places was convinced that, "while no understanding with Hitler would be possible, that they - the conservative, Christian and highly influential circles - they would be able to reach such an understanding.


"What a tragic error!" Hesse noted. "No one in Berlin seemed to grasp that for the Anglo-Saxons it was fully irrelevant who ruled Germany." Hesse cited Halford Mackinder's quote about 'Who rules east Europe rules the Heartland,' and its implications for British geopolitical policy, as support for his argument.


He continued, "No one in the opposition in Germany understood that Germany could have peace only if she rejected most, in fact all, that Hitler had gained, and that then, a reintroduction of the entire Versailles System had to be expected. And Beck, Goerdeler, and many others in the opposition were in no way prepared to accept that."


Hitler had won the Battle of France. What he did not grasp however, was that he had also just lost the larger war.


~ 'Halford MacKinder's Necessary War', by F. William Engdahl



Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Propaganda Alert! Davos elites warned about 'catastrophic' cyberattacks

Cyber Attacks

© Inconnu



Attacks on power plants, telecommunications and financial systems, even turning all of Los Angeles' traffic lights green: Davos elites were warned Saturday of the terrifying possibilities of modern cyber terrorism.

Eugene Kaspersky, who heads the Kaspersky Lab security group, said the possibilities of individuals being hacked would only increase in future as more devices, such as "smart" televisions, are hooked up to the Internet.


"What you call the Internet of Things, I call the Internet of Threats," he told the assembled global political and business movers-and-shakers.


"The worst of the worst scenarios is an attack on a big infrastructure, a power plant. If there's no power, the rest of the world doesn't work," Kaspersky cautioned.


Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves said that criminals could bring about chaos in a much lower-level way.


"You can wreak havoc in all kinds of ways," said Ilves, who added that it was the duty of governments to give citizens powerful encryption tools to protect their data.


He told an anecdote about traffic authorities in Los Angeles who went on strike and also set all the lights to red, sparking gridlock.


"But what if someone turned all the lights green?" he asked.


In the wake of the cyberhack on Sony late last year, cybersecurity has been a hot button topic at the four-day World Economic Forum in the swanky Swiss ski resort.




The conclusion, in Ilves's words: "Basically nothing is safe."

'The path to Hell'


Jean-Paul Laborde, head of the UN's counter-terrorism unit, pointed to increasing links between organised crime and extremist groups such as Islamic State, which he said were now combining to launch cyberattacks on authorities.


"They even attack now ... in a low key way ... police infrastructure, in order to block police action against them outside their terrorities," said Laborde.


He called for an international legal framework to bring these criminals to justice but acknowledged it was "very, very difficult" to pin down their locations and agree common laws across nations.


Picking up on this theme, the Estonian president said that the line between government-sponsored attacks and criminal activity was becoming increasingly blurred.


"Governments pay criminals ... I call it the 'little Green Men-isation of cyber space' - you don't know who's doing it," he said, referring to the Russian "Little Green Men" secret service agents accused of engineering the annexation of Crimea last year.


With pressure mounting on Internet companies to block, for example, jihadist recruitment material on their networks, Bradford Smith, a top Microsoft executive, threw the ball back to public authorities.


"No one elected us. Isn't this the kind of decision that the US Congress or the French National Assembly were elected to make?" he asked.


Smith also warned of the dangers of putting in so-called "backdoors" to messaging systems, as urged recently by British Prime Minister David Cameron to keep track of potentially criminal activity.


"The path to Hell starts at the back door. You should not ask for back doors. That compromises protection for everyone for everything," stressed the executive.


The World Economic Forum in Davos brings together some 2,500 of the top players in the sphere of finance, business and politics and ends later Saturday.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Saturday, 24 January 2015

Flashback: Fear, Inc. The roots of the Islamophobia network in America


© Getty Images/Bill Pugliano

Anti-Muslim graffiti defaces a Shi'ite mosque at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan.



On July 22, a man planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway's Utoya Island.

By midday, pundits were speculating as to who had perpetrated the greatest massacre in Norwegian history since World War II. Numerous mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic, speculated about an Al Qaeda connection and a "jihadist" motivation behind the attacks. But by the next morning it was clear that the attacker was a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik. He was not a Muslim, but rather a self-described Christian conservative.


According to his attorney, Breivik claimed responsibility for his self-described "gruesome but necessary" actions. On July 26, Breivik told the court that violence was "necessary" to save Europe from Marxism and "Muslimization." In his 1,500-page manifesto, which meticulously details his attack methods and aims to inspire others to extremist violence, Breivik vows "brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties" to fight the alleged "ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe."


