Archive for the ‘Lebanon’ Category

The Iranian arm – Syrian backed Islamist Hezbollah Monster

June 9, 2009

The Iranian arm – Syrian backed Islamist Hezbollah Monster

 

Global Dirty Mafia NetworkCrimes in Lebanon /Israel – 2006Use of Human shields to murder it’s own peopleWar on its people – civil war in Lebanon [2007, 2008]Real agendaAttack on the US

Argentina MassacreAssassinating Lebanese officialsHands in Bloodshed in Iraqin the Horn of Africa – Somaliain AfghanistanSupporting the Genocide in DarfurHezbollah’s war on EgyptHezbollah’s terror in AzerbaijanMughniyeh

 

 

Global Dirty Mafia Finance Network

“Hezbollah’s Global Finance Network: The Triple Frontier”
While the volume of illegal remittances from South America is not known exactly, …  “Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay aumentan controles en caliente Triple …
http://www.meib.org/articles/0201_l2.htm

CIUDAD DEL ESTE, at the triple border of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay … is sent from the Triple Border to finance Hezbollah, linking South American …
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH03Aa01.html

Hezbollah in America – Editorials/Op-Ed – The Washington Times … The Washington Times Editorials/Op-Ed: Hezbollah in America. … a 41-year-old businessman, at his Dearborn home on charges of smuggling funds to Hezbollah, …
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050519-092915-7312r.htm

Cigarette Smuggling Funds Terrorism – Cigarette Smuggling Funds Terrorism. Geoff Metcalf Monday, Feb. 14, 2005 … sales and funneling the cash to organizations such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah. …
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/13/135754.shtml

Cigarette Smuggling Funds Terrorism – Cigarette Smuggling Funds Terrorism Posted By: Liberty on 2/15/2005 11:28:12 AM … to ignore: Terrorist organizations (al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah et al. …
http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=5094

Hezbollah: Hezbollah Around the World – Germany has been a key fund raising center for Hezbollah. … drug trafficking, weapons and people smuggling and document and currency fraud. …
http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/hezbollah_overview.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_7

Washington Times – EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes …Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins … that Hezbollah members have entered the U.S. border through drug cartel …
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/hezbollah-uses-mexican-drug-routes-into-us/print/

The Hezbollah threat: It’s here, now
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review – ‎Apr 10, 2009‎
If the chaos and carnage along the Mexican border caused by organized crime smuggling drugs, arms and humans — and now Hezbollah’s involvement…
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_620146.html

Terrorism and Drug Routes
ThreatsWatch.Org – ‎Mar 27, 2009‎
Once again we are reminded of the seriousness of border security and the terrorist implications by the revelation that Hezbollah uses Mexican drug (cartel) …
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/03/terrorism-and-drug-routes/

Hezbollah using drug smuggling routes MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/hezbollah-using-drug-smuggling-routes/story.aspx?guid=%7BA14CB7E3-86EE-4ECE-A417-E31BF77E65FD%7D&dist=msr_2

 


LEBANESE ARAB MUSLIM MILITIA – IRAN´S HAND
HEZBULLAH TERRORISTS’ CRIMES IN LEBANON (2006)
  

Hezbullah war crimes in Lebanon…
http://www.yourish.com/2006/05/29/1338

INDEPENDENT EXPERTS SHOW US WHY LEBANESE WERE KILLED

Photos that damn Hezbollah Herald Sun THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon’s battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid …
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,19960056-5006301,00.html
These are the pictures that damn Hezbullah

Canada.com – Hezbollah’s human shields
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=439dbdcc-167c-423c-9d52-b14a90605440

YouTube – STOP TO USE civilians LIKE Human Shield +UN Ambulance Transporting Terrorists

A Case For The Term ‘Islamofascism’: How Hebollah killed (Arab) Civilians [0ct. 2006]
James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam wars, writes in The Washington Times of Hezbollah’s incredibly sinister and deadly chess match in the recent Lebanon war, and of their tactical plan calculated to maximize civilian casualties on both sides of battlefield – by design on the Israeli side in targeting its major population centers and by consequence on the Lebanese side as Israel responded:
http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2006/10/a_case_for_the_term_islamofasc.php

Hezbollah’s Use of Human Shields …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ONKb9J2YeU

Hizballah Human Shield Watch
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21620

DEBKAfile – Hizballah is using Lebanese Christians as human shields for its attacks and their towns and villages as supply centers to pump ordnance to the launch teams …
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2926

keebsiweebsi: Hezbullah makes Human Shields of Qana (Kana) and … – Hezbullah makes Human Shields of Qana (KKana) and other Lebanese civilians (video). Video of Hezbullah terrorist firing rocket from Lebanese village: …
http://www.livejournal.com/go.bml?journal=keebsiweebsi&itemid=57872&dir=next

Children used as Human Shields by Hizballah (Hezbollah) (Hezbullah … – Children used as Human Shields by H.. 16 sec. Hizballah (Hezbollah) (Hezbullah) s.. 59 sec. hizballah attack 3 min. Israeli Army Spy Unit Hacks Hizbollah TV …
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4398808882114018636

The Jawa Report: Like I (and Others) Said, Hezbullah Lost – Well, the smoke has had time to clear, and Hezbullah is now being percieved … acting as human shields for a hezbollah which can now rearm with impunity. …
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184639.php

Even the UN are used as human shields – If it cannot take into account women and children used as human shields, … etc, but between the lines, the message to the UN and Hezbullah is clear…
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2002

Who is a civilian when it comes to casualties? When anti-Israel groups use women and children as human shields, as bombers, … they themselves say “I am Hesbullah”, and “We are all Hesbollah.” …
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/025609.html

President Bush is blaming Iran and Syria for Hezbollah’s killing
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=383826

Israel-Hizbullah conflict: Victims of rocket attacks
Frida Kellner, 87, of Kiryat Ata died of a heart attack while taking cover in a bomb shelter during the rocket strikes on the Haifa suburbs.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Israel-Hizbullah+conflict-+Victims+of+rocket+attacks+and+IDF+casualties+July-Aug+2006.htm

Terrorism victims file $650 million NY lawsuit against 2 banks
The Associated PressPublished: July 14, 2008
NEW YORK: A group of Americans, Canadians and Israelis who claim Hezbollah rocket attacks injured them and killed relatives have accused two banks of helping finance the terrorist attacks and have sued them for $650 million.
The 85 plaintiffs say in court papers the American Express Bank Ltd. of New York and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank SAL of Beirut unlawfully transferred millions of dollars for Hezbollah between 2004 and 2006.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/14/business/NA-US-Hezbollah-Lawsuit.php

ABOUT HALF OF HEZBOLLAH CIVILIAN ROCKET VICTIMS ARE ARAB ISRAELIS … “In Haifa we all mix together, and the rocket will not change that. …
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0607a/arabisraelihezbollahvictims.html


http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/07/bloody-sunday-hezbollah-causes-deaths.html  

Bloody Sunday: Hezbollah Causes Deaths of 60 women and Children Using Residence as Human Shield

“Why are they killing us? What have we done?” >asked Khalil Shalhoub as he witnessed his brother’s remains being removed from the building in Qana, Lebanon after Israeli aircraft bombed the building suspected to be shielding rocket launchers directed at Israel. 120 such rockets were fired at Israel today.

Fox News reports that at least 56 were killed in the attack, mostly women and children.

It’s a sad and tragic event which should never have happened. And it’s one that is likely to fit into the plans of those who wish to condemn Israel and push for a ceasefire that preserves Hezbollah’s military capacity. The same military capability which violates every previous agreement intended to bring peace to the troubled region.

Ever since the crisis began, Mike’s America has pointed out how Hezbollah has used the civilian population and U.N. peacekeepers as human shields. They deliberately choose to attack from these positions and then are first to raise the cry of “massacre” or “war crime” when unintended deaths occur. We’ve reported the statement from U.N. Humanitarian Chief Egeland who denounced Hezbollah for “this cowardly blending … among women and children…I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”

Video Evidence Of Hezbollah Rockets Shielded by Civilian Residences

If you haven’t seen the video from the Israeli Defense Forces showing the launching of rockets directly behind a large building in the area near Qana, it is here. It’s an older video and apparently not the building which was struck today, but a nearby site which does illustrate how Hezbollah launches rockets from behind a large building to avoid detection.

The chart at right illustrates the course of rockets fired from Qana. The Israeli Defense Forces also has a further video showing how Hezbollah hides rockets in civilian targets.

More Questions: No Fighters Killed in Qana?
Reporters at the site of this tragedy report that it took many hours for them to reach the scene. They were not given any opportunity to investigate, photograph or videotape obvious military targets or dead Hezbollah fighters.

Prior to the strike in Qana, Israel took steps to warn the civilian population that strikes in this area were likely and warned them to leave. This is the same precaution they followed prior to their incursions into both Southern Lebanon and Gaza. These efforts include dropping of leaflets, phone calls to residences in affected areas and loudspeakers in some cases. Vital Perspective posted a copy of one of the leaflets warning that Israeli strikes were imminent.

From reports at the scene, survivors of the Qana attack complained that they were unable to leave, that the roads were “blocked.” Yet reporters had no trouble getting to and from the scene.

More Questions

Unfortunately, the resources of the Israeli Defense Forces are more focused on fighting and winning on the ground in Lebanon and Gaza. But the propaganda war is being lost as the world sees images of dead children and only later considers the cause.

As we wait for more information, one thing is clear: this tragedy would not have occurred if Hezbollah has been disarmed. Furthermore, this tragedy would not have happened if Iran and Syria had not provided Hezbollah with the weapons, training and funding to attack Israel. Finally, none of this would be happening if the world demanded the same level of accountability and respect for innocent civilians from Hezbollah that they require of Israel.

Answering Khalil Shalhoub’s question: “Why are they killing us? What have we done?” I would say: You have allowed Hezbollah to rearm and attack Israel. If you valued peace more than war, you would not have done so.

And Khalil: Mike’s America readers may recall another “Bloody Sunday” 23 years ago when Hezbollah killed 241 U.S. Marines sent to Lebanon as peacekeepers. Isn’t it past time you held Hezbollah accountable for the “cycle of violence?” Blaming everyone else for your problem hasn’t worked too well has it?

Update: The research department at Flopping Aces has found a number of other links to the videos mentioned above and more. A number of these are provided by Vital Perspective, a collection of which can be found at You Tube.

Vital Perspective also reminds us that the deliberate placement of weaponry in a civilian area is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Will we now hear all the bleeding heart lefties who moan about our benevolent treatment of homocidal terrorists at Guantanamo now take up the call about war crimes by Hezbollah? Don’t hold your breath!

And just for the record, Flopping Aces linked to this video at the end of which you can clearly see ambulances with UN markings being used to transport Hamas terrorists in Gaza away from the fighting.