Breivik's manifesto contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam's "war against the West." This small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States.


Breivik, for example, cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto. Spencer's website, which "tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture," boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller, Spencer's frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12 times.


Geller and Spencer co-founded the organization Stop Islamization of America, a group whose actions and rhetoric the Anti-Defamation League concluded "promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy "American values." Based on Breivik's sheer number of citations and references to the writings of these individuals, it is clear that he read and relied on the hateful, anti-Muslim ideology of a number of men and women detailed in this report&a select handful of scholars and activists who work together to create and promote misinformation about Muslims.


While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik's deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended. According to former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman, just as religious extremism "is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged," the writings of these anti-Muslim misinformation experts are "the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged." Sageman adds that their rhetoric "is not cost-free."


These pundits and bloggers, however, are not the only members of the Islamophobia infrastructure. Breivik's manifesto also cites think tanks, such as the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism - three other organizations we profile in this report. Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of "creeping Sharia," Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.


This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians' talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.


And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam - in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.


Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:



  • Donors Capital Fund

  • Richard Mellon Scaife foundations

  • Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

  • Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust

  • Russell Berrie Foundation

  • Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund

  • Fairbrook Foundation


Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009 - funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.

And what does this money fund? Well, here's one of many cases in point: Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was "a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it." Gingrich went on to claim that "Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world."


Sharia, or Muslim religious code, includes practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one's parents - precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism. But Gingrich and other conservatives promote alarmist notions about a nearly 1,500-year-old religion for a variety of sinister political, financial, and ideological motives. In his remarks that day, Gingrich mimicked the language of conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy, who co-wrote a report calling Sharia "the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time." Such similarities in language are no accident. Look no further than the organization that released McCarthy's anti-Sharia report: the aforementioned Center for Security Policy, which is a central hub of the anti-Muslim network and an active promoter of anti- Sharia messaging and anti-Muslim rhetoric.


In fact, CSP is a key source for right-wing politicians, pundits, and grassroots organizations, providing them with a steady stream of reports mischaracterizing Islam and warnings about the dangers of Islam and American Muslims. Operating under the leadership of Frank Gaffney, the organization is funded by a small number of foundations and donors with a deep understanding of how to influence U.S. politics by promoting highly alarming threats to our national security. CSP is joined by other anti-Muslim organizations in this lucrative business, such as Stop Islamization of America and the Society of Americans for National Existence. Many of the leaders of these organizations are well-schooled in the art of getting attention in the press, particularly Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, The Washington Times, and a variety of right-wing websites and radio outlets.


Misinformation experts such as Gaffney consult and work with such right-wing grassroots organizations as ACT! for America and the Eagle Forum, as well as religious right groups such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association, to spread their message. Speaking at their conferences, writing on their websites, and appearing on their radio shows, these experts rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims. Much of their propaganda gets churned into fundraising appeals by grassroots and religious right groups. The money they raise then enters the political process and helps fund ads supporting politicians who echo alarmist warnings and sponsor anti-Muslim attacks.


These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.


Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.


The terrorist attacks on 9/11 alone did not drive Americans' perceptions of Muslims and Islam. President George W. Bush reflected the general opinion of the American public at the time when he went to great lengths to make clear that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy. Speaking to a roundtable of Arab and Muslim American leaders at the Afghanistan embassy in 2002, for example, President Bush said, "All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith - face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It's a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It's a faith based upon love, not hate."


Unfortunately, President Bush's words were soon eclipsed by an organized escalation of hateful statements about Muslims and Islam from the members of the Islamophobia network profiled in this report. This is as sad as it is dangerous. It is enormously important to understand that alienating the Muslim American community not only threatens our fundamental promise of religious freedom, it also hurts our efforts to combat terrorism. Since 9/11, the Muslim American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent more than 40 percent of Al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening America. The largest single source of initial information to authorities about the few Muslim American plots has come from the Muslim American community.


Around the world, there are people killing people in the name of Islam, with which most Muslims disagree. Indeed, in most cases of radicalized neighbors, family members, or friends, the Muslim American community is as baffled, disturbed, and surprised by their appearance as the general public. Treating Muslim American citizens and neighbors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is not only offensive to America's core values, it is utterly ineffective in combating terrorism and violent extremism.


The White House recently released the national strategy for combating violent extremism, "Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States." One of the top focal points of the effort is to "counter al-Qa'ida's propaganda that the United States is somehow at war with Islam." Yet orchestrated efforts by the individuals and organizations detailed in this report make it easy for al-Qa'ida to assert that America hates Muslims and that Muslims around the world are persecuted for the simple crime of being Muslims and practicing their religion.