And some people say that Israel is committing “war crimes”?

___

Islamists to Zionists: ‘We’ll make SURE our kids die, so we can murder yours!’

Israel’s war of not hitting Arab civilians VS Islamists FOR it.

Since the bluff of Islamists supposedly having “issue” just keeps being exploded in their faces with each “one way” concession by the Zionists to the “never sattisfied” Arabs, more so when the Zionists gave Gaza land to the “Palestinians” and the “Palestinians” immediately responded only to continue their crimes with even less shame, overwhelmingly gave the region and to the world the gift of: electing officially the terrorists of Hamas to be their leaders.

They never can justify their killing of civilians, intentionally, how do they combat with this most honest most human and moral basic question ever?

So they came up with a plan, how to make sure their kids die, Hamas actually masterminded it, to use own kids as human shields, either firing with machine guns behind the “little stones throwers”, or firing from among their families.

But great humane Israel (Israel VS Evil), can’t stomach even collateral damage, so they try always to warn the residents of an operation coming so that they should evacuate.

That is of course extremely costly, since such warnings, whether in Gaza or in Lebanon are chasing the terrorists away as well, but beautiful Israel is willing to sacrifice so much to spare Arab children that their adults hate so much but love for them to be killed on the altar of “public relation” and that “victim-hood” so sacred for the dirty Islamists.

If you want to see the deeper picture, (not only the true vs. exaggerated fake photos, just exposed on Reuters, etc. but) the real picture of Israel VS. Islamists.

Israel fights so mighty hard to AVOID civilian casualties on EITHER side, Islamists fight for the GREATER MASSACRES of CIVILIANS even on Arab Muslim side, since it serves their purpose of: “you see? Zionists are killing civilians too, they are not much better”, so they can go ahead with what they always want, to massacre all non Muslims, especially the Israelis.

Who’s [really] killing Civilians in Lebanon
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah6_2.htm

Staged Massacre – HUMAN EVENTS Except for one nagging little detail: it is increasingly clear that the Qana “massacre” was a stage-managed Hizballah production, designed precisely to …
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16317

Evidence Mounts that Kana “Massacre” Was a Fake
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/1691-Evidence-Mounts-that-Kana-Massacre-Was-a-Fake.html

Finally, Hezbollahwood/Pallywood is being revealed for what it really is. If the Arab community does not respect the lives of their own children, … the-american-israeli-
http:// patriot.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html

Death and destruction are Hezbollah’s goals
By Andrea Levin | August 8, 2006
SOMETIMES basic facts get blurred in a fierce, image-filled conflict such as the one spawned by Hezbollah’s July 12 cross-border attack in which Israeli soldiers were killed and others kidnapped while a rain of rockets descended on homes and fields. An unprovoked act of war, this Hezbollah assault followed 19 others since May 2000, when Israel pulled out from a security zone in southern Lebanon that had been created to protect against earlier terrorist incursions. In response to those first 19 incidents, Israel had essentially held its fire.
What does Hezbollah, with some 10,000 katyushas and other long-range missiles, really want? Some say Israel’s pullout from south Lebanon was incomplete (though fully certified as complete by the United Nations) and that handing over Shebaa Farms would quiet the Iranian-funded Jihadist group. But as a New Yorker story noted, even Hezbollah spokesman Hassan Ezzeddin admitted: “If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine.” What he means, of course, is the destruction of Israel.
Genocide seems to be the goal. This too may be lost when media focus centers on Israel’s retaliation for aggression and its army’s advance against Hezbollah fighters dug deep into the Lebanese hills. But listen to the words of the group’s leaders and consider the relentless message of Al-Manar, the organization’s richly funded satellite television network that reaches tens of millions around the world and is designated a terrorist entity by the US State Department.
Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah describes being asked whether “the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem were Hezbollah’s goal,” and replying: “That is the principal objective of Hezbollah.” He terms Israel “an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars. . .”
On Al-Manar television, Jews are termed pigs and monkeys and the Holocaust is denied. Participants in a network-sponsored symposium urge that Israel “be completely wiped out” and “just like Hitler fought the Jews” the “great Islamic nation of Jihad” should “fight the Jews and burn them.”
In May, Nasrallah appeared on the network to explain that “our nation’s willingness to sacrifice their blood, souls, children, fathers, and families” is an advantage over the Jews “who guard their lives.” (All translations by the Middle East Media Research Institute.)
This blunt admission too should be remembered in the rush of reports; for there is, indeed, a crucial difference in valuing human life, whether Israeli or Arab. The innocent Lebanese behind whom Hezbollah gunmen wantonly shelter, knowingly inviting Israel’s defensive return volley, have surely been sacrificed. And not by their own choice. One news report told of Hezbollah murdering a Lebanese man who sought to flee the fighting and escape being used as a human shield. Lebanese citizens, especially Christians, speak of rage at Iran and Syria for the ruin of their country caused by Hezbollah’s proxy militia and of helplessness at the hands of the armed thugs.
Many in the Lebanese Christian diaspora, beyond the reach of Hezbollah intimidation, speak out even more forcefully against turning Lebanon into a Shia theocracy emulating Iran.
Israel has, in fact, tried to `”guard” the lives of Lebanese civilians, dropping warning leaflets and announcing ahead its intention to target missile launchers, explosives, and gunmen. In contrast, Hezbollah fills its katyushas with lethal ball bearings to spread death and suffering as far and wide as possible
.
A Boston native, David Lalchuck, was killed just days ago by this weapon as he rushed to safety from tending a kibbutz orchard. He was only the latest American to die at the hands of Hezbollah. Two-hundred-and-forty-one were killed in 1983 by a Hezbollah truck bomb at the US Marine barracks in Beirut. The Marines were part of a peace-keeping force. Until 9/11, Hezbollah had kidnapped, hijacked, tortured, and murdered more Americans than any other terrorist group.
The Great Satan and the Little Satan — America and Israel — are the obsession of Hezbollah, Iran, Al Qaeda, and other Islamic fascists. Closing our eyes to their brutality only assures more innocent lives will be lost before the threat is overcome.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/08/death_and_destruction_are_hezbollahs_goals/

wbztv.com – In Beirut, Large Rally Against Hezbollah In Beirut, Large Rally Against Hezbollah. (AP) BEIRUT, Lebanon An anti-Syrian Christian leader dismissed Hezbollah’s claims of victory in its war…
http://wbztv.com/national/topstories_story_267191443.html

(At the end… in 2007) Lebanon’s PM Lashes Out At Hezbollah Chief… The statement continued to say that one year after the war, Nasrallah was still making “excuses” for the war.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008042046

HIR | Who is killing Lebanese civilians? (Israel v. Lebanon – 2006) It is one of several graphic images smuggled out from behind Lebanon’s battle lines showing how Hezbollah is waging war amid suburban homes. …
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah6_2.htm

BBC Admits Many Lebanese Casualties are Terrorists. IsraelNN.com) The British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) has admitted that many of the victims of Israeli retaliation in Lebanon are terrorists and not innocent civilians. A BBC reporter said he saw Hizbullah terrorists using a private home…
http://arutzsheva.com/news.php3?id=108122

Blame the Terrorists, Not Israel!
THE HEZBOLLAH and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/24/blame_the_terrorists_not_israel/


Some of civil war events on Lebanese by the terrorists organization Hezbollah

Report: Clashes in Lebanon kill four – Mideast/N. Africa – msnbc.com Jan 25, 2007 … 25: Supporters and opponents of Lebanon’s government clash in the … Sunni students and Hezbollah and other anti-government supporters. …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16806540/

Clash Pits Hezbollah Against Rule in Lebanon – New York TimesThe police said at least three people died and 100 more were wounded throughout the country in the violence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/world/middleeast/24lebanon.html

_________

May, 2008

Clashes continue in Lebanon for 5th day – CNN.com BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — More clashes erupted in Lebanon’s northern port city of Tripoli on Monday, as fighting between the Hezbollah militia and its rivals …
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/12/lebanon.violence/index.html

Lebanese army says will intervene from Tuesday | U.S. | Reuters BEIRUT (Reuters) – Lebanon’s army said it will use force from Tuesday to stop fighting in … bringing the overall toll to 81 dead and about 250 wounded. …
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL12505038200805

Clashes bring Lebanon death toll to 81 – Mail & Guardian Online …Clashes resumed in Lebanon’s northern city of Tripoli on Monday and … One source said the dead in Sunday’s battles included 14 Hezbollah fighters. …
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-05-12-clashes-bring-lebanon-death-toll-to-81

17 dead in Lebanon – Druze-Hezbollah clashes break out (2nd Lead) May 11, 2008 … Beirut – Seventeen people were reported killed in northern Lebanon Sunday – while fresh clashes were reported southeast of Beirut between …
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1404713.php/17_dead_in_Lebanon_-_Druze-Hezbollah_clashes_break_out__2nd_Lead_

Online NewsHour: Update | Clashes Erupt in Lebanon; Hezbollah …May 8, 2008 … Update from the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: Clashes Erupt as Hezbollah Chief Claims ‘War’: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/jan-june08/lebanon_0508.html

_________

July, 2008

Lebanon, more fighting among Lebanese government and the Islamic (Iranian backed) Hezbollah terrrorists
Sectarian battles continue in north Lebanon after four killed AFP
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLbRHS1sn11z7Yw3qRkPMqnqF_xw

Sectarian fighting kills 6 in Lebanon
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/07/26/sectarian_fighting_kills_6_in_lebanon/

 



AGENDA

 

The organization’s goal is the establishment of an Islamic state encompassing Lebanon and Israel. It has been implicated in terrorist actions…
http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/hezbollah.asp

Amazon.com: Hezbollah: A Short History (Princeton Studies in …Formed in 1982 under Iranian tutelage… Hezbollah has made a goal of fomenting Islamic revolution in Lebanon …
http://www.amazon.com/Hezbollah-History-Princeton-Studies-Politics/dp/0691131244

Hizbullah’s real goal is racist: To free the Middle East holy lands of Jews… Hizbullah’s goal is not the “liberation” of Palestine. Its members are not Palestinian. They are Islamic extremists who want to “liberate” all Islamic land, …
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0727/p09s01-coop.html

SWC News Items – Simon Wiesenthal Center- In 2004, Nassrallah said this: “We have discovered how to hit the Jews where … it is difficult to imagine a ceasefire in Hezbollah’s war against the Jews. – “If the Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide …” (Oct. 22, 2002).
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id=%7B1E8223BE-C875-4E

Spiral of equivalency – Last year, the leader of Hizbollah, Hassan Nassrallah, mused, “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them …
http://www.likud.nl/press290.html

CAMERA: Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words – If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002) …
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1158


IN ACTION (on innocent Jews even outside Israel…)

MASSACRE IN ARGENTINA

Hezbollah and Iran both deny that they were involved in the blast, which killed 85 and wounded 300 … Argentina marks 1994 bomb attack 18 Jul 06
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm

BBC NEWS World Americas Flashback: Argentina bomb – The aftermath of the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires … Iran denies Argentina blast role 09 Mar 03 Americas. Argentina Jewish bomb trial …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179861.stm

Argentina – …Hezbollah organization as the terrorist responsible …- which led to the deaths of 85 people (July 1994). On November 9, Argentina ‘s special prosecution, which has been investigating the terrorist attack at the …
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/argentina_e.htm

Argentina accuses Iran of meddling in probe of 1994 Jewish center bombing-News and … of its probe of the bombing, which killed 85 people and wounded 200. …
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787765.html

Investigation finds Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian involvement in …The attack was perpetrated by a suicide terrorist driving a car bomb … It is also possible that Iran saw Israel and the Jews in Argentina as being behind …
http://www.adl.org/Terror/terror_buenos_aries_attack.asp

How Iran planned the Buenos Aires blast – 1994
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=273898&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0:

Argentina – …Hezbollah organization as the terrorist responsible …In late 2002, Argentina ‘s State Intelligence Service (SIDE) issued a detailed report, which was leaked to the media at the time. The report identified Iran.
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/argentina_e.htm

Iran tied to ’94 car bombing in Argentina… accusing him of approving the 1994 car bombing that killed 85 people.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061026/ai_n16818404

World: Argentinian Prosecutors Charge Iran, Hizballah In 1994 …World: Argentinian Prosecutors Charge Iran, Hizballah In 1994 Bombing
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/9d513930-d0f3-4105-9e40-e0097e8983ba.html


THE TERROR ATTACK IN 1983 ON US MARINE BARRACKS IN BEIRUT


The Beirut Memorial
online

U.S. Embassy Bombing 18 Apr. 1983
Marine Barracks Bombing – 23 Oct. 1983

http://www.americans-working-together.com/american_veterans/id93.html

CNN.com – Iran responsible for 1983 Marine barracks bombing, judge …Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a US Marine barracks in … as sponsors of terrorism, but the U.S. government has been reluctant to …
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

Hezbollah terror thug behind ’83 Lebanon bombing killed by car bombFeb 14, 2008 … The Hezbollah terror leader behind a massive bombing that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983 has been blown to bits. …
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/02/14/2008-02-14_hezbollah_terror_thug_behind_83_lebanon_.html

frontline: target america: terrorist attacks on americans, 1979 – 1988 Four months after the Marine barracks bombing, U.S. Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon. Dec. 12, 1983, Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in …
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/targ et/et c/cron.html


 

 

AS PUPPETS OF IRAN AND AND SYRIA
ROLE IN ASSASSINATING ANTI SYRIAN OFFICIALS IN LEBANON

Hariri’s son blames Syria for assassination
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw116412714049B241

More blood on Syrian hands
http://ararat.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=international%20news&subclass=political&story_id=534334&category=political

ANTI-SYRIAN MINISTER ASSASSINATED IN LEBANON Mr. Gemayel, 34, was among those who accused Hezbollah of recklessly … The opposition blames the Syrian and Lebanese governments
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061122.LEBANON22/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/

BBC NEWS Middle East New Hariri report ‘blames Syria’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4519346.stm

Chronology of assassinations
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1220177520071212


PUSHING THE BLOODSHED IN IRAQ

IRAQ & US ACCUSE SYRIA’S IRAN’S LEBANESE BASED ISLAMIC HEZBOLLAH TERRORISTS OF CRIMES IN IRAQ

[Iraq] Talabani charges [Iran's Islamic Lebanese based terrorists] Hezbollah interference
Published: May 30, 2008 at 8:23
BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) — Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in a Baghdad interview Friday, accused the leader of the Lebanon-based Hezbollah of meddling in Iraq’s affairs.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/05/30/Talabani_charges_Hezbollah_interference/UPI-44791212150201/

Commentary: Iraq ripe for Iranian [militant Shia Muslim] domination
March 4, 2008
Richard Beeston, Foreign Editor of The Times
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was right to look smug at the end of his two-day state visit to Iraq. Not only did he become the first Iranian president to visit Baghdad, but he also took a big step towards achieving the victory that had eluded Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian revolution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3478353.ece?Submitted=true

The Jawa Report: Smackdown Hezbollah In Iraq Apr 9, 2008 … What are the special groups that Iran is using to fight a proxy war with the US in Iraq? Well, Hezbollah in Iraq is one! …
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192192.php

Report: Hezbollah’s No. 2 Arrested in Iraq – Investigative Round-UpReport: Hezbollah’s No. 2 Arrested in Iraq … The number two man in the militant Shiite Lebanese group Hezbollah was recently arrested in Iraq, …
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/05/roundup/entry4156311.shtml

Iraq: “Hezbollah’s declarations and Iraq’s national security” By Phares on Arabic Radio May 31, 2008, 17:40
http://www.walidphares.com/artman/publish/article_1726.shtml

A REGION INFLAMED: THE HAND OF TEHRAN; Hezbollah, in Iraq …Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite group, has established a significant presence in Iraq, but is not taking part in attacks on American forces inside the …
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDE113BF937A15752C1A9659C8B63

YouTube – Lebanese hezbollah killing US soldiers in Iraq …4 min 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlO-cUGGQPo

Hezbollah Declares War On America: Front Is In Iraq – Sean Hannity …Al-Seyassah (Kuwait): Hezbollah decides to open front against Washington in Iraq – NATO sources in Brussels said yesterday that Lebanon’s Hezbollah has …
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=690111

Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say – New York Times May 5, 2008 … An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last …
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html

BBC NEWS Middle East US links Iran to attack in Iraq Jul 2, 2007 … The information came from a top Hezbollah fighter recently captured in southern Iraq, an army spokesman said. …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6260690.stm

YouTube – Michael Ware on Hezbollah in Iraq A top Hezbollah leader has been captured in Iraq, offering more proof of Iran’s proxy war with the United States. July 2, 2007.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLJM7j3tW_U&feature=related

ABC News: U.S.: Hezbollah Iran’s Proxy in Iraq Jul 2, 2007 … A senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative, Ali Mussa Dakdouk, was captured March 20 in southern Iraq, Bergner said. Dakdouk served for 24 years …
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3336816

Officials: Hezbollah agent played deaf before confessing – CNN.comBAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — A top special operations officer with Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia pretended to be deaf and mute when he was captured in Iraq earlier …
http://us.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/02/iraq.hezbollah/index.html

Hezbollah Said to Help Shiite Army in Iraq – New York TimesIran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is …
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html

“I think sending Hezbollah to Iraq is about Iran’s desire for us to take them seriously, …
http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2003/November/attacks/attacks.html

FDD: Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraq (BM)Mar 6, 2006 … This Washington Times editorial sums up Iran’s insidious influence in Iraq — including how Iranian funding for Hezbollah’s al-Manar …
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/03/iran_hezbollah_.html

“U.S. Officials: Hezbollah Training Iraqi Shiite Militia Group“ Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed group in Lebanon that warred with Israel this summer, has been training militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia both inside Iraq and in Lebanon, senior White House and intelligence officials confirmed Tuesday. The confirmation came after the New York Times reported that a senior intelligence official said that some 1,000 to 2,000 Shiite fighters had been trained in Lebanon by Hezbollah, which also is backed by Syria. Click here to view the New York Times article. President Bush, who is in Europe to attend a NATO summit, expressed concern Tuesday that Iran and Syria are both attempting to destabilize Iraq. “The Iranians and the Syrians should help — not destabilize — this young democracy,” Bush said. Bush continued to express his administration’s reluctance to talk with Iran and Syria on the grounds that the two nations have been unhelpful in efforts to achieve Middle East peace.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,232262,00.html

Iran’s Proxy War
Wall Street Journal – Jul 5, 2007
The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118368904375158857.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Iran in Iraq
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/07/iran_in_iraq.html?nav=rss_blog


INVOLVEMENT IN SOMALIA

Hezbollah in Somalia
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/world/middleeast/15nations.html

NPR : U.N. Report Ties Somali Islamists to Hezbollah, There is an alarming new report about the situation in Somalia. United Nations monitors say seven countries and various groups are supporting Islamists
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6493083

So it is not just the bloodshed in Somalia but in Iraq too, all those that were cheering (2006) to Hezbollah’s cruel tactics in Lebanon (to cause their brothers and sisters’ deaths) out of Anti Israel feelings, should know something about the global militant Islamic Mahdi army headed by Iran.


INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN

Hezbollah Link in Afghanistan
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=116544


SUPPORTING THE GENOCIDE IN AFRICA

Supporting the Al-Bashir’s genocide in Darfur
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2432545&title=Lebanese_Hezbollah_Holds.html


Hezbollah’s war on Egypt
 
Prosecutor accuses Hezbollah of plotting attacks in Egypt
Monsters and Critics.com – ‎Apr 8, 2009‎
Cairo – Egypt’s public prosecutor on Wednesday accused Hezbollah of sending operatives to Egypt to carry out attacks in the country and to smuggle weapons …
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1469836.php/Prosecutor_accuses_Hezbollah_of_plotting_attacks_in_Egypt__Roundup__
 
Cairo accuses Hezbollah of planning Egypt attacks Reuters
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL8213444
 
Egypt Accuses Hezbollah of Plotting Attacks Voice of America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-08-voa48.cfm
 
Egypt ‘hunts Hezbollah suspects’ BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7996665.stm
 
News Analysis: Egypt-Hezbollah standoff dents Egypt-Iran relations Xinhua
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180887.htm

 

Terror plots in Azerbaijan

IJN | ‘Iran, Hezbollah plotted embassy attack’ in Azerbaijan JERUSALEM — A trial under way in Azerbaijan of two Hezbollah members and four Azeri … He drew a link between Iranian-backed Hezbollah terror missions and …
http://www.ijn.com/ijn-news/international/1017-iran-hezbollah-plotted-embassy-attack-in-azerbaijan

Report: Massive Hezbollah Terror Attack Against Israeli Target In Europe Thwarted
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/01/28/report-massive-hezbollah-terror-attack-against-israeli-target-in-europe-thwarted/


…The Return of a Superterrorist (Most Dangerous Besides Osama = MUGNIYAH)