Sadly, the current isolation of American Muslims echoes past witch hunts in our history - from the divisive McCarthyite purges of the 1950s to the sometimes violent anti-immigrant campaigns in the 19th and 20th centuries. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has compared the fear-mongering of Muslims with anti-Catholic sentiment of the past. In response to the fabricated "Ground Zero mosque" controversy in New York last summer, Mayor Bloomberg said:


In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center. ... We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.


This report shines a light on the Islamophobia network of so-called experts, academics, institutions, grassroots organizations, media outlets, and donors who manufacture, produce, distribute, and mainstream an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Let us learn the proper lesson from the past, and rise above fear-mongering to public awareness, acceptance, and respect for our fellow Americans. In doing so, let us prevent hatred from infecting and endangering our country again.


In the pages that follow, we profile the small number of funders, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to the discourse on Islamophobia in this country. We begin with the money trail in Chapter 1 - our analysis of the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities. Chapter 2 identifies the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network. Chapter 3 highlights the key grassroots players and organizations that help spread the messages of hate. Chapter 4 aggregates the key media amplifiers of Islamophobia. And Chapter 5 brings attention to the elected officials who frequently support the causes of anti- Muslim organizing.


Before we begin, a word about the term "Islamophobia." We don't use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America's social, political, and civic life.


It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America's core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose - and marginalize - the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.


Wajahat Ali is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Eli Clifton is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a national security reporter for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Matthew Duss is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Director of the Center's Middle East Progress. Lee Fang is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher/blogger for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Scott Keyes is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Faiz Shakir is a Vice President at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress.org.


Download this report (pdf)


Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)


Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):


Recommended article: Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Message of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei to the youth in Europe and North America




Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader



In the name of God, the Beneficent the Merciful

To the Youth in Europe and North America,

The recent events in France and similar ones in some other Western countries have convinced me to directly talk to you about them. I am addressing you, [the youth], not because I overlook your parents, rather it is because the future of your nations and countries will be in your hands; and also I find that the sense of quest for truth is more vigorous and attentive in your hearts.


I don't address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth.


I would like to talk to you about Islam, particularly the image that is presented to you as Islam. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades, almost since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to place this great religion in the seat of a horrifying enemy. The provocation of a feeling of horror and hatred and its utilization has unfortunately a long record in the political history of the West.


Here, I don't want to deal with the different phobias with which the Western nations have thus far been indoctrinated. A cursory review of recent critical studies of history would bring home to you the fact that the Western governments' insincere and hypocritical treatment of other nations and cultures has been censured in new historiographies.


The histories of the United States and Europe are ashamed of slavery, embarrassed by the colonial period and chagrined at the oppression of people of color and non-Christians. Your researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodsheds wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This approach is admirable.


By mentioning a fraction of this long list, I don't want to reproach history; rather I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses after a delay of several decades or centuries. Why should the revision of collective conscience apply to the distant past and not to the current problems? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an important issue such as the treatment of Islamic culture and thought?


You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and illusionary fear of the "other" have been the common base of all those oppressive profiteers. Now, I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading "phobia" and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity. Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam? Hence, my first request is: Study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam.


My second request is that in reaction to the flood of prejudgments and disinformation campaigns, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. The right logic requires that you understand the nature and essence of what they are frightening you about and want you to keep away from.


I don't insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don't allow this dynamic and effective reality in today's world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices. Don't allow them to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.


Receive knowledge of Islam from its primary and original sources. Gain information about Islam through the Qur'an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly read the Qur'an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?


Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values has Islam established the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and raised the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals throughout several centuries?


I would like you not to allow the derogatory and offensive image-buildings to create an emotional gulf between you and the reality, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Today, the communication media have removed the geographical borders. Hence, don't allow them to besiege you within fabricated and mental borders.


Although no one can individually fill the created gaps, each one of you can construct a bridge of thought and fairness over the gaps to illuminate yourself and your surrounding environment. While this preplanned challenge between Islam and you, the youth, is undesirable, it can raise new questions in your curious and inquiring minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with an appropriate opportunity to discover new truths.


Therefore, don't miss the opportunity to gain proper, correct and unbiased understanding of Islam so that hopefully, due to your sense of responsibility toward the truth, future generations would write the history of this current interaction between Islam and the West with a clearer conscience and lesser resentment.


Seyyed Ali Khamenei


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.