Feb. 5, 2007 issue – Before Osama bin Laden, there was Imad Mughniyeh. The Lebanese terrorist from Hizbullah was considered the most dangerous in the world. Now the White House worries that he’s back, after years of lying low. Four serving U.S. intel and counterterrorism officials, anonymous when discussing sensitive material, said Mughniyeh is prominent in recent reporting from the field about Hizbullah activity. Bruce Riedel, a veteran Mideast expert recently retired from the CIA, told NEWSWEEK there is “no question he is heavily involved in [formulating] terrorist contingency plans in case of a U.S.-Iran confrontation.”
Mughniyeh has the résumé to be a potent threat. He was the alleged organizer of a series of devastating bombings and kidnappings against U.S. targets in Lebanon during the 1980s, including two bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. But Hizbullah later made a strategic decision to abandon attacks on American targets. Even now, U.S. intel officials stress that they don’t believe Hizbullah will actually hit U.S. interests unless Washington strikes first—against either the movement or its key patron, Tehran.
So what is Mughniyeh up to? Two of the U.S. officials interviewed by NEWSWEEK said field reports indicate that he travels between Beirut, Damascus and Tehran. One official said that some reports also suggest he has visited Baghdad. (Hizbullah has allegedly been involved in training the Mahdi Army militia of Moqtada al-Sadr.) (EXCERPT…) read more at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16841987/site/newsweek/

Debbie Schlussel Feb 13, 2008 … One of my sources in Lebanese intelligence has a lot more info on now-dead Hezbollah monster Imad Mughniyeh, blown up in a car bomb in Syria …
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/02/more_on_dead_mo.html

Killing Mughniyeh – HUMAN EVENTS Feb 25, 2008 … Imad Mughniyeh died on Feb. 11 the way he made so many others die. …. the monster does eventually run out of brains and blood.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25158

Mughniyeh Was in Midst of Planning Mass Terror Attack
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125258

A fitting death for terrorist Imad Mughniyeh – Telegraph Feb 15, 2008 … The assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in car bomb blast in Damascus is the fitting reply for the most hated terrorist monster and chief …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/15/do1504.xml

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Islamic Iran’s Hezbollah thugs lose in Lebanon’s elections

June 9, 2009

Islamic Iran’s Hezbollah thugs lose in Lebanon’s elections

Hezbollah Extremists Lose Lebanon Vote – CBS News 8 Jun 2009 … Militants Fail To Erode Pro-Western Bloc’s Majority In Parliamentary Elections, But Questions Of Gridlock Remain.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/world/main5070565.shtml

US allies defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon vote‎ – June 8, 2009
BEIRUT (AFP) — A pro-Western bloc inflicted a surprise defeat on Hezbollah and its allies at the ballot box in Lebanon, final results showed, as the winners …
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRZtvsstUGZVe7S7lJNhqPya_AjA 

Good to see some good news for a change, how the foreign Iranian invader’s arm of Jihad, loses!

Got Fitna?

April 1, 2008

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103 the FITNA film

YouTube – Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=5kcev1K-NOc
YouTube – Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdLMFs4fv4E

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25777Geert Wilders’ ‘Fitna’: Insightful and Inciteful – HUMAN EVENTS

http://bradthor.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=228 Brad Thor’s Forum

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/27/video-fitna/ Fitna update

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-download-fitna-verified.html How to download FITNA– VERIFIED

Technorati – ]

the War of Ideas – need to counter today’s totalitarian ideology, Islamofascism

March 28, 2008

the War of Ideas – need to counter today’s totalitarian ideology, Islamofascism
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164553,00.html?wh=wh
the War of Ideas Military.com – Mar 24, 2008 … arguably, one of the most critical battlefields of all: the need to counter today’s totalitarian ideology, Islamofascism, emanating from Iran,
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com …

Hizballah Fascists

February 27, 2008

Hizballah Fascists

You saw it on LGF, worth looking at again:

capt.ttw10102171348.lebanon__ttw101.jpg
Hizbollah militants raise their arms in salute of assassinated Hezbollah top commander Imad Mughniyeh during a memorial service in his home village of Tair Debba, south Lebanon, Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008. (AP Photo/Tara Todras-Whitehill)

They’re not the only guys who use that kind of salute in the region. It attests to the direct influence of European Fascism on some of the trappings that these area groups have taken on. Fertile ground.


http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/02/hizballah-fascists</a

Exposting the ‘Islamic State Apartheid’

February 18, 2008

Exposting the ‘Islamic State Apartheid’
http://www.islamicstateapartheid.com

Welcome to IslamicStateApartheid.com
This organization has recently been founded by a group of York University students from different races and backgrounds who are disgusted by the oppression and apartheid taking place all over Islamic States.
Our goal is to expose Islamic State Apartheid and to begin the liberation of the oppressed!
The American Heritage Dictionary defines apartheid as:
A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups
Islamic State Apartheid can be divided into four categories:
1: Gender
apartheid
2: Sexual Apartheid
3: Religious Apartheid
4: Political
Apartheid
In Islamic states, women are separated from the same class as men- can’t even leave their own homes without male relatives.
In Islamic states, gays are separated from society if discovered….and most likely killed. In Islamic states, other religions are segregated and cannot attain the same rights that the state grants to the Islamic religion. In Sudan, the genocide against the Christian population is being condoned by the government of this Islamic state.
In Islamic States, people who speak out against the state are separated and segregated from the rest of society and imprisoned.
All of the above is APARTHEID! If you do not agree then you are denying the oppression of millions of these people.
BUT WHAT CAN I DO YOU ASK…
1) Read this website and make yourself more knowledgeable about the apartheid practices taking place in Islamic states!
2) Sign up for our mailing list to find out about our events in your city or schools!
3) Buy cool merchandise from our store! All proceeds go to executing campaigns!
4) Donate money to our cause! We need $ to keep up the fight!
5) Check out our resources, links, and sponsors!
6) TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

http://www.islamicstateapartheid.com/

Iran’s Arch-Terror Master Killed in Syria

February 14, 2008

Iran’s Arch-Terror Master Killed in Syria NewsMax.com

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Iran_terrorist_Mugniyeh/2008/02/13/72415.html

Hezbollah to hold mass funeral for slain commander http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/02/13/africa/OUKWD-UK-LEBANON-HEZBOLLAH.php

Slain Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh had long history of attacks – International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/13/africa/ME-GEN-Lebanon-Mughniyeh-Profile.php

Hezbollah: Top US Target Killed Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021300494.html?hpid=topnews

Terror suspect’s mysterious death mirrored life
Newsday -
BY MOHAMAD BAZZI.  February 14, 2008 Imad Mughniyeh lived much of his life in the shadows, changing his appearance through plastic surgery and traveling on forged passports.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-womili145575974feb14,0,6227164.story

The hit / Not merely revenge http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954049.html

Bomb kills top Hezbollah commanderSwissinfo -Moughniyah is thought to have been commander of Islamic Jihad, a shadowy pro-Iranian group which emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s…

A LIST OF ATTACKS

Moughniyah was implicated in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and U.S. Marine and French peacekeeping barracks in Beirut, which killed over 350 people, as well as the kidnapping of Westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s.
Israel accuses Moughniyah of planning the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and of involvement in a 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in the Argentine capital that killed 28.
The United States indicted him for his role in planning and participating in the June 14, 1985, hijacking of a U.S. TWA airliner and the killing of an American passenger.
“The world is a better place without this man in it. He was a cold-blooded killer, a mass-murderer and a terrorist responsible for countless innocent lives lost,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
“One way or another he was brought to justice,” he said.
Iran blamed Israel for his assassination. Syria described it as a “terrorist attack”.
Several Palestinian and Lebanese allies of Hezbollah called on the group to avenge Moughniyah’s death. Hezbollah has only said its conflict with Israel was “a very long one”.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the group that has a strong political and military force in Lebanon, will address the crowd at the funeral via a video link.
On Wednesday, Moughniyah’s coffin, draped in a Hezbollah flag and flanked by four men in military uniform, was laid in a hall where his family and the group’s leaders received condolences.
Moughniyah is thought to have been commander of Islamic Jihad, a shadowy pro-Iranian group which emerged in Lebanon in the early 1980s and was believed to be linked to Hezbollah.
Islamic Jihad kidnapped several Western hostages, including Americans, in Beirut in the mid 1980s. The group killed some of its captives and exchanged others for U.S. weapons to Iran in what was later known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Among those killed was the CIA’s station chief.
Moughniyah’s brother was killed in a car bomb in Beirut in 1994. Reports at the time suggested Imad had been the target. Moughniyah had spent much of the 1990s in Iran.http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Bomb_kills_top_Hezbollah_commander.html?siteSect=143&sid=8737038&cKey=1202934488000&ty=ti

Death of a terrorist
… guidance to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives inside Gaza and the West Bank.” Mugniyeh operated against the US and Israel from Lebanon, …
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742151496&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Mastermind’s death a ‘major, major blow’ to Hezbollah National Post, Canada A short, chubby Islamic revolutionary, Mugniyeh began his career guarding Yasser Arafat during the Lebanon civil war and then went to work for the Iranians, …
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=306565

Hezbollah Militant Accused of Plotting Attacks Killed NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18956279

The murderous world of Imad Mugniyeh
The death of Hezbollah’s miitary commander (2nd from left) brings to a close his long campaign of violence against the West, from Lebanon (US Embassy, Marine barracks) to Argentina (Israelie mbassy, AMIA center). …
http://digg.com/world_news/The_murderous_world_of_Imad_Mugniyeh

Good Riddance: Imad Mugniyeh – by Max Boot 
Great news from Syria. Imad Mughniyeh, one of the world’s worst terrorists, has been killed by a car bomb in Damascus. He is all but forgotten now, but Mughniyeh, a leader of Hezbollah, was the original Osama bin Laden—a terrorist …
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/2459

Another Deadly Terrorist Sent To Meet Allah
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5063

Technorati –

The ‘Islamo-Fascism’ Debate

February 10, 2008

Source: Aina…

As the David Horowitz Freedom Center unveils its Declaration Against Genocide in Washington on February 9, we are inviting campus groups of all types to join us in condemning the genocidal impulse within Islamo-Fascism.

This Symposium discussion of the term “Islamo-Fascism” takes on a new urgency in light of that Declaration and of the upcoming second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will hit campuses nationwide the week of April 7.

The usefulness and accuracy of this term, and the general necessity of naming the enemy properly as a prerequisite for defeating it, became a subject of national debate during the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and that debate is certain to continue this April. This Symposium is dedicated to many of the issues involved.

Our guests are:

Christopher Hitchens, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, the author of the new book god Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything and the editor of the new anthology, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam , which documents his time working for the extremist Al Haramain Islamic Foundation.

Bruce Tefft, the Director of CRA’s Threat Assessment Center. He retired from the CIA as a case officer in 1995 after 21 years, 17 working in Stations abroad. He was a founding member of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center in 1985 and has been involved with terrorism issues since then. After his retirement, he continued studying Islamic terrorist techniques and training more than 16,000 first responders, law enforcement, military and intelligence officials in terrorism awareness and prevention. For a two year period following 9/11, he was the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence advisor to the New York Police Department.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

Donna Hughes, Professor and Carlson Endowed Chairperson of the University of Rhode Island Women’s Studies Program.

and

Thomas Haidon, the Chief Legal and Policy Advisor of the Free Muslim Coalition and a member of its Board of Advisors. A commentator on legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism measures and Islamic affairs, he currently serves as an advisor to the New Zealand government and has provided guidance to parliamentary committees on counter-terrorism issues. His works have been published in legal periodicals, newspapers and other media.

FP: Christopher Hitchens, Robert Spencer, Bruce Teft, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Donna Hughes and Thomas Haidon, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Christopher Hitchens, let’s begin with you.

Is the term “Islamo-Fascism” legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war?

Hitchens: The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch “Islamofascism Awareness Week” on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It’s quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology.

People like Tony Judt write to me to say in effect that it’s ahistorical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn’t use the word “Islamic” even to designate jihad, because to do is to risk incriminating an entire religion. He and others don’t want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced, because it isn’t applied to any other religion. This was most recently argued by Patrick J. Buchanan, who asked us how we would have felt if Franklin Roosevelt had described Mussolini, say, as “Christo-fascist”.

Buchanan in his own autobiography describes being raised in a home where the true heroes were Father Coughlin the Jew-baiting priest, General Franco the foe of the Reds and freemasons, and Joseph McCarthy the drink-sodden bigmouth and bigot. That’s why the term “Catholic fascist” or “clerical fascist” used to be so current on the left.

This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yehoshua Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term “Judaeo-Nazi” to describe the messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being “singled out” on this point.

The actual term “Islamofascism” was first used in 1990 in the London Independent by the Anglo-Irish writer Malise Ruthven, who was writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power. The expression has some respectable antecedents. In his book, The Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa, published by Princeton in 1965, the German scholar Manfred Halpern (himself a refugee from the Third Reich) employed the term “Islamic totalitarian” to characterize the mingled worship of a heroic past with the mobilization of “passion and violence”. Perhaps you suspect Halpern of undue sympathy with Judaism or Zionism? Very well, then, consider Professor Maxime Rodinson, one of the most intransigent critics of the state of Israel. In an exchange with Michel Foucault in the late 1970s, on the subject of the nascent Shi’a theocracy in Iran, Rodinson writing in Le Monde alluded to “a certain type of archaic fascism” taking the form of “an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order.” I didn’t know about all of these for-runners when I employed the term “fascism with an Islamic face” to describe the assault on civil society on 11 September 2001, and to ridicule those who presented the attack as some kind of liberation theology in action. “Fascism with an Islamic face” is meant to summon a dual echo of both Alexander Dubcek and Susan Sontag (if I do say so myself), and in any case it can’t be used for everyday polemical purposes, so the question remains: does bin-Ladinism or Salafism or whatever we agree to call it have anything in common with fascism?

I think yes. The most obvious points of comparison would be these. Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Franco’s accomplice General Mola so pithily phrased it in a debate with Miguel de Unamuno). Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons) and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations”, and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader-worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance”, and to its counterparts: the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence, and burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

Fascism (and Nazism) also attempted to counterfeit the then-success of the socialist movement by issuing pseudo-socialist and populist appeals. It has been very interesting to observe lately, especially in its most recent statement on the last anniversary of 11 September, the manner in which Al Quaeda has been striving to counterfeit and recycle the propaganda of the anti-globalist and “Green” movements.

There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but bin-Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multi-national corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation state, Al Quaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived Caliphate but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master-race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shi’ite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing”. And of course bin-Laden has threatened force against UN peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends.

Essentially, though, the point of convergence occurs at the word “totalitarian”. Study any serious proclamation about shari’a and you will be struck by the way in which Islam proposes itself as a “total” solution, covering every area of life and effectively abolishing the distinction between the public and the private. All “faith” does this, in my opinion, just as all “faiths” do it, but one cannot fail to be struck by the confidence with which Islamism legislates for absolutism in every department of existence.

This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison: one that is in some ways encouraging. Both of these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death-wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well. Meanwhile, however our critics may wail about the way in which we generalize or deal in “stereotypes”, there is hardly one of them who has protested when the American flag is paraded bedecked with a swastika (a swastika!) or a cartoon of the President is carried across campus wearing a Hitler moustache. Who exactly is it who is looking for fascism in all the wrong places?

Gartenstein-Ross: Hitchens draws an excellent analogy between Fascist and jihadist ideology, and offers a competent rebuttal to various pundits’ objections to comparing the two. However, the question Jamie posed is not whether “Islamofascism” is an appropriate polemical term, or whether it is fair to compare militant Islam to Fascism. Rather, he queried whether the term is “legitimate in terms of defining the enemy we face in the terror war”; indeed, some commentators now use the term this way. My contention is that as a definitional term applied to the enemy, “Islamofascism” is too imprecise and in some ways counterproductive.

The first problem is that the term is overly broad. Hitchens actually does a good job of illustrating this problem in his opening remarks. In discussing the term’s history, Hitchens writes that Malise Ruthven first used it when “writing about the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Arab countries are, for the most part, no less fascistic today than they were in 1990, yet they are not “the enemy” in this war. Much of their heavy-handed police state tactics-for example, in Algeria and Egypt-are in fact aimed at the stateless Islamic militants against whom the present war is directed. (This statement is, of course, not meant as an endorsement of these states’ tactics.)

Taking a closer look at the Muslim world, the state of emergency that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf declared in early November has much in common with Fascist governance-but it did not transform him from a bumbling and self-destructive ally into an enemy in the present global war. No Middle Eastern government had more in common with Fascist rule than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq: as former CIA director James Woolsey has said, the Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” But regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war (and I have made my views on the matter clear), we did not go to war-nor would we have-because of the similarities between Saddam’s rule and Fascism. Rather, the justification was rooted in U.S. national interests, such as intelligence estimates of Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction and concerns about possible cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Other groups and countries that possess critical differences may be too quickly lumped together under the “Islamofascist” umbrella. There is currently a lively debate among policymakers and analysts about how the U.S. should deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. While I do not endorse the argument advanced by Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke about “the moderate Muslim Brotherhood,” I think the debate is a legitimate one-and that treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are “Islamofascist” would run contrary to our strategic interests. In President Bush’s September 20, 2001 address to the joint session of Congress, he said that the U.S. would “starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another.” I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.

Aside from this definitional problem, there are also tactical problems with using “Islamofascism.” The term is polemical in nature, as Hitchens readily admits when he says that he first used the phrase “fascism with an Islamic face” to “ridicule those who presented [9/11] as some kind of liberation theology in action.” His initial use of the phrase was both clever and effective. But clever polemical turns of phrase are best used sparingly. I would wager that even Hitchens cringes at how some lesser writers have used “Islamofascism.”

The use of a polemical turn of phrase to “defin[e] the enemy we face” can also limit the audience that one reaches. If I’m reading a work that employs the phraseology “Bushitler” or “Zionazi,” that’s usually a strong sign that reading further could only possibly lower my IQ. While “Islamofascism” is not as false as either of those polemical terms, people associate it with a certain political viewpoint about the war against radical Islam. If they do not agree with the viewpoint, the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments.

Finally, use of the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase. It is true that a number of Muslim moderates have a wide variety of objections to terms analysts use to describe the enemy, and many of their terminological objections are in my view illegitimate. But they have some legitimate objections to the term “Islamofascism.” One legitimate objection, as detailed above, is the term’s overbreadth. Another legitimate objection is that the term will almost undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. This can be seen in some of the similarities Hitchens fingers between radical Islam and Fascism, including “exclusive stress on the power of one great book,” “strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual `deviance,’” and “subordination of the female.” These descriptions can apply not just to militant practice of the faith, but also conservative manifestations.

Secularists tend to view all religious practice with suspicion, and overgeneralize on that basis. Note that Hitchens argues that there is a totalitarian tendency not just within extremist Islam, but rather that “all `faiths’ do it.” Or note Christiane Amanpour’s clumsy attempt to liken American evangelicals to the Taliban on CNN’s God’s Warriors. Moderate Muslims are rightly concerned that the “Islamofascist” label will be applied to legitimate theological practices.

In short, I have no problem with Hitchens’s initial description of bin Laden’s agenda as “fascism with an Islamic face,” and I think he proffers a strong defense of the analogy. But the term’s overbreadth obscures real distinctions that analysts need to make, and I believe there are also solid tactical reasons that those of us who care about defeating Islamic extremism should select a different label.

FP: So what is that different label going to be? We can’t just reject a term without offering a term that we think is better to describe our enemy.

Surely “Islamo-fascism” is a legitimate term. We can’t take the Islam out of the fascistic Muslims who are waging war on us, and we would be fooling ourselves if we try to sweep the word “Islam” under the rug. Moreover, it is a given that many Muslims are not fascistic — just as many Italians weren’t fascistic all because Italian fascists existed. And we can’t take the fascist out of the Muslim fascists either.

Khalim Massoud, as a reform-minded Muslim, what do you think of this term? Do you “bristle” at the term in the way that Gartenstein-Ross says that moderate Muslims “almost uniformly” do?

Massoud: I define fascism as a totalitarian political ideology with an element of superiority. German fascism’s criterion of superiority was race. Islamic fascism’s criterion of superiority is religion. Otherwise both ideologies are practically identical.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says “use of the term ‘Islamofascism’ makes it more difficult to work alongside moderate Muslims, who almost uniformly bristle at the phrase.” I couldn’t disagree more. As long as the user of the term makes a clear distinction between Islam and Islamofascism, moderate Muslims will not be offended by the term. And the ones who are offended are not moderate. In fact, moderate Muslims were the first to widely use this term to describe radicals in Algeria who murdered more than 100,000 of moderate Muslims.

I also disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’s contention that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are ‘Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests.” The strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate. They may employ different tactics, but their objective is the same. And they both are Islamofascist organizations. Tactically, they need to be treated differently, but strategically they must be treated the same; these groups must be eliminated.

Starving terrorists of funding and turning them against one another hasn’t really worked so far. How can we possibly starve terrorists of funding when we are pumping billions of Petro-Dollars into Persian Gulf regimes? As for turning terrorists against each other, it might be working to some degree in Israel (Fatah vs. Hamas). However, in Iraq, Sunni terrorists are murdering Shia civilians and vice versa, but they don’t seem to be going after each other.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, “I think this is the right approach, and that the overbroad “Islamofascism” definition jeopardizes our ability to produce schisms between groups that in many ways are not alike.” I don’t think we can rely on these schisms, especially when history shows that supporting the lesser evil, i.e., Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets or Iraq against Iran, may backfire. I think the correct approach is not to focus on making different terrorist groups fight each other, but to empower moderate Muslims and have them fight the radicals.

Tefft: My view is a bit more simplistic, and at the same time an amalgam of the rest of the panel. Islam is indeed fascistic in that it is (like National Socialism, Communism and Fascism) both totalitarian and posits an absolute superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. This is demonstrated in the Islamic system of dhimmitude and the second class citizenship of kuffars who, if not killed or converted, are forced to pay the ‘jizya’ – the infidel poll tax.

The problem with using the term Islamofascist though is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims — and this is misleading and therefore a disservice to our war effort. As the later Suras of the Koran indicate, Islam is to dominate the world, jihad is an obligation if not a duty of all Muslims, and all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.

As you know, the later Suras abrogate any contradictory earlier ones of “peace, love, and tolerance”. Given that the first duty of every Muslim, as an article of faith, is to accept the Koran as the literal word of Allah, is it possible for so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ to pick and choose which part of the Koran they will adhere to? To reject parts of the Koran? My understanding is that if a Muslim rejects the Koran he is rejecting Islam and Allah and is an apostate.

I think the evidence is clear that, as the Prime Minister of Turkey Erdogan said about “moderate” Islam, this past August, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

In further support of Erdogan, it is interesting that no Islamic religious authority has pronounced takfir on bin Laden or al-Qaeda declaring them apostates for their terrorism in the name of Islam. This is not from fear of retaliation by the terrorists, but recognition of the fact that bin Laden is not violating Islamic principles. He is practicing Islam as the Koran and the Hadiths dictate.

Insofar as Muslims murdering Muslims, this is human nature and fascist or not, Muslims are humans. They are divided into tribes, and groups, with leaders who have ego problems. Bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an alliance in 1995 that the Shia-Sunni conflict was inevitable and would continue but that both sides, as Muslims, must devote their efforts against the main enemy, the Great Satan. After the defeat of the United States and the West, then the Shia and Sunnis would sort out their differences. This agreement has largely held, in spite of the word not getting through to some of the lower level elements who insist on blowing up each other’s mosques in Iraq and Pakistan.

FP: With all due respect, Bruce Tefft, to suggest that there is no difference between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims is completely erroneous. I don’t know if I am missing something, but I think there is indeed a difference between someone who is fascist and someone who isn’t fascist.

It is a given that Islam has an intrinsic problem and that it does serve as a foundation to terror. And it is crucial that people such as yourself have the courage to raise this and to drive the point home. But to suggest that all Muslims are the same, indistinguishable from one another, and all our enemies is absurd. There are organizations such as Muslims Against Sharia and the Muslim Canadian Congress that reject Sharia and reject jihad. There are Muslims, such as the two on our panel, Khalim Massoud and Thomas Haidon, who oppose extremism and are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world. They are not replicas of Osama bin Laden, they do not share his agenda, and they are his enemy and our allies.

Does this mean that there is no problem in Islamic theology? No. Does it mean that Islamic moderates and reformers don’t face a huge challenge in their effort to change Islam, especially when it is true, as you point out Mr. Tefft, that Islam itself disallows any change to its own teachings (i.e. the Qur’an)? No. But this does not mean that there are not many Muslims who want to try to create their own new Islam and who want a relaxation of Islamic principles? Whether they can do this, and whether it is possible, is another matter, but to suggest that all Muslims are the same because there are huge obstacles to an Islamic reformation is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

And these kinds of arguments do deadly damage to our own cause since the Muslims who embrace Western civilization and seek to change Islam, whether this is possible or not, are our inspirational hope against radical Islam. They have weapons against the enemy that we do not have and we would be foolish to push them away and consider them our enemy, when they are not.

Thomas Haidon, go ahead.

Haidon: Accurate problem definition is a crucial component to addressing any policy question. The failure to accurately frame issues and problems almost ensures a misguided policy response to any issue. Ensuring that the terminology we use to describe a problem is accurate is crucial. There are real risks if we get it wrong or articulate the problem in a manner that is “under inclusive,” inclusive or “over inclusive” (as Mr Garenstein-Ross has observed). We have seen what happens, at a policy level, when an “under-inclusive” approach has been taken to addressing the Islamist problem. The US “war on terror” has consistently failed (other than in soundbites) to identify Islam’s role. This has lead to flawed policies which have forced “democracy” in the Arab world, which has led to the consequences in Egypt and the Occupied Territories and the resurgence of Ikwan and Hamas.

An over-inclusive approach to problem identification has just been demonstrated to us by Mr. Tefft. This approach not only marginalises the Islamists, but also moderate Muslims who are in a bitter fight for survival in the battle of ideas. Mr. Tefft’s approach is not one rooted in strategy. Moderate Muslims should be viewed by non-Muslims as partners in fighting Islamists. That being said, I can understand and sympathise with Mr. Tefft’s frustration. Moderate Muslims are not always easy to identify.

Overall, while I think there is some incongruence between fascism and the nature of the Islamist threat, at a high-level I think that Islamo-fascism is an appropriate descriptor of the problem. It is neither under-inclusive nor over-inclusive. The challenge we are confronted with is a political, confrontational and authoritarian interpretation of Islam. The writings of the 20th century Islamist revivalists (Hasan Al’Banna, Sayid Qut’b, Abi Al’a Al Mawdoudi, Sheikh Haj Amin Al Husseini) demonstrate approaches in common with fascism. When one reads the writings and teachings of these individuals, which are celebrated in the Muslim world, and which form the ideological basis of the full range of Islamist organisations and movements (from Ikwan to Hamas to Al’Qaeda), there is no mistake about the commonalities and shared characteristics with fascism of Giovanni Gentile or Carl Schmitt, particularly a disdain for democracy and fundamental human rights, in favour of the rights of the collective.

Islamo-fascism, as a term, is neither “under-inclusive” nor “over-inclusive”. It defines the enemy narrowly. It has the potential to isolate some moderate and traditional Muslims, not because of the accuracy of the term, but in its delivery. The methods and ways in which the term is delivered will have a bearing on how moderate and traditional Muslims will react. The term “Islamo-fascism” is now inextricably linked to the so called “right-wing” and those who have traditionally been critical and skeptical of Islam. This perception will continue to contribute to the lack of moderate Muslim “buy in”. In my view, the “right”, which is on the forefront of this fight, needs to develop a more strategic approach in engaging moderate and traditional Muslims. How to achieve this is another question, but one that is closely linked and requires examination. It should be a core assumption (not shared by Mr. Tefft), that moderate Muslims and peaceful traditional Muslims are partners in this process. As Mr. Massoud has indicated, they need to be empowered. The term “Islamo-fascism” has the capacity to be an empowering mechanism, if delivered effectively.

Spencer: Perhaps it would be helpful to step back for a moment and recall some of the features of the phenomenon we are trying to capture in a phrase. The 20th century Islamic revivalists to which Mr. Haidon refers wrote of the need for Muslims to make war against and ultimately replace any government not based on Islamic law with a Sharia regime. This is an explicitly and inherently religious imperative, as Maududi articulated when he said that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” The Islamic way of life – Sharia in its classic formulations by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence — is a total concept, encompassing every aspect of life, and subordinating every human endeavor to the Islamic cause.

Is this an Islamic imperative? Undeniably, to any rational observer — although this half of the “Islamo-Fascism” term is controverted even more heatedly than the other half. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has even forbidden his cabinet to use another compound, “Islamic terrorism,” or to suggest in any way that Islam has anything to do with the.the.the large thing that the world faces today. Yet proponents of this view are indeed, as Mr. Haidon said, revivalists: they are attempting to restore what they argue is the purity and fullness of Islam, and appeal to peaceful Muslims on that basis. Part of that fullness and purity is the proposition that there is no distinction between the sacred and the secular, and that Islamic law must be the law of the land.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, is quite right when he points out that the term “Islamo-Fascism” has been applied to governments that are not strict Sharia or Islamic revivalist regimes, but are rather dictatorships that – as Hitchens notes regarding Malise Ruthven’s original use of the word “Islamo-Fascism” – “used religious appeals in order to stay in power.” Gartenstein-Ross correctly notes that sometimes these regimes, such as in Algeria, Egypt, and now Musharraf’s Pakistan, cracked down violently on “stateless Islamic militants” who hold an ideology identical to that held by those who attacked us on 9/11. This does complicate somewhat the usefulness of the term. If the enemy is Islamo-Fascism, can the U.S. have Islamo-Fascist allies such as General Musharraf?

Ruthven’s usage is perfectly legitimate: after all, Saddam Hussein, to take the most notorious example, headed an Arab nationalist secular regime, but he never hesitated to use religious language – specifically, the language of jihad warfare – to shore up his base and try to compel Islamic hardliners in Iraq to fight to defend his regime. Nevertheless, Saddam did not institute Sharia and had no desire to do so; Musharraf, despite his own occasional use of Islamic rhetoric, is now actively engaged in combating those who want to make over Pakistan into a strict Sharia state.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” may not, therefore, apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them: Saddam, Musharraf, Mubarak and the secular rulers of Algeria may indeed be authoritarians – fascists – but there is nothing specifically Islamic about their fascism other than the fact that they themselves are Muslim rulers of majority-Muslim states. The state envisioned by Osama and his ilk, in contrast, is just as authoritarian, but it is so in a strictly Islamic context – which is why those in favor of such a state – authoritarian and Sharia-based — merit the “Islamo-Fascist” label.

I disagree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, however, and agree with Mr. Massoud, about the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross contends that “treating al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way because both are `Islamofascist’ would run contrary to our strategic interests,” but Mr. Massoud points out correctly that “the strategic goals of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood are identical; they both desire Global Caliphate.” As the Muslim Brotherhood’s website itself says:

“We want a Muslim individual, a Muslim home, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and state that will lead the Islamic countries and bring into the fold the Muslim Diaspora and the lands robbed from Islam and will then bear the standard of jihad and the call [da'wah] to Allah. [Then the] world will happily accept the precepts of Islam….The problems of conquering the world will only end when the flag of Islam waves and jihad has been proclaimed..The goal is to establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.”

That statement is quintessentially both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.

As for Mr. Gartenstein-Ross’ contention that “the use of a polemical turn of phrase to `defin[e] the enemy we face’ can also limit the audience that one reaches,” and that “the term causes many people to stop listening-and to disregard otherwise legitimate arguments,” I’m afraid that is inevitable no matter what term one uses. People make decisions about the veracity of an argument based on who is making it, or where it is published, or what set of catch phrases are being used. That is true across the political spectrum. Dispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day, and we should not let that fact deter us from using a term that may be accurate, useful and in many ways illuminating.

And in light of the fact that the term is in both of its component parts accurate, I do wonder why, as Mr. Gartenstein-Ross says, moderate Muslims “almost uniformly bristle” at the phrase “Islamo-Fascism.” As I found myself saying many times during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, “Islamo-Fascism” doesn’t imply that all Muslims are fascists any more than “white racism” implies that all whites are racist, or “Italian fascism” that all Italians are fascist. So much for the term’s “overbreadth.” And will it “undoubtedly be applied against Islamic religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent”? A further distinction needs to be made here: are those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative? In that case, ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent,” for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same goal that Osama and others are pursuing through violence. There are many non-violent Islamic supremacists even in America today, and we need to be aware of the congruence of their agenda with that of the violent jihadists.

When Mr. Tefft says that “the problem with using the term Islamofascist is that it implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims,” I think he is failing to draw the necessary distinction between Islam and Muslims. Religious traditions are large things, and while it is certainly true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims under Sharia rule, it does not follow from that that all Muslims, or any given Muslim, knows of such teachings, takes them to heart, or acts upon them — or ever will.

In Islam as in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. Islamic supremacism has not, unfortunately, been disavowed by any orthodox sect or school of Islam, but for a variety of historical and cultural reasons these teachings have not been emphasized for a considerable period in some areas of the Islamic world. Because of the deep traditional roots of these teachings, jihadist recruiters in person and via cassette tapes, DVD’s and the Internet are making inroads in these peaceful Muslim communities, and have seized the intellectual initiative in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, there is a large difference between fascist and non-fascist Muslims.

Unlike many analysts, I do not believe we can encourage those non-fascist Muslims by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that the jihadists have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, I believe that their case can only be combated by being confronted for what it is. There may be considerable numbers of Muslims who would sincerely renounce Islamic supremacism if given a chance to do so. But since the problem is not even being presented in those terms, non-Muslims are too often fooled by false moderates and pseudo-reformers.

And one quibble: Mr. Tefft says that “the later Suras of the Koran indicate” that “all non-Muslims are to be converted, enslaved or killed.” Actually, the choices for non-Muslims delineated by Muhammad and Islamic law are not conversion, slavery, or death, but conversion, subjugation, or death (cf. Qur’an 9:29, as well as the hadith recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294). Subjugation is not, strictly speaking, slavery, although the distinction between the two at various points in Islamic history was exceedingly fine. Non-Muslims had to accept a humiliating second-class status and held their lives and property always at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords, but they were not slaves outright.

Hughes: The comments and responses in this symposium are useful and enlightening. I think this is just what is needed to characterize and define what our moderator (Mr. Glazov) refers to as “our enemy.” Some may think that referring to Islamic militants as the enemy is too polarizing, but from my view, as a feminist concerned about the well being and rights of women and girls, they are indeed one of the most serious, global threats to women and girls.

As for the term “Islamo-Fascism,” it is a compound term comprised of two essential elements. First of all, it connects the growing threat to the religion that the militants choose to explain and justify their beliefs and actions. They have chosen this base for their ideology. They proclaim themselves to be God’s warriors and call their actions jihad. Their opponents did not project it on to them. It may challenge us to precisely name and identify who they are, but the Islamic radicals are not confused. I know liberal, moderate, and progressive Muslims who also are not confused, they have no trouble distinguishing between the Islamic fundamentalists and Muslims who have different interpretations of the religious texts, especially as they translate the texts into how they live their lives and define their politics.

The second part of the term “Islamo-Fascism” is also important. “Fascism” clearly indicates that this is a political movement. We can debate whether “fascism” is the correct name or not. Some say it isn’t because it differs in some ways from previous fascist movements and regimes. Well, nothing is ever exactly like anything else. I’ll let the historians and political scientists debate this one. If they come up with a better term, they can let us know. The point is we need a term that names this phenomenon as a political movement with common ideology, tactics, and way of ruling once control of territory is established.

A political label also helps us distinguish the political movement from conservative, traditional practices. This distinction is most apparent when we look at the lives of women. There are many families, communities and entire nations that are conservative and traditional, which often translates into suppression and strict control of women and girls. Females are oppressed by discriminatory attitudes and practices, often reinforced by violence (i.e. honor killings). Feminists say that sexism is political. A rallying cry of the second wave of the women’s movement (1960s) was “the personal is political.” While I agree that the status of women and girls is always political, influenced by culture, religion, and traditional practices, I want to distinguish between the small “p” politics of traditional practices, and the capital “P” politics of Islamo-Fascism.

The small “p” politics of sexism is systemic discrimination that exists all over the world; sometimes it is so severe that it reaches the level of oppression. Women’s liberation movements have addressed sexism throughout the world, some more successfully than others. In the ideology and practices of Islamo-Fascism, sexism is politicized. The suppression of women is incorporated in the capital “P” political movement.

As the influence of Islamo-Fascism grows and as Islamo-Fascists gain control of territory, women and girls and their rights become political targets. As I like to say “Terrorism begins at home.” The most severe oppression of women and girls we have ever seen took place under the Taliban in Afghanistan, where girls were banned from education and women were banned from working and consigned to house arrest. They could only emerge from their houses if they covered their bodies and identities with a burqa and were accompanied by a male member of their family.

Islamo-Fascism politicizes sexism, making the oppression of women and girls a political goal. Their success in controlling a population can be measured by the extent to which they have suppressed women and girls. It is their visible sign-to the communities they control and to the outside world-that they are in control. Just as anti-Semitism is a global prejudice, with consequences–sometimes severe consequences-to individuals, it is when anti-Semitism is incorporated into a political movement, as it was with Nazism, that it becomes more virulent and deadly. That is what Islamo-Fascism is doing with sexism. Because even the most misogynous Islamo-Fascist recognizes the biological indispensability of women, they don’t advocate genocide. Instead they practice slavery. Women and girls who violate their rules are viciously punished with whippings. In order to terrorize the rest of the population, a few women and girls are killed, often in brutal public executions, such as stoning to death.

To conclude, it is important to have accurate term or terms to describe the global threat we are facing. The “war on terror” as a label has failed us. My students have no idea what it means. It carries no information. It doesn’t identify the enemies the war is against or their ideas and goals. In fact, it’s a rather sad state of affairs that six years after 9-11 and nine years after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania we are still trying to decide what to call the people and movement that have targeted us.

In the end, we may decide there are better terms to refer to this militant, deadly political movement, but Islamo-Fascism moves us in the right direction of identifying and characterizing it.

Hitchens: I feel very much vindicated by the comments of the learned members of this panel: whether our disagreements are concerned with principle or with emphasis they are nonetheless of the sort that enable one to learn. I think that the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms “Islamic” and “fascist” would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.

I myself am of the opinion that monotheistic religious belief, with its celebration of an absolutist and unchangeable deity, is in any case implicitly and explicitly totalitarian. But this does not mean that every Baptist in every epoch is always and everywhere the equivalent of today’s members of the deluded “Mahdi Army”, say.

Fascism is not something that can be a permanent part of the landscape. It is hysterical and spasmodic and relies on very strenuous forms of mobilisation. Even when victorious it probably cannot constitute, for very long, a regime. Its tendency to self-destruction is very marked, as I tried to point out. However, it is in some ways precisely this futility and degraded romanticism that make it so dangerous.

I tried to introduce a version of the term because, as Marx says at the opening of the Eighteenth Brumaire, a person trying to learn a new language will always have a tendency to translate it back into the tongue that he already knows. I knew that there would be those who compared the struggle against jihadism to the Cold War (and I argued with Jim Woolsey and others that this was no time to resurrect The Committee for the Free World: an opinion of mine that events have not forced me to reconsider.) The battle, it seemed and seems to me, was very much more like the earlier struggle against an essentially irrational movement. Stalin and Mao may have been deeply unstable people but they were somehow constrained by a wooden materialism: religious intoxication can have the effect of making half-way sane people act with wild disregard for their own self-interest, let alone the interests of others. Khalim Massoud has noticed this demented tendency in the case of the Algerian jihadists, who ended up excommunicating an entire North African population as infidel. Similar pathologies are observable among the sadistic maniacs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotomia.

Let us not forget that ultimate victory over fascism was made possible in large part because of that movement’s own tendency to act in mad ways. (Declaring war on three fronts at once, expelling all those who knew anything about nuclear physics, diverting rail-cars and troops and materiel for the purpose of eliminating civilians.) Thus, in pointing out the kinship between one kind of irrational fanaticism and another, I was also hoping to put a bit of heart and stomach into the argument, and suggest a thoughtful confidence in ultimate victory. This confidence is given a slight surge, in my own case at least, by observation of the criminally insane and self-defeating tactics that the fascists of Islam have been pursuing since the fall of 2001.

I should add the anti-fascists of Islam, who have born much of the heat and burden of the day, deserve a much more honorable title that that of “moderate”. Perhaps this condescending terminology could furnish the material for a subsequent FP round-table.

FP: And the round-table on this subject will begin immediately. Thank you for the excellent idea Mr. Hitchens.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, your turn my friend.

Gartenstein-Ross: At the outset, I’d like to agree with Hitchens’s remark that even “the most thin-skinned objector to the coupling of the terms `Islamic’ and `fascist’ would have to agree that this symposium has enlarged and clarified the subject.” In fact, I recently spoke with a “moderate” Muslim colleague (I put the term “moderate” in quotations not to suggest that my colleague is a closet extremist, but to signal my agreement with Hitchens’s statement of the term’s inadequacy) about Hitchens’s initial contribution to this symposium. On hearing that past usage of the terms “Catholic fascist,” “clerical fascist,” and “Judaeo-Nazi” mean that Islam is not being uniquely singled out, he commented, “As a Muslim, that makes me feel somewhat better about the term.”

That being said, I do not waver from my initial position in this debate: while the analogies between Islamic extremism and fascism are clear, and while Hitchens (and, perhaps, others?) has competently employed the polemical term to rebut those who would like to paint al-Qaeda as a kind of turbaned liberation theology, “Islamofascism” is not the term we should use to define the enemy. It seems that I am alone on the panel in taking that position: the only other contributor who opposes the use of this term is Tefft, who argues that it falsely “implies there is a difference in Islam between fascist Muslims and non-fascist Muslims.” That is, obviously, not my argument. Now, it’s always pleasant to be the lone dissenter in a debate-particularly in a debate like this, where I’m not forced to distance myself from the kind of hypersensitive “how could you even think of using that term?” arguments to which the other panelists alluded. But because I am a lone voice, you’ll have to indulge the length of this summary of the reasons that I encourage others to avoid “Islamofascism” as a definitional term.

The first argument I advanced against the term is its overbreadth. Arab countries, for example, are generally no less fascistic than they were in 1990 when Malise Ruthven applied the term to Arab dictatorships-yet they are not the enemy that we’re fighting. My argument on this point has not been refuted. Haidon argues that the term is “an appropriate descriptor of the problem” because such twentieth century revivalists as Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and A.A. Maududi have approaches in common with fascism. (He also mentions Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, who had more in common with fascism than just an approach.) I don’t disagree with the parallels that Haidon draws, but they are not responsive to my argument: while “Islamofascism” is a fair description of the jihadist ideologues whose views drive al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic movements, it also describes many other actors in the Middle East. The term has been applied to groups ranging from al-Qaeda and Hizballah to the PFLP, Iraqi Ba’ath party, and Syrian Alawite elite. “Islamofascism” largely appears to have become a stand-in for “Middle Eastern bad guys.”

Spencer agrees that there is a problem with overbreadth, but attempts to mitigate it by pointing out that although Pervez Musharraf, Saddam Hussein, and other leaders in the Muslim world to whom the term “Islamofascist” might apply employ religious rhetoric, they have not implemented sharia law. Therefore, Spencer states, the term might not “apply to them or to others like them as well as it does to the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakar Bashir and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam and Islamic law as they see them.” His argument is true enough if one emphasizes the “Islamo” half of “Islamofascism.” But if one emphasizes the “fascism” half of the term, it fits Middle Eastern regimes better than it does al-Qaeda. I do not deny the authoritarian nature of today’s militant Islamic movement, nor its conception of religious supremacy-but some Middle Eastern regimes explicitly drew their organizing principles from twentieth century fascist movements. George Michael (no, not the Wham! singer) writes in his book The Enemy of My Enemy:

The German model of centralized government and corporatist nationalism remained attractive to many of the early pan-Arab nationalists in Egypt, some of whom sought the creation of an “Arab Reich” that would unite all Arabs into one nation. The early pan-Arab leaders searched for methods to mobilize their populations and build independent nations. They were influenced in large part by European fascists who viewed the state as an organic outgrowth of the nation. As they saw it, only a strong, authoritarian state could protect the nation. Hence, the German model of bureaucratic centralization and authoritarianism looked attractive to many Arabs who sought an alternative way to modernize their countries.

This approach was most influential in Egypt, where such former Nazis as Otto Skorzeny, Johann von Leers, Wilhelm Farmbacher, Oskar Munzel, and Wilhelm Voss were given positions in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government. But former Nazi officials were granted sanctuary in other Middle Eastern states as well (notably Syria), and the fascist model was adopted elsewhere: recall that in my first contribution to this symposium, I quoted former CIA director James Woolsey’s statement that Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party was “modeled after the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.” In contrast, if you look at the kind of rule that was set up under the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, under al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in those parts of Iraq that came under its control, and more contemporaneously in northern Pakistan, these are not typical fascist states. Rather, their murderous political apparatus is somewhat unique. The same can be said of the long-term end-states laid out by both Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah and also the international Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. So if you give equal weight to both “Islamo” and also “fascist” in the term we are debating, overbreadth remains a problem.

My remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood have been somewhat misapprehended. Massoud decries the tactic of “supporting the lesser evil,” while Spencer quotes from the Brotherhood’s web site to show that the organization is “both Islamic and, in its authoritarianism and orientation of every aspect of society to Islam, Fascist.” I did not claim otherwise: in my first contribution, I said that both al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood should be considered “Islamofascist” if one employs that term. Massoud in fact makes my point for me by stating that, tactically, al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood “need to be treated differently.” One reason a definitional term like “Islamofascism” is not useful is that it may obscure the tactical need to deal differently with such groups. (Incidentally, I’m currently participating in a separate FPM symposium on the Brotherhood that further elucidates my views on the group.)

Massoud claims that turning terrorists against one another “hasn’t really worked so far.” Nothing could be further from the truth. A critical reason that the U.S. has made such gains in Iraq over the past year is our ability to engage locals through the Awakening movement, along with other institutions such as the Concerned Local Citizens. Our ability to “turn” former insurgents has been an important part of this. Turning former insurgents has reduced the pool of potential recruits for AQI, created a mechanism for allowing experienced Sunni fighters to provide security in their areas, established a security force with local knowledge of AQI (since many of these men were formerly aligned with or subordinate to AQI), and provided a reconciliation mechanism for incorporating large numbers of armed Sunnis into the security forces in their areas. It has also been an important part of convincing people to stop participating in the insurgency. I don’t think the U.S. has done a fantastic job of this beyond Iraq, but Iraq clearly shows that turning terrorists against one another can work.

My next argument was that, tactically, using a polemical term to define the enemy can limit the audience that one reaches. Spencer replies that “[d]ispassionate seekers after truth are as thin on the ground now as they were in Diogenes’ day”-and thus we shouldn’t worry about employing potentially alienating terminology. It is true that we live in an age where public commentary can be characterized by its cheapness, demagoguery, and overall cowardice. Yet I don’t think the situation is as bleak as portrayed by Spencer. If it were, why are any of us wasting our time engaging in public commentary about terrorism and religious extremism? None of the panelists has seriously disputed the fact that the term “Islamofascism” causes a portion of the one’s potential audience to simply tune out. Why use such a term when there are other options?

Finally, I argued that the term “Islamofascism” makes it more difficult to work with moderate Muslims. Certainly Massoud and Haidon provide examples of Islamic moderates who aren’t upset by usage of the term, but Massoud’s statement that “the ones who are offended are not moderate” is simply untrue. I personally know a number of moderate Muslims who take exception to that phraseology. It is true that some Muslim extremists masquerading as moderates have objected to the term, but it’s a category error to say that therefore any Muslim who objects to the term “Islamofascism” is not moderate.

I stated in my first contribution that some moderate Muslim objections to the term “Islamofascism”-and to other terminology used to describe militant Islam-are illegitimate. But are there legitimate objections? I think so. One legitimate objection is the term’s overbreadth, which I have already discussed at length. A second legitimate objection that I outlined in my initial response is the concern that the term will be employed against religious practice that is merely conservative and not violent. In response, Spencer asks whether “those engaging in this conservative but not violent Islamic religious practice” are “believers in the Islamic supremacist notion that underlies the Sharia imperative.” If they are, he argues that “it matters little that they are `not violent.’” While I do not want to excuse those who seek to impose brutal forms of sharia through non-violent means, I note that within virtually all religions there is a constant struggle to determine what the faith means, and how it intersects with society. Some Muslims, for example, define themselves as pro-sharia, but in fact mean that they incorporate sharia into their personal lives while favoring secularism in society. This approach appears contradictory at first, and only time will tell if it can gain traction. There are also some Muslims who define themselves as pro-sharia but interpret the sharia in such a way that it has little in common with the religious laws adopted by the Taliban, the Islamic Courts Union, or Saudi Arabia. I agree with Spencer that we do Muslim moderates no favors “by pretending that the Islamic texts do not say what they say,” but a distinction (albeit one that is not always crystal clear) exists between conservative and militant practices of Islam.

How do I define the enemy? Sadly, my own terminology isn’t all that exciting. I agree with Glazov that one cannot remove the word “Islam” from the equation because that is how bin Laden and others expressly frame their motivations. I tend to use the phrase “militant Islam” because we are contending with Islamic movements defined by their willingness to take up arms for their cause. I use the terms “radical Islam” and “extremist Islam” because Islamic terrorist movements are radical or extreme by any sane definition-and both terms signal that this is not.

http://www.aina.org/news/20080208141046.htm

McCain addresses Islamo-fascist threat

February 1, 2008

McCain addresses Islamo-fascist threat

By Emily Goodell,
Published on Tuesday, January 08, 2008
John McCain discusses Islamo-fascism and environmental concerns at the Top of the Hop on Monday.
      
“McCain addresses Islamo-fascist threat”
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/01/08/news/mccain/
Lauding himself as the most truthful of the Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., worked to rally support in a final effort to win over New Hampshire voters before the upcoming primary in a speech given at the Top of the Hop Monday afternoon.

“We’ve come a long way back and that’s because we told the people of New Hampshire the truth,” McCain said. “You can’t buy an election in the state of New Hampshire. I hope that I have earned your respect.”
Lauding himself as the most truthful of the Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., worked to rally support in a final effort to win over New Hampshire voters before the upcoming primary in a speech given at the Top of the Hop Monday afternoon.

“We’ve come a long way back and that’s because we told the people of New Hampshire the truth,” McCain said. “You can’t buy an election in the state of New Hampshire. I hope that I have earned your respect.”

McCain encouraged voters to do as much as they could to support him in the final hours before the first-in-nation primaries.

“I’m asking you to call your friends; I’m asking you to do the things that win elections,” he said.

The presidential hopeful spoke at length about the threat of ‘Islamo-fascist extremism,’ identifying it as one of the most grave issues facing the United States today.

“[Islamo-fascist extremists] are the greatest force of evil perhaps we have ever confronted,” he said.

The senator added that the U.S. has made progress fighting these extremists in Iraq and criticized Democrats who had favored setting a timeline for withdrawing troops.

McCain said that had the government decided to pull American troops out of Iraq, “Al-Qaeda would be saying they defeated the United States of America and they didn’t then and they never will.”

In addition, McCain underscored his positions on climate change and political corruption, as well as his foreign policy record, claiming 20 years of experience in dealing with national security issues.

He spoke optimistically about America’s ability to prevent climate change, discussing the possibility of expanding the use of nuclear power in the U.S.

“We can unleash American technology,” he said. “There’s a whole range of things we can do, and one of them is nuclear power.”

McCain acknowledged that there is controversy surrounding the energy source, but cited the existence of American naval ships that contain nuclear power plants and the fact that 80 percent of French electricity is generated by nuclear power as proof of its safety.

“I’m going to give you a cleaner planet — I promise you that,” McCain said.

The senator continued by protesting corrupt congressional spending.

“We have mortgaged your futures” he said, addressing the young people in the audience. “If we don’t fix things, you’re not going to have social security, you’re not going to have Medicare when you retire.”

McCain pointed to the $255 million that Congress has approved for a “bridge to an island with 50 people living on it” in Alaska as an example of the types of government spending he would like to prevent.

“I’m going to veto every pork barrel spending bill,” he said.

McCain kept his speech short, light and routine. In one aside, he quoted Ronald Reagan as saying, “Congress spends money like a drunken sailor, except that I never knew any sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of congress.”

McCain added that once, after he mentioned that quote, he received an angry e-mail from a drunken sailer who felt insulted to be compared to Congress, an anecdote McCain has used often while on the campaign trail.

McCain was accompanied by his wife and daughters, as well as by Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., who introduced and endorsed McCain’s run for the presidency.

http://thedartmouth.com/2008/01/08/news/mccain/

Huckabee: ‘Iran’s leader – Evil, we have to fight the Islamofascism movement’

January 29, 2008

Huckabee [in an interview (Jan. 28, 08 at 8:45/54 PM ET) to Wolf Blitzer on “CNN Election Center”: Iran’s leader – Evil, we have to fight the Islamofascism movement.

The no PC Huckabee!

________

Dec. 2007

Huckabee tells Brody File: “I’m Stronger Than Most People” on Terror and Immigration, In fact I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamo fascism.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/266712.aspx


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers